Start speaking a new language in 3 weeks with Babbel 🎉. Get up to 65% OFF your subscription ➡️ Here: go.babbel.com/1200m65-youtube-monsieurz-may-2022/default
please make a combo scenario. what if Britain formed the imperial federation and American went full colonial. could they be allies. and work together or peacefully. so two FEDERAL REPUBLICS colonial empires working together. could this ever happen could there be co-operation and peace.
Given that Romania's King was pro-German in RL and only sided with the Entente because his British wife persuaded him to Romania going with France in this scenario seems unlikely.
Nah, higher echelons in Romania were Francophiles, culturally ( due to romanias language being a Latin one and because French was a prestige, international, diplomatic language, and im sure there were other factors particular to Romania also). German princelings being crowned as National Monarchs was not uncommon at the time - Greece had the same tension between German Monarch and Allied factions of the upper echelons. Bulgaria had a people/culture that was sympathetic to russia but the military were pro-Prussian (in the second ww tsar Boris lamented his pro german army, italian wife and pro russian people, seeing himself as the only bulgarian). Romania in the interwar years had been pro-France, being a key part of the "little entente" supported by france.
@@corneliuscapitalinus845 yes, that's why I was referring to allies, France influenced Romania a lot, plus Transilvania, Basarabia (where I live btw) and other factors
it is worth noting that it was a common sentiment among German soldiers during ww1 that instead of fighting each other, it should’ve been Germany and Britain fighting together against the French
This was actually a common thought among most German and British citizens apparently. Many Germans actually vacationed in Britain so many became accustomed to the culture and their was still some resentment of France during the 19th century. Hell there was a popular alternative fiction written during this time which pitted German and Britain against France and Russia. Apparently the novel was a actual pretty fun read with the French trying to do a naval invasion to the Isle of Wight and the Germans having to deal with Russian Cossacks in eastern Prussia. I don’t know what it was called but it was a apparently a very fun read back then.
i always said ww2 if we joined Germany against Russia we would have got rid of stalin the germans would have assassinated hitler. no cold war and the world would be a better place today
In this timeline, I think that Italy would be far more careful and prudent than they were in OTL. In OTL, Italy didn't join WW1 till 1915 because they wanted to see who's side had the advantage. In this timeline, however, they most likely would side with the Central Powers as they were clearly superior to the Entente and Italy wouldn't want to risk the benefits of the alliance. At the end of the Great War, Italy would have gained it's desired territories under french control or in France such as Savoy and Tunisia. The interesting situation would come a couple of years after the Great War, as now Italy sets it's sights on Austria. This time, the two likely options are: A new war between the two would occur, where Hungary would rebel as they felt that they were loosing influence in the Empire, or Austria manages to reorganize its empire and arranges with Italy that all territory with a majority italian population would be transferred to Italy. Either way, both Germany and Britain would try to end this conflict as soon as possible, and in the first case they would side with the country that had the upperhand at the time.
I think Italy would offer to join in and occupy French colonial possessions in Africa, getting a territorial expansion like Japan had rooting out German possessions in the Pacific. Italy joining France would threaten Britain's Mediterranean link through the Suez to India, Australia and the Pacific. That would get ugly but without the German High Seas Fleet to worry about the Royal Navy would go after Italy in strength. A lot of risk and for what gain? So joining the central powers as a way to gobble up French colonies cut off from resupply/reinforcement from France would appear the most attractive option for Italy.
Britain in the 19th and Pre-WW1 saw itself as the one to balance Europe. If it thinks one power has gotten to powerful it will throw its weight behind the other Thats partly why in our timeline it allied itself with the French pre Great War as it saw Prussia as a potential threat to European stability after the successes the state has seen in the late 19th century. For this timeline to work imo France would have to have been a bigger power or Britain would have to gotten a foreign policy revamp
Eh not quite. Britain did not want any continental power to get powerful enough to threaten its imperial interests, it was quiet imbalanced in their favor. The Germans were growing increasingly dangerous to their empire by early 1900s, that's why Britain fought them.
For this to work, either the German leadership has to avoid the naval arms race that puts it into direct competition with Britain, or France has to back Russia over Britain in the early 1900s naval standoffs (or, for that matter, the Russo-Japanese War). The real-world Triple Entente is already a strange enough political contrivance.
Britain was originally afraid of Russia becoming to powerful against them. It was when Russia lost the Russo-Japanese war that Britain moved their attention to Germany. If this was to work, Russia would have to win Russo-Japanese war
The United Kingdom joined the Central Powers and Germany to preserve its empire. Both the German Empire, The Ottoman Empire, Austrian-Hungary, and possibly Italy wouldn't collapse due to the exhaustion of both resources on the global scale. My question is, does Germany still becomes a monarchy or republic in this alternate timeline, in the modern era? I had a great idea for your what-if video, if you want my idea, Monsieur Z. Anyway, this is a great reference to Chamaberelan who tried to save the British Empire from collapsing, and with Chamaberelan able to convince his fellow colleagues allying themselves with the Germans is the only way to keep holding to their colonial possesions. That is some political charismatic genius Chamaberelan had to pull and it worked. This is an amazing Mr. Z, keep up the amazing work for you are the best alternate historian UA-camr who really knows the history and understands what would happen if histories of historical events change by simple courses of actions.
I imagine they'd stay a monarchy, with no collapsing war effort to curb the kaisers power and the preservation of the kaiserreich leading to the ascension of the much less volatile Wilhelm III I don't see it becoming a republic. This war would also be by all rights a victory for European monarchism proving that as an institution monarchy was still viable.
Germany is America dog doing bark bark at what America says, Britain of course was ally of III reich they didn't helped their ally named Poland in 1939 because of fear. Same thing in 1944 when Poland was doing fight for freedom at Warsaw... When soviets came to Poland, Britain finally started thinking because of warsaw pact.
What if Karl I had been able to pull the Austro-Hungarian Empire out of WWI instead of being humiliated by the Sixstus Affair. Would the empire still exist today? How would post war Europe have recovered with one standing government among the ruins of Germany, Russia, and the Ottoman Empire?
Well if Austria Hungary survived ww1 that would actually change a lot. If Austria Hungary both survived and left early, the czechoslovak legions might have left Russia sooner, and if they did they couldn't have stolen white russias gold or betrayed kolchak. With kolchaks continued leadership plus a lot more money and the presumed support of Austria (whom wouldn't want a communist power on their doorstep) its possible albeit still unlikely, the whites might have won the civil war.
@@mappingshaman5280 But Kolchak was universally disliked both in Russia and abroad so it could be temporary solution that could lead to either liberalization or radicalization and each of this results would completely changed the tides of upcoming war and subsuquent postwar era. Edit: I actually mistook Kolchak for Kerensky xd so universal "dislikiness" part is not quite accurate in that scenario
Well even if AH survived WW1 somehow, it would be shrinked in size as many of it s lands were promised to Poland, Serbia, Romania, Italy... also there would be a question of Bohemia, i really doubt that Czechoslovakia wont be created, although there was significant German diaspora in Bohemia, so Bohemia may stay a part of Austria-Hungary. Questions of Slovenia and Croatia would be decided by plebescites. Anyway this would change events of 1938, as Austria-Hungary would resist German annexation. If France or Italy support them, nazi Germany could be put down early -No Ww2. Fun facts are King Charles actually tried to return to Hungary, but was stopped at the border and next king in the line Otto -was Austria in 1930s agitating against Nazis. Also back to early 20th century Austria-Hungary was kinda safe heaven for Jews, while anti-jew sentiment was strong in other European countries, especially Germany and Russia.
I feel like with Britain in the Cental Powers, Italy would be much too intimidated by the overwhelming land and naval strength to make such a move, while I also think that if the Italo-Turkish war ends with Italy taking Libya, Britain would not mind much, as it would only push the Ottoman Empire into Britain's arms more. I think a Italo-Greek Alliance that courts both the Entente and Central Powers would probably be more likely, as they have a shared interest in Albania and the downfall of the Ottoman Empire. If Greece were to take Northern Epirus, the Dodecanese and as much Greek Ottoman land as they can, the Italians would take the rest of Albania, Libya and coastal Turkish lands.
Those are conflicting aims. Actually in Greco-turkish war Italians tworted some Greek efforts. Even if some peace conference would draw the lines, the next event would be an Italo-Greek war.
I mean Italy were very close to joining the Central Powers originally anyway, only for Britain and France promising them land if they joined the Entente, I'm 100% certain if Britain was in the Central Powers then Italy would have joined and France and Russia would have no chance.
Romans would have had their own rival replacing Carthage. Japan would have been a player in the open door policy the world adopted in China eventually. Longbows and horse-archers would have ruled for longer till cars and planes are invented.
Why is Greece so big and colonial? Wouldn't it make more sence for Britain (or Germany) to get these colonies or parts of them (at least for Cyrenaica to join under Egypt)?
No. Greece in this timeline does not experience the national schism. Megali Idea is still a strong movement and the Greek navy is strong, just as in our timeline. The republican Veniselist faction works together with the royalists and Greece punches far above its size, like in the Balkan wars. Imagine that the national schism was like a civil war on joining Britain or Germany. In this scenario that doesn't happen, Greece is much stronger. Greece reached 30km from Ankara by itself despite having to deal with the effects of the schism. Without it, it would definitely make much more progress.
@@georgios_5342 Seems kinda too much to have all of those Greater Greek Territories directly controlled, I can absolutely see the Greeks having major soft power in the region, but occupying all of that land Is just asking for trouble, eventually it would become like Austria Hungary if it took all that.
Forget the colonial land. They are getting gifted the capital and industrial heart of their ally as a gift, because why not. Somehow the Ottomans, the greeks and the central powers are all on the same side and Greece is getting territory out of the Ottomans. That's Gigabrain^Gigabrain^2HighIQ right there.
@@justsefa1843 this is the Megali Idea. I'd the lands were first occupied by the Bulgarians, they would have definitely been acquired by Greece after that.
@@georgios_5342 That's just nonsense and not how the world works. You would fuck the alliance up right there. And in the first place, the Ottomans were tough enough to whitestand a multiple front war. In this case, the Ottomans would only have two fronts. A short one on the Balkans and Caucasia. As if Bulgaria alone could crush most of the Ottoman army on its own. Even in case of a potential occupation, after liberating the territory, Greece would definetly not get ownership of it.
The most interesting thing would be the cultural impact. UK is the face of monarchy. So many of mythycised and romanticised depictions of monarchies wouldn't exist in modern world. Which could put countries already reluctant to their monarchs to shed it altogether. Definietely Spain, maybe Benelux countries, Japan?
WW1 was completely avoidable. My grandfather chirpy WW1 Tommy who came home to nothing but twenty years of regular unemployment with periods of work on poverty wages. It's no wonder it used to be called the war caused by the "Pride of kings.
Actually the kings like Wilhelm and Nicholas tried to push for peace. Nicholas encouraged Serbia to give into Austria’s demands, but the generals in both countries heavily pushed for war and eventually won out. Christina Croft has an excellent book, “Princes in the Trenches”, where she goes through the different Royal families of Europe and how it’s members didn’t just send their people to war, but went with them. Either tending to the injured and dying or fighting in the trenches the same as their men. Blessed Karl is one such example, the Last Knight of Europe.
