I think something big that would happen in this timeline is that Japan (aka the Japanese leadership) would actually be punished for its war crimes all over Asia because there is no Soviet Union or Communist China. America would have no reason for a democratic ally in the region as soon as possible, so they might be treated more like Germany.
the japanese leadership WAS punished? all those integral were executed or detained and a fairly large amount of ppl with minor roles were also tried and punished. communism only impacted japan with the reverse course where the US purged japanese leftist.
"democratic ally in the region as soon as possible" But That's not what happened in our timeline anyway. One of the main problems of Japan's reckoning with its war past is the fact that it was foreigners that judged the Japanese war criminals, instead of the Japanese themselves, as had happened in Germany. The Japanese from then on felt the victims of foreign powers meddling with their identity. Japan was further completely restricted from having an army and Japan only served as a base for resupply in the near future wars. In 1945, The Americans did not care much about the Asian Theatre, that is also why they basically allowed the Republic of China to collapse to the Communists. It was only the Korean War that changed American policy - a permanent presence and reindustrializing Japan (who's economic miracle started here by supplying the Korean War). Germany was basically a similar case. The US originally wanted to completely deindustrialize Germany and starve millions in the process. It was only the start of the Cold War (especially the coup d'etat in Czechoslovakia) that saw large investment to reindustrialize and strengthen it. Contrary to what we assume today, even though the Germans tried their own war criminals, the popular sentiment in Germany was that they were victims crushed by the might of the Allies, not that they did anything bad. It did not help that the need to reindustrialize the state meant that many fascists were rehabilitated will little to no penalties, something that the Socialist GDR often used in propaganda (though they also rehabilitated key members of the previous regime for similar reasons). Especially the Eastern Front was considered an honourable war for the next decade. It was only around 1968, when a new generation of Germans matured to university age, that the issue was re-opened and addressed on a wider social level. Wider sentiment in German society only changed after this point, especially later in the 1970s and 1980s, with the Germany committing to Israel (like after the Munich Atentat). So America had similar plans for both Germany and Japan in the immediate post-war. The changes to those plans brought on by outside geopolitics only took place after the gears were already set into motion. The main difference is that Japan would have likely had a weaker economy in the post-War than the miracle it experienced in our timeline.
After reading about it a bit more, I think you are right. The pardoning of prince Yasuhiko Asaka, which I was mainly referring to as one of the examples of the Japanese leadership not being punished, was done mainly to make the occupation much easier after the war and not so much for having a democratic ally. The Japanese economic miracle was indeed for that purpose, so that wouldn’t happen, but I might actually see the Japanese being treated even easier given that the us also had to occupy parts of the former Soviet Union in this timeline. Maybe even more pardons would be given out to control the people.
@@wormlington the americans weren’t going to target anyone related to the imperial family. konoe was an exception because he was prime minister and directly caused the war. if they did it would of made it harder like you said. but also the japanese economic miracle isn’t purely because of the US, after the dodge line good economic planning by the shigeru then later ikeda administration led to that.
Honestly if the British took the gamble that the Molotov-Rippentrop pact was gonna turn on itself and declared war on the USSR it very much would have turned it into a 3 way war
Yea, I'm pretty sure 'History Matters' YT channel did a video on why the UK almost (but didn't) declare war on the USSR, if I remember right. This alternate WWII was probably closer to happening than any other. (Editted for slight correction)
Sweden was mostly neutral, but, having the Axis powers all around them, they chose to trade a lot with Germany. So they basically weren’t "pro-axis", but still helped them a lot (on a Sweden scale 😅) during the war, even if they helped the oppressed minorities by protecting them under their borders (pushed by the Denmark’s government).
They believed Hitler will destroy the Soviet Union, because they saw the SU as very weak and had the same perception as him, if you kick in the door, the house will crumble. That is why they stopped any action against them and turned to an ally suppling critical goods to the SU in 1941.
@duogamers9617 a lot of Ingrian Finns living in and around Leningrad, St. Petersburg were deported to Siberia and other areas in mass much like Germans after ww2 in soviet controlled areas, look up deportation of ingrian finns you should be able to find some stuff
@@Finn_the_Cat typical Soviet behavior, yeah. Though Tsarist Russia did the same with their own minorities. Didn't know about Ingria but doesn't surprise me in the slightest :/
Yeah the poland border changes were sad to see. I think they should’ve atleast kept Vilnius and Galicia since most parts of those areas are polish majority or have significant polish populations.
