What to remove to get world peace according to the internet: USA Islam capitalism Christianity Religion nations states Europeans Arabs Jews money weapons communists Humans Did I forget anything?
I don't hate the US, I hate the retards who bring up the war, about being the shit out of the british empire when it wasn't so damn simple. Same as the polish who believe their country is still great while a hell of a lot of polish people go to first world countries to get work. That's like saying Romania is a great country, they also get half their history wrong. Whats up with people and their horrible knowledge on history? Guess I just dislike people being ill-informed.
AlternateHistoryHub do what would happen if United States simply vanished completely destroyed in a instant how would this affect the rest of the world?
@darykeng one of the most famous families in Spain at the time supplied the American revolution with 215 bronze cannon - 30,000 muskets - 30,000 bayonets - 512,314 musket balls - 300,000 pounds of powder - 12,868 grenades - 30,000 uniforms - and 4,000 field tents during the war, that’s one family. The Spanish also fought against the British along side the revolution in the Midwest and later the Northwest territory as they laid claim to it after the War which was thwarted diplomatically by Great Britain and the young United States in 1783.
I feel like the US would get independence eventually like basically every other colony in existence but would not be a super power at all! Not even close
the whole point of video is that there would be no decolonisation. The American revolution was the shot heard ‘round the world, the other colonies thought independence was impossible and them losing in this alternate scenario would prove them right.
Imo the US probably would be the 1st colony to gain independence when decolonization happens. Because of their already existing independence streak and memory of their failed revolution
I always love talking about the french involvement in the revolutionary war, more specifically Lafayette. There are no fewer than 70 US cities and towns named after this 1 frenchman due to the high regard the founding fathers found him in.
Now you know how Brits felt up until the 70's - many still do. Still hated by most, but when I became an American, it's the same all over. I was hated as a Brit, now as an American. People will always be envious of the 2 greatest and most successful powers to have ever have existed. Cunts!
Or: Thanks for bloody killing the revolution. Bloody thanks for killing the revolution. Thanks for the bloody killing revolution. Thank for blood the revolutiony killings. Thank blood for the revolutions killing. Why. Revolution for the bloody thanks killing. Revolution for the thanks. Bloody killing. Thanks for the revolution. Killing Bloody. Killing for the bloody revolution. Thanks. Thanks for killing the bloody revolution. Thanks for killing the revolution, buddy. (spare 'L')
Hipeeps Ron the irony was the colonies originally didn't want to rebel they had misguided interpretation of what their relations where with England they just wanted fair representation but the English wanted to tax them heavily for the 7 years war.
Awesome man troll #10 No one said it was a joke... any American knows this. Not to say that these men weren't heroes, though. I wouldn't be here today if they didn't exist.
@@cdjhyoung Instead we get overloaded with facts like the 3 largest cities in all 50 states, what the state motto is or who was the governor of Ohio in 1885 and which city is the capitol. That crap adds up quick with 50 states and even more territories.
I did the ancestry DNA test a few years ago and found out I had 10% English and Irish ancestry and 7% Native/Pacific Islander and I couldn't help but wonder who were the people that contributed that DNA into my bloodline? What was their life story? I hate that I'll never know...
I mean - it doesn’t mean that the DNA matches historical Pacific Islander populations, but that it matches the current DNA samples from those areas. So probably British sailors slept with some local women in the 1700s or something (so the Pacific Islander DNA is a bit British, and matches that way - rather than you being a bit Polynesian).
The sponsorship ad at the end was really impressive in how well worked into the main video topic it was, it took me a minute to realize it was an ad and not just a side story.
SquareToDare this is why you guys piss me off you assume every single American is that even though I am an American and I am rather small you have no idea about us how would you feel if we assume every last one of you played with frickin kangaroos all day Will Hunting in the outback you don't know s*** about us
If we're being honest, he couldn't have unless you butterfly in major naval reforms which would be unfeasible, but even then that is probably not enough as he would still be unable to conquer Russia, and would not be able to pacify the client states which would just defect against him as IRL. Britain's navy was larger, and Britain's admirals (like Lord Nelson) were generally superior (this was due to Britain's naval commissions being based on meritocracy rather than being purchased like they were in France - Britain's naval officers had earned their ranks and were therefore generally more capable commanders and stronger leaders who had earned their way in life and thus had the respect of their crews which kept morale high [eg. the British kept fighting even when Lord Nelson was killed by a sniper during the battle of Trafalgar]). This is why the British smashed Napoleon's combined French + Spanish fleet at Trafalgar. With naval dominance, Britain was therefore almost completely safe from being invaded by Napoleon (being an island and having naval superiority after decisively beating the French fleet), whereas Britain could invade Napoleonic Europe, which it did IRL. Britain sent troops to Portugal (Britain's ally), and then the British and Portuguese (and anti-Napoleon Spanish partisans) fought the French (and puppet Spain) in the Iberian peninsular. In very simplistic terms, because Britain could not be silenced, it was free to keep organising and subsidising coalitions against Napoleonic France; France defeated the coalitions but was eventually worn down. Napoleon came close at the end of the War of the Fifth Coalition, but there was no way he could actually hold on to his conquered client states, and was defeated in the War of the Sixth Coalition. This happened because Napoleon invaded Swedish lands that were trading with Britain against the Continental System. Sweden cuddled up to Britain (who was still fighting the French in Iberia) and Russia. Napoleon then invaded Russia with a green army because most of his veteran troops were in Iberia (the Peninsular War was nicknamed Napoleon's "Spanish Ulcer" for this reason). He was also forced to use conscripts from unwilling nations like Prussia (who had been defeated in the War of the Fifth Coalition) in the Grand Armee for his invasion of Russia. However, Prussia then defected and joined the Russians as Napoleon's invasion of Russia crumbled due to slash and burn tactics etc. Napoleon retreated to Poland to try and hold off the Russians .The 'Liberation War' kicked off in the German states, lead by Prussia with Russian assistance. Meanwhile, the British (under the Duke of Wellington) routed the French (under Marshal Soult) from Spain, and then pursued them over the Pyrenees and invaded France. Also, Napoleon was unwilling to negotiate with Austria, who subsequently defected from France to join the Coalition. The Prussians, Austrians, (and other German states like the Bavarians etc.) and the Russians expelled Napoleon back across the Rhine and forced him back steadily; fighting several battles in France like Arcis-sur-Aube. All the while Wellington's British (+ Portuguese & Spanish) force (who had invaded southern France across the Pyrenees) defeated Marshals Soult's and Suchet's forces at Nivelle, Nive, Orthez, and Toulouse. The Allies took Paris and the First French Empire capitulated, with Napoleon abdicating and being forced into exile (he did return, provoking the Seventh Coalition which defeated him again, although simplistically this was mostly just a last hurrah sort of thing and his return was short lived, being crushed once and for all at Waterloo once the Prussians arrived to assist the British and Dutch/Flemish).
*+Liechtenstein Mapper* Haha. If you want a 'French domination' scenario, you could go back to the Hundred Years Wars and have Henry V of England (from the Lancaster branch of the Angevin royal family - they originally came from Anjou) not die and finish off the Dauphin; and remain heir to the French throne. That leads to a unification of England and France once he inherits it. He undoubtedly rules from France as it is more wealthy, and the court of this 'united kingdom of England and France' would be dominated by the French, and would almost definitely be Francophone. Henry V had conquered most of France (he was a great general - see the Battle of Agincourt etc.) and had pretty much won the war - he had the current king of France (Charles VI) disinherit his heir and adopt him as the new heir, and he married Charles VI's daughter, Catherine; and had a son by her - securing the dynasty. All he had to do was finish off the remnants lead by the disinherited Dauphin. IRL, he left France to return to England and make preparations for the last push when he returned to resume the campaign, however his brother, whom he had left in command in his stead, died in battle, forcing Henry to have to hurry back to France before he could finish gathering resources and raising a new host. He came back to France and started salvaging the mess that had unfurled with his brothers death, and he ended up he contracting dysentery during the siege of Chartres and succumbed to it shortly after capturing the castle. After his death, the Dauphin was able to drive out the English as the new Anglo-French king (Henry V's son), Henry VI, was still a young child (Yes, that's correct, Henry VI was an Anglo-French king - he was officially crowned king of France [in Notre Dame, I believe, though I might be mistaken] after the death of his grandfather Charles VI; as well as being king of England). However, being an infant, he was a weak ruler, and he was eventually ousted from France by the Dauphin in the absence of his deceased father. Hypothetically, lets say that Thomas of Lancaster (Henry's brother) was able to field his full force of 4,000 men (IRL he could only deploy 1,500 and had virtually no archers - the English longbowmen were their crack troops and made up most of the army but had dispersed to loot) he could have won the Battle of Baugé. This would mean that Henry would not have had to rush back to repair the situation as Thomas would not have died. This butterflies the entire resumed campaign when Henry returns to France meaning that he may not die during the siege of Chartres. Henry would have been able to defeat the Dauphin and unite the crowns of England and France. With the Dauphin gone, Henry V succeeds Charles VI as king of France when he dies, and also lives long enough to raise Henry VI, who would be the living embodiment of Anglo-French unity. Even if many former Orleanists saw Henry V as a usurper, they would not be able to deny the right of his successor Henry VI, who would be the son of the previous king of France, Henry V, and the daughter of the Valois royal family, Catherine, making him also the grandson of the last Valois king, Charles VI. Henry VI would be the strongest heir to both countries so would be the legitimate ruler and would likely have a strong reign. The simple fact of Henry V living long enough to raise Henry VI and the avoidance of all the political drama that infected his court growing up, would mean that Henry VI would be a much stronger ruler than IRL; meaning no Wars of the Roses for one thing. Also, simply by inheriting the thrones later in life makes his reign stronger as IRL he inherited the thrones as an infant. With Henry V living longer, Henry VI succeeds the throne later on as an adult where he can actually reign properly and the political landscape would be much more stable. I'll let you guys toy around with what happens after this, but basically imagine what France could do if it was not having to compete with England (and later Britain), but rather be united with England. The world as we know it would be so different... Anglo-French world domination anyone?
What if America split into 3 countries: one in the the western side speaking Spanish, the south where they speak French, and only the North East parts being English-speaking? Imagine how different it'd be...