@@AmericanImperium2112 Yeah, it's so stupid how WW1 happened because there wasn't really an explicit "bad guy". WW2 is obvious, but WW1 was a series of miscommunication, assumptions, accidents, overconfidence and above all alliances.
The thing I love about your video format is that even though I feel I know all the context of the video you still have new and exciting analysis of the time periods and histories that are the foundation for the AR.
Portugal was always a close ally of England and this since the 14th century. With the French defeat, probably France would be excluded from most of Africa and totally from the Indochina. More, Portuga's territories were a kind of buffer State between British and German African colonies, so it's very unlikely that if remaining neutral, Portugal would be excluded against the British interests there. Anyway, Germany and Britain would clash about commercial policies.
I could see a potential wrench in the gears with this timeline: the United States, and it could actually go either way. On the other hand, there were strong pro-British and pro-German sentiments among Americans at the turn of the 19th Century which would push public opinion in favor of the Central Powers. However, going into the 1910s and 1920s, the US might start to see the Central Powers as a threat to the Monroe Doctrine, as without any major threats to their hegemony, the British (whose tacit support was what enabled the Monroe Doctrine to have any teeth) might reconsider whether they support it, to say nothing about American ambitions in the Pacific, and may find itself siding with France and Russia to check their rivals.
But without losses of Americans to u-boat attacks, there would be less public outrage on which to go to war. I think the first American response to the war (and the combined British and German navies) would be their own naval arms race.
@@iansneddon2956 Believe me, they'll find something else to make people angry or scared about. The most likely method would be an invasion scare (which did happen at the turn of the century, which convinced Congress to finally give the US Navy some proper funding)
Theodore Roosevelt thought war was inevitable with the Kaiser based on his diplomacy. Germans would say we determine what are interests are only, then Roosevelt would ask, then why do you want to have a diplomatic conference if only your opinion matters on your supposed interests? Meaning you don't want to talk business, you want to dictate terms toward the rest of Europe and the Americans.
The Americans wouldn’t have been much of a threat to Britain or Germany at that time, they didn’t have much of an army and needed a long time to mobilise, the only reason they did what they did in wwi was because they had sat out for the first couple of years and had their economy benefit from it
Actually, I think Bulgaria would still be more likely to join the central powers, as Serbian-held Macedonia was a bigger priority than the Greek coastal region and if Romania joined the Entente, they could also get Dobruja
Mr. Z, I absolutely loved this alt history! I especially enjoyed the alternate World War 1, that concept I feel is so underdone aside from switching the victors. (No shade at Kaiserreich or anything, but still.) Fantastic work!
If you think about it this timeline is almost a paradise since WW1 will not be a major conflict and dictators such as Hitler and Stalin would not rise up to power and thus the millions of casualties in our timeline will not happen
Interesting. Britain had a small but very professional army in 1914, which punched above their weight holding the Germans back and contributing to the Germans ultimately being halted before Paris. With Britain as an ally, Germany could bring battleships in for shore bombardment to support the siege of Antwerp, or use them to support advance along the coast taking Dunkirk. Also without an expanded British and Commonwealth presence in France, there is no Battle of the Somme to take pressure off the French at Verdun (or similar German offensive). And without a British naval blockade, Germany has access to raw materials and won't face the starvation that set in as the war progressed. Note that the above doesn't factor in British forces joining in anywhere, just a greater ability for Germany to bring forces to bear. The Royal Navy could blockade French ports (necessary to prevent French interference with trade routes through the Meditteranean and Atlantic) which would drive France into economic crisis. Without unrestricted submarine warfare, there would also be less excuse for USA to join the war.
@@afisto6647 Try researching before you post. The small professional army carried out a fighting retreat in good order against a vastly superior force (overall outnumbered around 7:1, with German forces attacking again and again with at least 4:1 superiority in numbers. The British Army of WW II began in sorry shape scrambling to grow from a smaller force which had been starved of funds and therefore had not received as much training or work developing army doctrine. This left them still struggling to develop this while fighting the Germans in North Africa. But the Army of WW I was a different thing. Look at the 19th century and you have the embarrassments of the Boer wars suffering under the accurate sniping fire of the Boers. This led to a wave of very well funded army reforms that had all combat branches of the Army (infantry, cavalry, artillery) expected to learn how to fire accurately and adoption of a shorter rifle (SMLE) for use by all. Troops were trained to act with initiative, seek cover on their own instinctively and lead if necessary. That's troops, not just NCOs and officers. The expectation was that battalions should be able to continue to fight even with the loss of many officers and NCOs. And that accurate fire, the training told against advancing German troops. Firing from cover, the British would begin firing on the Germans with reasonable accuracy at around 1,000 yards, with fire becoming withering around 600 yards. While the British infantry was short on machine guns, the Germans assumed the opposite as accurate rifle fire at those ranges was mistaken for machinegun fire. They inflicted a lot of casualties on the Germans but as the much smaller force it took a heavy toll on the British infantry. But they slowed down the German advance and contributed to the logistical shortages on ammunition plaguing the Germans with extended supply lines. By November 1914 the 84 infantry battalions were depleted. The strongest 9 had between 300 and 450 troops left (under half strength), while the weakest 18 were reduced to under 100 troops each. For reference, most Battalions had come to France a few months earlier at full strength (1,007 men) while all had at least 966 men. They were all still able to fight. As said, a professional army. A very professional army. In the course of fighting, one regiment had lost all officers except the quartermaster but continued with NCOs leading companies, etc. They consistently punched above their weight even with a shortage of machineguns and inferior artillery to the Germans, but with less than 100,000 men they weren't ever going to win the war on their own. And as these troops were lost, they couldn't be replaced. It had taken years to train up this army, and there was neither money nor time (especially not time) to train the large volunteer army that followed it.
@@heidi_bavarian1725 The reverse is even more true, without the French the British would have been enveloped, and would have experienced a "Dunkirk" 30 years earlier than expected.
And with the new chapter of the Scar Nicholas, I’d like to see the What if Dollfuss survives from assassination then allied with Italy to avoid Anschluss and declare a war on Germany with the allies. And I’d like to see the scenario that what if Sino-Soviet conflict in 1969 cause the WW3, What if Britain annex US after the war of 1812, What if USA use nuke during the Korean War, and what if Mongolian Army conquered Japan and India.
This was an awsome video These two truly would be unstoppable also I gotta say that Those are some fine British and German Borders they be lookin Clean 🇬🇧🇩🇪
Really interesting scenario! I guess Germany and Great Britain would pretty quickly be stagnant since with power, the rivalry also grows. And other powers would have stirred up these tensions even more.
Been scratching my head as to how I can make a Anglo-German Alliance work in a story I am writing, And I discover this video which has brought some interesting idea as to how I can try to make it happen and be somewhat practical to the story.
This should have happened. Germany and Britain were strong allies for centuries before the First World War. Both shared a Germanic culture and a common history and ancestry, both were Protestant, both historically saw France as an enemy power. It made perfect sense, and Britain joining the central powers would have assuredly won them the war, which would have avoided the events that occurred leading up to the Second World War. I believe Britain not joining the Central Powers was a grave historical mistake not only for Britain and Germany, but for all of Europe.
22:20 I can well imagine the Cape to Cairo Railway gaining a legendary status like the Orient Express, and Germany might try to build an east-west Equatorial Railway. It might go from Libreville, Gabon to Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, crossing the Cape to Cairo Railway at Mwanza, Tanzania on Lake Victoria. This would allow resources from the vast interior of Africa to be transported the major ports on the Atlantic and Indian oceans, and would enable quick and inexpensive movement of passengers and cargo across the German colonies.
Greece would not have the power to hold Bulgaria, it would simply be inflicted massive war debts and turned into an Austrian puppet. It also wouldn't be able to hold Libya, which would either go to Britain or Austria.
This is untrue. Greece defeated Bulgaria easily in the Second Balkan War, took all the coast and reached a few kilometers outside Sofia, and in the end gave too much of the land back in an effort of rapprochement. Greece without the National Schism (three year civil war on which side to join, 1914-1917) would be much stronger. Venizelos cooperates with the king and the navy is also much better. Also Britain would have to appease Greece with something, otherwise it would just attack the Ottomans according to the Megali Idea, which would be bad for the alliance with the Germans, at least initially.
@@mitchjervis8453 maybe not occupy all of it but definitely extend its influence there. Greece and Britain would have not allowed the Ottomans to extent their influence in the Balkans and the Austrians on the other side would not have been a better choice either. See it like this: Greece wanted lots of majority Greek lands in Anatolia, but couldn't get them immediately because Ottomans would be in the German sphere. Greece on the other hand would be in the British sphere. Greece without the National Schism can easily reach to Sofia and obliterate Bulgaria militarily (like it did in our timeline, but this time it's even easier, especially if it's surrounded by enemy powers like the Ottomans and Serbs). If Bulgaria attacks Greece, then both Greece and Britain couldn't afford to allow it to escape from somehow being in check.
@@georgios_5342 The greek military didnt obliterate anything, greece was by far the weakest nation after montenegro militarily and you were stopped and almost encircled by the bulgarians in the second balkan war. If romania and the ottomans didnt join the second balkan war and if serbian and greek troops counterattacked bulgaria like in our timeline the whole greek army wouldve been encircled and destroyed .
@@vhp4641 *almost. On the other hand if you look on the map, Greece liberated all of Macedonia and Western Thrace and pushed to 40km from Sofia. This combined with the Romanian push prompted the Tsar to capitulate.
I believe that an alternate universe, where the French and Germans swap places with their alliances (Germay in the Entente and Franc in the Central Powers) would be very interesting
If it did then it wouldn't be called the Central Powers because the UK isn't in Central Europe, and since they joined the war before Italy officially broke its alliance with Germany and the Austrians it likely would have been called the Quad Alliance.
I'd really like to see "What if Britian joined the Axis?" or "What if Britian stayed neutral in WWII?" The Germans concidered britons to be arian brothers and didn't want a war with Britian. From the Nazi point of view France was the one that caused Germany's humiliation in WWI and the USSR was the socialist threat that must be stopped. It would be interesting to see the world if Britian either made peace or joined the axis after Dunkirk. Germany could even claim they allowed the British to escape Dunkirk because they didn't want to slaughter arians.
There is no guaranteed outcome with this. German fleet would block Land-Lease coming from USA to USSR and also Germany would be able to buy oil from Middle East. But USSR also was able to sustain itself , German -Soviet War could drag like 10+ years...
It doesn’t really matter if Hitler liked the British, the British and dominion public absolutely hated the Nazis and by 1939 accepted that war was inevitable. And don’t forget, Britain had a socialist government in the 20s and would again in 1945 so that wasn’t a very big deal. And if Britain sued for peace in 1940, that would pretty much be the end of the empire as it would prove they were incapable of defending it and so the dominions and especially India would simply leave. I get that it’s alt history but Britain supporting Hitler is both ridiculous and impossible.
