Many thanks to Ridge Wallet for sponsoring today's video. Pick up your own right here: www.ridge.com/MONSIEURZ Use code: MONSIEURZ for 10% off your order. We have new videos every Wednesday at 2:30pm EST. Don't miss them, and please like & share the video if you enjoyed it! Become a channel sponsor: ua-cam.com/channels/QR_kmeb0lBEk1Zj_9LWDHA.htmljoin Join our "Discord Server": www.usofz.com/forum Pick up a copy of our novel: www.amazon.com/Am-Uncle-Sam-Dean-Mosley-ebook/dp/B07WNG95QH
Bullshit. In mein kampf Hitler specifically said that he considered slavs suburban. There was also general plan Ost. As for Soviets there was 1920 polish-soviet war, so poland could be a little distrustful towards Soviets. So don't pin blame for ww2 on poland
Monsieur Z Could you do a scenario if a nuclear war happened sometime in 1980s ? I know you did one for the Cuban missile crisis, but the 1980s is when nuclear war would be the worst since at least 12,000 nukes would be detonated.
Euri Dc You do know that in a scenario like that the ones with nukes would be Germany and the USSR? They would be at war and invest heavily into nuclear research. It would simply be a WW2 with Germany at USSR’s place (and actually a Cold War may not happen as there would most likely be American presence in Germany during and after the war so they would become like Franco in our timeline).
Germany: We'll give you military supplies, but we're gonna need Danzig and the corridor. Poland: But we need sea access! Germany: Don't worry, we'll give you Lithuania. Lithuania: Hol' up... hwAT?
@ボイス If Germany could infect Poland with Nationalism to get them to be on Germany's side against the Russians, no doubt they'd stir up irredentist claims to the rival of the PLC.
What if Emperor Trajan became Emperor at 18, this would be great because he was known too the Romans as “the best emperor” and it is famously known that he would have done even more if he began his campaigns at a way younger age. Trajan even said something similar too: “I wish I began my campaigns around the same age as Alexander”, so I’d love to hear what you think he’d do.
What if the 2 term limits as president were always a law and not just a tradition? (This would greatly affect WWI and WWII as Teddy nor FDR couldn't run for third terms just before each World War)
I would say that an easy way to have war between the West and Soviets would have been to have Trotsky leading the Soviets instead of Stalin. Trotsky's ideals of World Revolution were extremely antagonistic to the French and British Empires, Trotsky also wanted for the Soviets to crush Poland and then keep on going right to he home of Marx (Germany) so it's likely the Germans would be willing to work with the West.
If Trotsky had gained power and kept his ideals we wouldn't seen USSR after 1925-7. Because of the "war communism" politics. Stalin made a great job to hold the red empire at least to the end of 20th century. Sorry for my bad Ënglish(((
Trotsky was literally the Hitler of the Soviet Union. He pressed for War against all the Enemies of the Revolution. And would have killed more than Stalin
What if the Germans were kind to the Belarussian and Ukrainian people they occupied in WWII? That could have made the whole of these regions aid the Germans against the Soviets right?
@@Wickedonezz In the Nazi heirarchy Italians were considered less industrious but superior in the arts. Slavs were considered subhuman. If the government of Germany is a Nazi one Slavs are going to be exploited or killed, and the 7-10 million dead Ukrainians due to the war would probably agree with that.
@@jamesgiblin9134 my thinking is they treated them so badly it caused them to resent the Germans. If they even pretended to be kind I'm sure they'd convince plenty of them to fight with the germans. Or at the very least resist the Soviets.
@@kaiserwilhelmii674 The thing is on a geopolitical level it is rather hard to pretend to be kind. And Germany really didn't have the resources to spare on being kind, even if the government was inclined to.
You seem to be forgetting that one reason why Finland was able to effectively fight the Soviets in the Winter War was because Finland has a lot of hard-to-navigate terrain, which prevented the Soviets from adequately bringing their superior numbers to bear. The same is not true of Poland, whose only significant defensible terrain feature is the Vistula river. Given the opportunistic nature of the Soviet attack on Poland in our timeline, in this timeline, I doubt a Soviet attack on Poland would come in 1939. More likely, they would have wanted to give the Red Army the opportunity to complete the program of training and modernisation which it had been undergoing in the wake of the Winter War (which had revealed the weaknesses of the Soviet officer corps, and which had triggered significant advances in tank development). Mid-1942 is probably the earliest date at which Stavka might have been willing to authorise another major offensive campaign.
I can’t see germany dropping “Lebensraum” ideology in your timeline. It was a vital part of national socialism, feeding on the feeling of insecurity of the booming city population migrated from the countryside, and the general ridiculously overpopulated German west and center (as we can even see today). So from a nazi point of view, they had to expand. Maybe a British-German treaty about the surrendering of Tangamjika and Namibia for naval disarmament would have been concluded?
I personally simply can't see this happen in a world where hitler survived. He considert the Poles as subhuman, and allthough i do belive that Germany would try to aid Poland against the Soviets (Slavic > Judea-Bolshevik-Slavs), i cannot see hiter and the 3 Nation find a compromise that they all would agree on, especially Poland and Germany. Maybe it could be possible though if Hitler died after 1934 and a more "liberal" Nazi would somehow have become führer, rather aiming to slowly and steadly Germanize the Slavs instead of a agressive Anti-Slavic approach.
If we were to assume that Germany never directly conquers Poland (to avoid WWII), it seems only logical that Germany's next step would be to secure it's immediate neighboring lands, and bring down the Soviets while they were weak. Though I can't speak of Hitler specifically, there was a growing respect amongst the German higher command for non-Germanic allies who both cooperated effectively, and contributed with dedication (Hungary and Romania), given Poland and Finland would essentially become proxies as the Romanians and Hungarians had, relations between the Germans and Poles could reach a greater degree of mutual respect, remember that as far as the public is concerned, Germany isn't manipulating Poland, rather, it appears the two are finally collaborating against as shared enemy. While the Germans would likely still pursue additional living space for "surplus Germans", conditions in Europe would likely drive them to seek overseas positions instead, probably in South America, where ethnic Germans already held a strong presence in parts of Brazil.
@@MonsieurDean ; I could see Germany attempting to engage in dominion of some parts of South America (Argentina, Uruguay, and Paraguay) in finances and economics; however any direct military or rapid political action would be off the table due to the American Monroe Doctrine and thanks to the Washington / London 5/9 power treaties the US Navy was tied with Britain as the world's most powerful Navy. Even if Germany focused near the entirety of it's military production on naval assists the US would outproduce them in a matter of months. The only place where the Germans could engage in direct military "Lebensraum" would be Saudi Arabia, which considering Germany's need for oil in near proximity would be a likely target first.
Zarathustra you ever read Mein Kampf? It even says settling Eastern Europe is more favourable than reclaiming the African possessions because the climate is more suitable for Nordic race or so
Zarathustra and the “Danzig or war” thing was just another game of appeasement with the British. if the western powers agreed to further German expansion, Poland would have been crippled and landlocked. If the brits agreed, the next step would have probably been Yugoslavia or even Alsace.
Ideas for alternate histories: What if Belgium never left the Netherlands (Benelux Union)? What if King William I of England produced an heir to the Dutch and English throne? What if Portugal became the primary Iberian power?