"Deutschsprachige Föderation von Nordamerika" Oregon Staat Washington Wyoming Nevada Wisconsin Nebraska Minnessota South Dakota North Dakota Michigan Niagara Manitoba Saskatchewan
Not necessarily true. Tactics would've gotten much more brutal and strained all European relations. Like skinning loyalist soldiers alive, bombing English cities in Europe. Burning up the entire English fleet with simple oil on the water in the middle of fucking night. Infact the US that arose would be the confederation of states. CSA would've stilled happened, but with the east not the south. A simple hunter with a rifle could cause terrible fear in ranks when their generals and officers heads and being blown the fuck off from over a mile away(Yes we had scoped rifles, learn how the US Rangers were formed).
White Reaper yea, but we weren’t making 1 mile shots, but your point stands, without France; we still had a good shot of winning, all we had to do was hold out and let British opinion turn against the war (which is what happened)
That's a unique thought. What if we could go all the way back to before 1000 AD and find out our heritage does come from the Vikings? After all, the Vikings did make landfall in what is now America many centuries before Columbus. And what about our Navy? The awesome ships and submarines in our Navy's fleet may be due to Viking ingenuity. The Vikings were bloodthirsty warriors of course, but look at all the contributions they eventually brought to our society in our modern age. They had the will and the means to travel in their wonderful ships and the ability to navigate them through the challenging fjords of their homeland of Norway and in storm-tossed open seas.
Most likely no cause Scotland was only partly took over by Vikings unlike England and whales so large chunks of Scots probably Didn't even know Vikings were on they're homeland
*In an alternate history, where France is switch with Spain* Great Britain: We got you now, America. America Colonies: You may think that, but we got a powerful ally. Great Britain: Like who? Spain: *Comes out from nowhere* Great Britain: Well, I wasn't expecting that. Spain: *NO ONE EXPECTS THE SPANISH EMPIRE!*
Seriously, what’s with the anti-American hatred in this comment section? I may not be America’s biggest fan, but I’m not bullheaded enough to assume that the ‘world would have been more peaceful/the world would have been a better place’ simply because the United States never existed. Firstly, the alternate world would still have had terrible problems to deal with. Racial, religious and cultural tensions would still exist; ethnic cleansings, mass killings and genocides would still exist; corruption, war and terrorism would also still exist. These issues have affected humankind for hundreds of years and the absence of the United States would not be enough to stop our species from continuing to commit such activities. The only difference, in the alternate world, would be that the figures, nations and organisations that represent or are associated with these activities would be entirely different. Secondly, a ‘world war’ or at least a war of that scale would have occurred at some point in the alternate future. Industrialisation, which was started in Britain, and tensions between massive European empires played major roles in the First World War. And this would have existed even with the absence of the USA. Thirdly, everything invented in the US, both the good and the bad, would have been made by someone else. That includes nuclear bombs. Most likely, a nation or empire would have probably taken the equivalent role of the US in the alternate timeline, and the alternate world’s citizens would currently be giving them shit for all the terrible things they’ve caused, just like what some people are doing in this comment section with their anti-American sentiments. Also, going off on a bit of a tangent, it was imperial treachery by the British and the French that ultimately soured Arab-Western relations (i.e. Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916) for the next century. The agreement, which broke a major promise made to the Arabs who rebelled against the Ottoman Empire, led to the instability of an entire region because of the apportioning of the Ottoman lands to several Allied powers with disregard of local customs and tribal territories. Sure, there has always been a history of disputes between Western and Arab nations or empires (for example, the Crusades) and the US certainly didn’t help with its recent military involvement in the region, but don’t ignore the fact that it was a failing of many nations and empires over the course of history that has led to the problems today. Not just the US.
Vengeful Sinner I might hate america for another reason then others I hate them because of their patrionism for example this channel has used 'thetruesize' site and that site says 'countries and STATES' like states or that important why not russian provinces or canadian provinces no only American states and people compare countries to Fcking states like realy...
90% Comments : Bashing on the US, despite inspiring many countries to break free from their rulers or captors 5% Comments: Bashing on Europeans for bashing the Yankee Doodles 5% Comments: Actually requesting video ideas
Ene more like 100% Americans saying how great America is and how Europeans are just jelly and butt hurt and have to make fun of America to keep their dicks hard or something.
Ene So you think it was okay for u.s to steal this continent from Native Americans with worthless treaties or take it by force with fire and sword,the Iroquois don't call George Washington the town burner for no reason.
If any country was entirely wiped out, the world would have eventually ended up in a similar scenario that it is now. So, it would not be a bad place, just different.
Wars create innovators, strives in technology. If we had no wars, we would probably be in 40s era technology. Now quit complaining about the U.S. Doing most of there wars. If it weren't for them, you probably wouldn't have the device your looking this on. At least, not yet anyway. Sincerely, A Canadian.
David22092001 not just America, the world. The first two world wars saw technology advance so fast they were replacing the obsolete as fast as it was coming. A Third World War is not necessary though, as that most likely would be what the First World War was thought to be. "The war to end all wars" even now we are advancing in technology. History happens for a reason. If it weren't for those wars, many of us may have never been born. The only wars that were not really needed were the Vietnam, Korean, and the middle eastern wars. Unnecessary, but they happened. They are out of our reach. Wars teach us on things that should never be done (I.e Geneva convention) that was my two cents to your response sir.
Lol..looks for civilized conversation on youtube....What? why?? Get a friend and have a decent conversation, or you just have an echo chamber and roam youtube comments for different opinions? You have a better chance on 4chan.
moon knight The sad thing is, most of them were born in America. These trolls are so brainwashed with liberalist propaganda, they don't even realize that, without America, they would have no place to live, and would be completely different people.
To all naysayers. Keep in mind the internet you are watching this on was invented in the States. (Edit: with great and welcome international help.) Also the one creating the videos you're a fan of is an American who loves his country.
Fridisen :3 Not saying it wouldn't have been. Just that factually, in our timeline, it was pioneered here and allows for wondrous communication that is both global and instantaneous. So like it or not, the internet originated here and it's most definitely a positive force in the world. And that Cody affirms his patriotism and love of his country at the end of the video. So I would think people who are fans of him would at least be polite in acknowledging that when they are talking about the U.S., he's included in that package. As with most modern messages. It's difficult to communicate full intent in so brief a message. So I hope this clarifies.
Anthony Clay I mean..Most comments here are pretty shit, I fucking hate american politics (and system)for what it have done, but It dont mean I hate america or its people for that :/ if america didnt exist the world would be just as good and shit in other ways
Fridisen :3 Well sadly, the two are kind of connected and I don't mean to excuse my home for its mistakes. As Carl Shurz once said, "My county; and my country is the great American republic. My country right or wrong. If right to be kept right. If wrong to be set right." Or the more famous Mark Twain, "Patriotism is supporting your country always and your government when it deserves it." My government does not deserve my loyalty for the time being but take it from me, we are aware of the problems and cooler heads are doing what we can as citizens, voters, and representatives to correct them. I believe, for all our faults, the United States as a nation and an ideal, has been and will continue to be a net gain of good for humanity. You may disagree and I have no issue with that. I merely and humbly request you keep in mind in the future that negative statements made about "America" with no qualification will likely be taken as comment against the greater culture and people of a highly diverse nation rather than a legit criticism of the negative actions of Washington D.C. most of which we are painfully aware of. All due respect.
Sometimes I wonder if Cody has sometimes a laugh at the crazy comment threads or a cry at the fact that people don't go the "thought" part of his thought experiments
Don Draco That’s really racist.. I’m white. Do you think I should die because my skin is white? Also, as an American, I prefer our history with Britain too. 🇺🇸 🇬🇧
I’m interested to know how the absence of America would affect industrialization and technology as we know it today. Even though the Industrial Revolution didn’t start in America it did have a HUGE impact on how technology changed overtime
The UK remained a core market for raw materials for manufacturing because their industrial base was the largest in the world throughout the 19th century. It's partly why they backed the South in the civil war, as they were concerned about maintaining cheap cotton exports to the great weaving towns of Midland and Northern England. In fact America didn't surpass the GDP of the UK until 1895 (though it might have been sooner without a Civil War...) Even when America opened up Japan to Western Capitalism by force, it was ultimately Engineers from Glasgow and Scientists from London that Meiji Japan turned to for help industrialising, and it was the shipyards of Northern England that built their modern Navy. It was the late 19th and early 20th century when the US had more influence on industrial growth, though mainly in the Americas.
Xiefux nothing would have changed. Maybe there would be less drunken tourists and periodic table would be late for like 10-15 years. That's pretty much it, I suppose
It's an odd statement. One refers to one's ethnicity, the other to one's nationality. Which is more important? That will come down to the individual. Though, I have known many Americans proclaim with pride of their belonging to ethnicities.
@@andknuckles101 youre just proving his point. We are literally just living rent free in yall's heads in an entire comment section and yet we are bad. Yall are obsessed with us and yet still "murica bad".
If the U.S. hadn't existed, them I'll still be in Asian where my parents came from. You will too. This video wouldn't be here, nor all these comments as well as mine. Done
I'm starting to notice something. I've been dumping hours upon hours into studying modern history lately, and everything loops back to Napoleon. Everything always comes back to him. Seven years war and the Revolution gave him the opportunity, the 30 years war created the political environment necessary to take power. Ww1 was directly caused by Prussian aggression which wouldn't be possible without Napoleon. And ww1 still effects us to this day.
Rephrase that to "What if Mexico Won the Mexian-American War" or something along those lines I feel like the answer is that, the US would not be near as powerful as it is today
GTA is developed by Rockstar North who are based in Scotland. GTA would still exist but it would probably be based on London rather than fake American city's.
but in your case...its probably true. because, directly or indirectly, the american Revolution gave birth to the modern nation state and ideologies, including facism and.....communism. no American Revolution = no Napoleon = no modern germany as we know it = no WW1 = Red Army loses the Russian Civil War.
@@vuducanh2k5 i understand that. but a more powerful britain also means Napoleon and all subsequent wars involving Britain are wildly different/delayed. and no WW1 means much less of a suitable environment for communists to take over russia, or anywhere really. if they try, the white army is ten times bigger and ten times stronger. theyd win and the Reds are nothing more than some rogue faction that appeared one day but never truly went away, like the KKK.
*If the colonies won the revolutionary war. "Hey guys what if France actually helped the colonies win the war? They sure would have to donate a lot of money though, probably enough to make themselves go bankrupt, but why would they want to do that? I guess if they had a big enough grudge against Britain or something. We'd have more states, and with all those states, we'd probably have to make a central government or something. But they valued liberty and individual freedoms so it'd probably be a small central government with limited power, kept in check by the militia themselves. But that's just one of the many possibilities. No one will ever know for sure."
