Germany didn't plan on directly annexing Eastern Europe after the treaty of Brest-Litovsk. In fact, they established puppet governments in Ukraine, Poland, Lithuania, other Baltic states, Belarus, Finland etc. I think they would do the same in this timeline.
He didn’t imply Germany would annex them. Simply that Germany would heavily exploit their resources and send German settlers. All of this was actual plans the Kaiserreich had.
@@toasterdogg yes the maps althist used in his video implies germany would directly annex those lands. It doesn't show any of the puppet states that would have been realized in that scenario
@@matthewmullin8168 They lost their colonies before the industrial revolution kicked in. Not to mention how other countries tried to exploit Spain, then you have the United States, who invaded Spain. Though, Spain is rich as hell in modern days.
@roasted pancakes Yes, th Usa was going to make a push for the Spanish mainland but Germany, France, Portugal and the Uk threatened to join the war or fund the Spanish
@roasted pancakes You can read about it in Spanish History books and website's, since the Usa for some reason does not teach the war in detail, not to mention they don't teach the war crimes the Usa did in the Philippines. And the Spanish colonies were really not colonies in Spanish view, they were part of the mainland which is why they all had the same flag. So for European view, Spain was invaded.
@roasted pancakes could be biased, mainly because the spanish culture and national pride was hitted really bad after the war and many intellectuals wrote about this, they had lost the last thing that was keeping them as colonial "power"(except africa but they only had sand by that time) and they developed a bad relation towards the US after the war of '98. But after the second world war, the francoist spain got really well with the americans mainly because franco and Ike hated commies (there is an interview between him and the CBS) and provided docking rights and military bases to the usa. Also note, spain was fascist during wwii, after that franco kept distance with the fascist party, although still was a ruthless dictator.
To something changes in latin america you'd need to change other things. Like: -if Byzantium had won against the Ottomans (or at least survived longer). -if the Confederate states won the secession war. -if the Plague never got into Europe. -if Paraguay won the war. -if Iberian Union never was a thing. Those were more important points for the American Continent than any of the world wars, that could make things really different. But since America is so far from the other continents, other topics have more relevance (for views and stuff)
@@unknownbenefactor8029 maybe, but i dont think it would change that much. the spanish territories were too diverse and big. Brazil had many struggles staying united (Counting one of the worst crimes against humanity made in the country, the Tiranny against Canudos, that can be seen here - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_Canudos - actually, the greatest writter of Brazil and one of the most important of the Portuguese language, Machado de Assis, wrote a whole article about this fact, named "canção dos piratas" - or "The pirates's song", in english, that you can read here, - in portuguese, but google translator may help?, idk- www.biblio.com.br/defaultz.asp?link=www.biblio.com.br/conteudo/MachadodeAssis/cancaodepiratas.htm ) My point is, to Spain hold its colonies together, many atrocities would have to be made, and I still dont think it would be possible
This world is pretty nice. No nazis, no horrific warcrimes, prospering Europe, prospering East Asia and a strong Middle east without conflicts and ISIS
Except for Armenians.... And French.... And Italians... And British.... And Russians.... And poles... And Belarus... And Ukrainian... And Chinese.... And Greeks... And Americans (no economic booms in the twenties or fifties)... And Koreans... and basically for anyone who's neither German, Japanese or from the Middle East (and for jews).
@@Newbmann Dude i just checked it and it's ridiculous asf. I mean all claims to being heir of romans are ridiculous but this, this is the next fucking level. Up next: aborigens are the real heir to the roman empire. Like wtf :D
@@briaormead4239 it more or less is since they are the last remains of the old Russian empire which called itself 3rd Rome they are the last surviving piece of 3rd Rome.
Also to mention that WW1 is kinda the culmination of western musical tradition, after that pop music and other genres arrived to the stage, and romanticism hadn’t a clear continuation
@@simonpeter5032I don't think that not having pop and rock is being culturally backward, I mean, to this day I have not seen a single piece of any modern musical genre that is remotely close to fifth symphony or Bach's harpischord fugues in terms of creativity, complexity, ornamentation and everything else, man, we are talking about comparing Paganini and Vivaldi with The Jonas Brothers and Taylor Swift, I think that this world where pop is not popular is a better world for musical evolution, that is, composers do what What they do and that's it, they don't become figures of gods who are actually clowns and do stupid things and are praised for frankly mediocre and often stupid music.
yo I think you forgot about the German diaspora in the United States at the time and how it drastically change their culture and attitude after world war 1 an our world, if the US stayed neutral then German might have been a second language in the northern US just like Spanish is to the Southwest
Yeah, the Germans in the US weren't too fond of mixing with other ethnic groups before WW1. I think that there'd be a very sizeable German-speaking minority in the US (and in many other American countries for that matter), probably even larger than today's Spanish speaking minority.
@@alba489_ I agree German Americans are a sizable minority but they will not outnumber Hispanic Americans without major immigration from the Fatherland
albaa _ I consider myself of German descent, you can pretty much tell by my name, but I also have ancestry from 🏴 🏴 🇮🇹 and 🇵🇱. I also have some Austrian descent, but they’re basically German catholics. I wonder how I would be affected in this timeline.
@Gilderoy Lockhard maybe in the 1950s after WW2, now its around 14% en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Americans Hispanics are almost 20% en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hispanic_and_Latino_Americans
You had said that the Germans wouldn’t have supported the White Russians because of war exhaustion, I’d like to argue that they would send more aid in the form of military equipment and military know how, the British managed to fight the Irish and fight rebels in the Middle East after the war, why couldn’t Germany send aid that the whites desperately needed?
The Allies didn’t finish off Turkey after the war even though they were supposed to, and the Allies didn’t support the Whites even though they were supposed to be allied due to war exhaustion.
The Germans, like the White Russians, were monarchists. I doubt they would have left a monarchist leaning White Russia to be destroyed by the communist peasantry. Plus, they would have been riding high off a WWI victory that they just achieved. Even in our history Britain and allies attempted to stop and contain the communist uprising, despite being totally exhausted from the war. The perception of a short military excursion by the German military to contain the threat, at the request of an embattled White Russia, would have been perceived to be worthwhile by the German leadership. I am not saying that the Germans would have definitely shifted the tide to victory against the reds, but they would have made a much more serious attempt at it than what we saw in our history. This is something that I completely disagree with Whatifalthist on. Germany would have not just completely abandoned Russia to a communist fate.
I agree with you there. The idea of a neighboring fellow monarchy being overthrown by the communists (of which there were pleanty in Germany too) must have been horrific to the Kaiser, especially considering how his cousin the Tsar and his whole family got killed by them.
it's crazy to think that Rome was such an influence as an empire, culturally on Europe that 1900 years afters its fall men were still fighting over its legacy.
And because Europe dominated th worlds for so long many of the roman traditions and legacies are a part of the wolrd to this day, so in a interesting twist of fate Rome conqered the world.
12:00: The map of Japan is missing the Southern half of Sachalin. I see no reason for the Soviet Union to have seized this if the central Powers won WWI
I disagree with how your version of a post WWI treaty would effect Britain. Russia had collapsed and fallen to Communism and much of the west of the country was under German occupation already, so fair enough there. With the French Army defeated and Paris in French hands, the French would have to accept harsh terms - (perhaps a rehash of the 1871 treaty?) also fair enough. But Britain wasn't truly defeated, so accepting a peace treaty that involved losing Ireland and other highly punitive clauses? Not likely! True, the British Army in France may have been defeated, but the British Isles were never in danger of invasion. The Grand Fleet was too strong for the German High Seas Fleet, so seizing control of the seas was not possible. Aircraft hadn't yet developed to the stage where they could help bridge the gap in naval power. And the only other option to cause Britain to capitulate would be starvation. Which would have required a superior U-Boat campaign. In the real timeline even an unlimited U-Boat campaign failed to starve Britain into submission while also bringing the US into the war, so it's not plausible. We have two excellent historical examples of what Britain did when a hostile European power gained control of too much power on the mainland - WWII and the Napoleonic era. In WWII Britain stood alone and fought alone for years against Germany. And in the Napoleonic era Britain once again refused to give up the fight despite suffering many losses. In neither case could the hostile power conquer Britain die to the strength of the British Royal Navy. In both cases Britain was completely unable to take the fight to their enemy's heartland until they had gained significant allies. But instead fought a campaign "around the edges" - the Iberian front against Napoleon, North Africa against the Axis. And they also blockaded their enemy from international trade - something which REALLY hurt Germany in WWI. By winter 1916 Germany was nearing starvation, and only conquests in the east (Rumania and western Russia) prevented this. Simply put, there's no way that Britain would have accepted a punishing treaty against them similar to the Treaty of Versailles. They still held too many cards and too much power for Germany to seek to impose it. However, war weariness and the defeat of their army and their allies would probably have brought them to the bargaining table. I believe they would have accepted a face saving peace treaty, but capitulation? No. And given the war weariness and conditions horrendous enough in Germany to ultimately spark a revolution, I believe that Germany would have agreed. So I'd suggest that Britain would have entered the negotiations with the following conditions: No territory loss to France or Italy (the bits Germany wanted, Alsace-Lorraine, they already took in 1871 anyway); a free and independent Belgium (given that this has always been a trigger issue for Britain it seems non-negotiable. Plus they "officially" went to war to protect it anyway, so it would make for a symbolic victory, hence an easier sell to the British people); and a set ratio to the German/British naval strength in a manner similar to the later Washington Naval Treaty (in an effort to prevent a similar naval arms race that caused the war in the first place). In return, Britain would return the German colonies it seized, and there may be some option for trading in this regard. And critically, to basically say "what happens in Eastern Europe is Germany's business". I think Germany would go for this deal, as would Britain and France. All sides could say that they achieved an honourable peace. Without territorial concessions there wouldn't be any burning sense of injustice between them to drive towards round 2. With Belgium strictly independent and neutral, plus a naval agreement to maintain the Royal Navy's control over the seas the root cause of future wars would be removed. And as the victor Germany would receive vast territorial expansion to the east at the expense of Russia, whether formally annexed or merely "within the German sphere of influence", as Austria-Hungary would also be. Given the two revolutions in Russia, rise of the Soviet Union and Lenin's abandonment of all treaties with the Western Allies, I doubt they would mind selling Russia out like this if it meant that their other conditions were met. In this scenario France ceases to be a real threat to Germany. It is possible that over time (and good diplomacy) Britain and Germany return to being the natural friends and allies they were prior to the Kaiser's naval arms race. A potential WWII era war could still exist, but in effect it would likely be the Axis-Soviet front of WWII, with Britain and France less likely to be involved. That's a far more likely scenario.
Like the thrust of this. Add in the returning, troops in Ireland and 'the stab in the back' by republicans (and supported by Irish Americans, those pesky IRB). Expect a more vicious civil war (which the IWI was) and Loyalists winning. Ireland is the UK vulnerable flank and could not be let go, with some dominant power. The IJN was serving in the Mediterrean at the end of WW1, helping the Allied fleets out. The 20s were a boom time in Japan, but the crash in 29 hit them hard. A more enlightened policy of winning hearts and minds in Asia, along with Indian unrest, might have allow Japan to set up several puppet states. The price for Germany of its Asian possessions to decouple the Anglo-Japanese alliance, might be a price worth paying, especially if Germany agree to hand Papua New Guinea over to Japan. Let Japan to solve the problem of how they were were going to get Australian troops out. It is likely Greece would switch sides back to the Central Powers and restoring the old king, but he might have to wary of Monkeys.......Again as a peace deal, Greece could get Cyprus and store up future problems. The explusion of Greeks from Asia minor could be a way for this happen. Again, German African colonies proved disappointing with the notable exception of Tanganyika with Von Lettow arriving home to a hero's triumph. The Bismarck doctrine of being self sufficent in all commodities. Oil had not begun to dominate at this stage, so Germany and its allies had everything in reach and could be quite well set. Germany could reverse the role and any future threat, could be using long protracted overseas conflict with the Allied colonies to drain any main threats to Germany's
A vastly expanded/ stronger/ resource rich Germany would have eventually thrown off the yoke of any Brit/German naval treaty & restarted the naval arms race (with aviation thrown in) - only this time with the resources & capital to out build the Brits. In this timeline Germany would have a huge tech advantage as there would have been no brain drain of Jewish scientists/ engineers to the west/ USA. Japan would have gone along with ditching any naval limitation treaties as well. This could have / probably would have sparked an alternative WW2, with the USA being drawn in on the side of a weaker Allies due to the threat posed by such a strong Germany (& Japan) especially on the naval/ aviation front (which would directly threaten the isolated USA). On the other hand, the USA would have had far more domestic German influence so maybe would still remain neutral - at least until threatened directly by a defeated Britain & an eventual powerful Germany / powerful Japan alliance (which would be effective at cooperating in this timeline as both countries would have better, more diplomatically effective governments)?
@@sideshowbob It's a plausible scenario. But what makes it less likely is the fate of Russia. In the real world Russia went communist, had a civil war that the Reds won, and then immediately sought to export communism by invading Europe. Some newly minted countries like Ukraine were defeated and swallowed up by the USSR, while Poland managed to fight them off (for now). The Soviets then cooled their jets for a couple of decades, working on "developing" their own country and building up their heavy industry. But under Stalin they were always looking west for new territory. I think that in the timeline I established the Soviets will still win the civil war. Stalin should still come to power also. Maybe they won't immediately attack west due to a strong Germany still around. But due to their lost territory in the west that will only be a matter of time. So, 15-20 years down the line the much more powerful Germany you describe may look hard at the situation and ask who it's real rivals/threats are and conclude the following: France isn't a threat anymore. They are simply too small by comparison. The USA is too far away - perhaps the next generation's problem. The Soviet Union, however, is a huge threat. A truly vast country with immense population resources right on the German border with a hostile and expansionist regime, a radically different political system and a historical record of invading Europe through the corridor of territory Germany now controls. Britain, by contrast, is not a threat. Not at all. In fact as a outwardly looking naval power to Germany's inwardly (European) looking land power, Britain and Germany are natural allies. It took immense effort and a completely pointless naval arms race which Germany was always doomed to lose anyway to break that pre-WWI. So my expectation would be for sober heads in Berlin to recognise the huge threat posed to Germany that the Soviet Union poses and decide to reach out to Britain in alliance as a response. And if the price is that the German navy stays small, then that should be fine to them - the only sea they really need to control is the Baltic. True, this new Germany may do something different. When you add in real people with their real personalities and prejudices then anything is possible. But this seems to be the smart play - forge an anti-communist alliance with Britain. Maybe WWII still happens, but is very different. Perhaps this time around it would be the USSR and Japan on one side with the USA, UK and Germany on the other?