United Kingdom of the Netherlands would be an interesting topic indeed. I think the only viable scenario is one in which the Dutch manage to hold on to (most of) the Spanish Netherlands since the 80 years war, as Dutch independence and Belgian submission to the Spanish crown caused a wedge between the catholic south and protestant north's cultures, values and language. This could've happened as the Spanish were fighting the English, the French, Denmark, Sweden and colonizing the Americas, leading to a constant shortage of money(it's why they allowed captures cities to be sacked as payment). With Belgian industry (& later coal), Luxemburgian forests supplying endless wood for shipbuilding and Dutch argiculture, it would be a formidable power. Perhaps not as powerful as France or England, but certainly a force to be reckoned with, and probably one that's not as easily overrun as was the Dutch Republic by the French multiple times
What if Hitler didn't live long enough to come to power in Germany? Death in WW1, death during his attempted coup in 1923, death in prison, there are multiple ways this could have happened. Who would have come to power in Germany and how would that affect 20th century history?
@@Bishtpd The communists had a 20% share of the vote. Without Hitler, there are two realistic possibilities: 1. Germany reverts to democracy once Hindenburg dies. 2. A right-wing authoritarian regime similar to the one in Austria is established through Hindenburg's reserve powers (as Schleicher and von Papen intended). If number 2 came to pass, a war would probably have happened, albeit later than in OTL. I Germany had gotten a democratic government again, german foreign policy would have been mostly bickering about Danzig, trying to get the League of Nations to allow Danziig to rejoin Germany through a plebiscite.
I love the transition between 'Millions of people died and most of eastern Europe was under oppressive control' to 'Buy this wallet *in a Boston accent*'
Well Soviets agreed with Nazis to start WWII by signing ribentrop-molotov pact. They just got late 17 days. So in fact they did start WWII along with Hitler.
What issue is there exactly? Germany is essentially launching it's campaign against the Soviets but without the strain of a Western Front. In our timeline, Romania had a massive role in the South, including the battle of Stalingrad, and the Finns were making excellent progress in the North until Germany itself began to run out of steam. Add Poland to the mix, whose army was shaping up to be a very formidable power, and you have a recipe for success.
@@MonsieurDean Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the video. I appreciate your in-depth research, and all the topics covered. I actually proposed a similar scenario months ago on Axis History Forum, and was politely put down. Though I did gain some insight which I used to narrow my research. I linked it below. Truth is, Poland was simply not ready for a war. Its primary service aircraft were obsolete, its tanks too few in number and on the verge of being obsolete; modernization was still a few years out. Most state-of-the-art small arms were still in development, or too few in number. They had excellent radios however. The only war they could have fought was a defensive one (for the time being). You also have the problem of the Enigma Code breach by Poznań University. Poland was simply in no position to take on the Soviet Union, nor to take assurances from Germany, who it distrusted, and with good reason. Finland on the other hand was worse off until Germany began pumping it with hand-me-downs, captured equipment from both Westen and Ost fronts, and what little of its own equipment it could spare to sell. It only did so well in the early Winter War because of three factors: home front advantage, environmental advantage and Soviet tactical error. The Soviets did win in the end. The initial months of Op. Barbarossa took the Soviets by surprise, and took more time to recover from. Add in the consequences from the Great Purge, the Winter War, Khalkin Gol, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and Stalin's refusal to accept HUMINIT/SIGINT, you have a recipe for disaster. Territory captured by Finland in the Continuation War was at best, former territory carved out of Finland after the Winter War (except the occupation of East Karelia of course). Once all Finnish lands were liberated (and then some), Finland stopped short of contributing to the war in any meaningful way, especially besieging Leningrad. If anything, Mannerheim took advantage of Germany's miraculous success in the West, and rode their coat tails to reclaim what they lost. That does not exist without the successes of 1939-1940. Romania was extremely Francophile, and the conditions for political upheaval that led to its shaky relationship with the Axis only existed after France fell. It was extremely militarily underdeveloped compared to its nearby neighbors Hungary or Italy, which is saying a lot considering those two powers compared to Germany, France, Britain or the USSR. About all Romania contributed was excessive manpower and oil. Germany propped them up strategically throughout the campaign on the Ost Front. Then there is the problem of Germany itself. In 1939, Germany was theoretically capable of waging a major war, but much of its logistics was yet to be mechanized, with the Heer's panzer-corp comprised mostly of obsolete Panzer I's and II's, plus the Czech 35s and 38s respectively. The Panzer IIIs and IVs were issued in short number then, a field test if you will. Those numbers increased gradually by 1940 as kinks were worked out and newer models were debuted, when the Phoney War ended, but were still considerably lower than what the French or British had fielded. Their only advantage would be the Luftwaffe, yet I would argue the advantage would be minimal since 1939’s green Luftwaffe paled to 1941’s experienced Luftwaffe. Once France and the Low-Lands fell, you could say Germany was given a most wonderful opportunity, as an entire army's worth of equipment, vehicles, weapons, plus additional resources and an industrial base were there for the taking. So, if there is no Westen Front, not only does Germany lose all the very valuable assets it desperately stands to use elsewhere, but it also loses the even more valuable wartime experience from all campaigns: Poland, Low-Lands, France, Norway, Britain and Atlantic included. (This means weapons development too, which for the panzercorp, was essential.) Sure, they saved many men and first gen. equipment that could be used elsewhere, but the whole idea of eliminating the former Entente powers was to assure Germany did not fall prey to the same situation it did in the Great War. Leaving them standing would be a grave strategic mistake that I highly doubt the Germans would be willing to do and is partly why Germany signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact in the first place. In that case, the Germans would be obliged to man the Siegfried Line, which would shrink its overall fighting force. The French of course, manning their Maginot Line, would in all likelihood, strike the Germans when they least expected it as they did in the Saar Offensive, because after-all, the Franco-Soviet Treaty of Mutual Assistance was signed in 1935, and while that may be just as flimsy as Chamberlin’s “peace in our time”, France could not afford to allow Germany to pursue its ambitions, growing more powerful all the while. The appeasement could only go so far, and all parties involved understood that it was only a matter of time before Germany wanted more than Europe would be willing to give them-in our case, Danzig and the Polish Corridor. And if not that, Germany would come for Alsace-Lorraine and Burgundy, eventually, since we know that the former was already a matter of debate, being ceded to Germany in 1871, much to do with French revanchism, returned to France in 1918, then annexed again in 1940, while the latter was eyed by Himmler for an SS-esoteric-cult buffer state. That means, in the scenario that the USSR was defeated, the situation would be a repeat of 1917. In truth, both France and the UK needed an excuse to keep Germany in its place, because where it stood, a Germany on the march threatened the order of things. It would not be hard to imagine that the two powers stand on the wayside until the Soviet Union was battered and beaten, to offer their help, or to attack Germany independently. Such was the reality of shady politics of the time. I still hate both Churchill and Roosevelt for their betrayal of Poland in our timeline, but that is war. In addition, there is still the trouble with Italy. Mussolini would still fumble himself into a war in the Balkans, or North Africa, despite what Germany does or does not do. This could have the effect of dragging Germany into a war with France and the UK regardless, especially when one remembers the Pact of Steel. This doubles once the Tripartite Pact is signed and Japan attacks both British and French possessions in the Far East. My conclusion here is that much more would need to be tweaked in order for this to scenario to work flawlessly, because there are too many factors to account for otherwise. I have been working on a similar idea for years now, although my timeline starts in 1814, so I have much more play. No hard feelings of course. I love your channel and do not wish to create any ill will. I read too much is all. :) forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=245434&start=15
That is one of your more interesting “What if” videos. This video has some commonality with an alternate timeline of my own. In my timeline Germany losses a war in late 1938 against a Czechoslovak and Polish alliance. World War Two ‘proper’ starts in October 1943 being fought with Japan and the USSR allied against Britain, France, Netherlands, and Australia.
@@abhinavs8109 Poland and Czechoslovakia would have been unlikely allies because of Tsechen. In an alternate universe small changes can be made that have big effects. There are some scenarios that might not be plausible due to inherent economics and/or logistics, but an ideology or opinion of a major figure(s) could cause them to make different decision.