I'm half Chinese but people think I'm part Mexican or something living in the U.S. Southwest. My mom's family came from Hong Kong and set up shop in Mississippi when she was little.
I had a friend in high school whose parents were Salvadoran. He looked straight out of Southeast Asia with little ambiguity, but he was in-fact not. We frequently called him an 'honorary Asian.'
I'm Native American and Mexicans think I'm Mexican and white ppl think I'm Chinese. I can't go in a Mexican restaurant without ppl speaking to me in Spanish. white ppl say your government is evil and my response is "I know". Lol
Or most of Indiaaaaaa. What about this part those are the tamale kingdoms. No one conquers the tamale kingdoms. Who are the tamale kings? Merchants probably!
Even if it was just the French and the U.S. versus the British, the British would've won. It wasn't just the French that fought along our side. By the time the French declared war, the Spaniards were knee-deep involved on our side under the cloak of neutrality. They declared war on Great Britain sometime after the French did. During this time the Spanish Empire consisted of much of what laid to the west of the Mississippi River... Also shown in the video. They shared this river with the British Empire. Bernardo de Galvez, The Spanish counterpart to Lafayette, captured the British forts along the Mississippi right before the British could use them to capture the Spanish Forts... Then use this area to punch us from the west. For their part, the colonists opened a trade route from the eastern seaboard to the Spanish Empire, allowing themselves to counter the British blockade of the east coast. American ships were also sailing from the Caribbean up and through the Mississippi on ships flying the Spanish flag. The Spaniards halted a British three-pronged attack to split the colonies from the west not just by capturing British forts along the Mississippi, but also by capturing Florida from the British. The Kingdom of the Netherlands also sided with the U.S. This caused the American Revolution to be a global fight. Great Britain focused much of its defense assets to defending Great Britain from a feared invasion from the European mainland. For what would've happened if they lost, what happened in Canada could've been used. There was a rebellion in one area there. Sort of. They lost. The British commissioned a group of officials to investigate the causes and complaints. This lead to reforms in how Canada was administered. They attempted to do this during the Revolution, but it fell empty-handed. The American side had other options. With the U.S. side losing, this would've been the only avenue to request change. Additionally, there was a movement to try to consolidate colonial administration in one area. This would've continued without the American Revolution, with efforts to get Quebec involved.
Manifest destiny was around during the colonial period. The colonies envisioned their territories as one day extending all the way to the Pacific Ocean. They knew that they had to contend with the French, Spanish, and Native Tribes along the way. Expanding their colonization beyond North America would've still been an objective had the American Revolution not happened. During the French and Indian wars; for example, Great Britain and the other European powers attempted to expand their empires at each other's expense. The British still would've pushed into Africa and the rest of Asia as the Industrial Revolution took off. Great Britain would've still expanded their Empire had they won the American Revolution. The loss of the colonies hastened their need to do this. But, it would've ultimately happened. On a side note, The Declaration of Independence wasn't 13 colonies declaring themselves as a single independent nation. It was 13 British colonial provinces jointly declaring themselves as 13 sovereign states (independent nations) on equal footing as the sovereign state of the United Kingdom. Otherwise, we wouldn't be "50 states" but "50 provinces" today. When we celebrate July 4, we're actually celebrating the birthdays of 13 nations that no longer exist.
Whilst it's true Britain would have claimed the same territory that is now Canada and the U.S., there would have been a different approach to colonization. In Canada, in particular the West, there was a focus on trading and making treaties with the Indians that lived there instead of going to war with them. There are whole swathes of land in Western Canada that is sparsely populated and with large Indigenous populations. A lot of America would largely resemble Canada in this way. It was by design as well, The British government really was only interested in expanding westward for trade and resources, as well as border security against American settlers, and not really to form a "sea to shining sea" country.
@@theoutlander1411 Keep in mind that the British Government left it up to the British colonials to develop the colonies... And to expand. They gave our forefathers free reign to develop the land. The intent was to develop it all the way to the Spanish held territories... Then eventually fight a war to remove the Spaniards from the way and to continue developing the continent to provide wealth not just for the colonists, but also for the crown. This was one of the most important intents of colonization, if not the most important part... To expand the wealth of the mother country. Meaning, with or without the American Revolution, we still would've developed our civilization from sea to shining sea as we did. The first colonials had the expectation to eventually settle all the way to the other side of the continent... Necessarily fighting the Spaniards to take that territory from them. The Native Americans out in the western part of the US were a different story from those who were on the eastern half. Things still would've gone as they did in our actual history. In an alternative timeline, with Great Britain not losing her colonies, our expansion westward would've met similar problems. Canada is further north than the United States, and doesn't offer as much land as the US that lends itself to agriculture. Additionally, the United States was industrializing, providing more incentive to expand out westward in order to develop infrastructure to draw in resources from sea to shining sea to feed our industrial needs. Our forefathers would've seen the agricultural and industrial potential over the western part of the US even if the American Revolution didn't happen. We would've eventually still faced off against the Native Americans and would have fought them just the same. The Spaniards had fought against the Native Americans living in the plains, until they managed to get a treaty signed with them that ended conflict between Western Civilization and the Native American tribes. This would've been short lived, as indicated by Mexico's fight against plains Indians. American Revolution or not, what we eventually intended to do, and did, began long before the American Revolution and would've continued under the British banner without the American Revolution.
@@thebesig You keep using the phrase "sea to shining sea" though I don't think you understand the concept. In the American usage, it's an idea of expanding the concept of America from one end of the continent to the other. Canada never had such a concept, Britain laid claim to all of Rupert's Land which eventually meant from the Atlantic, to the Arctic and the Pacific through what is now known as the Yukon to B.C. There was no concept of spreading Canada to those areas in the same was as America was spreading America there. Another thing you're mistaken about is settlement. One of the complaints voiced by the Founding Fathers was Britain's restriction of settlers from pushing West. While Britain was different than France in that it wanted ethnic Britons and other Europeans in its colonies over extreme fraternization with the Indians, it also made lots of treaties with them and acted as mediators between colonists and tribes when one infringed upon the other. There was no grand plan to colonize the continent or to snuggle up to the Spanish to fight them. By the latter part of the 18th century, Britain was content with managing the NA colonies and tax them to pay back the Seven Years War. In an alternate timeline, expansion would be restricted to the East Coast in the 18th century, with Britain maintaining and managing colonial expansion and only allowing for economic expansion and smaller, fort centered communities to the West of the 13 colonies. In the 19th century, you'd probably see a small push by the British government to settle the border areas, around Russian Alaska, and perhaps bordering Texas. The Mexican Empire would expand in the South-West, with Indian tribes there asking the British for weapons and support. Texas may or may not be independent, and if independent, would be seen as the go to place for immigration. You'd also likely see the rise of figures like Tecumseh who would create mini-nations from tribal confederacies within British North America. Texas, Mexico and Indian Confederacies would all play a big role in early 19th century history of NA with British North America probably kicking the ass of one of the 3 in a war and then mostly being left alone. Britain would be content with merely managing the slow spread of people populating the Americas, not encouraging mass immigration like the U.S. did. Of course the global effects of all of this is off the charts. Europe would be more densely population which would cause conflict, Alaska remains Russian, Japan isn't opened up or at least won't be until much later, The Philippines remains Spanish, Mexico might conquer parts of the Caribbean, Russia expands a bit more Eastward, WW1 ends in a stalemate, the Bolsheviks either lose prior to the Russian Civil War due to lack of Western Financing or during it, and the whole course of the 20th century is changed.
It's funny how there are like three times as many comments complaining about anti-american comments than actual anti-american comments. Come to think about it, this applies to most videos where a "controversial" topic is addressed
Harry Turtledove and Richard Dreyfuss (yes, the actor) collaborated on a novel about this very subject, called "The Two Georges." I'd be surprised if you hadn't read it. Quite well done - apparently, it was going to be a feature film, but sadly, it never got made.
Welllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll actually im 0.0000000000000000000000005% east asian and have eaten at panda express and im ALSO 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000017% Irish and have celebrated saint patrick's day, so therefore I am not white and extremely cultured, also i'll have you know that im 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000094% south african so I know the african american struggle :(
50% of brits are mostly of Scandinavian decent so yeah your right on that one while only 20% are of Norman decent and the other 30% are of Saxon/Celtic decent
@@tombomb2923 that's pretty awsome actually cuz my mother is Norwegian she and her side of the family hail from Narvik whilst my father is from London so I'm also British with Norwegian blood
8:00, Austrailia was already known, and had its coasts surveyed by the Brits before the American Revolution. It became a penal colony in 1788, based on a 1779 recommendation of a man who accompanied Cook in 1770. So, unlikely they would have started exploration and discovery of new lands like Austrailia in the 1780s when Austrailia's coasts had already been explored. I like your speculation, but a quick check of Wikipedia brings some details into question. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Australia
Yeah, and the whole "the british spread across america wouldnt go kill all the natives and give them autonomy" when Australia, which was the british, was an absolute genocide
Brits tend to be historically superior at negotiation and compromise than americans, many whom would have been religious gun toting fanatics back then.
@@deadlyram2k6 He's referring to how Britain has had a terrible history of colonialism and....well not treating other races with equality....although ironically it was their disdain for slavery that helped speed up the abolition of slavery in America. How does that work?😂 I don't have the foggiest idea lol.
@@raymondjones7423 I mean, believe it or not. There's a huge difference between slavery, and divide and conquer of races. The later one will probably ensure better control and profit over the long run too.
@@deadlyram2k6 The Brits and France did a really great job in the middle east. They are literally the ones who fucked the middle east, with the help of Russia.
@@summoner1451 yes they did. You're totally right. But I'm not arguing about British rule in the middle East. Which arguably wouldn't of happened if the Americans just behaved and paid their taxes.
Wow. Great video. It's hard to take into account everything that would happen, in detail, had the rebellion not been successful. I think you did a really good job explaining what would likely happen immediately after the squashing of the rebellion without French support, and the years following. There are so many other ways that things could have gone- thanks for showing us this possibility!
400 million guns would be homeless
Lol
Nooooooo not the guns!