Thomas Farley in the scenario you described, I cant see a powerful victorious Germany accepting the naval might of the U.K.without trying to build a bigger force. You are right that their primary concerns is the Baltic, which they completely control, but they have further concerns now with potential territories, allies and trade in the Mediterranean, Black Sea and colonies. I do not think they would outright fight a war over this, but I think they would build try to build their navy to a point where they could compete. Unfortunately for them, no one has been able to defeat the U.K. in naval might for about 500 years and I still don’t think this would change, regardless of the outcome of WWI. A second issue I disagree with is that I cannot see any scenario where Japan would ally with the USSR. Japan would view a less powerful USSR as a perfect prey and attack them to take their eastern islands and parts of Siberia. This, combined with Japan’s hostility towards China could form an earlier and stronger relationship between the USSR and the fledgling CCP, which could affect the civil war the CCP was currently fighting with the Nationalists.
Well, let's see: There is no Holocaust, the Japanese don't go batshit in China, Europe is far less affected by the war in terms of destruction, since it is relatively short, the Soviets don't last and there aren't those huge casualties in the east.....from the repercussions this would have on WW2 alone, I'd say it would be quite a bit better. We also get a Germany that is strong enough to actually unite the continent. Some might not like the way it would come about, but it's not unlikely we'd have a truly united Europe by now, which is always a plus.
No, the Japanese would still go crazy in China. Just look what they did to the Koreans. This time-line changes nothing for the pacific, and the Japanese were run by militaristic imperialists, and they would not be able conquer china. We know this because of their fighting in ww2 in our timeline, where they eventually got bogged down in China around Nanking before pearl harbor. Not to mention the Chinese had military relations with the Germans in our time line, so who know what that looks like in this one.
@@br8745 The Chinese had military relations with Germany because the Weimar republic could keep it's military industry running by producing for China, since they weren't allowed to produce for themselves. It should also be mentioned that in this timeline, the Germans would likely still maintain Tsingtao as a colony and thus not necessarily be on the best of terms with China. That said, while Japan wouldn't really have lost much in the war, they would still have been on the loosing side, thus tarnishing the reputation of the military in the public and making it less likely, that they would seize power in Japan. With a very weak Russia it seems more likely, that the Japanese would invade far eastern Russia instead of China, especially since it would also be more suitable to the goals of japanese colonization than China ever was. Without the Washington Naval Treaty, it's also quite likely the Japanese might have bankrupted themselves with their extensive naval build programs (which took up a huge proportion of the japanese budget), thus leaving the army too starved of resources to contemplate invading China.
@C 1922 Maybe, maybe not. "Anime" exists with certainty, seeing as it's just the japanese word for animation; though it's form might indeed be different. Then again, today's anime didn't just evolve from Japan's defeat in WW2, the cultural and artistic roots go back far longer than that, so it's actually not too unlikely, that it would exist in a similar form to what we have.
@@Just_a_Tool Seeing as humanity produced pornographic material as far back as the classic era, I don't think that is a particular front we'd need to worry about. Rule 34 is a law of human nature, not of history.
17:35 I like the fact that you acknowledged the Ottomans taking Egypt and Libya, it does seem likely that they would conquer these countries during ww2 from Britain and Italy, which they could fund easily with their oil money and larger population.
@@WhatifAltHist yeah I know which is why I brought it up How long before you make a video on player piano and the effects of creating a alternative to human labor? Ie robots Probably never but since you ranted about the effects of space warfare in your video about the 10 hardest countries to invade It's not out of the question.
Note: assume eastern europe is administrated moreso as a series of puppet states than directly a part of the reich, considering that's what Germany had (tried to) set up for eastern europe in our timeline for the...not long germany had Ukraine and whatnot
WW1 was not about "Lebensraum im Osten" or anything. There might have been plans to expand to the Baltic as they had historically a relation with the teutonic knights and the german language and culture had a big influence in Riga and Reval etc at the time. But besides... I don't think they planned to wipe the Netherlands and Belgium off the map... this is rubbish
Agreed. The rulöing Elites in Imperial Germany were for the most part cautious about expanding their territory. I suppose the Austrian-Hungarian Empire served as a warning to not include to many nationalities who are keen on a nation of their own into the state. Nonetheless they would probably have made sure the smaller states surrounding them would be puppets or allies in the future.
@@JH-zs3bs They would probably create a similar thing to the EU but german dominated,that could eventually evolve into the EU,but the main reason they wanted this was to have a similar thing like the commonwealth the british had,so german companies would have a larger marketbase and also more supplies.
@@maximumcringelevel8617 You dont know anything about history. FIrst the arabs wanted to rebel so they can be their own countries. Second , britian gave money and weapons to the arabs so they can revolt. Third britain backstabbed the arabs when they did get independence
In terms of the current situation with most of the West being democratic and allied I think this world is better but in a world in which the Central Powers would've won there would have been no holocaust, Communist suppression of Eastern Europe and Japan probably wouldn't have commited as many war crimes in East Asia.
Definitely a preferable timeline. Germans have also always had a very science/engineering oriented culture so I think we certainly would have achieved interplanetary space travel by now.
@@velocitor3792 You can't be honestly comparing the British who did genocide with the Spanish that made their colonies into part of their mainland and turned natives into citizens while mixing with them.
@@velocitor3792so? Every country was colonial back then, but in terms of science/technology, Germany was a powerhouse In the early 1900s, Germany had more Nobel prizes in science than, USA, UK, France, and Russia combined They also would've had Einstein stay in Europe/Switzerland/Germany. And much more Add in Werner von Braun being German and you get Germany having soo much scientific advantancement. Also add in Heisenberg etc etc It's very possible that they'll focus more on it than we did
Well he was Holy Roman Emperor which isnt realy the heir of Rome since the last Roman emperor died in the siege of Constantinople in 1453. Afther that the Otomans declared themselfs as heirs to the Roman empire.
"That's a separate video" Yes, please proceed. A WW1 where home by Christmas would make for a very interesting alt-hist! Do you think an alternate point of departure could have been if the Spanish Flu didn't happen? Would removing the nerfs from that been enough for the Spring Offensive to have succeeded?
Thank you for emphasizing the importance of Oil in the events leading to Pearl Harbor. Most Americans seem to think Japan attacked us just for the heck of it, leading to idiotic alternate history timelines like The Man in the High Castle
What’s the problem with Man in the High Castle? You mean the fact that Japan attacked an isolationist America? That timeline had America embargoed Japan
@@danielyeager6666 The Fact that Britain was conquered. the fact that North America was conquered. Invading America itself was never part of the plan. all Japan wanted was to destroy our navy so we couldn't interfear when they invaded the Dutch East Indies, Philipenes and other Islands to secure their oil supply.
@@marinuswillett6147 man in the high castle is a scenario where germany invented nuclear weapons and used in the US if Japan could annex North American lands they would even though it isn't their main goal
@@danielyeager6666 In the Kaiserreich timeline mod from Hearts of Iron 4, Japan was more interested in taking most of the Western Pacific from the German Empire & remains of the Entente's colonies and up to Pearl Harbor only. That timeline is more realistic to our universe than the ridiculous Man in the High Castle arc because Germany didn't want nor could control the vast majority of America, the same as Japan. I would recommend checking out their videos & documentaries covering that viral mod/alternate universe because Germany had to deal with other issues after being victorious in the 1st Welkreig.
This is called "hegemonic transition", it has become inevitable since with the second industrial revolution, the British Empire would no longer be able to be the absolute hegemon, hence the "crisis of the international system", and on your impression of that things become a "free real estate", it is because the hegemon determines the rules of the international system, making all the other agents calibrate their expectations accordingly, so things that are universally considered inevitable and positive, such as democracy and repudiation of colonialism, for example, exists because these are the values of the USA, the current hegemon, if the Chinese become the new hegemon, the values and behaviors of agents in the International System will change accordingly.
@Ali Mneimneh It's not enough for you that he paved the way to the destruction of liberty in Germany in the time he had? You want him to live forever to continue this work?
@@eliasredlich3425 Eeeeeeeh. German Unity wasn't an idea dreamed up by Bismarck, he just happened to be the one to have done it, but it would have happened at one point or the other anyway. The thing is that Bismarck never cared much for Germany, but rather about Prussia. Every decision he made was not out of some sense of German patriotism, but because he wanted to ensure Prussia - as opposed to Austria - was at the helm of this group of German nations. Him being against Austria joining the German empire (out of fear that it would decrease Prussian stranglehold by conceding influence to the Austrian catholics) for example was a fatal mistake that ultimately paved the road for WW1, since it weakened Austria immenesely. The Prussian culture war also doesn't really paint a pretty picture. My point is, always try to view Bismarck's accomplishments within their historic context. He was not The Great Unifier. He was Prussian through and through. Uniting Germany was just a by-product of his endeavours to strengthen Prussia against the Austrians.
As a German, i think it would be cool to be the most powerful country in the world. But Germany would not be a democracy in this timeline...im not sure if i would like this
11:13 that's inaccurate in scope. The historical economic growth rate before the industrial revolution was 10% per century. After the industrial revolution, the growth rate accelerated to over 100% per century. Pax Americana didn't exist until the end of WWII, yet the GDP per capita of the world grew from $1154 in 1820 to $2640 in 1913 (a 128% increase), and then $3,656 in 1950 (another 40% increase). This is not historically normal. World GDP per capita during the pax Romana is estimated at $808 and European GDP at $997 (Italy was of course the wealthiest region in the world, with a GDP per capita of $1400). In comparison to that, Italian GDP had halved, European GDP had declined by a quarter, and world GDP had declined by about 4%) in the first millennium. So, the change by modern standards was minimal. All numbers plucked from en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_regions_by_past_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita and updated to 2020 cost of living. So then the sample isn't a single period of unusual stability, it's two centuries of industrialization (and make no mistake, industry and technology are effectively fungible terms). The world actually *has* changed, and while many historical tropes are as applicable to modern times as to early modern or medieval times, many aren't.
He was saying we still follow the same rules we still are more or less the same creatures and I mean look at the unrest of the past 50 years in America 68 and 2020 so far should be prime examples Don't even get me started on America's regional identities sure minor but so was the Galo-roman identity and now alongside a SMALL German influence now it's french Were more stable than before but not completely stable Another thing look at the growth of mezo and south America Brazil and Mexico combined has a higher population than the hole US sure there in the American sphere of influence but keep that in mind were not untouchable were just really high up but there is the saying the bigger you are the harder you fall.
@@Newbmann even the skeleton of the American economy is massive by historical standards. If you strip the US down to agriculture, mining, and some basic services overlaid on top, we'd still have a GDP per capita above $5,000.
@@SacredCowStockyards yeah I know the American economy is massive but it's not like other counties are not comparable I mean hell even Japan who's country is roughly only the size of the east coast and habitable parts are much smaller than that has a economy which can compete in some sectors to the ENTIRE continent of the US The scale is the only thing that changed.
@@Newbmann For fairness, there should be added that economic boom in Japan was only possible because of American lead order. Japan didn’t have to go in war for resources. America put everyone into one system, so random Japanese can exchange their yens for dollar, buy resources in Africa, buy oil in middle east to power their industry, then make stuff with higher value, and then sell it to America for even more dollars, and then use those dollar to buy more resources … it’s great feedback loop. . If America was more protectionist and didn’t allow Japanese imports. Japanese couldn’t sell, they couldn’t get dollars. They couldn’t buy more resources, new machines, more oil. Their whole growth would have to be internal. Which would take much more longer. . And if America was more imperialist and instead of global economic system, they just created another colonial empire, with emphasis they want to keep resources for themselves. Then random Japanese couldn’t go to Africa to buy resources. They would have to go to America to buy finished product, high on value added chain. Which would mean that Japan would never industrialize. . It’s not just important comparing GDP of countries. It’s also important on what bases is that GDP created. What exactly needs to happen so someone can makes his economic output. We can look on 2 countries and see they have both same agricultural output. But one has winter with freezing and snow which acts as good pesticide. Other needs more pesticide which is manufactured from oil. And also transportation of said pesticide requires oil. Then suddenly, one of these 2 countries is reliant on availability and price of oil. And if this availability of oil changes, agricultural output in these 2 countries won’t be same.
@@stafer3 yeah I know I was not saying the us is bad or something along those lines or Japan is somehow better I know Japan is all about imports and there agricultural base is tiny like really tiny due to the amount of mountains in Japan. I was saying the US is not untouchable or leaps and bounds ahead of everyone else China would have probably been a better comparison all things considered since we'll actually similar size and similar GDP rather than huge and possible to compare in SOME SECTORS IE entertainment but stuff like natural resources or food Japan is closer to Belgium than the US unlike China which is comparable is almost everything _Oil and high tech products. I also could have used other examples of extreme growth such as India who at the rate there growing at within about 20 years will be on par with the US. Currently due to the covid lock down the US isn't even the largest economy in the world.
7:42 : I wouldn't say that poles viewied being part of the Austro - Hungarian empire as one of their golden ages. That's literally one of our dark ages.
A far more likely alternate history would be if Britain had joined on the side of the central powers. It was a close ran thing as to weather Britain would even join the war in 1914. Before the war, Britain had a very good relationship with Germany. The Naval arms race had died down and they were good trading partners. Britain had a history of fighting with both Russia and France and Germany was debatably a more natural ally. Had Britain joined the war on the side of the central powers or even just not joined at all, then the war would have swing in the other direction. Britain fielded the biggest army on the allied side by 1918 and it's naval blockade of the central powers was one of the biggest deciding factors in Germany's armistice in 1918. The American army's arrival in late 1917 had very little to do with the outcome of WW1. It certainly shortened the war by a long way, but it wasn't the deciding factor.
Good points, but to be fair, when it comes to alternative history, you simply have to give a "what if" beginning and then start making assumptions. Maybe your version is more likely, but the author of the video was assuming the first few years of the war didn't change, only the outcome. Everything he says after that is pure conjecture anyway. Your version would make a COMPLETELY different video as everything he said would be different due to the Britain and Commonwealth being on the victorious side of things - not to mention, in your version, the U.S. never would have gotten involved.
The Americans were a moral boost to the allies and psychological shock to the Germans. Their true worth was being put into the front lines to free up more experienced British and French troops to attack in the 1918 victories.
Germany was always the underdog in both wars. As a german i truely think that our nations would have been better of than they did in our timeline here. I can even imagine an even further Situation where - at some point of extension - some parts of germany would break apart from it ( or try it ) to build a new nation. After all, before world war 1, bavaria, baden, swabia, and others, they all had their own armies. That did in fact hinder germany from time to time in the first war. I think, if germany won the first war, states would compete for ownership over the new regions, and this could in fact lead to inner-german wars. yeah yeah, the old warrior tribe instincts x)
Germans do tend to favor disunity and decentralized government when put in massive governmental systems . Examples Roman Empire and the HRE. All of Germany pre unification.