I thought it was stupid how PH took pre-war territories away from Poland even though they were clearly on the winning side of the war. I don't really think the Allies realistically would've done that, even if they wanted to create an independent democratic Ukraine and Belarus. I just don't see it as very likely that 'victims' of the war like Poland and Czechoslovakia would have to lose a bunch of land after the war. Also the German-Polish border was also stupid imo.
@@Maltheus_ It's also funny how in the "What if everything went perfect for Poland?" - a series btw where the goal is maximum territorial expansion - Poland ends up have less land than OTL, and Ukraine still gets the Polish land that wasn't Ukrainian before the deportations and UPA genocide.
For Germany, the allies had already planned to restore the old borders. Never understood the idea of splitting the nation as it'd likely never suceed with Southern Germany having distinctly become its own culture with its influences in Austria and Northern Germany.
Yeah it was only divided because the Soviet Union wanted a piece. I don’t think this scenario makes any sense tbh. Like just the premise of it is hugely illogical. I also think what was more likely bid there’d be a peace agreement once the Americans entered the war. The USSR would not totally capitulate like this and the allies would be too war weary todo it.
The Germans in this scenario could also be seen as victims of Nazism rather than participants of it, so things like French nationalism would be less enthusiastic about utterly destroying the idea of a German state.
@@sheep5514that was never seriously considered by anyone besides morganthou himself, the most extent I could see of it being realistically implemented is maybe an indecent rhinish state
Noticed you didn't make Iceland independent, despite being the Kingdom of Iceland since 1918 and becoming a republic in 1944. There was a treaty since 1904 with Denmark that said we would renegotiate Iceland's independence in 1944.
That's only because they're covering up the uncomfortable truth. A successful Britain that isn't humbled by the Suez Crisis meant that they went full-nuclear in the Cod War...
@@Soilad Post finem essentially assumes that: Carthage does nothing after the punic war aside from balkanise italy and convert it to their religion The wars of the diadochi never end and no middle eastern powers ever coalesce The germanic and brittonic tribes never unite to any degree The huns never do anything
Some disagreement I have is I don't think Germany would be divided as they're surrender enjoyed a support of the Soviet invasion, which does make things very tense and European cooperation... Pessimistic, I also assume ermland goes to Poland as you say but konigsberg likely goes to Lithuania a proposition that happened in our timeline for various reasons mostly the history of the Baltic Germans.
Another point against dividing germany is the Atlantic charter which may or may not exist in this world but the sentiments of the document definitely would exist
one thing some people may not know: The people in charge of making the Bavarian constitution (which were Bavarians) were actually considering wanting to be independent of the rest of Germany but that got a clear no from the US. (For those interested, beside the overall German constitution, every state in Germany has its own constitution too.)
I dont understand how there is the political power to partition Germany after you just turned them into an ally? The Allies used and fought the Soviets together with the German army which (according to you) still is quite powerful in the East and fields millions. How can the allies come up with the political capital to split Germany in two after Germany basically helps them win the war?
Yeah, good point, I too was really surprised that Germany was still torn to shreds in this timeline with the Soviets, or now only Russian, coming out with merely a slap on the wrist. Pretty disappointing from Possible History.
The divisions aren't what throws me off, they could easily leverage Bavarian and allemanic seperatism for that. But I can't imagine the external border changes. In this situation, any border changes which would lead to massive deportations would be a insane decision.
In regards to the German military, I'm going to assume Germany was made to demobilise and demilitarise before the peace conference began. As for the political capital, the only people that really need to be convinced would be the Allies(and their citizens), which wouldn't be impossible considering Germany began two world wars within a 30 year time span
PH is really obsessed with those Polish borders and I'm not sure why, as in this scenario they make no sense. Poles in this timeline would've been seen as heroes, fighting against both the Fascists and the Communists, and never giving up. I don't know why they would lose so much land to Ukraine and Belarus, nations that, despite suffering under the USSR, were part of it nonetheless.