Anything but that :’(
Jon Fury they aren't safe. If the sharks weren't around America wouldve had more deaths then Australia
Unless they do
Mark Flint ye
What to remove to get world peace according to the internet:
USA
Islam
capitalism
Christianity
Religion
nations
states
Europeans
Arabs
Jews
money
weapons
communists
Humans
Did I forget anything?
Tarik360 democratics
Tarik360 The Apoplexia
Tarik360 I'm pretty sure removing the entire solar system would do the trick =D
*****
Perfect!
Finally a comment I can agree with
This enraged George Washington’s father, who punished him severely.
Issac Ho this comment is heavily underrated
Isaac Ho I know what you are talking about
Oversimplified!!!!
Dude... uncool XD
LMAO
Oversimplified reference .
México and Canada: It's a free real state
Mexico: in Central America
Canada: an island
USA: underwater
Mexican empire?
Literally
Did you forget me
True very true
Then we don't have Assassin's Creed 3, Black Flag, Rouge, and Unity
would that really be such a loss?
JustBeingCozi oh no that's my fav because your playing as an native an i am native lol
@Rert 78 LOL
We probably would
You know, there's a lot of comments saying the world would be a better place without America. You convinced me.
hey USA haters don't blame USA, blame French they were behind of all this
You should actualy thank the French instead of hating on em, they are the reason you guys are here in the first place.
By the crown, you're right! I'm gonna go through the Channel Tunnel and teach those Frenchies a lesson! *America is British soil!*
I don't hate the US, I hate the retards who bring up the war, about being the shit out of the british empire when it wasn't so damn simple. Same as the polish who believe their country is still great while a hell of a lot of polish people go to first world countries to get work. That's like saying Romania is a great country, they also get half their history wrong. Whats up with people and their horrible knowledge on history? Guess I just dislike people being ill-informed.
As a British person I always blame the French. In this case, having them be actually guilty is simply a nice bonus.
Dr. Yes don't blame people in sins, blame God because he made them.
*King George III wants to know your location*
*Accept*
*D e c l i n e*
@Harry Schroder 🎶Time will tell🎵
@@degeneratesquid5873 you'll remember that I've served you well
With 2 million other American soldiers testing out this fantastic working tsar bomba we found
Britain: no more slavery
Person: but I like slavery
Britain: did I stutter
Meanwhile the British had Child Labor and were killing children in factories.
@@Taschip exactly
Taschip wait there is..? What establishments, I’m stupid lol.
@@mitzy9221 Back in the 1800's when Slavery in America was around.
@@mitzy9221 Nowadays both Slavery and Child Labor is outlawed and is illegal.
Lot of hate against America in the comments...
chaosXP3RT
Well most of the world hates the US because it's imperialism and arrogance so I think it's pretty understandable
Success breeds jealousy m8,
I C Clouds by generalizing every American, you're doing the exact same thing you're mad at us for doing
This comment basicly sums up the reason for Anti- Americanism.
Europe is the king of war starting. They say shit to us?? So fucking funny.
What if the US broke apart into 50 countries RIGHT NOW, (I'm not demanding it to be done right away, I mean if they broke up in our day and age"
luis Rodriguez Texas would invade the rest of the USA and take over the world.
I believe Texas, California, and....I don't know, Deleware? New York Maybe? Yeah, somebody else would take New England.
luis Rodriguez
Here comes Canada and Mexico.
***** Canada would trip on the way there.
luis Rodriguez Or maybe the Russians. But one of them would invade us no doubt.
Hmm...
I mean...
There'd be less Porn.
Filthy Daemon Spawn ummmmmmm children ones would be higher
maybe
There'd also be less Pokemon Go.
Well...shit your right. This kinda brings things into perspective actually.
Filthy Daemon Spawn there'd be less F R E E D O M and usually we'd be better off without it.
“Give me liberty, or give me death!”
“So, you have chosen... death.”
Wrong, I have chosen liberty; you have chosen to give me death.
Normie
What if Blockbuster actually purchased Netflix?
SHIT THE JIG IS UP EVERYBODY GET OUT
Death to PG ILLUMINATEH
O fuk
now we're asking real questions
Shear anarchy would ensue I imagine
Will "If Germany Won WWI Pt. 2" come out soon?
PbG1989 WW1 Part 2
Later this week, certainly by next
AlternateHistoryHub And the contest results?
AlternateHistoryHub do what would happen if United States simply vanished completely destroyed in a instant how would this affect the rest of the world?
AlternateHistoryHub How many parts of "If Germany Won WW1" do you plan on making?
No Logan Paul,great.
emilio arce an he would still exist
Well also, who would invent the computer?
Morgz would still exist so it’s whatever
@@arieson7715 you :)
Can we imagine a British logan Paul? We dont have to. Credit to morgz.
and Spain is forgotten again lol
they helped too ya know
wasnt just France
Difference is - France actually being involved
@darykeng one of the most famous families in Spain at the time supplied the American revolution with 215 bronze cannon - 30,000 muskets - 30,000 bayonets - 512,314 musket balls - 300,000 pounds of powder - 12,868 grenades - 30,000 uniforms - and 4,000 field tents during the war, that’s one family. The Spanish also fought against the British along side the revolution in the Midwest and later the Northwest territory as they laid claim to it after the War which was thwarted diplomatically by Great Britain and the young United States in 1783.
@@chiefhanlon5450 That and they took back florida from the Brits
They just wanted Florida back and they didn't even recognise the United States
Netherlands: "I'm over here too, guys! ...Guys?"
I feel like the US would get independence eventually like basically every other colony in existence but would not be a super power at all! Not even close
It would likely happen in similar fashion to what happened in Canada and later New Zeland.
the whole point of video is that there would be no decolonisation. The American revolution was the shot heard ‘round the world, the other colonies thought independence was impossible and them losing in this alternate scenario would prove them right.
Filipe Salgueiro well not so much Canada because they became prosperous due to the United States
The decolonisation period really only started cause of pressure from the US after the 2nd World War
Imo the US probably would be the 1st colony to gain independence when decolonization happens. Because of their already existing independence streak and memory of their failed revolution
The amount of anti-American hatred is strong in this comment section.
90% of comments are 'the world would be a better place'
Rex Memo we have our reasons
Rex Memo ikr 😂
Rex Memo its sickening seeing this much hate of our glorious nation
Workers CCCP communism doesn't work m80
I always love talking about the french involvement in the revolutionary war, more specifically Lafayette. There are no fewer than 70 US cities and towns named after this 1 frenchman due to the high regard the founding fathers found him in.
Wait, let me get off at Broadway-Lafayette on the J train
Lafayette and Pulaski biggest names in revolutionary war. Lafayette stayed at the owen thomas house in savannah and Pulaski is buried here.
Josh Davis Savannah gang wya
@@orangutaunthefirst3313 work downtown, born and raised outskirts. 5 years san diego(navy)
To bad dude got stripped of his rank/ power (or whatever you call it) and thrown in jail.
When usa died with it napoleon never arrived. The spanish empire still had south italy
:Eventually pizza became Spanish
so if I understand no U.S.A = mega Canada
no U.S.A = Africa 2.0
now with maple syrup
no U.S.A = Google
The Beavers will be dominant
Num Num Tasty Canada is already huge
The entirety of the world would have no one to blame their country's problems...
12 year old watches leafyishere every single day then they could blame the Chinese then
+Opritchniki Sad but true.
Now you know how Brits felt up until the 70's - many still do. Still hated by most, but when I became an American, it's the same all over. I was hated as a Brit, now as an American. People will always be envious of the 2 greatest and most successful powers to have ever have existed. Cunts!
It's quite the opposite of envy. People just feel better about themselves if they can point at other people and say those are worse than them.
No constantly whinging americans either
If America never existed then there would be a guy like you theorizing about what it would be like if it did.
and then someone would comment saying
If America existed then there would be a guy like you theorizing about what it would be like if it didn't.
RUclips-ception 🤯
Fuck all of you I'm to high for this
This comment section right here is me every time I am high with my own thoughts
🤯🤯
"let's go back to the 177--"
me: "1776! new york city--"
Anonymous Doe
i am not an uncultured swine like my brother
Pardon me, are you Aaron Burr, sir?
Alpe OlPa depends, who's asking?
@@whimky561 oh sure, sir, I'm Alexander Hamilton
@@alpeolpa437 I'm at your service, sir, I have been looking for you-
"LIBERTY OR DEATH!"
British: ok
*firing squad*
Hipeeps Ron *loses war
That is what actually happened! It's not a joke! That goes to show how motivated these men were!
Or:
Thanks for bloody killing the revolution.
Bloody thanks for killing the revolution.
Thanks for the bloody killing revolution.
Thank for blood the revolutiony killings.
Thank blood for the revolutions killing. Why.
Revolution for the bloody thanks killing.
Revolution for the thanks. Bloody killing.
Thanks for the revolution. Killing Bloody.
Killing for the bloody revolution. Thanks.
Thanks for killing the bloody revolution.
Thanks for killing the revolution, buddy. (spare 'L')
Hipeeps Ron the irony was the colonies originally didn't want to rebel they had misguided interpretation of what their relations where with England they just wanted fair representation but the English wanted to tax them heavily for the 7 years war.
Awesome man troll #10 No one said it was a joke... any American knows this. Not to say that these men weren't heroes, though. I wouldn't be here today if they didn't exist.
Well then American history would be much easier...
I guess the sun would still never set on the British Empire.
r/whoosh andrew
No
Hardly. Instead you would get to learn the history of a thousand years of British Monarchs.
@@cdjhyoung Instead we get overloaded with facts like the 3 largest cities in all 50 states, what the state motto is or who was the governor of Ohio in 1885 and which city is the capitol. That crap adds up quick with 50 states and even more territories.
I did the ancestry DNA test a few years ago and found out I had 10% English and Irish ancestry and 7% Native/Pacific Islander and I couldn't help but wonder who were the people that contributed that DNA into my bloodline? What was their life story? I hate that I'll never know...
*Sounds like you need an animus from Assassin's Creed*
I mean - it doesn’t mean that the DNA matches historical Pacific Islander populations, but that it matches the current DNA samples from those areas. So probably British sailors slept with some local women in the 1700s or something (so the Pacific Islander DNA is a bit British, and matches that way - rather than you being a bit Polynesian).
what about the other 83%?
@@CapCody other Europeans probably
@@goose93 well 83% is a LOT
The sponsorship ad at the end was really impressive in how well worked into the main video topic it was, it took me a minute to realize it was an ad and not just a side story.