Let me simulate this scenario in the totally accurate military history game of HOI4 ... Yep, communist Brazil would have conquered most of Europe after Luxembourg defeated Germany but were unable to win against the Fascist Russia, giving South Africa the opportunity to conquer the whole continent. Now, after annexing all Central America, Guatemala launched an attack against the Communist US, still weak because of the great depression, which called his ally Japan to the war who was still fighting Russia with Brazil but ultimately losing the war and all of his conquest in China and Siberia which Guatemala annexed for themselves. This let the world to only three major powers, with Guatemala and Brazil fighting in America and Russia while South Africa secures Africa and expands into the Middle East and Australia. If you ask what happened to UK, Italy and France, the first released all colonies after the civil war which let the island to a pre-UK state, Italy lost the war against Ethiopia as usual and did nothing else, and France surrendered to Luxembourg with in the first 3 weeks after allying Germany against them.
And what was that ? The UK doesn’t want a united Europe , No, we don’t want a German Europe - that’s what we don’t won’t , because how did it go before ? Moron
It's common knowledge that britain wanted a divided europe, so did russia, so did every mainland nation that didnt want to get annexed by a greater power
I love your videos, one of my favourite channels!! One thing that occurred to me near the end is it is hard to imagine the rest of the Soviet Union holding together without that Volga region to administer it
One possibility I could also see happening in this timeline is German-dominated Europe becoming more democratized, with Germany itself becoming a somewhat tame-down country, kind of like the modern UK or modern/near-future America, with it's satellite states becoming more powerful, like a post-war France or Britain, similar to our modern China. Germany prior to WWI was quite a democratized state, even with the monarchy and its Prussian-inspired military tradition, that I could see more democratic elements developing within Germany in the years following the First World War, with the generals slowly giving power back to the Reichstag and the Kaiser becoming a constitutional monarch like our present-day monarchies.
Agreed. The extreme movements on right and left wouldnt have gained their momentum plus the Kaiserreich still intact could keep them in check. But the Social Democrats, Liberals and christian democratic parties were developing strong in the Weimar Republic, without the humiliation of defeat it is not feasible that people would have turned to extremists. BUt they still would have turned to demanding more participation.
I believe that instead of just annexing Eastern Europe, the Germans already had plans to install German aristocracies in countries like Lithuania , Poland Finland or Ukraine, of course these countries would be puppet regimes but would not be annexed inside Germany proper but a German monarchy puppet of the Kaiser , like was planned to do with Belgium Edit: you can’t imagine how much I was waiting for this remake
Actually, Finland would be a Kingdom this day if the Central Powers would’ve won, we even elected a king (we were a kingdom for a couple days) and it was of german origins, but due to the entente’s victory, public opinion soon changed towards republic. We would’ve been an independent kingdom and not a puppet
7:43 More specifically, the Polish language and culture, oppressed in the Russian and German Empires, flourished in Galicia. The economy was not so good though. It was worse than in the Russian partition, not to mention the German one. Also, I don't think it was a golden age for us - I mean, Poland wasn't even on the map.
16:38 How did Italy disunify into two countries? Are we going back to the Kingdom of Two Sicilies? Also, why did Serbia get Montenegro? I thought they both got swallowed by Greater Bulgaria.
Because it's an American student who's learning history in the idea that his country was important in European affairs before world war 2 (I mean, just look up to what they where doing and how they were equiped and you will see) . Italy and France wanted to end the war and mutiny started, for a lot of reasons, but if the war lasted a bit longer France would have turned the tides because they came up with far greater and more advanced strategy than ever before, witch made them become the greatest military power on earth before the disaster of 1939 due to backward military ideas and the 3rd republic existing as it was. In fact, the putch of kapp would have likely triggered sooner and during the war, because Germany certainly had less mutiny (even if it was still huge) but the fact is the French population was "revanchiste" while Germany's population was on the verge of a communist revolt like the one in Russia. In the spring/summer of 1918, some German generals already admitted defeat, like Ludendorff, who presumably said "the French truck won over the German railroad" Wich was a good way to describe the situation. If Germany wanted to win the war, (ignoring the consequences put up in this video are far fetched) it would need to have Russia never entering the war or giving back alsace Lorraine to France in exchange for giving up it's alliance (Wich would have probably failed). So, in the end without an unexpected alliance like the USA, Germany probably never wins WW1 because her poor diplomacy with the whole West was her real demise.
@Plamen Stoev this doesn't change the mecanization difference, or anything I pointed out. Having a lot of soldiers won't stop the combination of the three forces France started to put on, it wouldn't make any difference in front of a Renault ft and what by that point would the German do against an army with FCM 2C , integrated tank divisions, greater supplies lines and motorised infantry? The war would only drag on to the point where the ottomans fell, then Bulgaria, Austria (Wich was crushed by combined offensive, some Frenchman came really near Vienna at some point), and Germany would have to stretched their line even more while the whole Balkan's nationalists are supporting their foes, being absolutely encircled and unable to get the oil supplies needed to match France. There is more delay to the German defeat but it certainly happen.
@Plamen Stoev well I thought I was argumenting with someone actually interested in history, but it seems I'm talking to someone Witch is just a strong German nationalist, so much so than giving me even clues or whatever evidence of a possible German victory didn't even came to his mind. I feel sorry that your country was born and feast on useless pride and the death of other Europeans. But maybe when the German government will be replaced , France and Germany will be able to be brothers again.
@@Fourbix USA gave the entente alot of morale, without them the French troops would be in terrible conditions while the Germans at one point could take time to fully resupply.
Glad you finally got around to making this timeline also I kinda wish this was as long as the what if Germany won ww2 timeline, this timeline honestly has more potential then the ww2 timeline.
1; Austria did not want Serbian land 2; Germany did not want Eastern Europe, it just created a bunch of puppet states 3; it didn’t want to annex Belgium, just take the German portions and leave it as a puppet
Austria-Hungary didn’t occupy Romania in OTL, why would they in this TL? Also, Japan declared war on the USA largely because the Philippines threatened their supply lines to the DEI.
A-H did occupy Romania together with Germany and Bulgaria. Why would they do it? Maybe for the same reason Nazi Germany wanted it as an ally - oil? And Romania was a pain in the ass, even launching an offensive which was thrown back by Germany and Hungary.
@Plamen Stoev Personally I don't think so since a New EU would be formed by Germany and we would be closely tied together, there wouldn't be a war only the possibility of Bulgaria joining as another republic to the Federation
How would central powers victory look like for Finland ? -Finland would have german prince for a king -Finland would conquer all of Karelia and Kola peninsula with arms and backing from Germany -as there would not be league of nations Finland and Sweden would go to war over the Åland islands -Finland would win and take länsipohja as there is big Finnish population -Finland would go to war with Norway as they would want to have Ruija (Finnmark)
I doubt Finland would have done any of them. Germany already drove the Swedes away from Åland. Otherwise Finland wouldn't have had the resources to attack Sweden, and Mannerheim didn't want German troops in Finland in the first place, so asking help from them would have been out of the question and too risky in any case, a German king or not. Norway seems even more far-fetched. Finland would have already had plenty of Barents sea coastline in this scenario, no need to steal from Norway. Finland had just got indepedent at that point, it wouldn't be jeopardised so easily.
They had to go through Belgium to get into France quickly and do an end run around the French troops defending at the border. If Albert had agreed to let the Germans march through and even offered troops to escort them then Britain would have had no causus belli. Even if Parliament decided to invent one, the quicker invasion of France that comes from not having to attack Belgian positions allows the Wehrmacht to enter Paris unopposed and France would be out of the war before Britain could enter. Rudyard has stated that he believes that the government would reform in Lyon or someplace and keep fighting. I really don't think so. Twice in our world the Germans captured Paris, both times France surrendered, so why would a hypothetical third time be any different? For all intents, Paris is France. It is more than just the seat of government, it's everything that the whole concept of the nation is based on. The rest of the country is just land that Paris rules over. Change that and it leaves Russia fighting alone, once Serbia capitulates, against the Germans, Austrians, and Ottomans along with whoever wanted to join the pig-pile. Japan? Sure. Russia is gonna lose badly so they might as well get in on the fun of carving off huge chunks of bear. Finland? Probably. What the map would look like in 1916 would have Ukraine, Byelorussia, and the Baltic States as independent German puppets, Finland possibly taking St Petersburg to close off Russia completely from the Baltic, Japan taking the whole of the Pacific coast of Siberia and going as far west as Lake Baikal, the Ottomans taking not just the Caucasus but also Turkic central Asia, modern Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan. Lots of stuff ahead from there but I won't go into it here.
I think the Balkans at least would be much less of a powder keg. They borders were redrawn based on allied interest instead of ethnic borders and hence the problems. The allied nations in the Balkans would probably turn to the axis since theyr main reasoning for siding with the allies was wanting to go vs Bulgaria. Bulgaria wanted to expand to the teritories that at the time were a a Bulgarian ethnic majoryty and thats more or less the map shown here. With a much stronger Bulgaria that was historicly aligned with Germany and axis on all sides countries like Romania Serbia and Greece would all turn pro Germany so i dont think they would be directly occupied since that would cause massive revolts. The Balkans had a strong independence mentality since they had a poor experience beeing conquered by the Ottoman empire for centuries. Macedonia wouldnt even exist since most of the population self identified as Bulgarian pre 1913.
I think Japan would've still gone authoritarian, as their economy collapsed after WW1 due to everyone going back to work in the West and no longer buying Japanese goods. They essentially had the GD start in 1918/19, so I think they'd still be on the track to the same outcome in this timeline as in ours.
@@mint8648 Purely economically, they had a chronic recession after the economic boom of WW1, bank failures, and natural disasters. Granted, the onset of the GD in 1929 really set it off, but the slow slide began in the 20s.
17:38 In this world the Indian subcontinent would probably not look like this It would either be completely unified or divided into more than a dozen nations
@@mackycabangon8945 one of the biggest reasons india got its independence in 1947 was because the british had been teared by the nazis . There military capability was needed to be replaced. The freedom forces had a chance . But you see , in the 'British raj' Pakistan and Bangladesh were part of India. The muslim demand for a seperate country went main stream in the late 1930s. If britain had been difeated in ww2 they probably would have lost the subcontinent in the 20s. And it would probably be even larger as it would contain Pakistan and Bangladesh and parts of other countries as well.
@@just_some_random_guy3133 except thatd result in a massive civil war because muslims wanted their own countries and there were already militias and resistances being formed. Theres no way India wouldve stayed the same size as the british raj after the british left, its either Pakistan and Bangladesh being made or it all exploding into different states like before the mughals
@@saimalianwer7740 the muslims and hindus had been living in peace for a long time, the main factor was nationalism and anti-colonialism. It was only the Muslim league party which pushed for independence
Whatifalthist thanks for the reply! I did think it looked like something made by the makers of axis and allies. Thanks for telling us! And great video by the way!
The problem with how World War II ended for the US has very little to do with the world we have today and much more to do with the fact that we suffered very little in either War. That gave us the idea that we were invincible and promoted the military industrial complex and another wave of not quite us colonization
13:25 I immediately thought of India when he said that and boom! Right after that he himself said India. Scary coincidence. India is really becoming tyrannical gradually.
4.00 Without the US in the war the Germans would never have been in a rush to use their 'new' troops freed up from Russia'. No, you completely underestimate the desperate situation Germany was in at the time. The British naval blockade (a war crime of great proportions) was literally starving Germany to death. Around a million civilians died due to it. The final German push in the summer of 1918 came to a halt not because of Allied resistance, but due to famished German troops looting the French countryside. Internally Germany was also on the brink of revolution in 1918. Even if the Germans had captured Paris, the Royal Naval blockade would have carried on, and the best the Germans could have hoped for was to negotiate an honourable draw. The best chance for a German victory was passed up in 1916 when they decided to throw the kitchen sink at Verdun, rather than utilise all available resources on defeating the creaking Russian Empire.
No ww2 economic boom might mean that the US wouldn't be nearly the country it is today, perhaps not even a world power. The idea of the nuclear family, and the culture surrounding the 50s and 60s, would be completely different. Nuclear weapons might not have even been invented, or a World War might have been fought over something completely different, resulting in even more World Wars. It would be a completely different world than the one we know today.
Loved the video! Since you said you specialise in Medieval History it would be nice for you to tackle certain what ifs of the era: -What if Genoa became the dominant trade republic instead of Venice? -What if Emperor Go-Daigo succesfully abolished the Shogunate in the 14th century? -What if Clovis converted to Arianism instead of Nicean Christianity? Also: What if Napoleon accepted the peace treaty of 1814?(the one with the harsher terms)
The trade rivalry between geneo and Venice is quite a thing, they all were close to beating each other economically, Geneo had territory/ports north of the caucuses and had the favour of many major powers while Venice had to fight off Austria for so long
@@ethanbrinkman7110 specialy when you consider that Genoa had the upper hand for most of the 13th century, constantly beating Pisa and getting very profitable deals with Eastern Rome after the 4th crusade.
Me last night: Hey this channel is great, let's binge-watch. Me finding this video: Video about WW1? Can't wait to hear what he has to say about my country! Whatifalthist: 7:02 -_-
When the Mongols and Manchus turned Chinese they pretty much moved into China. You would not get that with Japan, most of them and their leaders would have stayed on the home islands, people and leadership more isolated from Chines influence.
5:32 I would love to know where you get this map from. Are these Pan-German league claims? I have never heard of an Imperial German ambition for the annexation of Burgund. My understanding is that under the most extreme suggestions, they wanted to follow the Meuse River line in the North, annexing Liege, Namur, Verdun and Sedan. The border would then vere Eastward towards Nancy, and Spinal and Belfort. However your map seems to include cities further west, such as Montbeliard, Besancon, Vesoul, perhaps even Saint-Dizier and Chaumont? Where does this map come from?
Suggestions: What if the Vikings traveled to West Africa? What if West Africa Industrialized on it's own? What if India converted to Nestorian Christianity? What if DC and 5 US territories were states? What if Carthage moved to West Africa during the Punic Wars? What if the Ottomans colonized the Americas? What if the Mali colonized the Americas? What if the Ottoman colonized Australia? What if the Hashamites were given Arabia? What if the US had Prussian Monarchy? What if the Moorish kingdoms united? What if the Mali had a big Jewish Population? What if Operation Anvil happened? What it Operation Anvil and Overlord happened at the same time? What if France and Austria United? What if China colonized Kenya? What if the Crusaders reached East Africa to kick out the Muslims? What if the Ottomans conquered Iran? What if the Russian took control of Istanbul? What if the Ottomans conquered Morocco? What if the Normans conquered Egypt? What if Japan and Ethiopia made an alliance before WW2? What if Great Britain and Portugal united?