I'm paraphrasing, but i believe it went something like this "if the Germans are winning/have the momentum, then we should shore up the Soviets. If the Soviets gain the momentum, we should do what we can to benefit the Germans in the East, but no matter what though, Hitler & the Nazi's regime should NOT be allowed to decisively win against the Russians." Or something like that I think at least, anyone feel free to correct me if i recall anything in a way that needs fixing, clarification, re-word or rephrasing, etcetera.
Don't forget the full quote: “If we see that Germany is winning the war, we ought to help Russia; and if that Russia is winning, we ought to help Germany, and in that way let them kill as many as possible.” By his view, it was 2 totalitarian countries going at it. Win-win either way, though this was before Pearl Harbor.
@@lithunoisan Yeah but in this scenario a military coup happens as to not waste lives and save germany. Then the army is used against the soviets. Tell me why would they do that. 1. The allies force them to fight as labourer soldiers, which is not a thing they do. 2. The promise to gain something from fighting the soviets. No what could that something mean. Maybe a not so harsh peace deal, for example not lossing east prussia. Otherwise I do not see the germans fight a war they already lost.
Its idiotic tho. How they gonna just turn east after a tough war and 2 entire cities fried. How does the relationship work? For high ups thw Soviets may be orime target but for commoners it be allied bombs falling on their heads and western troops more likely to reahc their homeland.
The other European powers who were brutally subjugated would never allow a united Germany. UK, France, Benelux, Yugoslavia, Denmark, Norway, Czechoslovakia, and most of all Poland would never allow it
3 way wars involving separate nations are incredibly rare so it probably wouldnt ever have happened. Interesting to consider how it'd go if somehow it had though.
Heavilly feel like the peace and changes in Eastern Europe and the former USSR seem way too idealistiv rather than what the Allied Powers really settled down, especially with their track record of border changes (Carving up Africa and post WW2)
@@Hys-01 bro, you have the juche symbol as user icon, you cant criticise anyone on thier views on foreing policy. I dont love the US, but i would sure as hell rather live there, than in north korea
counterpoint: they viewed Europeans as real people (see: treaty of Verseilles and the Austrian treaty (forgot the name)). Even though those treaties were harsh, they weren't nearly as harsh as the Ottoman treaty, because the European powers saw the Ottomans as just another colonial land grab (especially after making promises to several native groups, which they saw as easily exploitable). While yes, it may seem idealistic, its not nearly as idealistic as you may think.
You think the Wehrmaht would just start to serve the Allies against the Soviets? Majority of them would lie down their aems and Soviets would retake at least their land.
@@Ethnogoblin i imagine allied forces would force the wehrmacht to fight against the soviets. Obviously this would require no lend lease, but i dont think its tooo far fetched as most soldiers irl wanted to surrender to the western allies anyway. Also I don't think any german generals would even get allied resources. They'd probably be under western generals.
The big difference you overlooked is a lack of a country to supply the former colonies with weapons. If no Soivet Union or communist China exist, rebellion would be very hard in this world due to the lack of a nation to supply weapons to the rebellion faction.
one note about the Polish borders: as a Pole, learning about Polish history in school in much greater detail than most people, I can safely say that Poland would only lose minor territories in the east, and would certainly keep Vilnius. Operation "Gate of Dawn" was an effort to liberate Vilnius from German occupation to send a message to the west that "this is Poland". with the Soviets and the Germans both being the antagonists, I can see this affair going through in Poland's favour. as for the western border, the disputed areas of Silesia and southern east Prussia would be added to Poland, as there were plebiscites held after WW1, and even an uprising in Silesia itself, though much of east Prussia would either remain in Germany, or become its own independent country, like South or North Germany. all in all, I can see Poland giving up cities like Baranowice (modern day Baranavichy, Belarus) and Równe (modern day Rivne, Ukraine), but keep Lviv and Vilnius, as these had a majority Polish population. also, for Crimea, it's very well possible that it's independent, as it was after WW1 for about 6 hours.
Allies don't have friends, they have interests. And they will gladly sacrifoce poland as the see fit. Even more so in this timeline since there is no other world power poland can get help from and keep the allies in check
Idea: what if barbarossa was actually launched "later", like most axis victory scenarios propose? I like the fact that you are oftentimes realistic on what would actually happen, so covering that stuff would be great :3
Arguably, later actually makes it worse; delaying the invasion both gives the Soviets more time to prepare that they desperately needed, and means the period of time where the Soviets are being attacked and the US isn't helping them is much shorter. Delaying Barbarossa is really only helpful if the Germans somehow capitulate Britain in the meantime, and that ship had already sailed (pun intended) with the Luftwaffe's failure to defeat the RAF.