One thing I would add (and this is just some headcannon) I would say that in exchange for the alliance and military aid Germany would be allowed to annex danzig and the polish corridor, that way germany is in one piece
Eliminating the Polish Corridor was already the major aim of German patriots and of the Weimar Republic governments. But this wasn't the issue in 1939. Hitler wanted Poland as an ally, a future german satellite, against Stalin. If Poland refused, it had to be crushed. Hitler was convinced that Germany could and must become a world power again. Not by colonial overseas expansion, but by controlling countries east of her. And this had to happen very soon. So the Danzig was made an issue of war or peace instead to postpone it. Britain also thought that Hitler had to be stopped ow
... stopped n o w. The time of any concession was over. The British guarantee of all western polish borders = territories meant an alliance against Germany, verified by the British declaration of war, Sept. 3rd.
For me, this is one of the more interesting scenarios. You speculate that the Poles would not accept German support and lose about 40% of their territory and god knows how much damage to their military and manpower. Let me counter speculate a change to this scenario. Instead of attacking Poland, Romania, the Baltic States, and Finland piecemeal, the arrogance and idiocy of the Soviet command decides to attack in unison. After years of purges, a weakened and yet overconfident red army makes a land grab from Lade Ladoga and the Gulf of Finland in the North to the Black Sea in the South. Stretched thin, poorly supplied, and poor lead - both in the field and at the Kremlin - the red army makes very slow progress, losing 100,000s of soldiers and conscripts. But forward they press primarily due to significantly greater technology and a manpower pool at least an order of magnitude more then the combined armies of Finland, the Baltic States, Poland and Romania. Would the eastern European countries really reject any military or economic aid at all? Even if from the Germans? I can imagine how an influx of German arms, equipment, and say advisors in the form of officers and NCOs could not only have turned the tide, but crushed the Soviets early. What a nightmare. How much stronger would the Nazis have been if the Soviets were crushed by early 1940?
If that happens, Russia gets ganked by Germany who then conquers all of Eastern Europe and at which point the United States has no chance of victory against the combined forces of Germany, Italy, and Japan
@@Reinhard_Erlik - Not me. The nazis were every bit as evil and oppressive as the soviets. The timeline I want to go to is the one where France, the UK, and the US intervene on Czechoslovakia, crush the nazis, then turn and crush the soviets, bringing a higher level of freedom, civivl liberty, and democracy to the world. Then turning to Asia to smash the Japanese and Chinese communists.
The ending map there is looking interesting, since I guess Italy still foolishly tried to attack Greece, but since Britain isn't held back by Germany, the Brits fully backed Greece, letting the Greeks capture all of Albania, as well as taking back Constantinople from the Turks.
But how? I think a similar scenario would be a fascist Italy and nationalist Spain allied to extend their influence in Mediterranean to the point of creating high tension with France and Britain. But France can win easy Vs Spain and Italy (Germany won against France cuz of a very very great luck, so can defeat them ). I don't think that will be great for a Spain that recover from civil war. depending of what Germany and Britain do.
Your forgetting one crucial factor with this, Hitler. He was extremely ideological and likely wouldn't have had the patience or tolerance of what he called undesirable people to let this scenario play out
Why would Romania attack the Soviets and then get no land in return? I'd expect it to keep a sizable chunk of Ukraine, if not all of it. Also I'm a bit surprised why Japan wouldn't jump on the opportunity of taking Soviet areas in the east and maybe even Turkey taking areas in the Caucasus (tho I'm unsure of Turkey's military capabilities back then so I'm mostly curious about the lack of Japan's and Romania's expansion into Soviet areas)
@@akkiaddizone6889 They did join the war, 2 weeks after Germany entered Poland from the West, Russia entered from the East and arrested soldiers and intelligentsia then killed 22,000 officers and civilians in Katyn forest. The reason the Allies only declared war on Germany is because the Anglo-Polish defensive pact only involved defence against Germany. If Russia didn't commit a war crime (like they do now), Poland would have enough man power to slow Nazi Germany down enough for France and Britain to regroup and invade Germany, ending the war years before and saving millions of lives.
@@swole2 Bluepill would imply it favours democracy and anti-Nazi. But no, it was pretty accurate for a simplification. The only thing to really add here is that Germany just got their ass kicked in WW1 and then got a treaty put on them that was just an additional kicking.
What about Nazi Germany’s economy? The rearmament program was fueled by various fiscal schemes that included the mentioned bartering of military goods for various resources and shell companies. By 1939, the economy was dangerously unstable as the MEFO Bills began to expire. Given that context, I argue that aggressive German expansionism was inevitable. Continuing those economic practices with Poland and Finland was only going to exacerbate the fiscal crisis that was boiling.
German economic practises before andf under ww2 was more affective then even USA now. Normaly Central banks print money that will be borrowed by smaller banks to be used for house loans. This still creates high inflation and limits public spending since the government needs to consider all of their spending and central bank spending. However German central bank print money to be used in state projects and such. Therefore Germany have a lot more money available and houseprices are not inflate like in capitalist countries. In combinationation so is German central bank owned by the state, and not a private entity like in USA and Britian. Private businesses have their own interest in mind. The biggest problem Germany had was a population problem and not an economic one. In summer of 1939 Germany stop the emigration of Jews from Germany thanks to worker shortages and high amount of Dutch people worked in Germany as guest workers. Biggest reason to German expansion into Poland was attack on an outpost by the polish military and a refugee crises where Germans was fleeing the country. This happened after British and French guarantee.
I wouldn’t say the USSR was just seen as a threat due to its ideology. After Napoleon was defeated, and before the rise of Germany, Russia was seen as one of the greatest threats to Britain’s balance of power. From the Crimean War, to the Anglo-Afghan wars, Britain’s involvement in Iran or even the Anglo-Japanese alliance - Imperial Russia was seen as the principle opponent in the Great Game.
What if after ww1? czechoslovakia was broken up into czech republic and Slovakia and after ww1 the kingdom of yugoslavia never exited but instead they each got their own nation (Slovenia,Croatia,bosnia and herzegovina, serbia and Montenegro) and land of Northern Macedonia was split between Greece and Bulgaria?
You make some of the most detailed what if history scenarios ever! You deserve so much more admiration for your work. Time will hopefully one day reward you for all the time and effort you put into making your UA-cam videos. Keep up the amazing work!
Russia DID start World War 2. They invaded Poland along with Germany and France and Britain declared war on Germany but not the U.S.S.R. Confused? This video helps explain that. Poland also invaded Germany in 1919 and refused to return occupied Germany after the 1927 plebiscite that required them to do so. Gret video, by the way.
@@thorpeaaron1110 Not really, much less of Britainnia was colonized by the Romans than is commonly realized. That's why what latin influence there was comes in from French
@@thorpeaaron1110 Yes! But it would've taken them way longer. Before the Ango-Saxons came, very little of the Island was settled, much less under cultivation
Not really probable, considering they were still in a Reccesion when the war started, Roosevelt was wanting the US to be neutral during the whole war, and people didn’t want war, especially after what happened in WW1
@@keithharper32 good ole looking at it from both sides. Think about it from Germany’s view. The wanted the ethnic Germans in their land, so they asked, when no was said, they had to go to war. When they did go to war, THEY were declared war on. So I would say the allies took the war to another level.