Most likely would be a peace treaty if instead of Dunkirk miracle there was a storm and all those troops became POWs. Then likely U.K. vs Japan would still carry on, and continental Europe vs ussr would carry on, us would make lots of money. Probably ussr fall without lend lease and British taking Iran so that supplies could make it to them. Who knows in the pacific, maybe Japanese China but British retain the rest of the pacific with the us.
4:17 'Prussia would repeatedly provoke France until finally the Franco-Prussian war broke out.' that's an oversimplification and unjustly shifting blame solely to Prussia. France under Napoleon III was a bully to many for years. it bullied Savoy making it cede its western part to France (including Nice) before Italian unification, it bullied Russia and of course it bullied its neighbours to the east, the German states bordering France. France was opposed to German unification, it considered herself above all her neighbours (think Luxembourg crisis of 1866) and was itching for a fight with the upstart Prussians. France provoked as much as Prussia in 1870 and certainly had a much longer track record of provoking. Napoleon was a proud man or more exactly: *he was full of himself* . he had it coming
6:47 France: drawn with Alsace-Lorraine still under their control, otherwise pretty accurate. Germany: Pretty Accurate Russia: looks like you tried to cut it out of card with blunt scissors.
Karl actually asked Entente for armistice, he just rejected any Italian claims. Anyway if he did it, Austria would suffer fate of WW2 Italy , occupied by Germany
@@athishnirup1815 I asked for it because there was a real attempt to do it. What's funny Entente powers considered Germany to be the real aggressor and A-H to be a victim of her ally's aggressive and expansionist policies. That's why when Karl took throne in later part of the War there were moves to get along with Etente and reform A-H into the US of Greater Austria inspired by USA to make counterbalance to Germany and hostile Red or White Russia (many people forgets White Russia was protofascist/ultranationalist gouvernment headed by military and not all of them cherished the idea of Tsar return) in Central Europe
I just read about King Edward VII (at that time still a prince) eldest son, Prince Albert Victor. He was in love with Princess Margaret of Prussia. If Queen Victoria agrees with his relationship and Prince Albert Victor didn't die from pneumonia. I think there's a possibility of Germany becomes Britain's ally due to royal marriages.
English, and later British, foreign policy was simple. From 1600 to 1945, don't allow any power to dominate the rest of Europe, and never allow any major power to take charge of the Low Countries ports and harbours. (this also applied to Ireland and Portugal). Even a German general in WW1 acknowledged they were surprised when Britain actually declared war on Germany, just because they had invaded Belgium on August 4, 1914. This was the policy, and, we had long-standing treaties with Belgium and Holland. The impression I get is the British political class genuinely hoped the 'balance of power' would prohibit another Napoleonic War breaking out. We now know, even the Kaiser thought it would never develop into such a bloody war, or continue for so long. If the German political class had appeared more moderate, it was still possible to convince the British (Empire) to stay out of the war....... but don't invade the Low Countries.
LOVE IT! What if Alexander The Great had lived? (remake) What if the Aztecs defeated Cortez? What if the Zulus won the Anglo-Zulu War? What if the Vikings never converted to Christianity?
A very interesting timeline very thoughtfully presented. One biproduct would be that America would not get the huge boost to its economy and industry it did in WW1 as suppling military equipment and financial help would not have happened. This could also mean that they Wall Street crash would not have happen as the circumstances would be changed. I have come across another alternative timeline which kept the Triple Alliance but instead of sending troops to France, Britain, still using its navy as in WW1, provides financial help to France. France would probably go the same was as they did in 1870, and also probably in the same time scale, but it would mean Britain would not suffer the loses in men, material and money as they did in WW1.
You mean Britain does naval blockade only and gives money and materials to France, Belgium and Russia? This actually looks like very best course of action. Russia would be beaten, but not so much for becoming communist, even if Red revolution happened anyway it would be put down just like Spartacist uprising in Germany. And Russia would go on as democracy under SR party. France also would be defeated earlier than 1918... overall shorter war would be less devastating for everyone. Status quo between UK and Central powers would be signed, i guess.
@@afisto6647 well 😅, I just believe that winner doesn't matter as much as giant losses and whole tragedy of WW1. Short war like victory by Christmas would be better for all Europe.
I mean, considering the typical relationship between Britain and France, one wonders if we live in the weird 'What if Britain was in the Entente' alt history timeline.
When Germany was created, Britain was divided on what to think of the new powerhouse that just arrived within the center of Europe. Some thought that Germany could be a powerful ally, why most felt that they were instead either another competitor or even threat to British life. Britain had attempted to make peace agreements between Germany and Britain. These were however turned down by Germany’s chancellor, who saw through the alliance and realized that the true intention was of that to use Germany as a passage to safely keep a closer eye on Russia in the east, while not providing Germany any advantages because of the alliance. Britain also later, rejected many alliance offers from Germany within the beginning of the 20th century. Another thing to consider about the morality of the two nations, is the reason for competition between the two. Germany, who was a brand new nation and a powerful one at that, sought to expand its colonial territory and increase its commercial power. As stated within the video, Germany tired to expand its colonial interests methods not of war but of peace. It attempted to purchase lands from other European nations and tried to increase its influence in china but were restricted by the British. Eventually Germany would have the infamous naval arms race against Britain. Within Germany, or at least within Wilhelm it’s eyes, the naval arms race and the economic competition between the two was seen as simply a friendly economic competition that would never actually involve war. As stated within the Emperors memoirs “it would’ve simply been a case of the better man winning”, concluding the idea that Germany was on a path to outclass Britain not by opposing them, but of simply surpassing them on the global market peacefully. Britain in the other hand had much more malicious intentions. As they were an established power, with century’s of Naval and colonial dominance. They had created an unhealthy monopoly on the global market and had control over 25% of the earths land surface. They saw Germany as a threat and blocked Germany from expanding any further. They were blocking them within china and Africa, and also began to see them as a military threat as well and started planning ways to defeat Germany, if a war were to arrive. They had pre-planned to starve Germany into submission and had their own soldiers Greatcoats placed within the stores of France and Belgium, years before the war began, indicating that Britain saw Germanys economic prosperity and expansion, not as competition, but as a direct threat to Britain itself. In the end, it is easy to see how all sides contributed to the beginning of the First World War, and what their motives were for doing so. While others had more honest intentions, others had more questionable reasons for their involvement .
Also the Berlin-Baghdad railway would enrich the Ottomans, causing them to expand to the west (Suez canal) or East (Anglo-Iran oil company, Iran-Iraq War, Khuzestan is just east of the Zagros mountain range & very oil rich with sizable Arabs compared Persians). Germany should have formed a solid alliance, with Russia IMO. This was squandered by Hitler's Barbarossa due to his idealism/fundamentalism.
@@CeruleanSword Again, you have to look at it from a perspective from Germany and Britain. Germany was within her right to compete with Britain economically and only wished to continue its economic prosperity. The reasons I say “malicious” is because Britain took Germanys advancements with too much hostility and was preparing for war, while Germany was not. As late as July 1914, Germany was still exporting gold and grain to the Entente countries, including Britain. This demonstrates that Germany still intended to continue commercial ties to Britain, despite the competition between the two. Perhaps malicious wasn’t the correct term but I still stand by my previous statements that Britain’s motives for actions against Germany were unnecessary and weren’t morality defensible. Yes by definition Germany “threatened” Britain’s position within the world but is that exactly a bad thing? At the same time you have to understand the monopoly that Britain had over the world. They controlled Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India, Ireland, Scotland, Wales, most of Africa, and even small amounts of territory within South America. Not to mention the dozens of island colonies under the crowns control. Would it have threatened Britain all that much if they simply allowed Germany to become an unassociated partner in the international market, and allowed them to continue their small expansion within Africa and China? Also no I am not denying that Germanys actions did not cause these reactions. But that is where my point stands. I understand that Britain would’ve had these feelings with Germany becoming a new superpower and competing against them, but their hostile reactions and preparations for war expose their intent to destroy any chance of Germany receiving her place in the sun. (I don’t have the exact quote with me but as Wilhelm ii said before ww1, they do not intend to remove any other country from the world scale or become the sun itself, but have its own place among the other superpowers under the sun.)
@@CeruleanSword I respectfully request that you refrain from claiming that I’m “biased” in my arguments. (Everyone is biased to a certain degree no matter how hard they try within any argument) But back to the discussion at hand. Like I said within my previous statement, “malicious” was most likely not a correct term for Britains reactions to Germanys expansion. But I’d also like to turn attention to they way you expressed how Germanys expansion “threatened Britain’s Hegemony”. As stated within the video, Germany intended to claim more colonial gains via purchasing lands from other European countries. Germany was not asking Britain to be “charitable” as you put it. IF they wanted to acquire any of Britain’s colonies, they would’ve payed Britain handsomely for the territory. But Germany was not even aiming for Britain’s colonies. As stated within the video and other historical texts, Germany intended to created Middle Africa. Which would’ve required the Belgium Congo and the French territories in the west. Not to mention how no European countries actually had full on colonies within China, but simply spheres of influence, which wouldn’t have threatened Britain’s “Hegemony” in any way. China was and still is deeply influenced by Britain’s interference with its affairs. Especially when it comes to the Opium wars. So in turn, there was no way Germany could’ve threatened their position within China. There was no real threat that Germany actually made to Britain’s “hegemony”, and the situation might’ve seemed dangerous for Britain, but in reality did not threaten it nearly as much they perceived. Britain did react in these ways and they did react with hostility, wether you like it or not, because of the confusion between the two. Despite this I still do understand where Britain is coming from. I am not so Naive as to the sentiment shared among the general British public and government. I understand the fears that Germany may have wanted to threaten Britain directly. But in the end miscommunication on both sides lead to Britain’s hostile reactions.
Story Time. Darth Vader and four Dark Jedi's approached Tony; who was sitting Indian style-His back against them. Vader and the four Dark Jedi's ignited their lightsabers. Darth Vader: In name of the Galactic Empire, you are under arrest. He stood up and took out his lightsaber and ignited it. Tony:I refuse to go. In mere seconds he took out two of the three dark jedi's-And eventually-Took out the other.
What would have happened if The Austro-Hungarian empire was partitioned (partially or fully) by Deutschland, Italy and Russia (and friends) after the Franco Prussian war?
Chamberlin: (makes mater of fact proposition) the Germans: I said no lies! I think he was telling the truth. I if he was telling the truth wouldn't have told us!
Imagine a world where France wins the Franco-Prussian War of 1870. Germany remains divided, though Prussia under chancellor Bismarck intends to unify the states through sheer diplomatic power. The UK grows increasingly worried that France is preparing to embark on yet another Napoleonic-style world domination run, and secretly builds up good relations with Prussia culminating in their support to unify under one flag being of Germany. Austria-Hungary feels less tension as the calls of its people to join Prussia are much weaker than the real-life calls to join Germany. France enters a high mobilization state at this turn of events, and Germany's support of Austria for its declaration of war on Serbia results in The Great War kicking off. Germany severely underestimated France's willingness for total war and Russia's willingness to follow suit. The UK sees its fears confirmed and as France crosses Belgium to open an attack on Germany's flank the UK uses it as an excuse to declare war. Retaining Alsace-Lorraine and with Germany still dealing with the unification process and having to kickstart its new economy, it would be damn near as bloody as the real thing if not bloodier.