@@OhSanjiBoi industrialization was something unique to Europe, mainly due to small populations for greater ressources, there is no way an african or asian could industrialize in its own very way
Black and Quirkless Eh, partially in the case of Japan(+Korea). Not really in the case of Ethiopia. Ethiopia and Japan were 2 major regional powers that were able to effectively learn from the failures, defeats, “second hand” wisdom, acquired knowledge regarding foreign State actors, philosophies+belief systems, economics, et al....of their larger more powerful neighboring States that battled and/or aggressively negotiated with ‘Western’/European empires(Mid Eastern Islamic nations, Egypt and other Sub-Saharans in Ethiopia’s case. China in Japan+Korea’s case). One major lesson both regional powers absorbed, with Japan being the one who channeled and actualized the best, was that nationalism and mild yet appropriated European type ‘modernization’+industrialization of their country were necessary if they planned to keep encroaching ‘Western’ powers at bay. Both regional powers had success going down the routes they did for sure yet I doubt, that without overseas foreign influences+re-appropriations and European socio-cultural+economic and military contacts, Ethiopia and Japan(+Korea) would have been able to become as they were 100 years ago. For number of reasons, 2 of them being: - the resource availability+acquisition processes and material conditions in Ethiopia(+the rest of East Africa) and Japan(+Korea) and - the cultures and general nature+inclinations and pre-dispositions of Ethiopians(who were mostly content with their subsistence agriculture and/or semi-arid desert pastoralist lifestyles plus being ruled by a near absolute Christian monarch) and of the Japanese+Koreans(who created astonishing, great, and consistently violent yet stagnant feudal states, with many aspects mirroring Imperial China, with little need for foreign trade, industrialization, etc....
I don't recognize the game at 0:14 but it's not WW1. It has Prussia listed as a nation and the Ottoman Empire extending all the way to Algeria. Also the ships are all 3 master sailing ships instead of Dreadnought style battleships. I think that's more likely that that's Napoleonic era.
I don't know i don't think this would happen even ambassadors of the austro-hangarian empire and Germany condemned the armenian genocide at the time and seeing other Christian genocides done like the assyrian genocide greek genocide lebanese famine would make the public view of the Ottoman Empire negative and also seeing how oil rich the Ottoman Empire would be unlike Germany would probably make Germany attack it or conspire to attack it with the support of the public
The young Turks were sceptical of nazi Germany in ww2, but stayed out, I don’t think the Turks would do much expect maybe attack former territory they owned, cause that was their plan during ww1, so I think they would have more sympathies with kaiser Germany but also a lot of stuff can happen in 20 years so no one knows how anything would go, fun to speculate though
That's not true. In our timeline, Germany, France, Russia and Britain didn't do really anything to stop the genocide. Many German officials were aware of what was going on but thought the Ottoman Empire as allies were more important. In this timeline, the Armenian genocide would've been carried out far into the 1920s. Armenia with its small population of only 1 million people, wouldn't be able to defend against the Ottomans. By the 40s, well over 50% of people in Armenia would've been Turkish colonists. The sad thing is because of the winning side, the Armenian genocide would've been more destructive and less recognized.
@Metsarebuff 22 No this was AFTER WW1. This was the Treaty of Sevres in the 1920s. The Ottomans viewing the christians as inferior and as an enemy would set up puppet governments in Armenia, Georgia and Azerbaijan.
@Metsarebuff 22 the turkish Government of the Grand National Assembly Happened after the Ottoman Empire but since the Ottoman Empire won it wouldn't happen
In a world where the US remains isolationist throughout both world wars, that would lead to the US being more Germanic culturally and possibly linguistically,seeing that prior to WWI Germanic culture was rising to be dominant in the US. So that would mean the US will be tied to Germany, and I would say it would be unlikely that Canada and Australia and New Zealand would want to form an alliance with the US.
A related video, but I sometimes wonder what if Victoria has survived to the outset of the war? She was very pro Germany while Edward was pro France and changed up Englands political allegiances when he inherited the crown. I'd be interested in seeing a take on how things might have played out if instead of being allied with France in WWI, it was instead allied with Germany.
@@bleddynwolf8463 you would be wrong there, the kingdom of Dal Riata was at one stage the most powerful kingdoms in Britain, they dominated the wool, fish and timber trade of northern Europe which were contrary to popular belief quite valuable goods l. You have to remember that the Celts were the most developed tribes in Europe after the Roman empire, the Germanic peoples only out competed them because they were closer to the Roman empire which lead them to be influenced and and develop better with Roman technology
@@harperwalsh9041 I suppose so, but depends on when your talking about, because after the roman empire their weren't that many Celts left. France became fudal and was gradually Romanized and Britain was invaded by the anglo-saxons. for a celtic union to form, British or French Celts would have to unite under 1 Celtic ruler, presumably before or during Roman occupation and unite them under a single banner. this would be hard because the tribal way of life the Celts lived under would make unification difficult, not to mention poor boats in which to cross the channel before Romans, and during Romans, they would have to fight the Romans, which if Bodica proved anything, was near impossible. the reason Bodica failed against an army a 10th it's size was because of superior armour and organization. for the Celts to use armour in battle would go against their core belifs. the only way I could see it happening is a celt getting really rich, buying a tonne of mercenerys, supprise attacking the Romans kicking them out of Britain and celtic France, hopping the natives accept your rule and them staving of the Romans for the next few centurys. provided this happened at 1 of Romes weaker points in time.
@@bleddynwolf8463 well the main reason the Celts were wiped out from mainland Europe was because the land they inhabited was predominantly flat farmland which they cultivated making it easy for the Roman's to invade while the Germans inhabited the thick dense forests of northern Europe making it difficult to invade. Your wrong about how the Celts were disunited, yes there were various kingdoms that operated by themselves but when a larger force came to power they would unite together to try and defeat it, take Gaul (France) for instance, when the Roman's invaded Gaul it was quite a unified place however unfortunately some of the kingdoms allied with the Romans to further bring down the Gaulish occupation.
@@bleddynwolf8463 btw Celtic technology such as their boats were actually quite good, actually better than the Roman's, the Celts arrived in iceland and the faroe islands long before the Vikings inhabited them. However much like the vikings in Greenland they died out without proper trade to the areas
14:56 I'd argue the US and UK were not as tied together as we are now. War Plan Red is just the exact scenario for Thucydides Trap where the US is starting to rival the UK and would potential end up on opposite sides.
Hey whatifalthist, when you do videos like this one, I would really like you at the end to explain what would happen to this type of empire in the future? will it collapse, if so, how? btw really thinking on joining your patreon edit: I am now a patron
![Lp. Сердце Вселенной #60 РОЖДЕНИЕ ЛОЛОЛОШКИ [Финал] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YoR0pAV9FVQ/mqdefault.jpg)
Y'know, having multiple "first" comments, destroys the purpose of it. Also, what are you accomplishing for humanity?
You sir are Legendary
tru
first
This is what every youtuber wants to say but can’t
So, Hitler never meet Eva in this Timeline.
>Create a Greater Bulgaria
"Oh yeah it's all coming together"
>As a German puppet kingdom
"Ohhh nooooo"
I see this as an absolute win
Better than our time line
also no communist government, so higher population too
- creates Greater Bulgaria
*Yeah*
- as a German puppet
*YEEEEEAAAAAAH*
Still sounds better than our timeline
Germany didn't plan on directly annexing Eastern Europe after the treaty of Brest-Litovsk. In fact, they established puppet governments in Ukraine, Poland, Lithuania, other Baltic states, Belarus, Finland etc. I think they would do the same in this timeline.
He didn’t imply Germany would annex them. Simply that Germany would heavily exploit their resources and send German settlers. All of this was actual plans the Kaiserreich had.
@@toasterdogg yes the maps althist used in his video implies germany would directly annex those lands. It doesn't show any of the puppet states that would have been realized in that scenario
@@hazzmati If you had actually listened, you would've heard that he said they would likely set up many puppet governments.
@@valentinbezdan570 he said it but would have been nice if the maps adhered to what he said. Now it looks conflicting
Krasirriech
It's sad to see how irrelevant Spain has become since the industrial revolution
It's their own fault for being colonially exploitative and not industrializing
@@matthewmullin8168 They lost their colonies before the industrial revolution kicked in. Not to mention how other countries tried to exploit Spain, then you have the United States, who invaded Spain. Though, Spain is rich as hell in modern days.
@roasted pancakes Yes, th Usa was going to make a push for the Spanish mainland but Germany, France, Portugal and the Uk threatened to join the war or fund the Spanish
@roasted pancakes You can read about it in Spanish History books and website's, since the Usa for some reason does not teach the war in detail, not to mention they don't teach the war crimes the Usa did in the Philippines. And the Spanish colonies were really not colonies in Spanish view, they were part of the mainland which is why they all had the same flag. So for European view, Spain was invaded.
@roasted pancakes could be biased, mainly because the spanish culture and national pride was hitted really bad after the war and many intellectuals wrote about this, they had lost the last thing that was keeping them as colonial "power"(except africa but they only had sand by that time) and they developed a bad relation towards the US after the war of '98. But after the second world war, the francoist spain got really well with the americans mainly because franco and Ike hated commies (there is an interview between him and the CBS) and provided docking rights and military bases to the usa. Also note, spain was fascist during wwii, after that franco kept distance with the fascist party, although still was a ruthless dictator.
As with every alternative history scenario, nothing really changes in South America :)
To something changes in latin america you'd need to change other things.
Like:
-if Byzantium had won against the Ottomans (or at least survived longer).
-if the Confederate states won the secession war.
-if the Plague never got into Europe.
-if Paraguay won the war.
-if Iberian Union never was a thing.
Those were more important points for the American Continent than any of the world wars, that could make things really different.
But since America is so far from the other continents, other topics have more relevance (for views and stuff)
How about stronger Spain that really care about it's colony.
@@unknownbenefactor8029 maybe, but i dont think it would change that much.
the spanish territories were too diverse and big.
Brazil had many struggles staying united (Counting one of the worst crimes against humanity made in the country, the Tiranny against Canudos, that can be seen here - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_Canudos - actually, the greatest writter of Brazil and one of the most important of the Portuguese language, Machado de Assis, wrote a whole
article about this fact, named "canção dos piratas" - or "The pirates's song", in english, that you can read here, - in portuguese, but google translator may help?, idk- www.biblio.com.br/defaultz.asp?link=www.biblio.com.br/conteudo/MachadodeAssis/cancaodepiratas.htm )
My point is, to Spain hold its colonies together, many atrocities would have to be made, and I still dont think it would be possible
Not counting the Monroe Doctrine, that could be a problem in the future
Imagine being an entire continent whose history depends on a tiny peninsula
Finally, a whatifalthist version
This world is pretty nice. No nazis, no horrific warcrimes, prospering Europe, prospering East Asia and a strong Middle east without conflicts and ISIS
Is all nice in all but would anime exist tho? Plus I think the French, English and Russians will maybe commit some minor war crimes
@@sathaire8120maybe were lucky and anime doesn’t get invented
Except for Armenians.... And French.... And Italians... And British.... And Russians.... And poles... And Belarus... And Ukrainian... And Chinese.... And Greeks... And Americans (no economic booms in the twenties or fifties)... And Koreans... and basically for anyone who's neither German, Japanese or from the Middle East (and for jews).
@@antoniomariamacri7500 This is ww1 not ww2
@@Haaaaaaland I know, and so? Just because Imperial Germany wouldn't kill everyone it doesn't mean it would be nice.
16:24
*Finland owns Karelia*
Ah yes, perfection, just like it should be.
But it's also a puppet-monarchy.
mmmm beautiful
Yes
it’s beautiful
Let's all be honest here, the map at the end was beautiful
Cool map showing how all of them viewed themselves as heir of the romans!
I mean FINLAND does to this day.
@@Newbmann
Lol finland? :D What's their arguement?
@@Newbmann
Dude i just checked it and it's ridiculous asf. I mean all claims to being heir of romans are ridiculous but this, this is the next fucking level. Up next: aborigens are the real heir to the roman empire. Like wtf :D
@@briaormead4239 it more or less is since they are the last remains of the old Russian empire which called itself 3rd Rome they are the last surviving piece of 3rd Rome.
@@briaormead4239 yeah I mean how long before Tunisia claims to be 8th Rome.
Your brittish accent sounds like a mix of yoda and palpatine
He’s sounds American wdym
@@jamieunited6177 he does a british impression at 13:32
It sounds like not just British accent, but a Churchill impression.
@hherbata "The dark side of the Force is a pathway to many abilities some considered to be un-natural."
16:32 I like how Switzerland is just in the middle of everything but it is the only thing in Europe unaffected by Germany
Just minding my popcorn
11/10 Would stay neutral again.
@@thespanishinquisition4078 I expected you to say that
@@thespanishinquisition4078 I didn't expect you to say that
@@jonomoth2581 No one expected it
It‘s the law!
Also to mention that WW1 is kinda the culmination of western musical tradition, after that pop music and other genres arrived to the stage, and romanticism hadn’t a clear continuation
Interesting observation
I’d say more like WW2, as Soviet composers such as Shostakovich remained popular in the east until they died or were banished
@@craigstephenson7676 Well, russia is always 30 years behind europe, which is in turn at least 20 years behind the US and UK, at least culturally.
gotta love that jazz that helped hitler underestimate the power of uncle sam so bad we pulled up on berlin and made him kill himself
@@simonpeter5032I don't think that not having pop and rock is being culturally backward, I mean, to this day I have not seen a single piece of any modern musical genre that is remotely close to fifth symphony or Bach's harpischord fugues in terms of creativity, complexity, ornamentation and everything else, man, we are talking about comparing Paganini and Vivaldi with The Jonas Brothers and Taylor Swift, I think that this world where pop is not popular is a better world for musical evolution, that is, composers do what What they do and that's it, they don't become figures of gods who are actually clowns and do stupid things and are praised for frankly mediocre and often stupid music.
it’s no nut november, i shouldn’t be watching this.
?
?
?
?
@@chico4ezz365we know delete your whoosh comments
yo I think you forgot about the German diaspora in the United States at the time and how it drastically change their culture and attitude after world war 1 an our world, if the US stayed neutral then German might have been a second language in the northern US just like Spanish is to the Southwest
Yeah, the Germans in the US weren't too fond of mixing with other ethnic groups before WW1. I think that there'd be a very sizeable German-speaking minority in the US (and in many other American countries for that matter), probably even larger than today's Spanish speaking minority.