Hey guys! This is part two of if the British empire joined the central powers in WWII USA and France:Entente They are in the entente so they could get British colonies and they hate germany and also USA found out that Mexico joined the Germans.Mexico:Central powers Mexico joins central powers so they can get their lands the had before 1836 from the USA.Austria Hungary:Central powers Austria Hungary joins central powers Becuase Someone from Serbia shot their leader,and Serbia is in entente.Russia:Entente Russia joins entente for two reasons,One,to keep Austria hungary and germany in check.Two,Just because they want to protect Serbia Japan:Entente Japan chose entente so they could get British and German colonies in the pacific. Italy:Central powers Italy chose central powers so they could get colonies in Africa and south east france.
Gregor Strasser would probably end up leading the Nazis, but who knows, maybe somehow Ernst Rohm takes over, and causes Germany to fall into some bloody Civil War between the National Socialist SA and the Military.
Sir Coloniser not really at all, The Americans had built bases all over Newfoundland at the time, and where an essential part of the modernization of Newfoundland. Communities like Stephenville, Placentia & Happy Valley- goose bay seen their populations go from a couple hundred to the thousands from the American military bases, in fact. There where people lead by merchant Ches Crosbie who where pushing at the time to include the option of union with the United States on the 1948 referendum ballot or at the very least seek a free trade union with the United States as an independent nation, Rather interestingly Ches Crosbie’s son John Crosbie would become one of the main advocates of NAFTA under the Mulroney government.
alternative history would be what if Russia did NOT start WW2. Sept 17 1939 Soviet Russia attacked Poland in alliance with Nazi Germany. So Russia started WW2.
British history Portugal: Ally Spain: war . Won France: war, won Belgium, Netherlands: Frenemies Germany: War . Won Poland: Ally Finally present day Russia: To be concluded.
What if Panama did not exist? Not just the country, the Isthmus. Basically, North America stops somewhere in Nicaragua and you can sail between the Atlantic and pacific. I already have some thoughts, but will hold back unless any of you are interested.
The Japanese would have definitely attacked the Soviets during prolonged conflicts with the Intermarium alliance. They would have been able to take Siberia, pushing a severely weakened Soviet Union back to the Ural Mountains, where peace would be signed.
That's a good assumption, though I believe the Japanese would have have been preoccupied with the Chinese at the time. I recall the Soviets having signed a non-aggression treaty with Japan sometime after the invasion of Poland in our world.
A is a single massive flaw in this timeline Finland would never be able to occupy or govern Leningrad, as this city's population around the same as all of Finland's population. Honestly more realistic post war borders would have been Finland gaining only its former lands, the lands east connecting it to the arctic sea and Kola peninsula and Germany gaining the Baltic states
Honestly I was listening and then I completely said hold up because you said it was until WWII until they started building up their military you need to look at the number of tanks and aircraft they had before World War Two started you're out of your mind if you think they were waiting
No reason to assume that the USSR would beat Poland in a one-on-one fair fight--it didn't happen in 1920 during the Polish-Bolshevik war, after all, and that's our closest real world analogy
Many thanks to Ridge Wallet for sponsoring today's video. Pick up your own right here: www.ridge.com/MONSIEURZ
Use code: MONSIEURZ for 10% off your order.
We have new videos every Wednesday at 2:30pm EST. Don't miss them, and please like & share the video if you enjoyed it!
Become a channel sponsor: ua-cam.com/channels/QR_kmeb0lBEk1Zj_9LWDHA.htmljoin
Join our "Discord Server": www.usofz.com/forum
Pick up a copy of our novel: www.amazon.com/Am-Uncle-Sam-Dean-Mosley-ebook/dp/B07WNG95QH
At 0:54 this was wrong the allies allowed Germany to take over the Memel territory from Lithuania then they stopped appeasement
Do a 2nd American Civil War scenario (2020/2024)
Bullshit. In mein kampf Hitler specifically said that he considered slavs suburban. There was also general plan Ost. As for Soviets there was 1920 polish-soviet war, so poland could be a little distrustful towards Soviets. So don't pin blame for ww2 on poland
Monsieur Z Could you do a scenario if a nuclear war happened sometime in 1980s ? I know you did one for the Cuban missile crisis, but the 1980s is when nuclear war would be the worst since at least 12,000 nukes would be detonated.
I thought he used to have a lot more subs
Wow. In this scenario Germany did some 6 Dimension Chess that would make Bismarck proud.
Germany: you just got VECTORED
The Soviets: Im going to conquer Eastern Europe.
Germany: I'm four parallel universes ahead of you.
Mr.Z:I have seen 14 million different future outcomes.
Soviets:And in how many did I successfully takeover all of Europe.
Mr.Z:None
Ronjay Rose Oooooooof
Yeah I don't think the Nazis were smart enough to pull any of that off.
I'll be honest. The fact Tannu Tuva was shown as a part of Mongolia kept catching my attention more than the alternative history.
(Cough) HOI4 (Cough, cough)
Burma is also part of british india and still shown as independent vassal
What if Mongolia is part of Tann Tuva?
Tannu what?
@@marius40838 Was a small nation between Mongolia and the Soviet Union. They annexed it in 1937.
Soviet commits war.
Germany fought against Soviet while they eating Poland
Result: Allies help Germany.
Could've easily happened if Hitler was a bit more patient.
And, the Cold War is, well, not so cold. Also my Grandfather would have fought against the Soviets not with them in this timeline.
The Allies should have left the nazis and the commies kill each other and then nuke the winner.
@@EuripidesTab13 they would probably not have developed the nuke since initially it's only purpose was to defeat germany
Euri Dc You do know that in a scenario like that the ones with nukes would be Germany and the USSR? They would be at war and invest heavily into nuclear research. It would simply be a WW2 with Germany at USSR’s place (and actually a Cold War may not happen as there would most likely be American presence in Germany during and after the war so they would become like Franco in our timeline).
Germany: We'll give you military supplies, but we're gonna need Danzig and the corridor.
Poland: But we need sea access!
Germany: Don't worry, we'll give you Lithuania.
Lithuania: Hol' up... hwAT?
@ボイス If Germany could infect Poland with Nationalism to get them to be on Germany's side against the Russians, no doubt they'd stir up irredentist claims to the rival of the PLC.
Point of historical fact: The Polish Government had already completed additional ports east of Danzig.
To much volksdeutsch in this comment section
@@xenq_4566 That, or not enough. Which would be better, to be entirely all to the good.
Poland-Lithuanian commonwealth has been revived plus greater Finland and greater Romania
*cleverly avoids pronouncing "Międzymorze"*
Polish looks like if someone got English and some language that cuthulu speaks and mixed them together.
@@yeah4710 Nieprawda, bardziej jakby zesrał się na to szatan.
(Not true, more like satan shat on it)
@@Kristof1 its like latin russian
@@lipo-tz2qn not true, the polish language is demonic, the Russian language is autistic.
#potrzebie
Ridge Wallet the preferred wallet of the Future French Emperor.
I claim this wallet for Fronce!
Hon hon hon! Oui!
@@theoldsaxon6484 Wait, I know you
@@tada-kun982 Really?
@@tada-kun982 From where?
What if Emperor Trajan became Emperor at 18, this would be great because he was known too the Romans as “the best emperor” and it is famously known that he would have done even more if he began his campaigns at a way younger age. Trajan even said something similar too: “I wish I began my campaigns around the same age as Alexander”, so I’d love to hear what you think he’d do.
But what If Trajan had started at 16?
16 would be amazing as wel
What if the 2 term limits as president were always a law and not just a tradition? (This would greatly affect WWI and WWII as Teddy nor FDR couldn't run for third terms just before each World War)
@Dr ROLFCOPTER! what do you mean?
@Dr ROLFCOPTER! Yeah he got us out of the great depression
@@brotherhoodpaladin2403 WW2 and the new deal(under the pressure of the unions and other leftists), got us out.
@@bakh554321 and who was the advocate for the new deal?