I can imagine Prussia could go different route similar to Austria and become Prusso-Poland or maybe push into Scandinavia (Denmark wanted to join both North German Confederation and German Empire due to it's german monarch and nobilitu in otl), but first Bismarck would need to lose position, which could have happened after the fiasco of his "german unification". And btw Prussian lose could be used by Austria to actually unite/reunite Germany or at least the Southern Catholic part
just dont send Ems dispatch. And Franco- German war wont happen in 1870. South German states would become part of German federation anyway but in slower fashion. And Europe would be much less heated place.
If Greece isn't given something to be satisfied, at least temporarily, then it would attack the Ottomans to gain the Megali Idea lands, which would not be good for the alliance.
@@georgios_5342Greece had the Megali Idea, but no means to make it reality, not even with the full backing of the British in our time - and they were fully aware of this. The National Schism was a product of this very awareness - confronted by the insanity of the expansionist dreams. So, to begin with, there wouldn't be any reason to appease Greece - and they would have to be satisfied with Bulgarian and Italian spoils. Perhaps even Cyprus, if the British *really* wanted to throw a bone.
Correction: Multiple times you used the map of France with Alsace Lorraine, when it shouldn't be French but instead German (I can see that you also made Alsace Lorraine part of Germany, as shown at 6:38.
@@helmetmcbarontbf that would pretty much be true the only threats to that would be Germany wanting to be the senior partner but this could be resolved and the us who might feel to threatened by Germany and Britain owning over half the entire planet but also Germany and Britain were natural allies for the us it would basically be a 3 way world alliance and there would be no threat even if the rest of the free world decided to team up to attack them
So basically the alliance between Britain and Germany fell through because Germany demanded any agreement gave them far, far more than the potential ally. The idea of an equal partnership with equal gains for both was an alien concept to them
France would of needed to win the Franco-Prussian war for any chance of Britain joining Germany in an allience. The balance of power was Britain's main focus
Exactly,people are forgetting how easy it was for a Resentful public of a 1st world nation (France In this case) to mobilise. In this scenario, France would prrobably have a Hitler figure come to power Regardless, with inroads that the USA was making into the comparison of power between countries, Within a century USA would have been the most powerful country in the world definitely would have gone to war with Britain, because of the tied up trade routes
I still to this day think it was a massive mistake fighting Germany. Germany and Britain together could handle France, Russia and USA combined. British and German navy plus airforce would have made a US invasion of Europe 100% impossibe, the British and German army could have finished off France with ease. If you look at the performance of both the British and Germans in both world wars its hard to point out a spot where this alliance would have been weak. I can only think the upper class of British and German officers would have clashed on egos...then again, Wellington and Blucher did well together and thrashed Napoleon. Its such a shame. Europe today would still be 100% European.
Your last paragraph is a mouth watering prospect for any right minded Briton or German. The upper class of British and German officers would have clashed on egos… because they are so similar! That old line from, was it von Bethmann-Hollwegg?, that he was only concerned if the supply of character in the German officer corps ran short, could so easily have come from Kitchener or Haig. And, of course, the nuclear “elephant in the room” would have been that the German scientists chased out of Europe by Nazi stupidity (Einstein, Meitner, etc) would have worked with the British nuclear physicists (e.g. Oliphant, admittedly an Aussie) to produce a deterrent to protect the whole Anglo-German Empire. Fascinating “what if” !
With Britain allied with Germany, it is no contest - over by Christmas. More interesting is Britain remaining neutral, and even more the US remaining neutral.
Well the two would take over the 7:47 world ending wars and unite everyone under 2 countries rather than being divided into hundreds of countries. technology may be better because people are working together more and resources aren't divided as much.
What if Canada revolted with the States in the American Revolution. What if Japan was Annexed as a State into the United States after WW2 What if the Balkans were a Unified Country
Britain and Germany truly would’ve been Invincible Britains biggest weakness was its ground force but Germany had the strongest one in the world Germanys biggest weakness was its Navy but Britain Dominated the Worlds oceans they truly.
Actually Germany had a pretty capable Navy that rivaled the British Navy by the time WW1 rolled around. The Royal Navy had numbers, whilst the German Navy was smaller but with better armor and weapons (If my history Knowledge is Correct). That being said, yeah, they would've been unstoppable.
@@yeetusdeletus1827 ye they did but the British did sunk all of Germanys best battle ships in both world wars, still the only underwater battle in history and the Bismarck Germanys most powerful battle ship the British sunk the lot.
@@dt3692 The Bismark was WW2, and was mostly German Propaganda considering it was sunk by WW1 weaponry. Even in WW1 Germany also sunk multiple British Ships. In fact (Though I can't remember the exact battle), the only reason the Imperial German Navy pulled back was because they thought they weren't going to win when in reality the British Navy had been almost completely put on the retreat and Germany had an opening to keep Oceanic Supply routes open.
@@yeetusdeletus1827 Don't even try to compare The Royal was so much better than the German navy pound of pound, remember if there was an Anglo-German alliance there would have been no naval arms race and an even smaller German navy in that case.
Britain and Germany both screwed themselves with their greed and pride in not forming this alliance. To this day, they are very similar peoples, racially and linguistically, and have excelled in science and commerce. Animosity lingers from the world wars and each still finds itself superior to the other, although they are both successful for the same cultural traits of hard work and personal discipline. What a shame they didn’t ally. They could have prevented the horrors of the trenches, Hitler and the Holocaust.
In stead we would’ve gotten the exact thing the British wanted to avoid, a militaristic absolute monarchy as the hegemony on the continent just like Napoleon. It would’ve been repulsive to the rapidly liberalizing British public
@@jakemurray2635 Just like Britain’s historic ally Russia, the autocratic Czar? His police state was an unequal partner to the liberal democracies of France and Britain.
@@peppertrout definitely not a “historic ally” they’d been in a Cold War for the last 100 years and only came together because of they’re alliance with France and out of a joint distrust of Germany.
@@jakemurray2635 you don’t call WWI and WWII historic?? Your country allied itself through the most terrible wars of humanity’s history with Russia and its totalitarian governments. The liberalizing British public was well aware of the agony of the Russians under these regimes, as well as the suffering of their subject peoples.
Actually this came close to happening. Ottoman von Bismarck wanted to form an alliance with Great Britain after Germany Unified. The combination of the biggest Naval Power & the best Army would maintain the peace of Europe.
Start speaking a new language in 3 weeks with Babbel 🎉. Get up to 65% OFF your subscription ➡️ Here: go.babbel.com/1200m65-youtube-monsieurz-may-2022/default
*France and Russia have left the chat*
BETTER QUESTION what if there was a 3rd side in the world wars. US UK JAPAN.
US America Oceania.
UK Europe Africa.
JAPAN Asia Siberia.
what if the second Irak war never happend?
you make good videos and you should become a polititan someday
please make a combo scenario.
what if Britain formed the imperial federation and American went full colonial.
could they be allies. and work together or peacefully.
so two FEDERAL REPUBLICS colonial empires working together.
could this ever happen could there be co-operation and peace.
What’s that tiny dot in western America?
Given that Romania's King was pro-German in RL and only sided with the Entente because his British wife persuaded him to Romania going with France in this scenario seems unlikely.
Actually(I'm not 100% sure) he listened to his people, who were pro-entente
Nah, higher echelons in Romania were Francophiles, culturally ( due to romanias language being a Latin one and because French was a prestige, international, diplomatic language, and im sure there were other factors particular to Romania also).
German princelings being crowned as National Monarchs was not uncommon at the time - Greece had the same tension between German Monarch and Allied factions of the upper echelons.
Bulgaria had a people/culture that was sympathetic to russia but the military were pro-Prussian (in the second ww tsar Boris lamented his pro german army, italian wife and pro russian people, seeing himself as the only bulgarian).
Romania in the interwar years had been pro-France, being a key part of the "little entente" supported by france.
Lol and Germany invasion romania so easy in ww1
@@corneliuscapitalinus845 yes, that's why I was referring to allies, France influenced Romania a lot, plus Transilvania, Basarabia (where I live btw) and other factors
@Bruce Robertson Borat king😭
it is worth noting that it was a common sentiment among German soldiers during ww1 that instead of fighting each other, it should’ve been Germany and Britain fighting together against the French
Some of us still feel that way 😂
They called us Germans of the sea
My Grandfather thought the same , he thought we should have fought the French .
This was actually a common thought among most German and British citizens apparently. Many Germans actually vacationed in Britain so many became accustomed to the culture and their was still some resentment of France during the 19th century. Hell there was a popular alternative fiction written during this time which pitted German and Britain against France and Russia. Apparently the novel was a actual pretty fun read with the French trying to do a naval invasion to the Isle of Wight and the Germans having to deal with Russian Cossacks in eastern Prussia. I don’t know what it was called but it was a apparently a very fun read back then.
i always said ww2 if we joined Germany against Russia we would have got rid of stalin the germans would have assassinated hitler. no cold war and the world would be a better place today
In this timeline, I think that Italy would be far more careful and prudent than they were in OTL. In OTL, Italy didn't join WW1 till 1915 because they wanted to see who's side had the advantage. In this timeline, however, they most likely would side with the Central Powers as they were clearly superior to the Entente and Italy wouldn't want to risk the benefits of the alliance. At the end of the Great War, Italy would have gained it's desired territories under french control or in France such as Savoy and Tunisia. The interesting situation would come a couple of years after the Great War, as now Italy sets it's sights on Austria. This time, the two likely options are: A new war between the two would occur, where Hungary would rebel as they felt that they were loosing influence in the Empire, or Austria manages to reorganize its empire and arranges with Italy that all territory with a majority italian population would be transferred to Italy. Either way, both Germany and Britain would try to end this conflict as soon as possible, and in the first case they would side with the country that had the upperhand at the time.
On The Low
On the opposite, I think Italy would have been even more reckless, but not against Austria, but against France and maybe the Ottomans.
Very insightful comment.
I think Italy would offer to join in and occupy French colonial possessions in Africa, getting a territorial expansion like Japan had rooting out German possessions in the Pacific.
Italy joining France would threaten Britain's Mediterranean link through the Suez to India, Australia and the Pacific. That would get ugly but without the German High Seas Fleet to worry about the Royal Navy would go after Italy in strength. A lot of risk and for what gain?
So joining the central powers as a way to gobble up French colonies cut off from resupply/reinforcement from France would appear the most attractive option for Italy.
Britain should have sided with the Kaiser
Ah yes The two protestants superpowers actually feels more natural than an alliance in our timeline
I think the completely different political systems was more of a factor than religion by the 20th century
Are England catholic now?
We should have sided with the Germans 🇬🇧 🇩🇪
@@ShireTommy_1916_Somme-Mametz Yes, our two nations would be better
Never underestimate the kaiser’s ability to mess things up.