@@alba489_ I agree German Americans are a sizable minority but they will not outnumber Hispanic Americans without major immigration from the Fatherland
albaa _ I consider myself of German descent, you can pretty much tell by my name, but I also have ancestry from 🏴 🏴 🇮🇹 and 🇵🇱. I also have some Austrian descent, but they’re basically German catholics. I wonder how I would be affected in this timeline.
@Gilderoy Lockhard maybe in the 1950s after WW2, now its around 14%
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Americans
Hispanics are almost 20%
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hispanic_and_Latino_Americans
@Tonton-Wa true , An Argentinian who moved US could be of German descent but could identify as Hispanic
You had said that the Germans wouldn’t have supported the White Russians because of war exhaustion, I’d like to argue that they would send more aid in the form of military equipment and military know how, the British managed to fight the Irish and fight rebels in the Middle East after the war, why couldn’t Germany send aid that the whites desperately needed?
The whites were made up of a large anti-german aristocracy. The only thing preventing the russians from attacking the Germans before WW1 was the Tsar.
The Allies didn’t finish off Turkey after the war even though they were supposed to, and the Allies didn’t support the Whites even though they were supposed to be allied due to war exhaustion.
The Germans, like the White Russians, were monarchists. I doubt they would have left a monarchist leaning White Russia to be destroyed by the communist peasantry. Plus, they would have been riding high off a WWI victory that they just achieved. Even in our history Britain and allies attempted to stop and contain the communist uprising, despite being totally exhausted from the war. The perception of a short military excursion by the German military to contain the threat, at the request of an embattled White Russia, would have been perceived to be worthwhile by the German leadership. I am not saying that the Germans would have definitely shifted the tide to victory against the reds, but they would have made a much more serious attempt at it than what we saw in our history. This is something that I completely disagree with Whatifalthist on. Germany would have not just completely abandoned Russia to a communist fate.
wizthegod Germany was also practically bankrupt by the end of the war, unlike Britain.
I agree with you there. The idea of a neighboring fellow monarchy being overthrown by the communists (of which there were pleanty in Germany too) must have been horrific to the Kaiser, especially considering how his cousin the Tsar and his whole family got killed by them.
it's crazy to think that Rome was such an influence as an empire, culturally on Europe that 1900 years afters its fall men were still fighting over its legacy.
And because Europe dominated th worlds for so long many of the roman traditions and legacies are a part of the wolrd to this day, so in a interesting twist of fate Rome conqered the world.
1500 years you mean? rome fell in the 400s
@@dane1382 never heard about byzantine empire also called eastern roman empire?
@@diegone080 true, while we call them the Byzantines and they were different culturally, they still very much viewed themselves as Romans
You mean 500 years after Rome fell in 1453
Hey the middle east seems like it wouldn't be as bad as our timeline.
*Loads Shotgun* Stay away from the oil
Well there’s no Israel so I guess this timeline is better by default isn’t it?
Well it'd be under the *Turks*
Just as bad
@@redcoat4348 I assume you're greek
@@redcoat4348 Bad but Saudi Arabia and Iran are worse.
12:00: The map of Japan is missing the Southern half of Sachalin. I see no reason for the Soviet Union to have seized this if the central Powers won WWI
The more I watch these videos, the more I think we're actually in the worst timeline.
We are in best timeline!
🇺🇸🇨🇦🇬🇧🇦🇺🇳🇿🇻🇬🇮🇴🇹🇨🇦🇨🇦🇮🇧🇲🇩🇬🇫🇰🇰🇾🇳🇺
@@ls200076 nah
Nah, the worst ending in total nuclear annihilation.
I was thinking the same thing.
The worst timeline is the one where emus take over the world
I disagree with how your version of a post WWI treaty would effect Britain. Russia had collapsed and fallen to Communism and much of the west of the country was under German occupation already, so fair enough there. With the French Army defeated and Paris in French hands, the French would have to accept harsh terms - (perhaps a rehash of the 1871 treaty?) also fair enough. But Britain wasn't truly defeated, so accepting a peace treaty that involved losing Ireland and other highly punitive clauses? Not likely!
True, the British Army in France may have been defeated, but the British Isles were never in danger of invasion. The Grand Fleet was too strong for the German High Seas Fleet, so seizing control of the seas was not possible. Aircraft hadn't yet developed to the stage where they could help bridge the gap in naval power. And the only other option to cause Britain to capitulate would be starvation. Which would have required a superior U-Boat campaign. In the real timeline even an unlimited U-Boat campaign failed to starve Britain into submission while also bringing the US into the war, so it's not plausible.
We have two excellent historical examples of what Britain did when a hostile European power gained control of too much power on the mainland - WWII and the Napoleonic era. In WWII Britain stood alone and fought alone for years against Germany. And in the Napoleonic era Britain once again refused to give up the fight despite suffering many losses. In neither case could the hostile power conquer Britain die to the strength of the British Royal Navy. In both cases Britain was completely unable to take the fight to their enemy's heartland until they had gained significant allies. But instead fought a campaign "around the edges" - the Iberian front against Napoleon, North Africa against the Axis. And they also blockaded their enemy from international trade - something which REALLY hurt Germany in WWI. By winter 1916 Germany was nearing starvation, and only conquests in the east (Rumania and western Russia) prevented this.
Simply put, there's no way that Britain would have accepted a punishing treaty against them similar to the Treaty of Versailles. They still held too many cards and too much power for Germany to seek to impose it. However, war weariness and the defeat of their army and their allies would probably have brought them to the bargaining table. I believe they would have accepted a face saving peace treaty, but capitulation? No. And given the war weariness and conditions horrendous enough in Germany to ultimately spark a revolution, I believe that Germany would have agreed.
So I'd suggest that Britain would have entered the negotiations with the following conditions: No territory loss to France or Italy (the bits Germany wanted, Alsace-Lorraine, they already took in 1871 anyway); a free and independent Belgium (given that this has always been a trigger issue for Britain it seems non-negotiable. Plus they "officially" went to war to protect it anyway, so it would make for a symbolic victory, hence an easier sell to the British people); and a set ratio to the German/British naval strength in a manner similar to the later Washington Naval Treaty (in an effort to prevent a similar naval arms race that caused the war in the first place). In return, Britain would return the German colonies it seized, and there may be some option for trading in this regard. And critically, to basically say "what happens in Eastern Europe is Germany's business".
I think Germany would go for this deal, as would Britain and France. All sides could say that they achieved an honourable peace. Without territorial concessions there wouldn't be any burning sense of injustice between them to drive towards round 2. With Belgium strictly independent and neutral, plus a naval agreement to maintain the Royal Navy's control over the seas the root cause of future wars would be removed. And as the victor Germany would receive vast territorial expansion to the east at the expense of Russia, whether formally annexed or merely "within the German sphere of influence", as Austria-Hungary would also be. Given the two revolutions in Russia, rise of the Soviet Union and Lenin's abandonment of all treaties with the Western Allies, I doubt they would mind selling Russia out like this if it meant that their other conditions were met.
In this scenario France ceases to be a real threat to Germany. It is possible that over time (and good diplomacy) Britain and Germany return to being the natural friends and allies they were prior to the Kaiser's naval arms race. A potential WWII era war could still exist, but in effect it would likely be the Axis-Soviet front of WWII, with Britain and France less likely to be involved. That's a far more likely scenario.
Like the thrust of this. Add in the returning, troops in Ireland and 'the stab in the back' by republicans (and supported by Irish Americans, those pesky IRB). Expect a more vicious civil war (which the IWI was) and Loyalists winning. Ireland is the UK vulnerable flank and could not be let go, with some dominant power.
The IJN was serving in the Mediterrean at the end of WW1, helping the Allied fleets out. The 20s were a boom time in Japan, but the crash in 29 hit them hard. A more enlightened policy of winning hearts and minds in Asia, along with Indian unrest, might have allow Japan to set up several puppet states. The price for Germany of its Asian possessions to decouple the Anglo-Japanese alliance, might be a price worth paying, especially if Germany agree to hand Papua New Guinea over to Japan. Let Japan to solve the problem of how they were were going to get Australian troops out.
It is likely Greece would switch sides back to the Central Powers and restoring the old king, but he might have to wary of Monkeys.......Again as a peace deal, Greece could get Cyprus and store up future problems. The explusion of Greeks from Asia minor could be a way for this happen.
Again, German African colonies proved disappointing with the notable exception of Tanganyika with Von Lettow arriving home to a hero's triumph. The Bismarck doctrine of being self sufficent in all commodities. Oil had not begun to dominate at this stage, so Germany and its allies had everything in reach and could be quite well set. Germany could reverse the role and any future threat, could be using long protracted overseas conflict with the Allied colonies to drain any main threats to Germany's
A vastly expanded/ stronger/ resource rich Germany would have eventually thrown off the yoke of any Brit/German naval treaty & restarted the naval arms race (with aviation thrown in) - only this time with the resources & capital to out build the Brits. In this timeline Germany would have a huge tech advantage as there would have been no brain drain of Jewish scientists/ engineers to the west/ USA. Japan would have gone along with ditching any naval limitation treaties as well. This could have / probably would have sparked an alternative WW2, with the USA being drawn in on the side of a weaker Allies due to the threat posed by such a strong Germany (& Japan) especially on the naval/ aviation front (which would directly threaten the isolated USA).
On the other hand, the USA would have had far more domestic German influence so maybe would still remain neutral - at least until threatened directly by a defeated Britain & an eventual powerful Germany / powerful Japan alliance (which would be effective at cooperating in this timeline as both countries would have better, more diplomatically effective governments)?
@@sideshowbob It's a plausible scenario. But what makes it less likely is the fate of Russia. In the real world Russia went communist, had a civil war that the Reds won, and then immediately sought to export communism by invading Europe. Some newly minted countries like Ukraine were defeated and swallowed up by the USSR, while Poland managed to fight them off (for now). The Soviets then cooled their jets for a couple of decades, working on "developing" their own country and building up their heavy industry. But under Stalin they were always looking west for new territory.
I think that in the timeline I established the Soviets will still win the civil war. Stalin should still come to power also. Maybe they won't immediately attack west due to a strong Germany still around. But due to their lost territory in the west that will only be a matter of time. So, 15-20 years down the line the much more powerful Germany you describe may look hard at the situation and ask who it's real rivals/threats are and conclude the following:
France isn't a threat anymore. They are simply too small by comparison. The USA is too far away - perhaps the next generation's problem. The Soviet Union, however, is a huge threat. A truly vast country with immense population resources right on the German border with a hostile and expansionist regime, a radically different political system and a historical record of invading Europe through the corridor of territory Germany now controls. Britain, by contrast, is not a threat. Not at all. In fact as a outwardly looking naval power to Germany's inwardly (European) looking land power, Britain and Germany are natural allies. It took immense effort and a completely pointless naval arms race which Germany was always doomed to lose anyway to break that pre-WWI.
So my expectation would be for sober heads in Berlin to recognise the huge threat posed to Germany that the Soviet Union poses and decide to reach out to Britain in alliance as a response. And if the price is that the German navy stays small, then that should be fine to them - the only sea they really need to control is the Baltic. True, this new Germany may do something different. When you add in real people with their real personalities and prejudices then anything is possible. But this seems to be the smart play - forge an anti-communist alliance with Britain.
Maybe WWII still happens, but is very different. Perhaps this time around it would be the USSR and Japan on one side with the USA, UK and Germany on the other?
Thomas Farley in the scenario you described, I cant see a powerful victorious Germany accepting the naval might of the U.K.without trying to build a bigger force. You are right that their primary concerns is the Baltic, which they completely control, but they have further concerns now with potential territories, allies and trade in the Mediterranean, Black Sea and colonies. I do not think they would outright fight a war over this, but I think they would build try to build their navy to a point where they could compete. Unfortunately for them, no one has been able to defeat the U.K. in naval might for about 500 years and I still don’t think this would change, regardless of the outcome of WWI.
A second issue I disagree with is that I cannot see any scenario where Japan would ally with the USSR. Japan would view a less powerful USSR as a perfect prey and attack them to take their eastern islands and parts of Siberia. This, combined with Japan’s hostility towards China could form an earlier and stronger relationship between the USSR and the fledgling CCP, which could affect the civil war the CCP was currently fighting with the Nationalists.
*-by triggered brit*
Well, let's see:
There is no Holocaust, the Japanese don't go batshit in China, Europe is far less affected by the war in terms of destruction, since it is relatively short, the Soviets don't last and there aren't those huge casualties in the east.....from the repercussions this would have on WW2 alone, I'd say it would be quite a bit better.
We also get a Germany that is strong enough to actually unite the continent. Some might not like the way it would come about, but it's not unlikely we'd have a truly united Europe by now, which is always a plus.
No, the Japanese would still go crazy in China. Just look what they did to the Koreans. This time-line changes nothing for the pacific, and the Japanese were run by militaristic imperialists, and they would not be able conquer china. We know this because of their fighting in ww2 in our timeline, where they eventually got bogged down in China around Nanking before pearl harbor. Not to mention the Chinese had military relations with the Germans in our time line, so who know what that looks like in this one.
@@br8745 The Chinese had military relations with Germany because the Weimar republic could keep it's military industry running by producing for China, since they weren't allowed to produce for themselves. It should also be mentioned that in this timeline, the Germans would likely still maintain Tsingtao as a colony and thus not necessarily be on the best of terms with China.
That said, while Japan wouldn't really have lost much in the war, they would still have been on the loosing side, thus tarnishing the reputation of the military in the public and making it less likely, that they would seize power in Japan.
With a very weak Russia it seems more likely, that the Japanese would invade far eastern Russia instead of China, especially since it would also be more suitable to the goals of japanese colonization than China ever was.
Without the Washington Naval Treaty, it's also quite likely the Japanese might have bankrupted themselves with their extensive naval build programs (which took up a huge proportion of the japanese budget), thus leaving the army too starved of resources to contemplate invading China.
@C 1922 Maybe, maybe not. "Anime" exists with certainty, seeing as it's just the japanese word for animation; though it's form might indeed be different.
Then again, today's anime didn't just evolve from Japan's defeat in WW2, the cultural and artistic roots go back far longer than that, so it's actually not too unlikely, that it would exist in a similar form to what we have.
@@MajinOthinus Yeah but this timeline has hentai though.
@@Just_a_Tool Seeing as humanity produced pornographic material as far back as the classic era, I don't think that is a particular front we'd need to worry about.
Rule 34 is a law of human nature, not of history.
17:35 I like the fact that you acknowledged the Ottomans taking Egypt and Libya, it does seem likely that they would conquer these countries during ww2 from Britain and Italy, which they could fund easily with their oil money and larger population.
that moment you're reading a ww1 book and whatifalthist posts this
Which one?