Mr. Food
*me.*
I would say that an easy way to have war between the West and Soviets would have been to have Trotsky leading the Soviets instead of Stalin. Trotsky's ideals of World Revolution were extremely antagonistic to the French and British Empires, Trotsky also wanted for the Soviets to crush Poland and then keep on going right to he home of Marx (Germany) so it's likely the Germans would be willing to work with the West.
well he has to avoid copying other althist channels too.
If Trotsky had gained power and kept his ideals we wouldn't seen USSR after 1925-7. Because of the "war communism" politics. Stalin made a great job to hold the red empire at least to the end of 20th century.
Sorry for my bad Ënglish(((
Trotsky was literally the Hitler of the Soviet Union. He pressed for War against all the Enemies of the Revolution. And would have killed more than Stalin
@@alexanderzippel8809 the story of the Jewish hitler XD
@Lukas von das Eis true since after ww2 he had half of europe trough the many communists puppets goverments in eastern europe
What if the Germans were kind to the Belarussian and Ukrainian people they occupied in WWII?
That could have made the whole of these regions aid the Germans against the Soviets right?
@Typed Scroll one word SS
If the Nazis were kind to non-Russian Slavs they wouldn't be Nazis. If they weren't Nazis, there probably wouldn't be a WW2 as we know it.
@@Wickedonezz In the Nazi heirarchy Italians were considered less industrious but superior in the arts. Slavs were considered subhuman. If the government of Germany is a Nazi one Slavs are going to be exploited or killed, and the 7-10 million dead Ukrainians due to the war would probably agree with that.
@@jamesgiblin9134 my thinking is they treated them so badly it caused them to resent the Germans. If they even pretended to be kind I'm sure they'd convince plenty of them to fight with the germans. Or at the very least resist the Soviets.
@@kaiserwilhelmii674 The thing is on a geopolitical level it is rather hard to pretend to be kind. And Germany really didn't have the resources to spare on being kind, even if the government was inclined to.
You seem to be forgetting that one reason why Finland was able to effectively fight the Soviets in the Winter War was because Finland has a lot of hard-to-navigate terrain, which prevented the Soviets from adequately bringing their superior numbers to bear. The same is not true of Poland, whose only significant defensible terrain feature is the Vistula river.
Given the opportunistic nature of the Soviet attack on Poland in our timeline, in this timeline, I doubt a Soviet attack on Poland would come in 1939. More likely, they would have wanted to give the Red Army the opportunity to complete the program of training and modernisation which it had been undergoing in the wake of the Winter War (which had revealed the weaknesses of the Soviet officer corps, and which had triggered significant advances in tank development). Mid-1942 is probably the earliest date at which Stavka might have been willing to authorise another major offensive campaign.
"Illegal exspansion of Poland" Was Soviet expansion legal? Was British expansion legal? What is a legal exspansion?
because germanise expansion was a war crime lol
Lukas von das Eis no, because austria didnt want to be annexed
@@yehman8945 and British wanting to stay in power. If British allowed Germany to expand a little that ww1 would never happen
@Lukas von das Eis what about the vote? an anexxation is also illegal if used with military force like germany
@@historydude6022 ww1 was never about german expansion
The soviets are like an old generator; it takes long to start up but when its started it is just a beast
But then it breaks down
My old generator exploded after a week of use
russian logistics.
I can’t see germany dropping “Lebensraum” ideology in your timeline. It was a vital part of national socialism, feeding on the feeling of insecurity of the booming city population migrated from the countryside, and the general ridiculously overpopulated German west and center (as we can even see today). So from a nazi point of view, they had to expand. Maybe a British-German treaty about the surrendering of Tangamjika and Namibia for naval disarmament would have been concluded?
I personally simply can't see this happen in a world where hitler survived. He considert the Poles as subhuman, and allthough i do belive that Germany would try to aid Poland against the Soviets (Slavic > Judea-Bolshevik-Slavs), i cannot see hiter and the 3 Nation find a compromise that they all would agree on, especially Poland and Germany. Maybe it could be possible though if Hitler died after 1934 and a more "liberal" Nazi would somehow have become führer, rather aiming to slowly and steadly Germanize the Slavs instead of a agressive Anti-Slavic approach.
If we were to assume that Germany never directly conquers Poland (to avoid WWII), it seems only logical that Germany's next step would be to secure it's immediate neighboring lands, and bring down the Soviets while they were weak. Though I can't speak of Hitler specifically, there was a growing respect amongst the German higher command for non-Germanic allies who both cooperated effectively, and contributed with dedication (Hungary and Romania), given Poland and Finland would essentially become proxies as the Romanians and Hungarians had, relations between the Germans and Poles could reach a greater degree of mutual respect, remember that as far as the public is concerned, Germany isn't manipulating Poland, rather, it appears the two are finally collaborating against as shared enemy. While the Germans would likely still pursue additional living space for "surplus Germans", conditions in Europe would likely drive them to seek overseas positions instead, probably in South America, where ethnic Germans already held a strong presence in parts of Brazil.
@@MonsieurDean ; I could see Germany attempting to engage in dominion of some parts of South America (Argentina, Uruguay, and Paraguay) in finances and economics; however any direct military or rapid political action would be off the table due to the American Monroe Doctrine and thanks to the Washington / London 5/9 power treaties the US Navy was tied with Britain as the world's most powerful Navy. Even if Germany focused near the entirety of it's military production on naval assists the US would outproduce them in a matter of months. The only place where the Germans could engage in direct military "Lebensraum" would be Saudi Arabia, which considering Germany's need for oil in near proximity would be a likely target first.
Zarathustra you ever read Mein Kampf? It even says settling Eastern Europe is more favourable than reclaiming the African possessions because the climate is more suitable for Nordic race or so
Zarathustra and the “Danzig or war” thing was just another game of appeasement with the British. if the western powers agreed to further German expansion, Poland would have been crippled and landlocked. If the brits agreed, the next step would have probably been Yugoslavia or even Alsace.
What if Mary I of England and Philip II of Spain had a child?
England would remain deeply Catholic and a possible union between Spain and England could happen
@The Nova renaissance True it would face resistance by the English
What if Catherine of Aragon had given Henry VIII a son?
Ideas for alternate histories:
What if Belgium never left the Netherlands (Benelux Union)?
What if King William I of England produced an heir to the Dutch and English throne?
What if Portugal became the primary Iberian power?
United Kingdom of the Netherlands would be an interesting topic indeed.
I think the only viable scenario is one in which the Dutch manage to hold on to (most of) the Spanish Netherlands since the 80 years war, as Dutch independence and Belgian submission to the Spanish crown caused a wedge between the catholic south and protestant north's cultures, values and language. This could've happened as the Spanish were fighting the English, the French, Denmark, Sweden and colonizing the Americas, leading to a constant shortage of money(it's why they allowed captures cities to be sacked as payment).
With Belgian industry (& later coal), Luxemburgian forests supplying endless wood for shipbuilding and Dutch argiculture, it would be a formidable power.
Perhaps not as powerful as France or England, but certainly a force to be reckoned with, and probably one that's not as easily overrun as was the Dutch Republic by the French multiple times
What if Hitler didn't live long enough to come to power in Germany? Death in WW1, death during his attempted coup in 1923, death in prison, there are multiple ways this could have happened. Who would have come to power in Germany and how would that affect 20th century history?
Probably the communists
@@Bishtpd The communists had a 20% share of the vote.
Without Hitler, there are two realistic possibilities:
1. Germany reverts to democracy once Hindenburg dies.
2. A right-wing authoritarian regime similar to the one in Austria is established through Hindenburg's reserve powers (as Schleicher and von Papen intended).
If number 2 came to pass, a war would probably have happened, albeit later than in OTL.