Just from the topic I already know the comment section is gonna be like navigating a minefield.
oh god it is
Blinded by the Moonlight
If by 'mines' you mean 'turds' then you are *correct*.
And you were right, the size of the minefield's immense.
IKR?
Going to need a bigger mine detector.
325,368,267 Less Fat People In The World
SquareToDare your arrogance blinds you European
Emperor Palpatine Not European...I'm Aussie
SquareToDare this is why you guys piss me off you assume every single American is that even though I am an American and I am rather small you have no idea about us how would you feel if we assume every last one of you played with frickin kangaroos all day Will Hunting in the outback you don't know s*** about us
emperor palpatine is mad now
Floating Head Guy you're damn right I'm mad
what if Napoleon succeeded in European conquest?
Jacqueline Leiman well he did for a short time
If we're being honest, he couldn't have unless you butterfly in major naval reforms which would be unfeasible, but even then that is probably not enough as he would still be unable to conquer Russia, and would not be able to pacify the client states which would just defect against him as IRL. Britain's navy was larger, and Britain's admirals (like Lord Nelson) were generally superior (this was due to Britain's naval commissions being based on meritocracy rather than being purchased like they were in France - Britain's naval officers had earned their ranks and were therefore generally more capable commanders and stronger leaders who had earned their way in life and thus had the respect of their crews which kept morale high [eg. the British kept fighting even when Lord Nelson was killed by a sniper during the battle of Trafalgar]). This is why the British smashed Napoleon's combined French + Spanish fleet at Trafalgar. With naval dominance, Britain was therefore almost completely safe from being invaded by Napoleon (being an island and having naval superiority after decisively beating the French fleet), whereas Britain could invade Napoleonic Europe, which it did IRL. Britain sent troops to Portugal (Britain's ally), and then the British and Portuguese (and anti-Napoleon Spanish partisans) fought the French (and puppet Spain) in the Iberian peninsular. In very simplistic terms, because Britain could not be silenced, it was free to keep organising and subsidising coalitions against Napoleonic France; France defeated the coalitions but was eventually worn down. Napoleon came close at the end of the War of the Fifth Coalition, but there was no way he could actually hold on to his conquered client states, and was defeated in the War of the Sixth Coalition. This happened because Napoleon invaded Swedish lands that were trading with Britain against the Continental System. Sweden cuddled up to Britain (who was still fighting the French in Iberia) and Russia. Napoleon then invaded Russia with a green army because most of his veteran troops were in Iberia (the Peninsular War was nicknamed Napoleon's "Spanish Ulcer" for this reason). He was also forced to use conscripts from unwilling nations like Prussia (who had been defeated in the War of the Fifth Coalition) in the Grand Armee for his invasion of Russia. However, Prussia then defected and joined the Russians as Napoleon's invasion of Russia crumbled due to slash and burn tactics etc. Napoleon retreated to Poland to try and hold off the Russians .The 'Liberation War' kicked off in the German states, lead by Prussia with Russian assistance. Meanwhile, the British (under the Duke of Wellington) routed the French (under Marshal Soult) from Spain, and then pursued them over the Pyrenees and invaded France. Also, Napoleon was unwilling to negotiate with Austria, who subsequently defected from France to join the Coalition. The Prussians, Austrians, (and other German states like the Bavarians etc.) and the Russians expelled Napoleon back across the Rhine and forced him back steadily; fighting several battles in France like Arcis-sur-Aube. All the while Wellington's British (+ Portuguese & Spanish) force (who had invaded southern France across the Pyrenees) defeated Marshals Soult's and Suchet's forces at Nivelle, Nive, Orthez, and Toulouse. The Allies took Paris and the First French Empire capitulated, with Napoleon abdicating and being forced into exile (he did return, provoking the Seventh Coalition which defeated him again, although simplistically this was mostly just a last hurrah sort of thing and his return was short lived, being crushed once and for all at Waterloo once the Prussians arrived to assist the British and Dutch/Flemish).
Ewwwww... facts
*+Liechtenstein Mapper* Haha.
If you want a 'French domination' scenario, you could go back to the Hundred Years Wars and have Henry V of England (from the Lancaster branch of the Angevin royal family - they originally came from Anjou) not die and finish off the Dauphin; and remain heir to the French throne. That leads to a unification of England and France once he inherits it. He undoubtedly rules from France as it is more wealthy, and the court of this 'united kingdom of England and France' would be dominated by the French, and would almost definitely be Francophone.
Henry V had conquered most of France (he was a great general - see the Battle of Agincourt etc.) and had pretty much won the war - he had the current king of France (Charles VI) disinherit his heir and adopt him as the new heir, and he married Charles VI's daughter, Catherine; and had a son by her - securing the dynasty. All he had to do was finish off the remnants lead by the disinherited Dauphin. IRL, he left France to return to England and make preparations for the last push when he returned to resume the campaign, however his brother, whom he had left in command in his stead, died in battle, forcing Henry to have to hurry back to France before he could finish gathering resources and raising a new host. He came back to France and started salvaging the mess that had unfurled with his brothers death, and he ended up he contracting dysentery during the siege of Chartres and succumbed to it shortly after capturing the castle. After his death, the Dauphin was able to drive out the English as the new Anglo-French king (Henry V's son), Henry VI, was still a young child (Yes, that's correct, Henry VI was an Anglo-French king - he was officially crowned king of France [in Notre Dame, I believe, though I might be mistaken] after the death of his grandfather Charles VI; as well as being king of England). However, being an infant, he was a weak ruler, and he was eventually ousted from France by the Dauphin in the absence of his deceased father.
Hypothetically, lets say that Thomas of Lancaster (Henry's brother) was able to field his full force of 4,000 men (IRL he could only deploy 1,500 and had virtually no archers - the English longbowmen were their crack troops and made up most of the army but had dispersed to loot) he could have won the Battle of Baugé. This would mean that Henry would not have had to rush back to repair the situation as Thomas would not have died. This butterflies the entire resumed campaign when Henry returns to France meaning that he may not die during the siege of Chartres. Henry would have been able to defeat the Dauphin and unite the crowns of England and France.
With the Dauphin gone, Henry V succeeds Charles VI as king of France when he dies, and also lives long enough to raise Henry VI, who would be the living embodiment of Anglo-French unity. Even if many former Orleanists saw Henry V as a usurper, they would not be able to deny the right of his successor Henry VI, who would be the son of the previous king of France, Henry V, and the daughter of the Valois royal family, Catherine, making him also the grandson of the last Valois king, Charles VI. Henry VI would be the strongest heir to both countries so would be the legitimate ruler and would likely have a strong reign. The simple fact of Henry V living long enough to raise Henry VI and the avoidance of all the political drama that infected his court growing up, would mean that Henry VI would be a much stronger ruler than IRL; meaning no Wars of the Roses for one thing. Also, simply by inheriting the thrones later in life makes his reign stronger as IRL he inherited the thrones as an infant. With Henry V living longer, Henry VI succeeds the throne later on as an adult where he can actually reign properly and the political landscape would be much more stable.
I'll let you guys toy around with what happens after this, but basically imagine what France could do if it was not having to compete with England (and later Britain), but rather be united with England. The world as we know it would be so different...
Anglo-French world domination anyone?
I'd like to see that one in a video!!
Jokes aside, the world would be hella different, and that scares me for some reason.
@@ytgetsonmynwrvera America ain't no hero
@@wallie8539 america has been a strong peacekeeping power that brought a lot of tech, and made the world we have today. Stop with this “aMeRiCa sUcKs”
What if America split into 3 countries: one in the the western side speaking Spanish, the south where they speak French, and only the North East parts being English-speaking? Imagine how different it'd be...
chillchillpill hillbilly French
That would be horrible.
I live texas btw
"Deutschsprachige Föderation von Nordamerika"
Oregon
Staat Washington
Wyoming
Nevada
Wisconsin
Nebraska
Minnessota
South Dakota
North Dakota
Michigan
Niagara
Manitoba
Saskatchewan
+ Idaho :)
An American who realises they would’ve lost without France
Not necessarily true. Tactics would've gotten much more brutal and strained all European relations. Like skinning loyalist soldiers alive, bombing English cities in Europe. Burning up the entire English fleet with simple oil on the water in the middle of fucking night. Infact the US that arose would be the confederation of states. CSA would've stilled happened, but with the east not the south. A simple hunter with a rifle could cause terrible fear in ranks when their generals and officers heads and being blown the fuck off from over a mile away(Yes we had scoped rifles, learn how the US Rangers were formed).
Debt re-paid in full!
On the flip side, France would've become part of the British Empire without the Colonial Revolution ...it all works out in the end.
*beginning of the war
White Reaper yea, but we weren’t making 1 mile shots, but your point stands, without France; we still had a good shot of winning, all we had to do was hold out and let British opinion turn against the war (which is what happened)
If you have British blood, you most likely have Scandinavian blood as well. You probably had viking ancestors.
That's a unique thought. What if we could go all the way back to before 1000 AD and find out our heritage does come from the Vikings? After all, the Vikings did make landfall in what is now America many centuries before Columbus. And what about our Navy? The awesome ships and submarines in our Navy's fleet may be due to Viking ingenuity. The Vikings were bloodthirsty warriors of course, but look at all the contributions they eventually brought to our society in our modern age. They had the will and the means to travel in their wonderful ships and the ability to navigate them through the challenging fjords of their homeland of Norway and in storm-tossed open seas.
I know this comment is a joke but , no
If you have any European blood then you're a descendant from King Charles Martel.
I have 3% Irish, Scottish and Welsh blood. Do I count?
Most likely no cause Scotland was only partly took over by Vikings unlike England and whales so large chunks of Scots probably Didn't even know Vikings were on they're homeland
America: Liberty or death
British: Okay "Bang"
😂😂😂😂
🤣
The emojis ruined it
@@thegamerkhan 😂😂😂
Lol
@@thegamerkhan 🦆
Spain also helped in the American Revolution by providing finance.
But they didnt have frances power
And troops
I think spain wouldnt help usa if france didnt.
*In an alternate history, where France is switch with Spain*
Great Britain: We got you now, America.
America Colonies: You may think that, but we got a powerful ally.
Great Britain: Like who?
Spain: *Comes out from nowhere*
Great Britain: Well, I wasn't expecting that.
Spain: *NO ONE EXPECTS THE SPANISH EMPIRE!*
dident they join the war? i thought they took Louisiana from the British and gave it back to France after the war
what if America was discovered and taken over by Asia instead of Europe?