In before it's storm of steel
@@Newbmann Ernst Junger, classic.
@@WhatifAltHist yeah I know which is why I brought it up
How long before you make a video on player piano and the effects of creating a alternative to human labor? Ie robots
Probably never but since you ranted about the effects of space warfare in your video about the 10 hardest countries to invade It's not out of the question.
@@WhatifAltHist The First World War, written by Laurence Soundhaus.
It says here that he is a teacher in the Indianapolis University.
Note: assume eastern europe is administrated moreso as a series of puppet states than directly a part of the reich, considering that's what Germany had (tried to) set up for eastern europe in our timeline for the...not long germany had Ukraine and whatnot
Yah I can see that
In japan/Germany Winning WW2 videos he didn't use puppets It just look like they straight up annex a large chunk of territory.
The original plan was the Mittleeuropa plan, in which they would make a huge market for the German economy by making countries dependent on them.
WW1 was not about "Lebensraum im Osten" or anything. There might have been plans to expand to the Baltic as they had historically a relation with the teutonic knights and the german language and culture had a big influence in Riga and Reval etc at the time. But besides... I don't think they planned to wipe the Netherlands and Belgium off the map... this is rubbish
Agreed. The rulöing Elites in Imperial Germany were for the most part cautious about expanding their territory. I suppose the Austrian-Hungarian Empire served as a warning to not include to many nationalities who are keen on a nation of their own into the state.
Nonetheless they would probably have made sure the smaller states surrounding them would be puppets or allies in the future.
These regions indeed taken from Russia were meant to become puppet states Poland for an example was already created during the war
Maybe whatifalthist just ran out of colors to color the puppet states that's why it looks like germany just swallowed all of the regions
@@JH-zs3bs They would probably create a similar thing to the EU but german dominated,that could eventually evolve into the EU,but the main reason they wanted this was to have a similar thing like the commonwealth the british had,so german companies would have a larger marketbase and also more supplies.
@@lordanonimmo7699 They actually had a plan for this, called “Mittleuropa” it was to be an economic bloc, like the EU, headed by the German Empire.
The middle east wouldn't have been cut into pieces
the middle east was doing bad under the turks.
@@Menes3150
You need know.
It's a propaganda, nerd.
@@maximumcringelevel8617 ?
@@Menes3150
Middle East was Peaceful when it controled by ottomans lol.
The British caused the chaos there.
@@maximumcringelevel8617 You dont know anything about history. FIrst the arabs wanted to rebel so they can be their own countries. Second , britian gave money and weapons to the arabs so they can revolt. Third britain backstabbed the arabs when they did get independence
In terms of the current situation with most of the West being democratic and allied I think this world is better but in a world in which the Central Powers would've won there would have been no holocaust, Communist suppression of Eastern Europe and Japan probably wouldn't have commited as many war crimes in East Asia.
@Biracial Boy Incest is wincest
Most of the Western Powers was Non Democratic Monarchies much like the Central Powers
@@bmc7434 yes, better than our timelines.
Well you can also say the middle East would be at the state it is today
democracy isnt always better than monarchy, look at us prrsident last 8 years
Definitely a preferable timeline. Germans have also always had a very science/engineering oriented culture so I think we certainly would have achieved interplanetary space travel by now.
True talk
Germans pre-WW1 had colonial ambitions, and there's nothing to suggest they'd be more humane than the British or Spanish.
@@velocitor3792 You can't be honestly comparing the British who did genocide with the Spanish that made their colonies into part of their mainland and turned natives into citizens while mixing with them.
@@velocitor3792so? Every country was colonial back then, but in terms of science/technology, Germany was a powerhouse
In the early 1900s, Germany had more Nobel prizes in science than, USA, UK, France, and Russia combined
They also would've had Einstein stay in Europe/Switzerland/Germany. And much more
Add in Werner von Braun being German and you get Germany having soo much scientific advantancement. Also add in Heisenberg etc etc
It's very possible that they'll focus more on it than we did
I like the 0:16 map where everyone claims to be the heir of Rome while the actual title of Roman Emperor belongs to the Spanish king
Only because the Spanish monarchy descents from the German Habsburgs who at a point in time controlled the Holy Roman Empire.
@@superhans2467 I would go look up the video done by Useful Charts talking about who would be Roman Emperor today.
Well he was Holy Roman Emperor which isnt realy the heir of Rome since the last Roman emperor died in the siege of Constantinople in 1453. Afther that the Otomans declared themselfs as heirs to the Roman empire.
@@stefankatsarov5806 The last emperor of Eastern Rome gave the title to the king of Spain. Not HRE related
“The submarines had little affect on the actual war”
*Cries in unlimited submarine warfare*
*unrestricted
The map at the end is so beautiful, I wish I lived in that world
German?
@Damon Arndell ?
@Damon Arndell Enzo Bueno: the map at the end is beautiful
Me: German? (I wrote while wondering if he was German)
@@joshbentley2307 Enzo is probably italian
@A F i think it's similar to what it's like now.
"That's a separate video" Yes, please proceed. A WW1 where home by Christmas would make for a very interesting alt-hist!
Do you think an alternate point of departure could have been if the Spanish Flu didn't happen? Would removing the nerfs from that been enough for the Spring Offensive to have succeeded?
It definitely would've meant no H-man, or the No-no's from overtaking Germany. And Germany would probably be the strongest economy today.
I don't think so as no spanish flu means more deployable soldiers for america and its allies
Thank you for emphasizing the importance of Oil in the events leading to Pearl Harbor. Most Americans seem to think Japan attacked us just for the heck of it, leading to idiotic alternate history timelines like The Man in the High Castle
What’s the problem with Man in the High Castle? You mean the fact that Japan attacked an isolationist America? That timeline had America embargoed Japan
@@danielyeager6666 The Fact that Britain was conquered. the fact that North America was conquered. Invading America itself was never part of the plan. all Japan wanted was to destroy our navy so we couldn't interfear when they invaded the Dutch East Indies, Philipenes and other Islands to secure their oil supply.
@@marinuswillett6147 fascist don't need a reason to invade a country
@@marinuswillett6147 man in the high castle is a scenario where germany invented nuclear weapons and used in the US if Japan could annex North American lands they would even though it isn't their main goal
@@danielyeager6666 In the Kaiserreich timeline mod from Hearts of Iron 4, Japan was more interested in taking most of the Western Pacific from the German Empire & remains of the Entente's colonies and up to Pearl Harbor only. That timeline is more realistic to our universe than the ridiculous Man in the High Castle arc because Germany didn't want nor could control the vast majority of America, the same as Japan. I would recommend checking out their videos & documentaries covering that viral mod/alternate universe because Germany had to deal with other issues after being victorious in the 1st Welkreig.
"They would likely try to exploit Europe for Germany's benefit" 16:35 .... And here i was thinking this was a different timeline...
It was always likely that a United Germany would eventually dominate Europe.
A dominant power always exploits it's weaker neighbours
How does germany exploit europe?
It's bizarre to me as a German how we basically challenged the world order
And if you topple the world order everything is free real estate
This is called "hegemonic transition", it has become inevitable since with the second industrial revolution, the British Empire would no longer be able to be the absolute hegemon, hence the "crisis of the international system", and on your impression of that things become a "free real estate", it is because the hegemon determines the rules of the international system, making all the other agents calibrate their expectations accordingly, so things that are universally considered inevitable and positive, such as democracy and repudiation of colonialism, for example, exists because these are the values of the USA, the current hegemon, if the Chinese become the new hegemon, the values and behaviors of agents in the International System will change accordingly.
@The Nova renaissance You again lol
I'm both
@@Melnek1 interesting
@The Nova renaissance no problem my Maori adversary :)
@The Nova renaissance Our opinions "diverge" at times 😂
What if Otto Von Bismarck was immortal and never got old and died?
Heaven on earth
and idiot wilhelm 2 listened to him
@Ali Mneimneh It's not enough for you that he paved the way to the destruction of liberty in Germany in the time he had? You want him to live forever to continue this work?
@@steveonmareisland5268 He literally is the Reason why Germany exists. So I don't know what your talking about.
@@eliasredlich3425 Eeeeeeeh. German Unity wasn't an idea dreamed up by Bismarck, he just happened to be the one to have done it, but it would have happened at one point or the other anyway. The thing is that Bismarck never cared much for Germany, but rather about Prussia. Every decision he made was not out of some sense of German patriotism, but because he wanted to ensure Prussia - as opposed to Austria - was at the helm of this group of German nations. Him being against Austria joining the German empire (out of fear that it would decrease Prussian stranglehold by conceding influence to the Austrian catholics) for example was a fatal mistake that ultimately paved the road for WW1, since it weakened Austria immenesely. The Prussian culture war also doesn't really paint a pretty picture.
My point is, always try to view Bismarck's accomplishments within their historic context. He was not The Great Unifier. He was Prussian through and through. Uniting Germany was just a by-product of his endeavours to strengthen Prussia against the Austrians.
"promise you won't cry?"
"I promise"
Nice remake.
Also, what if Aurelian was never killed?
you just had to bring it up....😔😔
@@jonasastrom7422 Don't be sad because he died.
Smile because he existed.
He was too pure for this world
@@ronjayrose9706 Well Constantine (another super kickass emperor) survived so why not Aurelian
*Dovahatty intensifies*
Damn Finland looks so beautiful as ever🇫🇮😍
Finland with Karelia looks sexy, ngl
@Eppu Melto FeelsBanMan, but can you explain more? I'm interested
@Eppu Melto Nice story, bless your family
@Eppu Melto well Someone else with half the genes of you would exist
@@herramirtsaaja9032 But not him
Kaiserreich mod intensifies
@@Osgfkqgvsu It's not really meant to be, sherlock.
@@leviticus2001 Yeah but it’s be way cooler if it was, at least in my opinion. I’m a sucker for realism tho.
@@andrewiannelli7635 Well I'm currently working on one, so be on the lookout for that #SELFLESSSHAMEPROMOTION
Finally this video has been remastered. Good job my dude
Germany winning WW1 with the US out of it, would definitely made the world a better place.
Yep, no debate there
Agreed....
I would agree except korean culture would probably have been wiped out
The World Wars wouldn't be the United States' problem, I like this
As a German, i think it would be cool to be the most powerful country in the world. But Germany would not be a democracy in this timeline...im not sure if i would like this
Remember that Sweden almost joined the central powers to take back Finland from Russia but it never happened
That would have been a terrible thing to happen
11:13 that's inaccurate in scope.
The historical economic growth rate before the industrial revolution was 10% per century. After the industrial revolution, the growth rate accelerated to over 100% per century. Pax Americana didn't exist until the end of WWII, yet the GDP per capita of the world grew from $1154 in 1820 to $2640 in 1913 (a 128% increase), and then $3,656 in 1950 (another 40% increase). This is not historically normal. World GDP per capita during the pax Romana is estimated at $808 and European GDP at $997 (Italy was of course the wealthiest region in the world, with a GDP per capita of $1400). In comparison to that, Italian GDP had halved, European GDP had declined by a quarter, and world GDP had declined by about 4%) in the first millennium. So, the change by modern standards was minimal.
All numbers plucked from en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_regions_by_past_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita and updated to 2020 cost of living.
So then the sample isn't a single period of unusual stability, it's two centuries of industrialization (and make no mistake, industry and technology are effectively fungible terms). The world actually *has* changed, and while many historical tropes are as applicable to modern times as to early modern or medieval times, many aren't.
He was saying we still follow the same rules we still are more or less the same creatures and I mean look at the unrest of the past 50 years in America 68 and 2020 so far should be prime examples
Don't even get me started on America's regional identities sure minor but so was the Galo-roman identity and now alongside a SMALL German influence now it's french
Were more stable than before but not completely stable
Another thing look at the growth of mezo and south America Brazil and Mexico combined has a higher population than the hole US sure there in the American sphere of influence but keep that in mind were not untouchable were just really high up but there is the saying the bigger you are the harder you fall.
@@Newbmann even the skeleton of the American economy is massive by historical standards. If you strip the US down to agriculture, mining, and some basic services overlaid on top, we'd still have a GDP per capita above $5,000.
@@SacredCowStockyards yeah I know the American economy is massive but it's not like other counties are not comparable I mean hell even Japan who's country is roughly only the size of the east coast and habitable parts are much smaller than that has a economy which can compete in some sectors to the ENTIRE continent of the US
The scale is the only thing that changed.
@@Newbmann For fairness, there should be added that economic boom in Japan was only possible because of American lead order. Japan didn’t have to go in war for resources. America put everyone into one system, so random Japanese can exchange their yens for dollar, buy resources in Africa, buy oil in middle east to power their industry, then make stuff with higher value, and then sell it to America for even more dollars, and then use those dollar to buy more resources … it’s great feedback loop.
.
If America was more protectionist and didn’t allow Japanese imports. Japanese couldn’t sell, they couldn’t get dollars. They couldn’t buy more resources, new machines, more oil. Their whole growth would have to be internal. Which would take much more longer.
.
And if America was more imperialist and instead of global economic system, they just created another colonial empire, with emphasis they want to keep resources for themselves. Then random Japanese couldn’t go to Africa to buy resources. They would have to go to America to buy finished product, high on value added chain. Which would mean that Japan would never industrialize.
.
It’s not just important comparing GDP of countries. It’s also important on what bases is that GDP created. What exactly needs to happen so someone can makes his economic output. We can look on 2 countries and see they have both same agricultural output. But one has winter with freezing and snow which acts as good pesticide. Other needs more pesticide which is manufactured from oil. And also transportation of said pesticide requires oil. Then suddenly, one of these 2 countries is reliant on availability and price of oil. And if this availability of oil changes, agricultural output in these 2 countries won’t be same.
@@stafer3 yeah I know I was not saying the us is bad or something along those lines or Japan is somehow better I know Japan is all about imports and there agricultural base is tiny like really tiny due to the amount of mountains in Japan.
I was saying the US is not untouchable or leaps and bounds ahead of everyone else China would have probably been a better comparison all things considered since we'll actually similar size and similar GDP rather than huge and possible to compare in SOME SECTORS IE entertainment but stuff like natural resources or food Japan is closer to Belgium than the US unlike China which is comparable is almost everything _Oil and high tech products.
I also could have used other examples of extreme growth such as India who at the rate there growing at within about 20 years will be on par with the US.
Currently due to the covid lock down the US isn't even the largest economy in the world.
7:42 : I wouldn't say that poles viewied being part of the Austro - Hungarian empire as one of their golden ages. That's literally one of our dark ages.
And about that. That is just some Allied propaganda that we opressed these minorities THIS much.
No don't belive the anti Habsbug Propaganda, everybody likt the Habsburg Overlords.😂😂
The Germans didn't care for the Habsburgers either. They wanted alliance, NOT rulership!