Queen Victoria might be proud that her grandson joins her side. :)
Her death was actually what drove Wilhelm to call for an accepting of the deal the 3rd time around.
Why is little Willy causing a fuss over Australia losing a monarch? I hope cousin Nicky doesn't get drawn into this Balkans flair up.
@@Kruppt808 *gets ptsd episode of thick austrian accent and magyar shouting emus*
King Edward and King George couldn't care less what she wanted.
Britain in the 19th and Pre-WW1 saw itself as the one to balance Europe. If it thinks one power has gotten to powerful it will throw its weight behind the other
Thats partly why in our timeline it allied itself with the French pre Great War as it saw Prussia as a potential threat to European stability after the successes the state has seen in the late 19th century.
For this timeline to work imo France would have to have been a bigger power or Britain would have to gotten a foreign policy revamp
Eh not quite. Britain did not want any continental power to get powerful enough to threaten its imperial interests, it was quiet imbalanced in their favor. The Germans were growing increasingly dangerous to their empire by early 1900s, that's why Britain fought them.
For this to work, either the German leadership has to avoid the naval arms race that puts it into direct competition with Britain, or France has to back Russia over Britain in the early 1900s naval standoffs (or, for that matter, the Russo-Japanese War). The real-world Triple Entente is already a strange enough political contrivance.
Indeed
@@algernonilfracombe oh yeah by all rights the triple entente made zero fucking sense.
Britain was originally afraid of Russia becoming to powerful against them. It was when Russia lost the Russo-Japanese war that Britain moved their attention to Germany. If this was to work, Russia would have to win Russo-Japanese war
France: You can't control the continent!
Germany: Kaiser Reich go burr
we would have won if the britisch did not fight us
@@heidi_bavarian1725 its your guys fault, germany attacked belgium lmao
@@itsmemogul889 it's also British fault we secured Belgian neutrality. Our fatal mistake
*Kaiserreich
@@itsmemogul889 und we conqerd frankreich after what it did in versailles
The United Kingdom joined the Central Powers and Germany to preserve its empire. Both the German Empire, The Ottoman Empire, Austrian-Hungary, and possibly Italy wouldn't collapse due to the exhaustion of both resources on the global scale. My question is, does Germany still becomes a monarchy or republic in this alternate timeline, in the modern era?
I had a great idea for your what-if video, if you want my idea, Monsieur Z.
Anyway, this is a great reference to Chamaberelan who tried to save the British Empire from collapsing, and with Chamaberelan able to convince his fellow colleagues allying themselves with the Germans is the only way to keep holding to their colonial possesions. That is some political charismatic genius Chamaberelan had to pull and it worked. This is an amazing Mr. Z, keep up the amazing work for you are the best alternate historian UA-camr who really knows the history and understands what would happen if histories of historical events change by simple courses of actions.
I imagine they'd stay a monarchy, with no collapsing war effort to curb the kaisers power and the preservation of the kaiserreich leading to the ascension of the much less volatile Wilhelm III I don't see it becoming a republic.
This war would also be by all rights a victory for European monarchism proving that as an institution monarchy was still viable.
definitely stay a monarchy, even if they gradually lose power. If the UK joined then france would peace out early
I think germany will follow the UKs way and set up a constitutional monarchy instead of a absolute one
@@deepblume6611 I wish I could live that timeline.
Germany is America dog doing bark bark at what America says, Britain of course was ally of III reich they didn't helped their ally named Poland in 1939 because of fear. Same thing in 1944 when Poland was doing fight for freedom at Warsaw... When soviets came to Poland, Britain finally started thinking because of warsaw pact.
What if Karl I had been able to pull the Austro-Hungarian Empire out of WWI instead of being humiliated by the Sixstus Affair. Would the empire still exist today? How would post war Europe have recovered with one standing government among the ruins of Germany, Russia, and the Ottoman Empire?
Well if Austria Hungary survived ww1 that would actually change a lot. If Austria Hungary both survived and left early, the czechoslovak legions might have left Russia sooner, and if they did they couldn't have stolen white russias gold or betrayed kolchak. With kolchaks continued leadership plus a lot more money and the presumed support of Austria (whom wouldn't want a communist power on their doorstep) its possible albeit still unlikely, the whites might have won the civil war.
@@mappingshaman5280 But Kolchak was universally disliked both in Russia and abroad so it could be temporary solution that could lead to either liberalization or radicalization and each of this results would completely changed the tides of upcoming war and subsuquent postwar era.
Edit: I actually mistook Kolchak for Kerensky xd so universal "dislikiness" part is not quite accurate in that scenario
Well even if AH survived WW1 somehow, it would be shrinked in size as many of it s lands were promised to Poland, Serbia, Romania, Italy... also there would be a question of Bohemia, i really doubt that Czechoslovakia wont be created, although there was significant German diaspora in Bohemia, so Bohemia may stay a part of Austria-Hungary. Questions of Slovenia and Croatia would be decided by plebescites.
Anyway this would change events of 1938, as Austria-Hungary would resist German annexation. If France or Italy support them, nazi Germany could be put down early -No Ww2. Fun facts are King Charles actually tried to return to Hungary, but was stopped at the border and next king in the line Otto -was Austria in 1930s agitating against Nazis. Also back to early 20th century Austria-Hungary was kinda safe heaven for Jews, while anti-jew sentiment was strong in other European countries, especially Germany and Russia.
@@alexzero3736 WW1 was the best thing to happen for the heretics--AKA Republicans. They betrayed the good Karl.
The Entente as far as I know had no intention of letting Austria Hungary survive
I feel like with Britain in the Cental Powers, Italy would be much too intimidated by the overwhelming land and naval strength to make such a move, while I also think that if the Italo-Turkish war ends with Italy taking Libya, Britain would not mind much, as it would only push the Ottoman Empire into Britain's arms more.
I think a Italo-Greek Alliance that courts both the Entente and Central Powers would probably be more likely, as they have a shared interest in Albania and the downfall of the Ottoman Empire. If Greece were to take Northern Epirus, the Dodecanese and as much Greek Ottoman land as they can, the Italians would take the rest of Albania, Libya and coastal Turkish lands.
Those are conflicting aims. Actually in Greco-turkish war Italians tworted some Greek efforts. Even if some peace conference would draw the lines, the next event would be an Italo-Greek war.
@@alexzero3736 one of top 3 feudes of all time.
I mean Italy were very close to joining the Central Powers originally anyway, only for Britain and France promising them land if they joined the Entente, I'm 100% certain if Britain was in the Central Powers then Italy would have joined and France and Russia would have no chance.
What if Mithridates empire survived?
What if Japan conquered Korea in the 16th century?
What if guns weren’t invented?
Guns cannot be not invented.
Eventually people will figure out the principles.
Wait wasn't 16th century in Japan a sengoku Dzidai Epoch of warring kingdoms?
@@alexzero3736 Yes but japan tried conquering china and korea during the imjin war
Romans would have had their own rival replacing Carthage.
Japan would have been a player in the open door policy the world adopted in China eventually.
Longbows and horse-archers would have ruled for longer till cars and planes are invented.
What if your mum never had sex?
Why is Greece so big and colonial? Wouldn't it make more sence for Britain (or Germany) to get these colonies or parts of them (at least for Cyrenaica to join under Egypt)?
No. Greece in this timeline does not experience the national schism. Megali Idea is still a strong movement and the Greek navy is strong, just as in our timeline. The republican Veniselist faction works together with the royalists and Greece punches far above its size, like in the Balkan wars. Imagine that the national schism was like a civil war on joining Britain or Germany. In this scenario that doesn't happen, Greece is much stronger. Greece reached 30km from Ankara by itself despite having to deal with the effects of the schism. Without it, it would definitely make much more progress.
@@georgios_5342 Seems kinda too much to have all of those Greater Greek Territories directly controlled, I can absolutely see the Greeks having major soft power in the region, but occupying all of that land Is just asking for trouble, eventually it would become like Austria Hungary if it took all that.
Forget the colonial land. They are getting gifted the capital and industrial heart of their ally as a gift, because why not. Somehow the Ottomans, the greeks and the central powers are all on the same side and Greece is getting territory out of the Ottomans. That's Gigabrain^Gigabrain^2HighIQ right there.
@@justsefa1843 this is the Megali Idea. I'd the lands were first occupied by the Bulgarians, they would have definitely been acquired by Greece after that.
@@georgios_5342 That's just nonsense and not how the world works. You would fuck the alliance up right there. And in the first place, the Ottomans were tough enough to whitestand a multiple front war. In this case, the Ottomans would only have two fronts. A short one on the Balkans and Caucasia. As if Bulgaria alone could crush most of the Ottoman army on its own. Even in case of a potential occupation, after liberating the territory, Greece would definetly not get ownership of it.
It makes me cry that the Germans fucked this up. Honestly the world would be infinitely better if the UK had joined the central powers
Agreed. A less deadly ww1, no ww2 and less atrocities. Sounds like a world I'd love to live in.
We should have fought together. I love my German brothers and sisters.
If Britain had joined the Central Powers: "Hey, Japan, do you fancy gaining Indochina?"
If Britain joined central powers then so would Japan, and it would probably invade Russia and China.
Other than mega-Greece, this is a very interesting and well thought out scenario. One of your best videos yet and a great time period.
Yeah, I agree. It seems unlikely Greece would gain Libya. Would make more sense the UK or Germany getting it.
Ya greece wouldnt get lybia perhaps we would have anothet greko turkish war
Greece gets also neapolis and carthago gets reestablished with its iberian colonial possessions.
Turk detected
@@onlybradparker It could happen like when Belgium was given the Congo as None wanted the other to receive it.
Idea:what if Britain stayed a republic (Cromwell) and I’ve been waiting for this video!
The most interesting thing would be the cultural impact. UK is the face of monarchy. So many of mythycised and romanticised depictions of monarchies wouldn't exist in modern world. Which could put countries already reluctant to their monarchs to shed it altogether. Definietely Spain, maybe Benelux countries, Japan?
The reddit timeline :/
You’d need a way way more competent son of Cromwell for it to stay a republic
Republics 🤢🤮
Same
WW1 was completely avoidable. My grandfather chirpy WW1 Tommy who came home to nothing but twenty years of regular unemployment with periods of work on poverty wages. It's no wonder it used to be called the war caused by the "Pride of kings.
Actually the kings like Wilhelm and Nicholas tried to push for peace. Nicholas encouraged Serbia to give into Austria’s demands, but the generals in both countries heavily pushed for war and eventually won out. Christina Croft has an excellent book, “Princes in the Trenches”, where she goes through the different Royal families of Europe and how it’s members didn’t just send their people to war, but went with them. Either tending to the injured and dying or fighting in the trenches the same as their men. Blessed Karl is one such example, the Last Knight of Europe.
@@AmericanImperium2112
Yeah, it's so stupid how WW1 happened because there wasn't really an explicit "bad guy". WW2 is obvious, but WW1 was a series of miscommunication, assumptions, accidents, overconfidence and above all alliances.