Patrick Leal Specifically by Zheng He.
It was? But Europeans turned out to be stronger.
boerekable Asia never set foot in the America's.
TheInsaneComputer Gamer The Indians came from Asia over Alaska.
boerekable That was prehistory though when humans where hunters gathers. That doesn't count.
Seriously, what’s with the anti-American hatred in this comment section? I may not be America’s biggest fan, but I’m not bullheaded enough to assume that the ‘world would have been more peaceful/the world would have been a better place’ simply because the United States never existed.
Firstly, the alternate world would still have had terrible problems to deal with. Racial, religious and cultural tensions would still exist; ethnic cleansings, mass killings and genocides would still exist; corruption, war and terrorism would also still exist. These issues have affected humankind for hundreds of years and the absence of the United States would not be enough to stop our species from continuing to commit such activities. The only difference, in the alternate world, would be that the figures, nations and organisations that represent or are associated with these activities would be entirely different.
Secondly, a ‘world war’ or at least a war of that scale would have occurred at some point in the alternate future. Industrialisation, which was started in Britain, and tensions between massive European empires played major roles in the First World War. And this would have existed even with the absence of the USA.
Thirdly, everything invented in the US, both the good and the bad, would have been made by someone else. That includes nuclear bombs. Most likely, a nation or empire would have probably taken the equivalent role of the US in the alternate timeline, and the alternate world’s citizens would currently be giving them shit for all the terrible things they’ve caused, just like what some people are doing in this comment section with their anti-American sentiments.
Also, going off on a bit of a tangent, it was imperial treachery by the British and the French that ultimately soured Arab-Western relations (i.e. Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916) for the next century. The agreement, which broke a major promise made to the Arabs who rebelled against the Ottoman Empire, led to the instability of an entire region because of the apportioning of the Ottoman lands to several Allied powers with disregard of local customs and tribal territories. Sure, there has always been a history of disputes between Western and Arab nations or empires (for example, the Crusades) and the US certainly didn’t help with its recent military involvement in the region, but don’t ignore the fact that it was a failing of many nations and empires over the course of history that has led to the problems today. Not just the US.
because shoving a political system that does not function into countries that had been stable before
OP comment should have more likes.
+artistic mediscout the medical scout of medicine
Pretty much.
preach
Vengeful Sinner I might hate america for another reason then others I hate them because of their patrionism for example
this channel has used 'thetruesize' site and that site says 'countries and STATES' like states or that important why not russian provinces or canadian provinces no only American states and people compare countries to Fcking states like realy...
Earth Man someone doesn't know how states work / borders LMAO
The spain colonies would become kingdoms eventually and everything would be less bloody, doesn't it?
Spain was quite benevolent to the new world colonies so it would probably be similar to the way british dominions left like canada and australia
lmao rip the natives XD
Yeah because they would be just like Europe. And Europe was known for no war. Right? Idiot.
A lot of great memes wouldnt exist
Black Hand bad
The internet would be made eventually by someone else. Just would take longer.
You should’ve posted this comment on their what if the internet never existed video.
Black Hand bad
To many...
90% Comments : Bashing on the US, despite inspiring many countries to break free from their rulers or captors
5% Comments: Bashing on Europeans for bashing the Yankee Doodles
5% Comments: Actually requesting video ideas
Ene more like 100% Americans saying how great America is and how Europeans are just jelly and butt hurt and have to make fun of America to keep their dicks hard or something.
Nationalist herd-americans.
America will only help you to emancipate if they need something.
Ene So you think it was okay for u.s to steal this continent from Native Americans with worthless treaties or take it by force with fire and sword,the Iroquois don't call George Washington the town burner for no reason.
Yeah, it's not like any European country is sitting on land that didn't initially belong to them, after all.
Well shit, the world doesn't seem so bad if America lost
No internet
Well duh
If any country was entirely wiped out, the world would have eventually ended up in a similar scenario that it is now. So, it would not be a bad place, just different.
cottermcg 1234 There would still probly someone who would make the innternett
It'd be the same except there would be more native americans
The world would be a better place
how?
@@godemperorofmankind3.091 because usa bad
Wars create innovators, strives in technology. If we had no wars, we would probably be in 40s era technology. Now quit complaining about the U.S. Doing most of there wars. If it weren't for them, you probably wouldn't have the device your looking this on. At least, not yet anyway.
Sincerely,
A Canadian.
lol do you think that tech would be progressing at a rate faster than now in America if there was a war at your doorstep ?
David22092001 not just America, the world. The first two world wars saw technology advance so fast they were replacing the obsolete as fast as it was coming. A Third World War is not necessary though, as that most likely would be what the First World War was thought to be. "The war to end all wars" even now we are advancing in technology. History happens for a reason. If it weren't for those wars, many of us may have never been born. The only wars that were not really needed were the Vietnam, Korean, and the middle eastern wars. Unnecessary, but they happened. They are out of our reach. Wars teach us on things that should never be done (I.e Geneva convention) that was my two cents to your response sir.
Relic Finder true, true. Btw, Ilove Canda! From someone British.
okay but hear me out: the lives of millions of indigenous people > RUclips
aadkinsl flu's a bitch
the comments section will be flood with anti American trolls
Lol..looks for civilized conversation on youtube....What? why?? Get a friend and have a decent conversation, or you just have an echo chamber and roam youtube comments for different opinions? You have a better chance on 4chan.
moon knight The sad thing is, most of them were born in America. These trolls are so brainwashed with liberalist propaganda, they don't even realize that, without America, they would have no place to live, and would be completely different people.
moon knight fuck america
KentuckianOtaku 405 america is shit
KentuckianOtaku 405 well Serbians r at least real nation
To all naysayers. Keep in mind the internet you are watching this on was invented in the States. (Edit: with great and welcome international help.) Also the one creating the videos you're a fan of is an American who loves his country.
because the internet would never have been invented in some other country
Fridisen :3 Not saying it wouldn't have been. Just that factually, in our timeline, it was pioneered here and allows for wondrous communication that is both global and instantaneous. So like it or not, the internet originated here and it's most definitely a positive force in the world.
And that Cody affirms his patriotism and love of his country at the end of the video. So I would think people who are fans of him would at least be polite in acknowledging that when they are talking about the U.S., he's included in that package.
As with most modern messages. It's difficult to communicate full intent in so brief a message. So I hope this clarifies.
Anthony Clay I mean..Most comments here are pretty shit, I fucking hate american politics (and system)for what it have done, but It dont mean I hate america or its people for that :/ if america didnt exist the world would be just as good and shit in other ways
Fridisen :3 Well sadly, the two are kind of connected and I don't mean to excuse my home for its mistakes. As Carl Shurz once said, "My county; and my country is the great American republic. My country right or wrong. If right to be kept right. If wrong to be set right." Or the more famous Mark Twain, "Patriotism is supporting your country always and your government when it deserves it."
My government does not deserve my loyalty for the time being but take it from me, we are aware of the problems and cooler heads are doing what we can as citizens, voters, and representatives to correct them.
I believe, for all our faults, the United States as a nation and an ideal, has been and will continue to be a net gain of good for humanity. You may disagree and I have no issue with that. I merely and humbly request you keep in mind in the future that negative statements made about "America" with no qualification will likely be taken as comment against the greater culture and people of a highly diverse nation rather than a legit criticism of the negative actions of Washington D.C. most of which we are painfully aware of.
All due respect.
The internet wasn't invented just by Americans lol.
I’m pretty sure this would have more drastic effects than those listed in the video.
The events listed in the video are pretty drastic no germany no napoleonic wars and a new balance of power
But Green Sahara would be even more drastic.
The lack of Napoleon wouldn't force the Portuguese Royal Family to Brazil, which would make Brazil only a Portuguese colony until now.
Germany would win WW1/2
@@die1mayer how If the brits have america
Gonna be a lot of salt in this comment section
Sometimes I wonder if Cody has sometimes a laugh at the crazy comment threads or a cry at the fact that people don't go the "thought" part of his thought experiments
MrStingBlade this will become the world's most successful salt mine
MrStingBlade Good. I needed some for my French fries.
Shan Dilworth While you are eating them remember, if it was not for France, you wouldn't get this salt.
MrStingBlade lol ikr
Colonists: LIBERTY OR DEATH
British: Okay.
Britain: *_y e s_*
We are looking for people like you
British: Lol k
We wouldn't have McDonald's or Walmart
Thank God we exist
Yeah McDonald Its so good for our health,and no Walmart,we have Poundland.
Nekonomicon
lol that honestly jot a chuckle out of me.
lol in aus we have Woolworths
What the fuck is Walmart?
11thDoctor's Companion idfk
If there's no Napoleon, there's no Latinamerican revolutions, Spain remains one of the biggest empires
3:40 "Canada... simply doesn't exist."
*sounds like a plan*
They're not even a real country anyway
Blame Canada!
Every colonists: *YEAH IT DOES.*
Toucan SonofSam Australia isn’t real either
Toucan SonofSam brrrrrah yes they are. How dumb you think they aren’t
america: (watch this video and don't care)
8:45
america: WHAT DID U SAY?!
LMAO
I said "FUCK america! "
Cody: The bountiful amount of oil"
*US Army wants to know your location*
*Declined*
Oil
I am a Brit and I don’t like this timeline about the USA not existing. I prefer our own timeline with the USA. I am glad the USA got its independence.
Actually, i wish you guys would have us back now. :)
racists like you are the problem
Don Draco
That’s really racist.. I’m white. Do you think I should die because my skin is white? Also, as an American, I prefer our history with Britain too.
🇺🇸 🇬🇧
Don Draco Hitler much?
Coolrh13 Ur gayyyyyyyy fam
I’m interested to know how the absence of America would affect industrialization and technology as we know it today. Even though the Industrial Revolution didn’t start in America it did have a HUGE impact on how technology changed overtime
The UK remained a core market for raw materials for manufacturing because their industrial base was the largest in the world throughout the 19th century. It's partly why they backed the South in the civil war, as they were concerned about maintaining cheap cotton exports to the great weaving towns of Midland and Northern England. In fact America didn't surpass the GDP of the UK until 1895 (though it might have been sooner without a Civil War...)
Even when America opened up Japan to Western Capitalism by force, it was ultimately Engineers from Glasgow and Scientists from London that Meiji Japan turned to for help industrialising, and it was the shipyards of Northern England that built their modern Navy.