I Germany had gotten a democratic government again, german foreign policy would have been mostly bickering about Danzig, trying to get the League of Nations to allow Danziig to rejoin Germany through a plebiscite.
What if Abraham Lincoln's assasination failed?
Already did that: ua-cam.com/video/sZFCEYp5wtY/v-deo.html
You make really good videos you should have more subs
I love the transition between 'Millions of people died and most of eastern Europe was under oppressive control' to 'Buy this wallet *in a Boston accent*'
Well Soviets agreed with Nazis to start WWII by signing ribentrop-molotov pact. They just got late 17 days. So in fact they did start WWII along with Hitler.
I've been waiting for this:
What if William Henry Harrison lived longer?
This video is likely the greatest argument ever produced for why it's a good idea to be patient sometimes.
Last time I was this early Russia was still Imperial
Last time I was this early Czechoslovakia was on its first republic
I was not early btw, I just wanted to add this
Honestly I thought it was going to be about Trotsky KFC man, but this is good as well.
Mr Z, its time for you to fully embrace your career as a car salesmen😂whatever ridge is giving you to sponsor them, its not enough.
This doesn't seem realistic unless the timeline is pushed forward at least 5-10 years, for Poland's sake.
How do you pronounce your name?
What issue is there exactly? Germany is essentially launching it's campaign against the Soviets but without the strain of a Western Front. In our timeline, Romania had a massive role in the South, including the battle of Stalingrad, and the Finns were making excellent progress in the North until Germany itself began to run out of steam. Add Poland to the mix, whose army was shaping up to be a very formidable power, and you have a recipe for success.
@@MonsieurDean
Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the video. I appreciate your in-depth research, and all the topics covered. I actually proposed a similar scenario months ago on Axis History Forum, and was politely put down. Though I did gain some insight which I used to narrow my research. I linked it below. Truth is, Poland was simply not ready for a war. Its primary service aircraft were obsolete, its tanks too few in number and on the verge of being obsolete; modernization was still a few years out. Most state-of-the-art small arms were still in development, or too few in number. They had excellent radios however. The only war they could have fought was a defensive one (for the time being). You also have the problem of the Enigma Code breach by Poznań University. Poland was simply in no position to take on the Soviet Union, nor to take assurances from Germany, who it distrusted, and with good reason.
Finland on the other hand was worse off until Germany began pumping it with hand-me-downs, captured equipment from both Westen and Ost fronts, and what little of its own equipment it could spare to sell. It only did so well in the early Winter War because of three factors: home front advantage, environmental advantage and Soviet tactical error. The Soviets did win in the end. The initial months of Op. Barbarossa took the Soviets by surprise, and took more time to recover from. Add in the consequences from the Great Purge, the Winter War, Khalkin Gol, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and Stalin's refusal to accept HUMINIT/SIGINT, you have a recipe for disaster. Territory captured by Finland in the Continuation War was at best, former territory carved out of Finland after the Winter War (except the occupation of East Karelia of course). Once all Finnish lands were liberated (and then some), Finland stopped short of contributing to the war in any meaningful way, especially besieging Leningrad. If anything, Mannerheim took advantage of Germany's miraculous success in the West, and rode their coat tails to reclaim what they lost. That does not exist without the successes of 1939-1940.
Romania was extremely Francophile, and the conditions for political upheaval that led to its shaky relationship with the Axis only existed after France fell. It was extremely militarily underdeveloped compared to its nearby neighbors Hungary or Italy, which is saying a lot considering those two powers compared to Germany, France, Britain or the USSR. About all Romania contributed was excessive manpower and oil. Germany propped them up strategically throughout the campaign on the Ost Front.
Then there is the problem of Germany itself. In 1939, Germany was theoretically capable of waging a major war, but much of its logistics was yet to be mechanized, with the Heer's panzer-corp comprised mostly of obsolete Panzer I's and II's, plus the Czech 35s and 38s respectively. The Panzer IIIs and IVs were issued in short number then, a field test if you will. Those numbers increased gradually by 1940 as kinks were worked out and newer models were debuted, when the Phoney War ended, but were still considerably lower than what the French or British had fielded. Their only advantage would be the Luftwaffe, yet I would argue the advantage would be minimal since 1939’s green Luftwaffe paled to 1941’s experienced Luftwaffe. Once France and the Low-Lands fell, you could say Germany was given a most wonderful opportunity, as an entire army's worth of equipment, vehicles, weapons, plus additional resources and an industrial base were there for the taking. So, if there is no Westen Front, not only does Germany lose all the very valuable assets it desperately stands to use elsewhere, but it also loses the even more valuable wartime experience from all campaigns: Poland, Low-Lands, France, Norway, Britain and Atlantic included. (This means weapons development too, which for the panzercorp, was essential.) Sure, they saved many men and first gen. equipment that could be used elsewhere, but the whole idea of eliminating the former Entente powers was to assure Germany did not fall prey to the same situation it did in the Great War. Leaving them standing would be a grave strategic mistake that I highly doubt the Germans would be willing to do and is partly why Germany signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact in the first place. In that case, the Germans would be obliged to man the Siegfried Line, which would shrink its overall fighting force. The French of course, manning their Maginot Line, would in all likelihood, strike the Germans when they least expected it as they did in the Saar Offensive, because after-all, the Franco-Soviet Treaty of Mutual Assistance was signed in 1935, and while that may be just as flimsy as Chamberlin’s “peace in our time”, France could not afford to allow Germany to pursue its ambitions, growing more powerful all the while. The appeasement could only go so far, and all parties involved understood that it was only a matter of time before Germany wanted more than Europe would be willing to give them-in our case, Danzig and the Polish Corridor. And if not that, Germany would come for Alsace-Lorraine and Burgundy, eventually, since we know that the former was already a matter of debate, being ceded to Germany in 1871, much to do with French revanchism, returned to France in 1918, then annexed again in 1940, while the latter was eyed by Himmler for an SS-esoteric-cult buffer state. That means, in the scenario that the USSR was defeated, the situation would be a repeat of 1917. In truth, both France and the UK needed an excuse to keep Germany in its place, because where it stood, a Germany on the march threatened the order of things. It would not be hard to imagine that the two powers stand on the wayside until the Soviet Union was battered and beaten, to offer their help, or to attack Germany independently. Such was the reality of shady politics of the time. I still hate both Churchill and Roosevelt for their betrayal of Poland in our timeline, but that is war.
In addition, there is still the trouble with Italy. Mussolini would still fumble himself into a war in the Balkans, or North Africa, despite what Germany does or does not do. This could have the effect of dragging Germany into a war with France and the UK regardless, especially when one remembers the Pact of Steel. This doubles once the Tripartite Pact is signed and Japan attacks both British and French possessions in the Far East.
My conclusion here is that much more would need to be tweaked in order for this to scenario to work flawlessly, because there are too many factors to account for otherwise. I have been working on a similar idea for years now, although my timeline starts in 1814, so I have much more play. No hard feelings of course. I love your channel and do not wish to create any ill will. I read too much is all. :)
forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=245434&start=15
That is one of your more interesting “What if” videos. This video has some commonality with an alternate timeline of my own. In my timeline Germany losses a war in late 1938 against a Czechoslovak and Polish alliance. World War Two ‘proper’ starts in October 1943 being fought with Japan and the USSR allied against Britain, France, Netherlands, and Australia.
Japan and the USSR will never ally, the USSR and Japan hated eachother so Japan will join the allies.
@@abhinavs8109 Poland and Czechoslovakia would have been unlikely allies because of Tsechen. In an alternate universe small changes can be made that have big effects. There are some scenarios that might not be plausible due to inherent economics and/or logistics, but an ideology or opinion of a major figure(s) could cause them to make different decision.