The thing I love about your video format is that even though I feel I know all the context of the video you still have new and exciting analysis of the time periods and histories that are the foundation for the AR.
France being like:
"I fear no power,
but this, *[watch the UK and Germany being allies]*
it scares me..."
Portugal was always a close ally of England and this since the 14th century. With the French defeat, probably France would be excluded from most of Africa and totally from the Indochina. More, Portuga's territories were a kind of buffer State between British and German African colonies, so it's very unlikely that if remaining neutral, Portugal would be excluded against the British interests there. Anyway, Germany and Britain would clash about commercial policies.
I’d like to see the new episode of Scar Nicholas very soon. :)
Same here
I could see a potential wrench in the gears with this timeline: the United States, and it could actually go either way. On the other hand, there were strong pro-British and pro-German sentiments among Americans at the turn of the 19th Century which would push public opinion in favor of the Central Powers. However, going into the 1910s and 1920s, the US might start to see the Central Powers as a threat to the Monroe Doctrine, as without any major threats to their hegemony, the British (whose tacit support was what enabled the Monroe Doctrine to have any teeth) might reconsider whether they support it, to say nothing about American ambitions in the Pacific, and may find itself siding with France and Russia to check their rivals.
I was hoping this video would discuss the United States a bit further,
But without losses of Americans to u-boat attacks, there would be less public outrage on which to go to war.
I think the first American response to the war (and the combined British and German navies) would be their own naval arms race.
@@iansneddon2956 Believe me, they'll find something else to make people angry or scared about. The most likely method would be an invasion scare (which did happen at the turn of the century, which convinced Congress to finally give the US Navy some proper funding)
Theodore Roosevelt thought war was inevitable with the Kaiser based on his diplomacy. Germans would say we determine what are interests are only, then Roosevelt would ask, then why do you want to have a diplomatic conference if only your opinion matters on your supposed interests?
Meaning you don't want to talk business, you want to dictate terms toward the rest of Europe and the Americans.
The Americans wouldn’t have been much of a threat to Britain or Germany at that time, they didn’t have much of an army and needed a long time to mobilise, the only reason they did what they did in wwi was because they had sat out for the first couple of years and had their economy benefit from it
Actually, I think Bulgaria would still be more likely to join the central powers, as Serbian-held Macedonia was a bigger priority than the Greek coastal region and if Romania joined the Entente, they could also get Dobruja
the best timeline, only beat by a timeline without ww1
Glad to see the old what if videos back.
Mr. Z, I absolutely loved this alt history! I especially enjoyed the alternate World War 1, that concept I feel is so underdone aside from switching the victors. (No shade at Kaiserreich or anything, but still.)
Fantastic work!
If you think about it this timeline is almost a paradise since WW1 will not be a major conflict and dictators such as Hitler and Stalin would not rise up to power and thus the millions of casualties in our timeline will not happen
Interesting. Britain had a small but very professional army in 1914, which punched above their weight holding the Germans back and contributing to the Germans ultimately being halted before Paris.
With Britain as an ally, Germany could bring battleships in for shore bombardment to support the siege of Antwerp, or use them to support advance along the coast taking Dunkirk.
Also without an expanded British and Commonwealth presence in France, there is no Battle of the Somme to take pressure off the French at Verdun (or similar German offensive).
And without a British naval blockade, Germany has access to raw materials and won't face the starvation that set in as the war progressed.
Note that the above doesn't factor in British forces joining in anywhere, just a greater ability for Germany to bring forces to bear. The Royal Navy could blockade French ports (necessary to prevent French interference with trade routes through the Meditteranean and Atlantic) which would drive France into economic crisis.
Without unrestricted submarine warfare, there would also be less excuse for USA to join the war.
ya battle of mons ,the britisch saved the frankreich
Agreed, the war would have been over in well under 6 months
The "small but very professional army" was very weak and near collapsing and go on a full run away from the front.
Same in WW2
@@afisto6647 Try researching before you post. The small professional army carried out a fighting retreat in good order against a vastly superior force (overall outnumbered around 7:1, with German forces attacking again and again with at least 4:1 superiority in numbers.
The British Army of WW II began in sorry shape scrambling to grow from a smaller force which had been starved of funds and therefore had not received as much training or work developing army doctrine. This left them still struggling to develop this while fighting the Germans in North Africa.
But the Army of WW I was a different thing. Look at the 19th century and you have the embarrassments of the Boer wars suffering under the accurate sniping fire of the Boers. This led to a wave of very well funded army reforms that had all combat branches of the Army (infantry, cavalry, artillery) expected to learn how to fire accurately and adoption of a shorter rifle (SMLE) for use by all. Troops were trained to act with initiative, seek cover on their own instinctively and lead if necessary. That's troops, not just NCOs and officers. The expectation was that battalions should be able to continue to fight even with the loss of many officers and NCOs.
And that accurate fire, the training told against advancing German troops. Firing from cover, the British would begin firing on the Germans with reasonable accuracy at around 1,000 yards, with fire becoming withering around 600 yards. While the British infantry was short on machine guns, the Germans assumed the opposite as accurate rifle fire at those ranges was mistaken for machinegun fire. They inflicted a lot of casualties on the Germans but as the much smaller force it took a heavy toll on the British infantry. But they slowed down the German advance and contributed to the logistical shortages on ammunition plaguing the Germans with extended supply lines.
By November 1914 the 84 infantry battalions were depleted. The strongest 9 had between 300 and 450 troops left (under half strength), while the weakest 18 were reduced to under 100 troops each. For reference, most Battalions had come to France a few months earlier at full strength (1,007 men) while all had at least 966 men.
They were all still able to fight. As said, a professional army. A very professional army. In the course of fighting, one regiment had lost all officers except the quartermaster but continued with NCOs leading companies, etc. They consistently punched above their weight even with a shortage of machineguns and inferior artillery to the Germans, but with less than 100,000 men they weren't ever going to win the war on their own. And as these troops were lost, they couldn't be replaced. It had taken years to train up this army, and there was neither money nor time (especially not time) to train the large volunteer army that followed it.
@@heidi_bavarian1725 The reverse is even more true, without the French the British would have been enveloped, and would have experienced a "Dunkirk" 30 years earlier than expected.
And with the new chapter of the Scar Nicholas, I’d like to see the What if Dollfuss survives from assassination then allied with Italy to avoid Anschluss and declare a war on Germany with the allies.
And I’d like to see the scenario that what if Sino-Soviet conflict in 1969 cause the WW3, What if Britain annex US after the war of 1812, What if USA use nuke during the Korean War, and what if Mongolian Army conquered Japan and India.
Wow this is fantastic. Leaving a comment to help with the algorithm
I appreciate it, pal.
France & Russia: Haha I'm in danger
I like how both Chamberlains were so desperate to be friendly with Germany.
If they could make peace in Europe than they could conquer the world together.
He listened to our comments for a video on this topic on the federation’s video, a true gentleman this UA-camr is.
This was an awsome video These two truly would be unstoppable also I gotta say that
Those are some fine British and German Borders they be lookin Clean 🇬🇧🇩🇪
Really interesting scenario! I guess Germany and Great Britain would pretty quickly be stagnant since with power, the rivalry also grows. And other powers would have stirred up these tensions even more.
Long Live the Pan-Teutonic Alliance! 🇺🇸🤝🇬🇧🤝🇩🇪
Our Ancestors must now be spinning in their graves after what generation snow flake have done to the uk
Now it's Grecee's time in the sun.
If the National Schism hadn't happened, we'd be in Pontus by now 💪🇬🇷
Been scratching my head as to how I can make a Anglo-German Alliance work in a story I am writing, And I discover this video which has brought some interesting idea as to how I can try to make it happen and be somewhat practical to the story.
This should have happened. Germany and Britain were strong allies for centuries before the First World War. Both shared a Germanic culture and a common history and ancestry, both were Protestant, both historically saw France as an enemy power. It made perfect sense, and Britain joining the central powers would have assuredly won them the war, which would have avoided the events that occurred leading up to the Second World War. I believe Britain not joining the Central Powers was a grave historical mistake not only for Britain and Germany, but for all of Europe.
22:20 I can well imagine the Cape to Cairo Railway gaining a legendary status like the Orient Express, and Germany might try to build an east-west Equatorial Railway. It might go from Libreville, Gabon to Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, crossing the Cape to Cairo Railway at Mwanza, Tanzania on Lake Victoria. This would allow resources from the vast interior of Africa to be transported the major ports on the Atlantic and Indian oceans, and would enable quick and inexpensive movement of passengers and cargo across the German colonies.
Greece would not have the power to hold Bulgaria, it would simply be inflicted massive war debts and turned into an Austrian puppet. It also wouldn't be able to hold Libya, which would either go to Britain or Austria.
This is untrue. Greece defeated Bulgaria easily in the Second Balkan War, took all the coast and reached a few kilometers outside Sofia, and in the end gave too much of the land back in an effort of rapprochement. Greece without the National Schism (three year civil war on which side to join, 1914-1917) would be much stronger. Venizelos cooperates with the king and the navy is also much better. Also Britain would have to appease Greece with something, otherwise it would just attack the Ottomans according to the Megali Idea, which would be bad for the alliance with the Germans, at least initially.
@@georgios_5342, I did not say the Greeks would gain some territory from Bulgaria, I said they would not take ALL of Bulgaria.
@@mitchjervis8453 maybe not occupy all of it but definitely extend its influence there. Greece and Britain would have not allowed the Ottomans to extent their influence in the Balkans and the Austrians on the other side would not have been a better choice either. See it like this: Greece wanted lots of majority Greek lands in Anatolia, but couldn't get them immediately because Ottomans would be in the German sphere. Greece on the other hand would be in the British sphere. Greece without the National Schism can easily reach to Sofia and obliterate Bulgaria militarily (like it did in our timeline, but this time it's even easier, especially if it's surrounded by enemy powers like the Ottomans and Serbs). If Bulgaria attacks Greece, then both Greece and Britain couldn't afford to allow it to escape from somehow being in check.
@@georgios_5342 The greek military didnt obliterate anything, greece was by far the weakest nation after montenegro militarily and you were stopped and almost encircled by the bulgarians in the second balkan war. If romania and the ottomans didnt join the second balkan war and if serbian and greek troops counterattacked bulgaria like in our timeline the whole greek army wouldve been encircled and destroyed .
@@vhp4641 *almost. On the other hand if you look on the map, Greece liberated all of Macedonia and Western Thrace and pushed to 40km from Sofia. This combined with the Romanian push prompted the Tsar to capitulate.
As an Englishman, I believe Britain should have joined the Central Powers 😭 I am very sad, damn french and their entente!!!
Erm actualllly the Belgium got us involved
I believe that an alternate universe, where the French and Germans swap places with their alliances (Germay in the Entente and Franc in the Central Powers) would be very interesting
It's basically autoloose for "Central powers" as German-Russo alliance would dominate the land while British-German fleet would dominate the seas.
@@alexzero3736 Yes that would be even worse for the Central Powers and an even shorter war.