A far more likely alternate history would be if Britain had joined on the side of the central powers.
It was a close ran thing as to weather Britain would even join the war in 1914.
Before the war, Britain had a very good relationship with Germany. The Naval arms race had died down and they were good trading partners.
Britain had a history of fighting with both Russia and France and Germany was debatably a more natural ally.
Had Britain joined the war on the side of the central powers or even just not joined at all, then the war would have swing in the other direction.
Britain fielded the biggest army on the allied side by 1918 and it's naval blockade of the central powers was one of the biggest deciding factors in Germany's armistice in 1918.
The American army's arrival in late 1917 had very little to do with the outcome of WW1. It certainly shortened the war by a long way, but it wasn't the deciding factor.
Good points, but to be fair, when it comes to alternative history, you simply have to give a "what if" beginning and then start making assumptions. Maybe your version is more likely, but the author of the video was assuming the first few years of the war didn't change, only the outcome. Everything he says after that is pure conjecture anyway. Your version would make a COMPLETELY different video as everything he said would be different due to the Britain and Commonwealth being on the victorious side of things - not to mention, in your version, the U.S. never would have gotten involved.
@Steven G even george V was cousins with tsar and kaiser. or they were closely related
The Americans were a moral boost to the allies and psychological shock to the Germans. Their true worth was being put into the front lines to free up more experienced British and French troops to attack in the 1918 victories.
So Britain and Germany as allies would make more sense. It should've happened for me.
Ok cool but like can you do a video about what if my dad returned after going to buy milk
@KILLERxPRO99 Gay
Unrealistic, even for this channel.
ha ha dad left me joke!
The universe would collapse if that happened.
Germany was always the underdog in both wars. As a german i truely think that our nations would have been better of than they did in our timeline here. I can even imagine an even further Situation where - at some point of extension - some parts of germany would break apart from it ( or try it ) to build a new nation. After all, before world war 1, bavaria, baden, swabia, and others, they all had their own armies. That did in fact hinder germany from time to time in the first war. I think, if germany won the first war, states would compete for ownership over the new regions, and this could in fact lead to inner-german wars. yeah yeah, the old warrior tribe instincts x)
Germans do tend to favor disunity and decentralized government when put in massive governmental systems . Examples Roman Empire and the HRE. All of Germany pre unification.
What if Guatemala won the Sino-Japanese War and conquered Siberia?
....
excuse me
@@stormy9557 What if Guatemala won the Sino-Japanese War and conquered Siberia?
Then Poland would've conquered all of Europe
@@AshGamer007 im fine with that
Let me simulate this scenario in the totally accurate military history game of HOI4
...
Yep, communist Brazil would have conquered most of Europe after Luxembourg defeated Germany but were unable to win against the Fascist Russia, giving South Africa the opportunity to conquer the whole continent. Now, after annexing all Central America, Guatemala launched an attack against the Communist US, still weak because of the great depression, which called his ally Japan to the war who was still fighting Russia with Brazil but ultimately losing the war and all of his conquest in China and Siberia which Guatemala annexed for themselves. This let the world to only three major powers, with Guatemala and Brazil fighting in America and Russia while South Africa secures Africa and expands into the Middle East and Australia.
If you ask what happened to UK, Italy and France, the first released all colonies after the civil war which let the island to a pre-UK state, Italy lost the war against Ethiopia as usual and did nothing else, and France surrendered to Luxembourg with in the first 3 weeks after allying Germany against them.
2:41: Finally, SOMEONE said it!
And what was that ? The UK doesn’t want a united Europe , No, we don’t want a German Europe - that’s what we don’t won’t , because how did it go before ? Moron
Nah we were interfering with European politics for years trying to keep them divided. Thats part of the reason we got involved in the 30 years war.
It's common knowledge that britain wanted a divided europe, so did russia, so did every mainland nation that didnt want to get annexed by a greater power
@@DongusKongus Ye a divided Europe meant that the British could just focus on the colonies and keep its largest economy in the world.
The french were brave in ww1...yea...i think a lot of people know that...the memes is the second world war
I love your videos, one of my favourite channels!!
One thing that occurred to me near the end is it is hard to imagine the rest of the Soviet Union holding together without that Volga region to administer it
One possibility I could also see happening in this timeline is German-dominated Europe becoming more democratized, with Germany itself becoming a somewhat tame-down country, kind of like the modern UK or modern/near-future America, with it's satellite states becoming more powerful, like a post-war France or Britain, similar to our modern China. Germany prior to WWI was quite a democratized state, even with the monarchy and its Prussian-inspired military tradition, that I could see more democratic elements developing within Germany in the years following the First World War, with the generals slowly giving power back to the Reichstag and the Kaiser becoming a constitutional monarch like our present-day monarchies.
Agreed. The extreme movements on right and left wouldnt have gained their momentum plus the Kaiserreich still intact could keep them in check. But the Social Democrats, Liberals and christian democratic parties were developing strong in the Weimar Republic, without the humiliation of defeat it is not feasible that people would have turned to extremists. BUt they still would have turned to demanding more participation.
I think this result is very likely.
Indeed. This is the most plausible possibility. I can imagine a democratic Austria-Hungarian kingdom and democratic Ottoman Empire
I believe that instead of just annexing Eastern Europe, the Germans already had plans to install German aristocracies in countries like Lithuania , Poland Finland or Ukraine, of course these countries would be puppet regimes but would not be annexed inside Germany proper but a German monarchy puppet of the Kaiser , like was planned to do with Belgium
Edit: you can’t imagine how much I was waiting for this remake
Actually, Finland would be a Kingdom this day if the Central Powers would’ve won, we even elected a king (we were a kingdom for a couple days) and it was of german origins, but due to the entente’s victory, public opinion soon changed towards republic. We would’ve been an independent kingdom and not a puppet
Saint of Gambling TV yes , I’ve read about that, and also there were some finish soldiers in the German army
Pedro Leuenberger indeed there were, in both wars but more in WW1 than WW2 due to our own wars against the soviets.
Saint of Gambling TV yes, it’s a shame that Germany loose ww1 indeed
Pedro Leuenberger yeah, we wouldn’t have had nazis and the world or to be more precise, europe would be more unified today
7:43 More specifically, the Polish language and culture, oppressed in the Russian and German Empires, flourished in Galicia. The economy was not so good though. It was worse than in the Russian partition, not to mention the German one. Also, I don't think it was a golden age for us - I mean, Poland wasn't even on the map.
16:38 How did Italy disunify into two countries? Are we going back to the Kingdom of Two Sicilies?
Also, why did Serbia get Montenegro? I thought they both got swallowed by Greater Bulgaria.
I do NOT know why he named it 'Apulia'. The capital would likely be either Napoli or Palermo, not in Apulia.
Because it's an American student who's learning history in the idea that his country was important in European affairs before world war 2 (I mean, just look up to what they where doing and how they were equiped and you will see) . Italy and France wanted to end the war and mutiny started, for a lot of reasons, but if the war lasted a bit longer France would have turned the tides because they came up with far greater and more advanced strategy than ever before, witch made them become the greatest military power on earth before the disaster of 1939 due to backward military ideas and the 3rd republic existing as it was.
In fact, the putch of kapp would have likely triggered sooner and during the war, because Germany certainly had less mutiny (even if it was still huge) but the fact is the French population was "revanchiste" while Germany's population was on the verge of a communist revolt like the one in Russia. In the spring/summer of 1918, some German generals already admitted defeat, like Ludendorff, who presumably said "the French truck won over the German railroad" Wich was a good way to describe the situation. If Germany wanted to win the war, (ignoring the consequences put up in this video are far fetched) it would need to have Russia never entering the war or giving back alsace Lorraine to France in exchange for giving up it's alliance (Wich would have probably failed). So, in the end without an unexpected alliance like the USA, Germany probably never wins WW1 because her poor diplomacy with the whole West was her real demise.
@Plamen Stoev this doesn't change the mecanization difference, or anything I pointed out. Having a lot of soldiers won't stop the combination of the three forces France started to put on, it wouldn't make any difference in front of a Renault ft and what by that point would the German do against an army with FCM 2C , integrated tank divisions, greater supplies lines and motorised infantry? The war would only drag on to the point where the ottomans fell, then Bulgaria, Austria (Wich was crushed by combined offensive, some Frenchman came really near Vienna at some point), and Germany would have to stretched their line even more while the whole Balkan's nationalists are supporting their foes, being absolutely encircled and unable to get the oil supplies needed to match France. There is more delay to the German defeat but it certainly happen.
@Plamen Stoev well I thought I was argumenting with someone actually interested in history, but it seems I'm talking to someone Witch is just a strong German nationalist, so much so than giving me even clues or whatever evidence of a possible German victory didn't even came to his mind. I feel sorry that your country was born and feast on useless pride and the death of other Europeans. But maybe when the German government will be replaced , France and Germany will be able to be brothers again.
@@Fourbix USA gave the entente alot of morale, without them the French troops would be in terrible conditions while the Germans at one point could take time to fully resupply.
If Bulgaria won, they’d definitely take Thessaloniki. That’s the main city they wanted and was one of the causes of the Second Balkan War.
0:22 -- Picture is from WW2, based on uniforms and .30 Carbine.
0:15 Call me a map nazi but how did someone as informed about history as you mix sardinia and corsica
OK. You're a map nazi.
But it is inexcusable.
I did that in one of his previous videos :P
Where did Apulia come from? Wasnt mentioned in this video
@@madmarvshighwaywarrior2870 thumbnail
Glad you finally got around to making this timeline also I kinda wish this was as long as the what if Germany won ww2 timeline, this timeline honestly has more potential then the ww2 timeline.
1; Austria did not want Serbian land
2; Germany did not want Eastern Europe, it just created a bunch of puppet states
3; it didn’t want to annex Belgium, just take the German portions and leave it as a puppet
Ok what is your point this still imperialist expansion
Austria-Hungary didn’t occupy Romania in OTL, why would they in this TL?
Also, Japan declared war on the USA largely because the Philippines threatened their supply lines to the DEI.
Mainly, their reasoning for joining the Axis was because they were insulted, and wanted to prove that Japan was as good as the Europeans.
A-H did occupy Romania together with Germany and Bulgaria. Why would they do it? Maybe for the same reason Nazi Germany wanted it as an ally - oil? And Romania was a pain in the ass, even launching an offensive which was thrown back by Germany and Hungary.
@@stefanragler9584 They occupied about 70 % of Romania but didn't manage a full occupation.
@@ionutunroman7525 good to know...
@@ionutunroman7525 because romania capitulated before full occupation
I didn't watch this video but that giant Germany map is *beautiful* :)
10:30 would it be similar to the Japanese shogunate system when the shogun held more power?
Yes! Finally! Germany winning WW1! Never clicked so fast on an alternate history video.
@Plamen Stoev I clicked because of Austria-Hungary surviving
@Plamen Stoev Personally I don't think so since a New EU would be formed by Germany and we would be closely tied together, there wouldn't be a war only the possibility of Bulgaria joining as another republic to the Federation
The allies are better
How would central powers victory look like for Finland ?
-Finland would have german prince for a king
-Finland would conquer all of Karelia and Kola peninsula with arms and backing from Germany
-as there would not be league of nations Finland and Sweden would go to war over the Åland islands
-Finland would win and take länsipohja as there is big Finnish population
-Finland would go to war with Norway as they would want to have Ruija (Finnmark)
And Simo Hayha also exists in this timeline
@@madmarvshighwaywarrior2870 ofcourse
I doubt Finland would have done any of them. Germany already drove the Swedes away from Åland. Otherwise Finland wouldn't have had the resources to attack Sweden, and Mannerheim didn't want German troops in Finland in the first place, so asking help from them would have been out of the question and too risky in any case, a German king or not. Norway seems even more far-fetched. Finland would have already had plenty of Barents sea coastline in this scenario, no need to steal from Norway. Finland had just got indepedent at that point, it wouldn't be jeopardised so easily.
Why would they have a German king in this timeline?
The war might even have been won without Germans invading Belgium as Britain only joined the war effort when Belgium was invaded
They had to go through Belgium to get into France quickly and do an end run around the French troops defending at the border. If Albert had agreed to let the Germans march through and even offered troops to escort them then Britain would have had no causus belli. Even if Parliament decided to invent one, the quicker invasion of France that comes from not having to attack Belgian positions allows the Wehrmacht to enter Paris unopposed and France would be out of the war before Britain could enter.
Rudyard has stated that he believes that the government would reform in Lyon or someplace and keep fighting. I really don't think so. Twice in our world the Germans captured Paris, both times France surrendered, so why would a hypothetical third time be any different? For all intents, Paris is France. It is more than just the seat of government, it's everything that the whole concept of the nation is based on. The rest of the country is just land that Paris rules over.
Change that and it leaves Russia fighting alone, once Serbia capitulates, against the Germans, Austrians, and Ottomans along with whoever wanted to join the pig-pile. Japan? Sure. Russia is gonna lose badly so they might as well get in on the fun of carving off huge chunks of bear. Finland? Probably.
What the map would look like in 1916 would have Ukraine, Byelorussia, and the Baltic States as independent German puppets, Finland possibly taking St Petersburg to close off Russia completely from the Baltic, Japan taking the whole of the Pacific coast of Siberia and going as far west as Lake Baikal, the Ottomans taking not just the Caucasus but also Turkic central Asia, modern Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan.
Lots of stuff ahead from there but I won't go into it here.
Saw the map of "how" and thought: Well, at least we have the crown titles of byzantium, but we´re not dumbass enough to enter in a goddam global war.
I think the Balkans at least would be much less of a powder keg. They borders were redrawn based on allied interest instead of ethnic borders and hence the problems. The allied nations in the Balkans would probably turn to the axis since theyr main reasoning for siding with the allies was wanting to go vs Bulgaria. Bulgaria wanted to expand to the teritories that at the time were a a Bulgarian ethnic majoryty and thats more or less the map shown here. With a much stronger Bulgaria that was historicly aligned with Germany and axis on all sides countries like Romania Serbia and Greece would all turn pro Germany so i dont think they would be directly occupied since that would cause massive revolts. The Balkans had a strong independence mentality since they had a poor experience beeing conquered by the Ottoman empire for centuries. Macedonia wouldnt even exist since most of the population self identified as Bulgarian pre 1913.
"Macedonia wouldn't even exist since most of the population self identified as Bulgarian pre 1913."
Greece breaths a heavy sigh of relief lol.
@@lhaviland8602 No, because Macedonia would be in Bulgaria and Greece had unfounded claims on the territory.