It was the late 19th and early 20th century when the US had more influence on industrial growth, though mainly in the Americas.
What if ukraine didnt exist
or what if the atlantic ocean was replaced with land
The World would be ENTIRELY ruled by the USA whit no democracy in our country.
The US would then never have EXISTED
+Carson Marlow :What? I know you're country is a Republic kid calm down yank is an example.
Xiefux nothing would have changed. Maybe there would be less drunken tourists and periodic table would be late for like 10-15 years. That's pretty much it, I suppose
"I may have different ancestors from different places, but I am 100% American" this statement needs to be reiterated today now more than ever.
Then that makes YOU a bad ass individual. Assuming you are not a Democracy Supporter. Friends, Americans, Country Men, Long Live the Republic!
Why?
@@7A35 because reasons :p
It's an odd statement. One refers to one's ethnicity, the other to one's nationality. Which is more important? That will come down to the individual. Though, I have known many Americans proclaim with pride of their belonging to ethnicities.
@@RickReasonnz You adressed the mentioned issue on point. It's just, neither is important.
Me(American): I wonder what the comments sayyy- ok nevermind, I can see im not wanted here
And people say us Americans are bad.
@@razier5299 Yes. yes, we do
@@razier5299 actually, americans hate americans
@@andknuckles101 youre just proving his point. We are literally just living rent free in yall's heads in an entire comment section and yet we are bad. Yall are obsessed with us and yet still "murica bad".
France: "I should be more fiscally conservative"
Revolutionaries: "What"
who totally called people in the comment section claiming the world would be better off without America before the click this video?
I knew that moment I saw the title of the video that's all the comments were going to be and must of them of most likely trolls.
I can't imagine a world without America
For god And country I know right
Even American haters would suffer even more if we didn't exist
El Pepe Lol no, the Soviet Union won the WWII.
If America wasn't there Russia would've raped and pillaged across Europe.
For god And country Murica became strong after UK donated them lots. UK would still be strongest here.
Kharak Wolf your ignorant
Americans: “What if-“
Alternate History Hub: *”I don’t even know who you are”*
This video : exists
This video comment section : exists
Internet RUclips politicians : it’s free real estate
Ther are youtube politicians?
Its not a house bud
inkmortal stfu
American Revolution: Fails
Another Revolutionary in the far east: JIBUN WO SEKAI SAE MO KAETE SHIMAESOU NA
SHUNKAN HA ITSUMU SUGU SOBA NI!!
I see opportunity.
IS NO ONE GONNA COMMENT THAT ALTERNATE HISTORY HUB HAS JUST REACHED 1,000,000+ SUBSCRIBERS?????!?!?!?!
You did
Dennis Tran YAAAAAAAAA BOIII
Liechtenstein Mapper OHHH LIECHTENSTEIN I FOUND YOU again...
If the U.S. hadn't existed, them I'll still be in Asian where my parents came from. You will too. This video wouldn't be here, nor all these comments as well as mine. Done
PinkiSparks MSP unless of course you're relatives met Mao.
WTF but hii potato fried i mean friend
There would be a really high chance that you wont exist.
Potato I was already born in Asia sooo
Ayyy I would be from Mexico then
If the United States didn't exist
Canada would be lonely 🇨🇦😞
Mexico still exists.
Probably.
@@DaveMiller6042 Mexico would be bigger
@@arthurshelby2133 Mexico or Spain?
@@razier5299 **hot moms are near your area and still not to u**
@@xxcattoxx544 k?
I'm starting to notice something. I've been dumping hours upon hours into studying modern history lately, and everything loops back to Napoleon. Everything always comes back to him. Seven years war and the Revolution gave him the opportunity, the 30 years war created the political environment necessary to take power. Ww1 was directly caused by Prussian aggression which wouldn't be possible without Napoleon. And ww1 still effects us to this day.
*Looks at comment section
MY EYES
It's funny because these type of comments are the only ones I see.
its absolutely amazing, because the french was so pissed off at the british, it completely changed the course of mankind, just amazing.
Now do a:
What if Mexico don't lose California, Texas, new Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, Utah, pls
Or what if mexico and europeans stayed on their land and the natives kept america
@@usimahaeua that would be kind of interesting.
In that case, I think Mexico will get along preatty good with the natives
Rephrase that to
"What if Mexico Won the Mexian-American War" or something along those lines
I feel like the answer is that, the US would not be near as powerful as it is today
Then GTA wouldn't exist and life would have sucked
DeadlyIllusionz even though the rockstar creators are British, what's your point
And the studio is in Sweeden
DeadlyIllusionz Rockstar was founded by two British men.
GTA is developed by Rockstar North who are based in Scotland.
GTA would still exist but it would probably be based on London rather than fake American city's.
solidn6 but Xbox wouldn't exist
What would happen if the US government sudenly collapsed?
50 new contries or 2 contries called democrats and republicans.
I made this up.
Illinois going to be nicked named gangsta united after that.
The legend trilogy
no really
Hasn't it already?
Nope we still going strong.
It make my blood boils when someone said : " If USA didn't exist, the world would became a better place "
I'm Vietnamese
but in your case...its probably true.
because, directly or indirectly, the american Revolution gave birth to the modern nation state and ideologies, including facism and.....communism. no American Revolution = no Napoleon = no modern germany as we know it = no WW1 = Red Army loses the Russian Civil War.
@@godemperorofmankind3.091 I think fascism and communism would still existed and maybe the world are dominated by European Imperialism and Monarchism
@@vuducanh2k5 their foundations came from Napoleon's rise which the video establishes never occurs.
Even if USA never existed, Karl Marx, Giovani Gentile and Anton Drexler still existed
@@vuducanh2k5 i understand that. but a more powerful britain also means Napoleon and all subsequent wars involving Britain are wildly different/delayed. and no WW1 means much less of a suitable environment for communists to take over russia, or anywhere really. if they try, the white army is ten times bigger and ten times stronger. theyd win and the Reds are nothing more than some rogue faction that appeared one day but never truly went away, like the KKK.
Then this video would be
What if some random country in North America called the United States of America excisted?
BlackLiquidVEVO RUclips would just have been made by someone else
The USSR would make WeTube
Actually it would probably be “if the colonies won the rebellion war” or whatever they would have called it.
*If the colonies won the revolutionary war.
"Hey guys what if France actually helped the colonies win the war? They sure would have to donate a lot of money though, probably enough to make themselves go bankrupt, but why would they want to do that? I guess if they had a big enough grudge against Britain or something. We'd have more states, and with all those states, we'd probably have to make a central government or something. But they valued liberty and individual freedoms so it'd probably be a small central government with limited power, kept in check by the militia themselves. But that's just one of the many possibilities. No one will ever know for sure."
It would probably be really far off, no world power status or eventually recaptured by the British.
I'm half Chinese but people think I'm part Mexican or something living in the U.S. Southwest. My mom's family came from Hong Kong and set up shop in Mississippi when she was little.
I got the opposite problem I'm Mexican but am frequently mistaken for Asian.
I had a friend in high school whose parents were Salvadoran. He looked straight out of Southeast Asia with little ambiguity, but he was in-fact not. We frequently called him an 'honorary Asian.'
I'm Native American and Mexicans think I'm Mexican and white ppl think I'm Chinese. I can't go in a Mexican restaurant without ppl speaking to me in Spanish. white ppl say your government is evil and my response is "I know". Lol
Maybe you are part Mexican, but you're ashamed.
I'm black and I get called Mexican and Asian :/ want to kill myself
8:22 *bill wurtz voice* Time to conquer all of Indiaaaa
djdkdshlg or most of indiaaaaaaaa
djdkdshlg *I T S T H E C A M B R I A N E X P L O S I O N*
We could make a religion out of that
Or most of Indiaaaaaa. What about this part those are the tamale kingdoms. No one conquers the tamale kingdoms. Who are the tamale kings? Merchants probably!
And they've got spices!
Sounds like a better world than ours, tbh.
Even if it was just the French and the U.S. versus the British, the British would've won. It wasn't just the French that fought along our side. By the time the French declared war, the Spaniards were knee-deep involved on our side under the cloak of neutrality. They declared war on Great Britain sometime after the French did.
During this time the Spanish Empire consisted of much of what laid to the west of the Mississippi River... Also shown in the video. They shared this river with the British Empire. Bernardo de Galvez, The Spanish counterpart to Lafayette, captured the British forts along the Mississippi right before the British could use them to capture the Spanish Forts... Then use this area to punch us from the west.
For their part, the colonists opened a trade route from the eastern seaboard to the Spanish Empire, allowing themselves to counter the British blockade of the east coast. American ships were also sailing from the Caribbean up and through the Mississippi on ships flying the Spanish flag.
The Spaniards halted a British three-pronged attack to split the colonies from the west not just by capturing British forts along the Mississippi, but also by capturing Florida from the British.
The Kingdom of the Netherlands also sided with the U.S. This caused the American Revolution to be a global fight. Great Britain focused much of its defense assets to defending Great Britain from a feared invasion from the European mainland.
For what would've happened if they lost, what happened in Canada could've been used. There was a rebellion in one area there. Sort of. They lost. The British commissioned a group of officials to investigate the causes and complaints. This lead to reforms in how Canada was administered. They attempted to do this during the Revolution, but it fell empty-handed. The American side had other options. With the U.S. side losing, this would've been the only avenue to request change.
Additionally, there was a movement to try to consolidate colonial administration in one area. This would've continued without the American Revolution, with efforts to get Quebec involved.
Manifest destiny was around during the colonial period. The colonies envisioned their territories as one day extending all the way to the Pacific Ocean. They knew that they had to contend with the French, Spanish, and Native Tribes along the way.
Expanding their colonization beyond North America would've still been an objective had the American Revolution not happened. During the French and Indian wars; for example, Great Britain and the other European powers attempted to expand their empires at each other's expense. The British still would've pushed into Africa and the rest of Asia as the Industrial Revolution took off.
Great Britain would've still expanded their Empire had they won the American Revolution. The loss of the colonies hastened their need to do this. But, it would've ultimately happened.
On a side note, The Declaration of Independence wasn't 13 colonies declaring themselves as a single independent nation. It was 13 British colonial provinces jointly declaring themselves as 13 sovereign states (independent nations) on equal footing as the sovereign state of the United Kingdom. Otherwise, we wouldn't be "50 states" but "50 provinces" today. When we celebrate July 4, we're actually celebrating the birthdays of 13 nations that no longer exist.