If it did then it wouldn't be called the Central Powers because the UK isn't in Central Europe, and since they joined the war before Italy officially broke its alliance with Germany and the Austrians it likely would have been called the Quad Alliance.
Are the ottomans in Central Europe to you?
@@maxdavis7722 Yeah but the Ottomans came to the party late, and the war and name had already been decided by that point.
I'd really like to see "What if Britian joined the Axis?" or "What if Britian stayed neutral in WWII?" The Germans concidered britons to be arian brothers and didn't want a war with Britian. From the Nazi point of view France was the one that caused Germany's humiliation in WWI and the USSR was the socialist threat that must be stopped. It would be interesting to see the world if Britian either made peace or joined the axis after Dunkirk. Germany could even claim they allowed the British to escape Dunkirk because they didn't want to slaughter arians.
There is no guaranteed outcome with this. German fleet would block Land-Lease coming from USA to USSR and also Germany would be able to buy oil from Middle East. But USSR also was able to sustain itself , German -Soviet War could drag like 10+ years...
It doesn’t really matter if Hitler liked the British, the British and dominion public absolutely hated the Nazis and by 1939 accepted that war was inevitable. And don’t forget, Britain had a socialist government in the 20s and would again in 1945 so that wasn’t a very big deal. And if Britain sued for peace in 1940, that would pretty much be the end of the empire as it would prove they were incapable of defending it and so the dominions and especially India would simply leave. I get that it’s alt history but Britain supporting Hitler is both ridiculous and impossible.
A good example of this scenario is The Thousand Week Reich, a mod for Hearts of Iron 4
Most likely would be a peace treaty if instead of Dunkirk miracle there was a storm and all those troops became POWs.
Then likely U.K. vs Japan would still carry on, and continental Europe vs ussr would carry on, us would make lots of money.
Probably ussr fall without lend lease and British taking Iran so that supplies could make it to them.
Who knows in the pacific, maybe Japanese China but British retain the rest of the pacific with the us.
I like these alternate histories of yours.
Please let this man help design hoi4 focus trees
4:17 'Prussia would repeatedly provoke France until finally the Franco-Prussian war broke out.' that's an oversimplification and unjustly shifting blame solely to Prussia. France under Napoleon III was a bully to many for years. it bullied Savoy making it cede its western part to France (including Nice) before Italian unification, it bullied Russia and of course it bullied its neighbours to the east, the German states bordering France. France was opposed to German unification, it considered herself above all her neighbours (think Luxembourg crisis of 1866) and was itching for a fight with the upstart Prussians. France provoked as much as Prussia in 1870 and certainly had a much longer track record of provoking. Napoleon was a proud man or more exactly: *he was full of himself* . he had it coming
I like the Axis-Germany pun at 5:00
6:47 France: drawn with Alsace-Lorraine still under their control, otherwise pretty accurate.
Germany: Pretty Accurate
Russia: looks like you tried to cut it out of card with blunt scissors.
Pls do What if Austria-Hungary "betrayed" Germany when Karl took a throne?
Karl actually asked Entente for armistice, he just rejected any Italian claims. Anyway if he did it, Austria would suffer fate of WW2 Italy , occupied by Germany
@@athishnirup1815 I asked for it because there was a real attempt to do it.
What's funny Entente powers considered Germany to be the real aggressor and A-H to be a victim of her ally's aggressive and expansionist policies. That's why when Karl took throne in later part of the War there were moves to get along with Etente and reform A-H into the US of Greater Austria inspired by USA to make counterbalance to Germany and hostile Red or White Russia (many people forgets White Russia was protofascist/ultranationalist gouvernment headed by military and not all of them cherished the idea of Tsar return) in Central Europe
Brilliant: Just Brilliant...eye opening and very instructive...
I just read about King Edward VII (at that time still a prince) eldest son, Prince Albert Victor. He was in love with Princess Margaret of Prussia. If Queen Victoria agrees with his relationship and Prince Albert Victor didn't die from pneumonia. I think there's a possibility of Germany becomes Britain's ally due to royal marriages.
I like that Alsace /Elsaß is in both France and Germany at 6:45
English, and later British, foreign policy was simple. From 1600 to 1945, don't allow any power to dominate the rest of Europe, and never allow any major power to take charge of the Low Countries ports and harbours. (this also applied to Ireland and Portugal). Even a German general in WW1 acknowledged they were surprised when Britain actually declared war on Germany, just because they had invaded Belgium on August 4, 1914. This was the policy, and, we had long-standing treaties with Belgium and Holland. The impression I get is the British political class genuinely hoped the 'balance of power' would prohibit another Napoleonic War breaking out. We now know, even the Kaiser thought it would never develop into such a bloody war, or continue for so long. If the German political class had appeared more moderate, it was still possible to convince the British (Empire) to stay out of the war....... but don't invade the Low Countries.
LOVE IT!
What if Alexander The Great had lived? (remake)
What if the Aztecs defeated Cortez?
What if the Zulus won the Anglo-Zulu War?
What if the Vikings never converted to Christianity?
A very interesting timeline very thoughtfully presented. One biproduct would be that America would not get the huge boost to its economy and industry it did in WW1 as suppling military equipment and financial help would not have happened. This could also mean that they Wall Street crash would not have happen as the circumstances would be changed.
I have come across another alternative timeline which kept the Triple Alliance but instead of sending troops to France, Britain, still using its navy as in WW1, provides financial help to France. France would probably go the same was as they did in 1870, and also probably in the same time scale, but it would mean Britain would not suffer the loses in men, material and money as they did in WW1.
You mean Britain does naval blockade only and gives money and materials to France, Belgium and Russia? This actually looks like very best course of action. Russia would be beaten, but not so much for becoming communist, even if Red revolution happened anyway it would be put down just like Spartacist uprising in Germany. And Russia would go on as democracy under SR party. France also would be defeated earlier than 1918... overall shorter war would be less devastating for everyone. Status quo between UK and Central powers would be signed, i guess.
@@alexzero3736 😦
You two are the perfect and pure personnification of Perfidious Albion.
@@afisto6647 well 😅, I just believe that winner doesn't matter as much as giant losses and whole tragedy of WW1. Short war like victory by Christmas would be better for all Europe.
I mean, considering the typical relationship between Britain and France, one wonders if we live in the weird 'What if Britain was in the Entente' alt history timeline.
When Germany was created, Britain was divided on what to think of the new powerhouse that just arrived within the center of Europe. Some thought that Germany could be a powerful ally, why most felt that they were instead either another competitor or even threat to British life.
Britain had attempted to make peace agreements between Germany and Britain. These were however turned down by Germany’s chancellor, who saw through the alliance and realized that the true intention was of that to use Germany as a passage to safely keep a closer eye on Russia in the east, while not providing Germany any advantages because of the alliance. Britain also later, rejected many alliance offers from Germany within the beginning of the 20th century.
Another thing to consider about the morality of the two nations, is the reason for competition between the two.
Germany, who was a brand new nation and a powerful one at that, sought to expand its colonial territory and increase its commercial power. As stated within the video, Germany tired to expand its colonial interests methods not of war but of peace. It attempted to purchase lands from other European nations and tried to increase its influence in china but were restricted by the British. Eventually Germany would have the infamous naval arms race against Britain. Within Germany, or at least within Wilhelm it’s eyes, the naval arms race and the economic competition between the two was seen as simply a friendly economic competition that would never actually involve war. As stated within the Emperors memoirs “it would’ve simply been a case of the better man winning”, concluding the idea that Germany was on a path to outclass Britain not by opposing them, but of simply surpassing them on the global market peacefully.
Britain in the other hand had much more malicious intentions. As they were an established power, with century’s of Naval and colonial dominance. They had created an unhealthy monopoly on the global market and had control over 25% of the earths land surface. They saw Germany as a threat and blocked Germany from expanding any further. They were blocking them within china and Africa, and also began to see them as a military threat as well and started planning ways to defeat Germany, if a war were to arrive. They had pre-planned to starve Germany into submission and had their own soldiers Greatcoats placed within the stores of France and Belgium, years before the war began, indicating that Britain saw Germanys economic prosperity and expansion, not as competition, but as a direct threat to Britain itself.
In the end, it is easy to see how all sides contributed to the beginning of the First World War, and what their motives were for doing so. While others had more honest intentions, others had more questionable reasons for their involvement .
I don't think the fear of German dominance and a desire to safeguard the empire can be classed as Malicious on the Part of Britain
Also the Berlin-Baghdad railway would enrich the Ottomans, causing them to expand to the west (Suez canal) or East (Anglo-Iran oil company, Iran-Iraq War, Khuzestan is just east of the Zagros mountain range & very oil rich with sizable Arabs compared Persians).
Germany should have formed a solid alliance, with Russia IMO. This was squandered by Hitler's Barbarossa due to his idealism/fundamentalism.
@@CeruleanSword Again, you have to look at it from a perspective from Germany and Britain.
Germany was within her right to compete with Britain economically and only wished to continue its economic prosperity.
The reasons I say “malicious” is because Britain took Germanys advancements with too much hostility and was preparing for war, while Germany was not. As late as July 1914, Germany was still exporting gold and grain to the Entente countries, including Britain. This demonstrates that Germany still intended to continue commercial ties to Britain, despite the competition between the two.
Perhaps malicious wasn’t the correct term but I still stand by my previous statements that Britain’s motives for actions against Germany were unnecessary and weren’t morality defensible.
Yes by definition Germany “threatened” Britain’s position within the world but is that exactly a bad thing? At the same time you have to understand the monopoly that Britain had over the world. They controlled Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India, Ireland, Scotland, Wales, most of Africa, and even small amounts of territory within South America. Not to mention the dozens of island colonies under the crowns control. Would it have threatened Britain all that much if they simply allowed Germany to become an unassociated partner in the international market, and allowed them to continue their small expansion within Africa and China?
Also no I am not denying that Germanys actions did not cause these reactions. But that is where my point stands. I understand that Britain would’ve had these feelings with Germany becoming a new superpower and competing against them, but their hostile reactions and preparations for war expose their intent to destroy any chance of Germany receiving her place in the sun.
(I don’t have the exact quote with me but as Wilhelm ii said before ww1, they do not intend to remove any other country from the world scale or become the sun itself, but have its own place among the other superpowers under the sun.)
@@CeruleanSword I respectfully request that you refrain from claiming that I’m “biased” in my arguments. (Everyone is biased to a certain degree no matter how hard they try within any argument)
But back to the discussion at hand.
Like I said within my previous statement, “malicious” was most likely not a correct term for Britains reactions to Germanys expansion. But I’d also like to turn attention to they way you expressed how Germanys expansion “threatened Britain’s Hegemony”.
As stated within the video, Germany intended to claim more colonial gains via purchasing lands from other European countries. Germany was not asking Britain to be “charitable” as you put it. IF they wanted to acquire any of Britain’s colonies, they would’ve payed Britain handsomely for the territory. But Germany was not even aiming for Britain’s colonies. As stated within the video and other historical texts, Germany intended to created Middle Africa. Which would’ve required the Belgium Congo and the French territories in the west. Not to mention how no European countries actually had full on colonies within China, but simply spheres of influence, which wouldn’t have threatened Britain’s “Hegemony” in any way. China was and still is deeply influenced by Britain’s interference with its affairs. Especially when it comes to the Opium wars. So in turn, there was no way Germany could’ve threatened their position within China.