17:19 I didn't know that the EU would formed earlier than in our timeline
I think Japan would've still gone authoritarian, as their economy collapsed after WW1 due to everyone going back to work in the West and no longer buying Japanese goods. They essentially had the GD start in 1918/19, so I think they'd still be on the track to the same outcome in this timeline as in ours.
Agreed, at this point in history Japan was on an inevitable rise to authoritarianism and a crash course with the West I feel.
better than north korea insurgence at least
How did that cause authoritarianism. 1920s was period of taisho democracy. Please respond
@@mint8648 Purely economically, they had a chronic recession after the economic boom of WW1, bank failures, and natural disasters. Granted, the onset of the GD in 1929 really set it off, but the slow slide began in the 20s.
@@ChefHathaway so what explains taisho democracy?
17:38
In this world the Indian subcontinent would probably not look like this
It would either be completely unified or divided into more than a dozen nations
Explain your reasoning
@@mackycabangon8945 one of the biggest reasons india got its independence in 1947 was because the british had been teared by the nazis . There military capability was needed to be replaced. The freedom forces had a chance . But you see , in the 'British raj' Pakistan and Bangladesh were part of India. The muslim demand for a seperate country went main stream in the late 1930s. If britain had been difeated in ww2 they probably would have lost the subcontinent in the 20s. And it would probably be even larger as it would contain Pakistan and Bangladesh and parts of other countries as well.
@@just_some_random_guy3133 except thatd result in a massive civil war because muslims wanted their own countries and there were already militias and resistances being formed. Theres no way India wouldve stayed the same size as the british raj after the british left, its either Pakistan and Bangladesh being made or it all exploding into different states like before the mughals
@@just_some_random_guy3133 If the Axis powers had won WW2 the Japanese earmarked India as part of their new empire
@@saimalianwer7740 the muslims and hindus had been living in peace for a long time, the main factor was nationalism and anti-colonialism. It was only the Muslim league party which pushed for independence
Sometimes I wonder how much crack Althist had before making these thumbnails
At 0:10 what is that board game called? It looks sooo awesome!
I wanna know to.
Imperial Frontiers by Nightingale games, made by the creator of Axis and Allies.
Whatifalthist thanks for the reply! I did think it looked like something made by the makers of axis and allies. Thanks for telling us! And great video by the way!
I enjoy this channel. I write "what if" scenario as a hobby
That last map looks like the setup of the world in the book 1984 in broad strokes.
The problem with how World War II ended for the US has very little to do with the world we have today and much more to do with the fact that we suffered very little in either War. That gave us the idea that we were invincible and promoted the military industrial complex and another wave of not quite us colonization
16:22 *Heavy Finnish breathing intensifies*
13:25 I immediately thought of India when he said that and boom! Right after that he himself said India.
Scary coincidence. India is really becoming tyrannical gradually.
India will be alright as long as they don't beef burgers and samosas.
@@trndsttr7585 “they don’t beef burgers and samosas”?
This is, I believe, the third video you've made about this concept.
2nd
@@WhatifAltHist Well there was many ww1 central powers victories in your old videos
4.00 Without the US in the war the Germans would never have been in a rush to use their 'new' troops freed up from Russia'.
No, you completely underestimate the desperate situation Germany was in at the time. The British naval blockade (a war crime of great proportions) was literally starving Germany to death. Around a million civilians died due to it. The final German push in the summer of 1918 came to a halt not because of Allied resistance, but due to famished German troops looting the French countryside. Internally Germany was also on the brink of revolution in 1918. Even if the Germans had captured Paris, the Royal Naval blockade would have carried on, and the best the Germans could have hoped for was to negotiate an honourable draw.
The best chance for a German victory was passed up in 1916 when they decided to throw the kitchen sink at Verdun, rather than utilise all available resources on defeating the creaking Russian Empire.
No ww2 economic boom might mean that the US wouldn't be nearly the country it is today, perhaps not even a world power. The idea of the nuclear family, and the culture surrounding the 50s and 60s, would be completely different. Nuclear weapons might not have even been invented, or a World War might have been fought over something completely different, resulting in even more World Wars. It would be a completely different world than the one we know today.
Loved the video!
Since you said you specialise in Medieval History it would be nice for you to tackle certain what ifs of the era:
-What if Genoa became the dominant trade republic instead of Venice?
-What if Emperor Go-Daigo succesfully abolished the Shogunate in the 14th century?
-What if Clovis converted to Arianism instead of Nicean Christianity?
Also: What if Napoleon accepted the peace treaty of 1814?(the one with the harsher terms)
The trade rivalry between geneo and Venice is quite a thing, they all were close to beating each other economically, Geneo had territory/ports north of the caucuses and had the favour of many major powers while Venice had to fight off Austria for so long
@@ethanbrinkman7110 specialy when you consider that Genoa had the upper hand for most of the 13th century, constantly beating Pisa and getting very profitable deals with Eastern Rome after the 4th crusade.
Me last night: Hey this channel is great, let's binge-watch.
Me finding this video: Video about WW1? Can't wait to hear what he has to say about my country!
Whatifalthist: 7:02 -_-
I mean it's kinda a compliment
I think he was making fun of Austria-Hungary
This channel is grossly biased against Serbia
@N Gaming no
@N Gaming no. Keep living a lie
good on you for shouting out a small channel!
17:40, So at some point the Germans would have given German New Guinea to Australia?
Why not we would have half of africa
When the Mongols and Manchus turned Chinese they pretty much moved into China. You would not get that with Japan, most of them and their leaders would have stayed on the home islands, people and leadership more isolated from Chines influence.
Damn that's a thicc Germany in the thumbnail.
5:32 I would love to know where you get this map from. Are these Pan-German league claims? I have never heard of an Imperial German ambition for the annexation of Burgund. My understanding is that under the most extreme suggestions, they wanted to follow the Meuse River line in the North, annexing Liege, Namur, Verdun and Sedan. The border would then vere Eastward towards Nancy, and Spinal and Belfort.
However your map seems to include cities further west, such as Montbeliard, Besancon, Vesoul, perhaps even Saint-Dizier and Chaumont? Where does this map come from?
The left map at 4:30 is wrong, in 1914 Elsass-Lothringia was part of Germany.
Germany lookin THICC
The Japanese imperium is larger
@@greyscaleb1537 as it should.
Suggestions:
What if the Vikings traveled to West Africa?
What if West Africa Industrialized on it's own?
What if India converted to Nestorian Christianity?
What if DC and 5 US territories were states?
What if Carthage moved to West Africa during the Punic Wars?
What if the Ottomans colonized the Americas?
What if the Mali colonized the Americas?
What if the Ottoman colonized Australia?
What if the Hashamites were given Arabia?
What if the US had Prussian Monarchy?
What if the Moorish kingdoms united?
What if the Mali had a big Jewish Population?
What if Operation Anvil happened?
What it Operation Anvil and Overlord happened at the same time?
What if France and Austria United?
What if China colonized Kenya?
What if the Crusaders reached East Africa to kick out the Muslims?
What if the Ottomans conquered Iran?
What if the Russian took control of Istanbul?
What if the Ottomans conquered Morocco?
What if the Normans conquered Egypt?
What if Japan and Ethiopia made an alliance before WW2?
What if Great Britain and Portugal united?
"What if the US had Prussian Monarchy" THIS THIS THIS THIS HTIS
@@Maximooch Thanks
@@OhSanjiBoi industrialization was something unique to Europe, mainly due to small populations for greater ressources, there is no way an african or asian could industrialize in its own very way
@@saguntum-iberian-greekkons7014 Both Ethiopia and Japan industrialized on their own.
Black and Quirkless
Eh, partially in the case of Japan(+Korea). Not really in the case of Ethiopia. Ethiopia and Japan were 2 major regional powers that were able to effectively learn from the failures, defeats, “second hand” wisdom, acquired knowledge regarding foreign State actors, philosophies+belief systems, economics, et al....of their larger more powerful neighboring States that battled and/or aggressively negotiated with ‘Western’/European empires(Mid Eastern Islamic nations, Egypt and other Sub-Saharans in Ethiopia’s case. China in Japan+Korea’s case). One major lesson both regional powers absorbed, with Japan being the one who channeled and actualized the best, was that nationalism and mild yet appropriated European type ‘modernization’+industrialization of their country were necessary if they planned to keep encroaching ‘Western’ powers at bay. Both regional powers had success going down the routes they did for sure yet I doubt, that without overseas foreign influences+re-appropriations and European socio-cultural+economic and military contacts, Ethiopia and Japan(+Korea) would have been able to become as they were 100 years ago.
For number of reasons, 2 of them being:
- the resource availability+acquisition processes and material conditions in Ethiopia(+the rest of East Africa) and Japan(+Korea)
and
- the cultures and general nature+inclinations and pre-dispositions of Ethiopians(who were mostly content with their subsistence agriculture and/or semi-arid desert pastoralist lifestyles plus being ruled by a near absolute Christian monarch) and of the Japanese+Koreans(who created astonishing, great, and consistently violent yet stagnant feudal states, with many aspects mirroring Imperial China, with little need for foreign trade, industrialization, etc....
4:36 Why does that 1914 map have France controlling Alsace-Lorraine?
I think he’s es don g it just to troll us.
BloodRider 1914 He sounds American. Everywhere's just foreign to him.
I don't recognize the game at 0:14 but it's not WW1. It has Prussia listed as a nation and the Ottoman Empire extending all the way to Algeria. Also the ships are all 3 master sailing ships instead of Dreadnought style battleships. I think that's more likely that that's Napoleonic era.
I don't know i don't think this would happen even ambassadors of the austro-hangarian empire and Germany condemned the armenian genocide at the time and seeing other Christian genocides done like the assyrian genocide greek genocide lebanese famine would make the public view of the Ottoman Empire negative and also seeing how oil rich the Ottoman Empire would be unlike Germany would probably make Germany attack it or conspire to attack it with the support of the public
The young Turks were sceptical of nazi Germany in ww2, but stayed out, I don’t think the Turks would do much expect maybe attack former territory they owned, cause that was their plan during ww1, so I think they would have more sympathies with kaiser Germany but also a lot of stuff can happen in 20 years so no one knows how anything would go, fun to speculate though
That's not true. In our timeline, Germany, France, Russia and Britain didn't do really anything to stop the genocide. Many German officials were aware of what was going on but thought the Ottoman Empire as allies were more important. In this timeline, the Armenian genocide would've been carried out far into the 1920s. Armenia with its small population of only 1 million people, wouldn't be able to defend against the Ottomans. By the 40s, well over 50% of people in Armenia would've been Turkish colonists. The sad thing is because of the winning side, the Armenian genocide would've been more destructive and less recognized.
Metsarebuff 22 but Turkey attacked Armenia in the 1920’s, for a few years pushing into Armenia proper
@Metsarebuff 22 No this was AFTER WW1. This was the Treaty of Sevres in the 1920s. The Ottomans viewing the christians as inferior and as an enemy would set up puppet governments in Armenia, Georgia and Azerbaijan.
@Metsarebuff 22 the turkish Government of the Grand National Assembly
Happened after the Ottoman Empire but since the Ottoman Empire won it wouldn't happen
13:41 wow, can you explain the "Text" in the Bavaria-Austria border? Is it a people group? An underground society? The overlords of mankind?
It’s where Mr Text lives only real niggas know him
In a world where the US remains isolationist throughout both world wars, that would lead to the US being more Germanic culturally and possibly linguistically,seeing that prior to WWI Germanic culture was rising to be dominant in the US. So that would mean the US will be tied to Germany, and I would say it would be unlikely that Canada and Australia and New Zealand would want to form an alliance with the US.
A related video, but I sometimes wonder what if Victoria has survived to the outset of the war? She was very pro Germany while Edward was pro France and changed up Englands political allegiances when he inherited the crown. I'd be interested in seeing a take on how things might have played out if instead of being allied with France in WWI, it was instead allied with Germany.
Video idea: What if there was a Celtic Union that formed in the middle ages, similar to the Hanseatic League
the celts were no where near as unified as they'd need to be to form such a thing.
@@bleddynwolf8463 you would be wrong there, the kingdom of Dal Riata was at one stage the most powerful kingdoms in Britain, they dominated the wool, fish and timber trade of northern Europe which were contrary to popular belief quite valuable goods l. You have to remember that the Celts were the most developed tribes in Europe after the Roman empire, the Germanic peoples only out competed them because they were closer to the Roman empire which lead them to be influenced and and develop better with Roman technology
@@harperwalsh9041 I suppose so, but depends on when your talking about, because after the roman empire their weren't that many Celts left. France became fudal and was gradually Romanized and Britain was invaded by the anglo-saxons. for a celtic union to form, British or French Celts would have to unite under 1 Celtic ruler, presumably before or during Roman occupation and unite them under a single banner. this would be hard because the tribal way of life the Celts lived under would make unification difficult, not to mention poor boats in which to cross the channel before Romans, and during
Romans, they would have to fight the Romans, which if Bodica proved anything, was near impossible. the reason Bodica failed against an army a 10th it's size was because of superior armour and organization. for the Celts to use armour in battle would go against their core belifs. the only way I could see it happening is a celt getting really rich, buying a tonne of mercenerys, supprise attacking the Romans kicking them out of Britain and celtic France, hopping the natives accept your rule and them staving of the Romans for the next few centurys. provided this happened at 1 of Romes weaker points in time.
@@bleddynwolf8463 well the main reason the Celts were wiped out from mainland Europe was because the land they inhabited was predominantly flat farmland which they cultivated making it easy for the Roman's to invade while the Germans inhabited the thick dense forests of northern Europe making it difficult to invade. Your wrong about how the Celts were disunited, yes there were various kingdoms that operated by themselves but when a larger force came to power they would unite together to try and defeat it, take Gaul (France) for instance, when the Roman's invaded Gaul it was quite a unified place however unfortunately some of the kingdoms allied with the Romans to further bring down the Gaulish occupation.
@@bleddynwolf8463 btw Celtic technology such as their boats were actually quite good, actually better than the Roman's, the Celts arrived in iceland and the faroe islands long before the Vikings inhabited them. However much like the vikings in Greenland they died out without proper trade to the areas
14:56 I'd argue the US and UK were not as tied together as we are now. War Plan Red is just the exact scenario for Thucydides Trap where the US is starting to rival the UK and would potential end up on opposite sides.
Hey whatifalthist, when you do videos like this one, I would really like you at the end to explain what would happen to this type of empire in the future? will it collapse, if so, how?
btw really thinking on joining your patreon
edit: I am now a patron
The reason I don't talk about it is that I don't know. I stop these videos when I know my predictions stop being accurate.
That's alternate-future tho.
Thats too much, its becoming sci-fi
@@WhatifAltHist predictions will never be accurate, thats why theyre called predictions