2:29 Why is there just a vampire on the right 2:29
"What If Russia Started WWII?" ...see Operation Typhoon for further details.
One thing I would add (and this is just some headcannon) I would say that in exchange for the alliance and military aid Germany would be allowed to annex danzig and the polish corridor, that way germany is in one piece
Eliminating the Polish Corridor was already the major aim of German patriots and of the Weimar Republic governments.
But this wasn't the issue in 1939. Hitler wanted Poland as an ally, a future german satellite, against Stalin.
If Poland refused, it had to be crushed.
Hitler was convinced that Germany could and must become a world power again. Not by colonial overseas expansion, but by controlling countries east
of her. And this had to happen very soon. So the Danzig was made an issue of war or peace instead to postpone it.
Britain also thought that Hitler had to be stopped ow
... stopped n o w. The time of any concession was over.
The British guarantee of all western polish borders = territories meant an alliance against Germany, verified by the British declaration of war, Sept. 3rd.
Reminder, the blue on the polish flag stands for reliable allies.
What if Grand Duke Mikhail had accepted becoming Tsar without the impossible condition aka what if Mikhail had become Tsar after Nikolai
For me, this is one of the more interesting scenarios. You speculate that the Poles would not accept German support and lose about 40% of their territory and god knows how much damage to their military and manpower. Let me counter speculate a change to this scenario. Instead of attacking Poland, Romania, the Baltic States, and Finland piecemeal, the arrogance and idiocy of the Soviet command decides to attack in unison. After years of purges, a weakened and yet overconfident red army makes a land grab from Lade Ladoga and the Gulf of Finland in the North to the Black Sea in the South. Stretched thin, poorly supplied, and poor lead - both in the field and at the Kremlin - the red army makes very slow progress, losing 100,000s of soldiers and conscripts. But forward they press primarily due to significantly greater technology and a manpower pool at least an order of magnitude more then the combined armies of Finland, the Baltic States, Poland and Romania. Would the eastern European countries really reject any military or economic aid at all? Even if from the Germans? I can imagine how an influx of German arms, equipment, and say advisors in the form of officers and NCOs could not only have turned the tide, but crushed the Soviets early. What a nightmare. How much stronger would the Nazis have been if the Soviets were crushed by early 1940?
If that happens, Russia gets ganked by Germany who then conquers all of Eastern Europe and at which point the United States has no chance of victory against the combined forces of Germany, Italy, and Japan
@@infinityhand6569 - right. I see it going that way too.
This is the dream scenario for me :) I really want to go to that timeline.
@@Reinhard_Erlik - Not me. The nazis were every bit as evil and oppressive as the soviets. The timeline I want to go to is the one where France, the UK, and the US intervene on Czechoslovakia, crush the nazis, then turn and crush the soviets, bringing a higher level of freedom, civivl liberty, and democracy to the world. Then turning to Asia to smash the Japanese and Chinese communists.
@@Abby_Normal_1969 You're implying that The allies were any better.
The ending map there is looking interesting, since I guess Italy still foolishly tried to attack Greece, but since Britain isn't held back by Germany, the Brits fully backed Greece, letting the Greeks capture all of Albania, as well as taking back Constantinople from the Turks.
What if Spain started WWII
But how? I think a similar scenario would be a fascist Italy and nationalist Spain allied to extend their influence in Mediterranean to the point of creating high tension with France and Britain.
But France can win easy Vs Spain and Italy (Germany won against France cuz of a very very great luck, so can defeat them ). I don't think that will be great for a Spain that recover from civil war.
depending of what Germany and Britain do.
@@RECarms_Galia shhhh your ruining the funnies
@@Sovietube yes, viva el caudillo !
Your forgetting one crucial factor with this, Hitler. He was extremely ideological and likely wouldn't have had the patience or tolerance of what he called undesirable people to let this scenario play out
Why would Romania attack the Soviets and then get no land in return? I'd expect it to keep a sizable chunk of Ukraine, if not all of it.
Also I'm a bit surprised why Japan wouldn't jump on the opportunity of taking Soviet areas in the east and maybe even Turkey taking areas in the Caucasus (tho I'm unsure of Turkey's military capabilities back then so I'm mostly curious about the lack of Japan's and Romania's expansion into Soviet areas)
because romania doesnt want non romanian lands
@@AdrianRO1918 All of Ukraine to Romania????!!???
This isnt HOI4
What if the Kongo was allowed to stay as an autonomous puppet state rather than a colony? Or...
What if the Rebellions of 1837-1838 were successful?
aged like fine wine by half
This was a great video
Glad you think so!
"What If Russia Started WWII?"
They did, with Germany. Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.
Not really. They didnit join the war and the war against Poland made the Allies declare war on Germany! Not the USSR
@@akkiaddizone6889 They did join the war, 2 weeks after Germany entered Poland from the West, Russia entered from the East and arrested soldiers and intelligentsia then killed 22,000 officers and civilians in Katyn forest.
The reason the Allies only declared war on Germany is because the Anglo-Polish defensive pact only involved defence against Germany. If Russia didn't commit a war crime (like they do now), Poland would have enough man power to slow Nazi Germany down enough for France and Britain to regroup and invade Germany, ending the war years before and saving millions of lives.
The one dislike is Josef Stalin
This was, maybe, my favorite scenario yet.
Not gonna lie the whole reason between ww2 at the begining is kinda just classic blue pill.
Well I did say it was an oversimplification.
@@MonsieurDean Well lets just say its very one sided.
@@panzerbanz7296 Sided in whos favour
@@swole2 Bluepill would imply it favours democracy and anti-Nazi.
But no, it was pretty accurate for a simplification.
The only thing to really add here is that Germany just got their ass kicked in WW1 and then got a treaty put on them that was just an additional kicking.
Evil Paragon 4 That’s already known though, everyone watching this would know about the Treaty of Versailles.
What about Nazi Germany’s economy? The rearmament program was fueled by various fiscal schemes that included the mentioned bartering of military goods for various resources and shell companies. By 1939, the economy was dangerously unstable as the MEFO Bills began to expire. Given that context, I argue that aggressive German expansionism was inevitable. Continuing those economic practices with Poland and Finland was only going to exacerbate the fiscal crisis that was boiling.
German economic practises before andf under ww2 was more affective then even USA now. Normaly Central banks print money that will be borrowed by smaller banks to be used for house loans. This still creates high inflation and limits public spending since the government needs to consider all of their spending and central bank spending. However German central bank print money to be used in state projects and such. Therefore Germany have a lot more money available and houseprices are not inflate like in capitalist countries. In combinationation so is German central bank owned by the state, and not a private entity like in USA and Britian. Private businesses have their own interest in mind. The biggest problem Germany had was a population problem and not an economic one. In summer of 1939 Germany stop the emigration of Jews from Germany thanks to worker shortages and high amount of Dutch people worked in Germany as guest workers.
Biggest reason to German expansion into Poland was attack on an outpost by the polish military and a refugee crises where Germans was fleeing the country. This happened after British and French guarantee.
14:30
Hey, I've seen this one, this is a classic!
What if Poland unites with Tanna Tuva and recreated Lechiana Empire
UK and France started WW2
The USSR was a war torn country and it is crazy to imagine that it could become a superpower in such a short timespan
I wouldn’t say the USSR was just seen as a threat due to its ideology. After Napoleon was defeated, and before the rise of Germany, Russia was seen as one of the greatest threats to Britain’s balance of power. From the Crimean War, to the Anglo-Afghan wars, Britain’s involvement in Iran or even the Anglo-Japanese alliance - Imperial Russia was seen as the principle opponent in the Great Game.