Yeah, this was also helped by the First League of Armed Neutrality. Basically everyone was against the British Royal Navy having power.
Sorry I got torrred
Whilst it's true Britain would have claimed the same territory that is now Canada and the U.S., there would have been a different approach to colonization. In Canada, in particular the West, there was a focus on trading and making treaties with the Indians that lived there instead of going to war with them. There are whole swathes of land in Western Canada that is sparsely populated and with large Indigenous populations. A lot of America would largely resemble Canada in this way. It was by design as well, The British government really was only interested in expanding westward for trade and resources, as well as border security against American settlers, and not really to form a "sea to shining sea" country.
@@theoutlander1411 Keep in mind that the British Government left it up to the British colonials to develop the colonies... And to expand. They gave our forefathers free reign to develop the land. The intent was to develop it all the way to the Spanish held territories... Then eventually fight a war to remove the Spaniards from the way and to continue developing the continent to provide wealth not just for the colonists, but also for the crown. This was one of the most important intents of colonization, if not the most important part... To expand the wealth of the mother country.
Meaning, with or without the American Revolution, we still would've developed our civilization from sea to shining sea as we did.
The first colonials had the expectation to eventually settle all the way to the other side of the continent... Necessarily fighting the Spaniards to take that territory from them. The Native Americans out in the western part of the US were a different story from those who were on the eastern half. Things still would've gone as they did in our actual history.
In an alternative timeline, with Great Britain not losing her colonies, our expansion westward would've met similar problems. Canada is further north than the United States, and doesn't offer as much land as the US that lends itself to agriculture. Additionally, the United States was industrializing, providing more incentive to expand out westward in order to develop infrastructure to draw in resources from sea to shining sea to feed our industrial needs.
Our forefathers would've seen the agricultural and industrial potential over the western part of the US even if the American Revolution didn't happen. We would've eventually still faced off against the Native Americans and would have fought them just the same.
The Spaniards had fought against the Native Americans living in the plains, until they managed to get a treaty signed with them that ended conflict between Western Civilization and the Native American tribes. This would've been short lived, as indicated by Mexico's fight against plains Indians.
American Revolution or not, what we eventually intended to do, and did, began long before the American Revolution and would've continued under the British banner without the American Revolution.
@@thebesig You keep using the phrase "sea to shining sea" though I don't think you understand the concept. In the American usage, it's an idea of expanding the concept of America from one end of the continent to the other. Canada never had such a concept, Britain laid claim to all of Rupert's Land which eventually meant from the Atlantic, to the Arctic and the Pacific through what is now known as the Yukon to B.C. There was no concept of spreading Canada to those areas in the same was as America was spreading America there.
Another thing you're mistaken about is settlement. One of the complaints voiced by the Founding Fathers was Britain's restriction of settlers from pushing West. While Britain was different than France in that it wanted ethnic Britons and other Europeans in its colonies over extreme fraternization with the Indians, it also made lots of treaties with them and acted as mediators between colonists and tribes when one infringed upon the other. There was no grand plan to colonize the continent or to snuggle up to the Spanish to fight them. By the latter part of the 18th century, Britain was content with managing the NA colonies and tax them to pay back the Seven Years War.
In an alternate timeline, expansion would be restricted to the East Coast in the 18th century, with Britain maintaining and managing colonial expansion and only allowing for economic expansion and smaller, fort centered communities to the West of the 13 colonies.
In the 19th century, you'd probably see a small push by the British government to settle the border areas, around Russian Alaska, and perhaps bordering Texas. The Mexican Empire would expand in the South-West, with Indian tribes there asking the British for weapons and support. Texas may or may not be independent, and if independent, would be seen as the go to place for immigration. You'd also likely see the rise of figures like Tecumseh who would create mini-nations from tribal confederacies within British North America. Texas, Mexico and Indian Confederacies would all play a big role in early 19th century history of NA with British North America probably kicking the ass of one of the 3 in a war and then mostly being left alone. Britain would be content with merely managing the slow spread of people populating the Americas, not encouraging mass immigration like the U.S. did.
Of course the global effects of all of this is off the charts. Europe would be more densely population which would cause conflict, Alaska remains Russian, Japan isn't opened up or at least won't be until much later, The Philippines remains Spanish, Mexico might conquer parts of the Caribbean, Russia expands a bit more Eastward, WW1 ends in a stalemate, the Bolsheviks either lose prior to the Russian Civil War due to lack of Western Financing or during it, and the whole course of the 20th century is changed.
It's funny how there are like three times as many comments complaining about anti-american comments than actual anti-american comments.
Come to think about it, this applies to most videos where a "controversial" topic is addressed
You go down far enough you'll find them.
The Anti-American comments don't get any likes that's why.
Oh trust me bud you'll find them
Yeah! Fuck Murica
@@drevnork1 _america sucks dick_
The Anti Anti-Americans are strong in the comments, even more so than actual Anti-Americans
Because the anti americans dont wanna see the truth
MasterODisguise sure its not like we see Americans do silly stuff every day without being dismissed.
well you see that everywhere around the world
Lots of triggered Americans forgive them they are a sensitive bunch.
Fezz And what about you?
World Peace.
The opposite actually. Imagine if all the colonial empires still exist in 2023
Harry Turtledove and Richard Dreyfuss (yes, the actor) collaborated on a novel about this very subject, called "The Two Georges." I'd be surprised if you hadn't read it. Quite well done - apparently, it was going to be a feature film, but sadly, it never got made.
What if The United States joined The Central Powers WWI
What if the Ottoman Empire joined the Allies WWI
What if Russia joined the Axis Powers
wasn't this in a episode of futurama
AIDENM 369
KingOfStillwater Boss forgot which one
Reptilian Commander its the time travel one
thought the same thing
Pathetic
The French Revolution still had happened, only a few years later.
Because of a meteor crash in Siberia the Peasants could not pay their taxes.
If the United States didn't exist the earth would be fucked.
USA... USA... USA...
Matthew Brown thank you
actually there would finally be peace in the world
Mixer yalls screwed come the world wars and the ussr getting their hands on hydrogen bombs
Donald trump wouldn't exist so theres a postive
gert Van den Berghe Okay Russia but still it does not matter. they are a force to be reckoned with
that moment when you're an European and you get a headache whenever someone brings up a dna test...
Welllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
actually im 0.0000000000000000000000005% east asian and have eaten at panda express and im ALSO 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000017% Irish and have celebrated saint patrick's day, so therefore I am not white and extremely cultured, also i'll have you know that im 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000094% south african so I know the african american struggle :(
@@negativeiqpoints396 irish are white
As a Czech, it would be actually quite interesting to know if I’m more German or Slavic
Not really... I am greek
@@negativeiqpoints396 This man really does have negative IQ points
*ATTENTION DO NOT READ THE COMMENTS!*
*ATTENTION DO NOT READ THE COMMENTS!*
com'on man , before watching the video i read comments
The Pinnacle goddammit Pinnacle, you made me read all this European anti-American shit before warning me?
Black Shadow I tried...
Im a rebel
How can I do that and read this too?
Why is this recommended on 4th of July? Lol
Don't forget the Vikings invaded England, and the Normans had Viking blood as well.
50% of brits are mostly of Scandinavian decent so yeah your right on that one while only 20% are of Norman decent and the other 30% are of Saxon/Celtic decent
and america was defeated by a country as small as Vietnam
@@wolfder6661 im british but slightly Norwegian cos me mum is 2%
@@tombomb2923 that's pretty awsome actually cuz my mother is Norwegian she and her side of the family hail from Narvik whilst my father is from London so I'm also British with Norwegian blood
@@tombomb2923 didn't yall lose to the boers in the first Anglo-Boer war?
EVERYBODY GIVE UT UP FOR AMERICAS FAVOURITE FIGHTING FRENCHMAANNN LAAFFAAYYEEETTEEE
Ezza IM TAKING THIS HORSE BY THE REINS MAKING REDCOATS REDER WITH BLOODSTAINS
LAFAYETTE
HOW BOUT NO, TAKE THAT SHIT SOMEWHERE ELSE.
THIS AMAZING MASTER PIECE WILL NEVER GO
@Ezza pour la france
A million subs! Congrats!
8:00, Austrailia was already known, and had its coasts surveyed by the Brits before the American Revolution. It became a penal colony in 1788, based on a 1779 recommendation of a man who accompanied Cook in 1770. So, unlikely they would have started exploration and discovery of new lands like Austrailia in the 1780s when Austrailia's coasts had already been explored. I like your speculation, but a quick check of Wikipedia brings some details into question.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Australia
Yeah, and the whole "the british spread across america wouldnt go kill all the natives and give them autonomy" when Australia, which was the british, was an absolute genocide
I think what he means is that britain would incest lest kn the colonization of australia
"The British giving autonomy to the native tribes" - yeah, sure...
Brits tend to be historically superior at negotiation and compromise than americans, many whom would have been religious gun toting fanatics back then.
@@deadlyram2k6
He's referring to how Britain has had a terrible history of colonialism and....well not treating other races with equality....although ironically it was their disdain for slavery that helped speed up the abolition of slavery in America.
How does that work?😂 I don't have the foggiest idea lol.
@@raymondjones7423 I mean, believe it or not. There's a huge difference between slavery, and divide and conquer of races. The later one will probably ensure better control and profit over the long run too.
@@deadlyram2k6 The Brits and France did a really great job in the middle east. They are literally the ones who fucked the middle east, with the help of Russia.
@@summoner1451 yes they did. You're totally right. But I'm not arguing about British rule in the middle East. Which arguably wouldn't of happened if the Americans just behaved and paid their taxes.
Wow. Great video. It's hard to take into account everything that would happen, in detail, had the rebellion not been successful. I think you did a really good job explaining what would likely happen immediately after the squashing of the rebellion without French support, and the years following. There are so many other ways that things could have gone- thanks for showing us this possibility!
Without America, I can't have my fav video games, my awesome fast food, or my chair right next to me.
1 japan makes good games too, fast food is shit anyway and chairs ?
You can have all that in Canada too, plus poutine.
But you would not miss them either ;)
@@heronimousbrapson863 lol no
@@Kai555100 no where near as best ss our games
The world would've been so MUCH better without America
how?
@@godemperorofmankind3.091 weren't you watching?
@@thegreekguy1124 sure. doesnt mean i believe the video
lmao its not
Congrats for 1 million subscribers!