@@somenon-human0267 exactly. Also had the ussr been invaded later then there would have been more t-34's, better airfields, more aa coverage, massive red army reorganizations, etc which would mean germany would be rext almost inmediately after starting barbarossa.
If anything invading a month or two earlier (which Germany planned to do before they had to deal with Yugoslavia and Greece) would've been better, as the Germans might've encircled Moscow before the winter set in. However, even if Moscow was taken it'd be a phyrric victory, being probably the bloodiest battle of the war, like Stalingrad but worse. Summer offensive in 1942 as a result isn't as successful, but the USSR finds mobilization difficult as the railway network centers around Moscow, and there's the very real possibility of Stalin and other high-profile officials being killed or taken prisoner in Moscow, considering they pledged not to leave the capital like Hitler did in our timeline. Barbarossa was pretty doomed no matter what
Why is Poland, 4th power in allies (without china) the bigest loser in this scenario? They lost far more than Italy or Romania. This looks really unfair that bigest victim of war is done so dirty...
I dont think the peace deal would be so harsh on germany. Since their soldiers fought the soviets together and some earlier territory transfer like the sudetenland where also accepted. I think in this timeline it would be much more likely, that germany would be allowed to keep its eastern territories except poland. Why do those eastern european states have to be formed with former polish territory anyway?
intresting thought ... it would matter greatly from how sencire and strong fighting the german army would be viewed i guess.. But , the century long phylosofy of balance or power the UK strived for would not be broken.. so the UK WOULD strive for a German that could blanance France it's power somewhat after that war! Germany already seems WAY bigger in this scenario then current unified Germany, if the German minorities where well treated under the Polish state.. mmm, difficult to estimate :-) . food for thought!
I have to say, I consider Poland Losing Vilnius to be very unlikely, the area around it and the city itself especially were overwhelmingly Polish, even with OTLs Population expulsions Lithuania still has a large Polish minority. I highly doubt that Lithuania would be given the area, instead I think that what would effectively happen is that Poland would have a thin wedge of land going to Vilnius, basically separating Belarus from Lithuania.
19:00 but handing polish eastern territories to Belarus, Ukraine, Lithuania also involves massive deportation of Poles. Land given to Lithuania was mostly inhabited by Poles that time.
I kind of doubt that Poland would lose any land in this scenario, especially to former soviet countries. Poland was the main reason the war started, and it definitely wouldn't go over well that the allies gave away Polish land to their former enemies. Also, Germany wouldn't have been partitioned if it continued fighting against the Soviets as they would've just surrendered if they hadn't been given territorial guarantees.
17:34 i dont really think poland would loose any territories would they? in our timeline poland only lost their eastern territories due to the soviets wanting some territory from the war. i dont see why poland, which now was completely on the side of the allies, would loose any territories? the west only let stalin keep parts of poland due to him being crucial to defeating germany, in this case there is nobody demanding any territory from poland, and poland would either be slightly expanded east, or belarus and ukraine would be created only from soviet territories. I would only at most see vilnius being kept part of lithuania for various reasons. however in this case poland wouldnt take as much of germany, as in our timeline it was stalin who wanted the lines drawn this way, to keep more of europe in his sphere of influence if his DDR project failed.
9:35 this fails to consider the possibility that the Germans, after seeing the British (who they are at war with) take all their oil, would conduct an offensive against the British to take said oil. They didn't come all the way to the Caucasus just to be like "oh well, I guess the British took it before we could" No! they are going to fight for it!
@@Gvazdika.nah the Brits would’ve lost in Africa before then they nearly did. The quick capture of Stalingrad would’ve lead to more divisions going to Rommel and they would’ve pincered the caucuses as was planned
I would argue that Italy would lose Trentino/South Tyrol as a key factor in preventing this loss of territory was fears that the Italian Communist Party would win the election; without Soviet/influence the Allies may actually give away the territory, Great video!