Interesting timeline! I'd love to see this concept developed further.
Title is misleading. Russia actually STARTED the WW2 together with Germany, when attacked Poland in 1939.
Anti-Soviet Pact in Hearts of Iron 4 >>>> Molotov Ribbentrop Pact
I just thought of an idea of what if the USSR invaded poland first and wanted to see if there was a scenario on that. We will see if this is the one.
Not enough sequel videos, I also love this style
What if after ww1? czechoslovakia was broken up into czech republic and Slovakia and after ww1 the kingdom of yugoslavia never exited but instead they each got their own nation (Slovenia,Croatia,bosnia and herzegovina, serbia and Montenegro) and land of Northern Macedonia was split between Greece and Bulgaria?
You make some of the most detailed what if history scenarios ever! You deserve so much more admiration for your work. Time will hopefully one day reward you for all the time and effort you put into making your UA-cam videos. Keep up the amazing work!
Russia DID start World War 2. They invaded Poland along with Germany and France and Britain declared war on Germany but not the U.S.S.R. Confused? This video helps explain that. Poland also invaded Germany in 1919 and refused to return occupied Germany after the 1927 plebiscite that required them to do so. Gret video, by the way.
This aged well
The Russians DID start WWII, along with their Nazi allies. Both nations invaded Poland.
But they did , along with Germany when they attacked Poland.
Best cody from alternate history hub impression ever. :)
Looks like your next video will have to be "What if Russia didn't start WW3?" 😂😂😭😭
What if Britain stayed Roman after the fall of western rome.
English would have alot of more Latin influence today
@@thorpeaaron1110 Not really, much less of Britainnia was colonized by the Romans than is commonly realized. That's why what latin influence there was comes in from French
@@ofthecaribbean But if Britain stayed Roman the Romano-Britions would eventually be dominant in the British Isles
@@thorpeaaron1110 Yes!
But it would've taken them way longer. Before the Ango-Saxons came, very little of the Island was settled, much less under cultivation
Highly unlikely, Brittania was the most unstable region of the Empire
Molotov-Ribbentropn’t pact
What would a realistic ww3 scenario look like in our current timeline (aka in the near future)
3:28 & 4:59 The Beginning of the Video.
What if the US joined the Axis powers in WW2? Saw a similar scenario done by Zvalid and was just wondering what your take on it would be?
Axis victory.
It would be different tho since US will have a lot of influence and UK would still exist because of it
This feels like a whole different war
Soviet: starts WW2
*Soviet march intisfied*
What if the US started WWII?
Not really probable, considering they were still in a Reccesion when the war started, Roosevelt was wanting the US to be neutral during the whole war, and people didn’t want war, especially after what happened in WW1
@@letsgoblue9596 There was no food in my country, but a war could start.
I had a japanese girl tell me we did and Germany and Japan were simply defending themselves. :/
@@t.on.y there was food in the US, just not surpluses. Reread what I said.
@@keithharper32 good ole looking at it from both sides. Think about it from Germany’s view. The wanted the ethnic Germans in their land, so they asked, when no was said, they had to go to war. When they did go to war, THEY were declared war on. So I would say the allies took the war to another level.
I just saw you on an old JF stream. That's pretty cool.
Hey guys! This is part two of if the British empire joined the central powers in WWII USA and France:Entente They are in the entente so they could get British colonies and they hate germany and also USA found out that Mexico joined the Germans.Mexico:Central powers Mexico joins central powers so they can get their lands the had before 1836 from the USA.Austria Hungary:Central powers Austria Hungary joins central powers Becuase Someone from Serbia shot their leader,and Serbia is in entente.Russia:Entente Russia joins entente for two reasons,One,to keep Austria hungary and germany in check.Two,Just because they want to protect Serbia Japan:Entente Japan chose entente so they could get British and German colonies in the pacific. Italy:Central powers Italy chose central powers so they could get colonies in Africa and south east france.
What about an alternate timeline where Hitler is killed in the gas attack that only temporarily blinded him in our timeline?
Gregor Strasser would probably end up leading the Nazis, but who knows, maybe somehow Ernst Rohm takes over, and causes Germany to fall into some bloody Civil War between the National Socialist SA and the Military.
This timeline seems better until you release that no one will do anything about the Holocaust and concentration camps.
What if Newfoundland joined the United States in 1949 instead of joining Canada?
Impossible too much british influence about as ridiculous as a pan African empire of latvia
Sir Coloniser not really at all, The Americans had built bases all over Newfoundland at the time, and where an essential part of the modernization of Newfoundland. Communities like Stephenville, Placentia & Happy Valley- goose bay seen their populations go from a couple hundred to the thousands from the American military bases, in fact. There where people lead by merchant Ches Crosbie who where pushing at the time to include the option of union with the United States on the 1948 referendum ballot or at the very least seek a free trade union with the United States as an independent nation, Rather interestingly Ches Crosbie’s son John Crosbie would become one of the main advocates of NAFTA under the Mulroney government.
What if The Space Race continued ?
More like hoi4 archivement “finish him”😂
Can you do What if Japan was divided up between Allies after WW2
NK war would not have happened. SK would lose and US would be fighting in Japan for once.
Mass produced Tiger 1s go brrrrrr
alternative history would be what if Russia did NOT start WW2. Sept 17 1939 Soviet Russia attacked Poland in alliance with Nazi Germany. So Russia started WW2.
@eres Google: Ribentrop Molotov pact
Can you do a continuation of this story?
British history
Portugal: Ally
Spain: war . Won
France: war, won
Belgium, Netherlands: Frenemies
Germany: War . Won
Poland: Ally
Finally present day
Russia: To be concluded.
Britain lost most of its wars and battles to Spain and France and could never fight them on its own
skiteufr France has won the most wars in history
But you forgot the Tesla and mammoth tanks, and iron current :D
So basically the soviets had plot armor .
"What If Russia Started WWII?"
Poland: 🤔
Every proud Pole & Fin threw up reading this title
What if Panama did not exist?
Not just the country, the Isthmus. Basically, North America stops somewhere in Nicaragua and you can sail between the Atlantic and pacific.
I already have some thoughts, but will hold back unless any of you are interested.
Are you sure your French? Jokes. Britain from the commentary just sound holier then holy. Lol.
The Japanese would have definitely attacked the Soviets during prolonged conflicts with the Intermarium alliance. They would have been able to take Siberia, pushing a severely weakened Soviet Union back to the Ural Mountains, where peace would be signed.
That's a good assumption, though I believe the Japanese would have have been preoccupied with the Chinese at the time. I recall the Soviets having signed a non-aggression treaty with Japan sometime after the invasion of Poland in our world.
A is a single massive flaw in this timeline
Finland would never be able to occupy or govern Leningrad, as this city's population around the same as all of Finland's population. Honestly more realistic post war borders would have been Finland gaining only its former lands, the lands east connecting it to the arctic sea and Kola peninsula and Germany gaining the Baltic states
I seriously love these thubnail flags!
Thanks!
Every country seems to want to take over Poland, yet if they had played Risk they would know that it’s the hardest country in Europe to defend.
Let's not forget the USSR invaded Poland in 1922 and failed miserably,same with Finland.
Honestly I was listening and then I completely said hold up because you said it was until WWII until they started building up their military you need to look at the number of tanks and aircraft they had before World War Two started you're out of your mind if you think they were waiting
Monsiuer Z : Explaining what would happend if rusia started ww2
Me who just clicked for the cool flag thumbnail :
imagine everyone uniting against the soviet union... a wet dream...
No reason to assume that the USSR would beat Poland in a one-on-one fair fight--it didn't happen in 1920 during the Polish-Bolshevik war, after all, and that's our closest real world analogy