There was no real threat that Germany actually made to Britain’s “hegemony”, and the situation might’ve seemed dangerous for Britain, but in reality did not threaten it nearly as much they perceived.
Britain did react in these ways and they did react with hostility, wether you like it or not, because of the confusion between the two.
Despite this I still do understand where Britain is coming from. I am not so Naive as to the sentiment shared among the general British public and government. I understand the fears that Germany may have wanted to threaten Britain directly. But in the end miscommunication on both sides lead to Britain’s hostile reactions.
Best video in a while
Story Time.
Darth Vader and four Dark Jedi's approached Tony; who was sitting Indian style-His back against them. Vader and the four Dark Jedi's ignited their lightsabers.
Darth Vader: In name of the Galactic Empire, you are under arrest.
He stood up and took out his lightsaber and ignited it.
Tony:I refuse to go.
In mere seconds he took out two of the three dark jedi's-And eventually-Took out the other.
may i inquirer the source
@@Ok-but It's A draft from one of my Star Wars scripts.
What would have happened if The Austro-Hungarian empire was partitioned (partially or fully) by Deutschland, Italy and Russia (and friends) after the Franco Prussian war?
Germany really messed up by not having Britian as an ally even just to ensure they don't ally with other countries like france
What if Lenin went to Istanbul and helped reshape the Ottoman Empire into an ottoman Soviet Union?
Chamberlin: (makes mater of fact proposition)
the Germans:
I said no lies!
I think he was telling the truth.
I if he was telling the truth wouldn't have told us!
Nice job. Got one for you; What if Georgy Zhukov (Soviet General) launched a successful coup after WW2
Imagine a world where France wins the Franco-Prussian War of 1870. Germany remains divided, though Prussia under chancellor Bismarck intends to unify the states through sheer diplomatic power. The UK grows increasingly worried that France is preparing to embark on yet another Napoleonic-style world domination run, and secretly builds up good relations with Prussia culminating in their support to unify under one flag being of Germany. Austria-Hungary feels less tension as the calls of its people to join Prussia are much weaker than the real-life calls to join Germany. France enters a high mobilization state at this turn of events, and Germany's support of Austria for its declaration of war on Serbia results in The Great War kicking off. Germany severely underestimated France's willingness for total war and Russia's willingness to follow suit. The UK sees its fears confirmed and as France crosses Belgium to open an attack on Germany's flank the UK uses it as an excuse to declare war. Retaining Alsace-Lorraine and with Germany still dealing with the unification process and having to kickstart its new economy, it would be damn near as bloody as the real thing if not bloodier.
I can imagine Prussia could go different route similar to Austria and become Prusso-Poland or maybe push into Scandinavia (Denmark wanted to join both North German Confederation and German Empire due to it's german monarch and nobilitu in otl), but first Bismarck would need to lose position, which could have happened after the fiasco of his "german unification".
And btw Prussian lose could be used by Austria to actually unite/reunite Germany or at least the Southern Catholic part
Lol. The only way France win is if they start WW1 early and not even then.
just dont send Ems dispatch. And Franco- German war wont happen in 1870.
South German states would become part of German federation anyway but in slower fashion. And Europe would be much less heated place.
Why does Greece get Libya and Tunisia? It would make far more sense for it to be given back to the Ottomans.
If Greece isn't given something to be satisfied, at least temporarily, then it would attack the Ottomans to gain the Megali Idea lands, which would not be good for the alliance.
@@georgios_5342Greece had the Megali Idea, but no means to make it reality, not even with the full backing of the British in our time - and they were fully aware of this. The National Schism was a product of this very awareness - confronted by the insanity of the expansionist dreams.
So, to begin with, there wouldn't be any reason to appease Greece - and they would have to be satisfied with Bulgarian and Italian spoils.
Perhaps even Cyprus, if the British *really* wanted to throw a bone.
Correction: Multiple times you used the map of France with Alsace Lorraine, when it shouldn't be French but instead German (I can see that you also made Alsace Lorraine part of Germany, as shown at 6:38.
Seeing this, we truly live in the darkest timeline of preWW1 politics.
Looking at the world today, I’m starting to think this would have been a good idea.
It would unite the world as Germany and Britian would be able to take over. No more wars
@@helmetmcbarontbf that would pretty much be true the only threats to that would be Germany wanting to be the senior partner but this could be resolved and the us who might feel to threatened by Germany and Britain owning over half the entire planet but also Germany and Britain were natural allies for the us it would basically be a 3 way world alliance and there would be no threat even if the rest of the free world decided to team up to attack them
Oh wow, it’s very early and I like it very much! XD
Idea what if Britain remained a Republic (Cromwell)
I've been waiting for this video
Basically if the King of Britain allied himself with his German Kaiser Cousin into Central Powers. Good video by the way.
So basically the alliance between Britain and Germany fell through because Germany demanded any agreement gave them far, far more than the potential ally.
The idea of an equal partnership with equal gains for both was an alien concept to them
More because of a misunderstanding then just not understanding
What if Roman Empire discovers gunpowder and What if France conquer the Korea(Kingdom of Joseon) in 1866?
Hunns: invade
Roman empire: here is my broomstick!
Crassus instead of going to persia should have spent half of his wealth on developing the machine gun.
No fascism, no communism, traditional monarchies still around. No WWII. No USSR vs US Cold War.
Best timeline.
Basically no war
@@ibxjackcat2565There’d still be war. Humans find a way.
A two headed Europe, one looking to land and the other to the waters.
Best and most stable end
Any scenario that ends with Greater Greece is a good scenario.
True. Agreed
Exactly
France would of needed to win the Franco-Prussian war for any chance of Britain joining Germany in an allience. The balance of power was Britain's main focus
Exactly,people are forgetting how easy it was for a Resentful public of a 1st world nation (France In this case) to mobilise. In this scenario, France would prrobably have a Hitler figure come to power
Regardless, with inroads that the USA was making into the comparison of power between countries, Within a century USA would have been the most powerful country in the world definitely would have gone to war with Britain, because of the tied up trade routes
I still to this day think it was a massive mistake fighting Germany. Germany and Britain together could handle France, Russia and USA combined. British and German navy plus airforce would have made a US invasion of Europe 100% impossibe, the British and German army could have finished off France with ease. If you look at the performance of both the British and Germans in both world wars its hard to point out a spot where this alliance would have been weak. I can only think the upper class of British and German officers would have clashed on egos...then again, Wellington and Blucher did well together and thrashed Napoleon.
Its such a shame. Europe today would still be 100% European.
Your last paragraph is a mouth watering prospect for any right minded Briton or German. The upper class of British and German officers would have clashed on egos… because they are so similar! That old line from, was it von Bethmann-Hollwegg?, that he was only concerned if the supply of character in the German officer corps ran short, could so easily have come from Kitchener or Haig. And, of course, the nuclear “elephant in the room” would have been that the German scientists chased out of Europe by Nazi stupidity (Einstein, Meitner, etc) would have worked with the British nuclear physicists (e.g. Oliphant, admittedly an Aussie) to produce a deterrent to protect the whole Anglo-German Empire. Fascinating “what if” !
I love the new map design
With Britain allied with Germany, it is no contest - over by Christmas.
More interesting is Britain remaining neutral, and even more the US remaining neutral.
Honestly probably a more peaceful timeline.
Well the two would take over the 7:47 world ending wars and unite everyone under 2 countries rather than being divided into hundreds of countries. technology may be better because people are working together more and resources aren't divided as much.
A much better world in this scenario.
20:37 Should be "A third crown is established for southern Slavs (Slovenes, Croats, Serbs, etc.)" not only Croatia ._.
Love the ww1 stuff since ww2 is 90% of all the history videos still.
Good UA-cam channel I’m subscribing
5:41 7:19 7:30 8:25 10:00 12:16
What if Canada revolted with the States in the American Revolution.
What if Japan was Annexed as a State into the United States after WW2
What if the Balkans were a Unified Country
For the latter you can look up "Yugoslavia".
japan would never assimilate into american culture.
Thank you for the video not a lot of discussion about this theory
However unlikely it is you should do a scenario where Spain won, or at least forced a stalemate in the Spanish-American War.
I really liked the historic element to this video. Very interesting
Britain and Germany truly would’ve been Invincible
Britains biggest weakness was its ground force but Germany had the strongest one in the world
Germanys biggest weakness was its Navy but Britain Dominated the Worlds oceans they truly.
Actually Germany had a pretty capable Navy that rivaled the British Navy by the time WW1 rolled around. The Royal Navy had numbers, whilst the German Navy was smaller but with better armor and weapons (If my history Knowledge is Correct). That being said, yeah, they would've been unstoppable.
@@yeetusdeletus1827 ye they did but the British did sunk all of Germanys best battle ships in both world wars, still the only underwater battle in history and the Bismarck Germanys most powerful battle ship the British sunk the lot.
@@dt3692 The Bismark was WW2, and was mostly German Propaganda considering it was sunk by WW1 weaponry. Even in WW1 Germany also sunk multiple British Ships. In fact (Though I can't remember the exact battle), the only reason the Imperial German Navy pulled back was because they thought they weren't going to win when in reality the British Navy had been almost completely put on the retreat and Germany had an opening to keep Oceanic Supply routes open.
@@yeetusdeletus1827 Don't even try to compare The Royal was so much better than the German navy pound of pound, remember if there was an Anglo-German alliance there would have been no naval arms race and an even smaller German navy in that case.
*Pound for Pound
I need an entire video of you speaking French now!
Britain and Germany both screwed themselves with their greed and pride in not forming this alliance. To this day, they are very similar peoples, racially and linguistically, and have excelled in science and commerce. Animosity lingers from the world wars and each still finds itself superior to the other, although they are both successful for the same cultural traits of hard work and personal discipline. What a shame they didn’t ally. They could have prevented the horrors of the trenches, Hitler and the Holocaust.
In stead we would’ve gotten the exact thing the British wanted to avoid, a militaristic absolute monarchy as the hegemony on the continent just like Napoleon. It would’ve been repulsive to the rapidly liberalizing British public
@@jakemurray2635 Just like Britain’s historic ally Russia, the autocratic Czar? His police state was an unequal partner to the liberal democracies of France and Britain.
@@peppertrout definitely not a “historic ally” they’d been in a Cold War for the last 100 years and only came together because of they’re alliance with France and out of a joint distrust of Germany.
Potentially even unite the world ending war
@@jakemurray2635 you don’t call WWI and WWII historic?? Your country allied itself through the most terrible wars of humanity’s history with Russia and its totalitarian governments. The liberalizing British public was well aware of the agony of the Russians under these regimes, as well as the suffering of their subject peoples.
Actually this came close to happening. Ottoman von Bismarck wanted to form an alliance with Great Britain after Germany Unified. The combination of the biggest Naval Power & the best Army would maintain the peace of Europe.