I'm very happy with the borders you ended up giving Finland. Many alt-historians tend to give way too much land to Finland, all of Karelia, and sometimes even the Murmansk peninsula (wich is ridicioulus) The border that you drew here is very rational. It makes Finland much bigger but it's somewhat reasonable, not taking too much from Russia, and not giving tons of undesired. land to Finland.
It’s cause most os the Soviet army and planes at the front were historically destroyed in the first phase of operation Barbarossa and couldn’t help to defend the soviets
The actual soviet soldiers present barely affected how far the Germans were able to get; weather, terrain, and scorched earth tactics (mostly carried out by random civilians!) were the cause of that.
One note on probable postwar Polish government, the exiled one was formed mostly on basis of various opposition forces to the military prewar junta. This included peasant party, socialists and catholic nationalists, but for obvious reasons excluded communists, probably even more in this timeline.
I think it’s unlikely Germany would lose all of Prussia, especially since a military coup against Hitler was mentioned and that Germans fought the USSR. Germany would have feel immensely betrayed by the loss of Eastern Prussia as a whole. I think that the independence of Bavaria and the formation of an Austro-Bavarian confederation is likely, but Baden-Württemberg, being Protestant, and not Catholic, would probably be given the choice between joining south Germany or remaining with the rest of Germany. And when it comes to the East, Germany would probably lose Upper Silesia as well as half of East Prussia (Ermland Masuren) to Poland, while keeping the rest of Königsberg in borders similar to what thr “Kaliningrad Oblast” is today, but it would be German. Finally, would a Cold War between emerging countries like China and India against the West be possible?
East prussia is the undirect reason the war started. Germany couldn't be allowed to keep it and in the most extreme case there would be a free state. BTW allies didnt really care about the opinion of Germany. Also, Baden is mostly catholic although it has a lot of protestants.
And people say the colonialists were bad at making borders. They're still right to say that, of course, but the USSR really wasn't much better if the various border conflicts amongst the post-Soviet republics of Central Asia and the Caucasus are anything to go off of. Even Russia itself thinks the borders are full of crap given how they refuse to respect the one with Ukraine.
Another channel has shown that, in the middle east at least, there really wasnt a way to divide it well. These places have so many different cultures and religions, plus they're often migratory.
@@Спирт-ъ3й In name maybe it wasn't, but the soviet union was basically the second russian empire. Nominally it wasn't of course, but the communists were very good at making things seem a certain way when it really wasn't. All the commies did was replace one dictatorship with another, less fancy dictatorship.
Don't you realize that Russia/USSR was as much of a colonial empire as e.g. France and Britain? Just because the Russians weren't necessarily always colonizing the lands of specifically 'people of colour' doesn't make them any less colonialist and imperialist. The fact that the USSR stated that they were 'anti-imperialist' or 'anti-colonialist' doesn't mean this statement is true, since their actions in Eastern Europe and Central Asia clearly says otherwise. I'd say the Soviets was just as bad as the other colonial powers, if not even worse in many aspects, which a lot of tankies will refuse to accept.
In a scenario where both Germany and USSR are defeated by the Allies, it is inconceivable to not reestablish pre-war Polish borders since a strong Polish ally is needed in Eastern Europe, not a weakened one. White Russia and the Ukraine wouldn’t get preferential treatment over Polish claims since these new states would be weak politically-speaking due to communist insurgents, similar to what Mao was doing in China in OTL. They would need Allied troops to bolster their governments. The Poles would likely play a role with the occupation of its neighbors, including Germany, but Germany and Austria would also be restored to their 1937 borders since they were allied in the war against the Soviet Union after Hitler was overthrown, which would be similar to how Italy turned sides in OTL and wasn’t treated too badly after the war.
Though tbf there is a good reason why the Allies didn’t declare war on the USSR. Britain was in a life-or-death struggle with the Axis, declaring war on another superpower wouldn’t have helped. As well as that, the British government knew the Axis would eventually go to war with the Soviets.@@robertortiz-wilson1588
@@RMProjects785 It's because it never sided with the Axis. Before WW:II numerous nations had non-agression pact with 3rd Reich, and USSR wasn't even the first nation to use German conquests to gain some territories themselves (the first was Poland with Zaolzie). USSR actually wanted to start WW:II with Allies by making a pre-emptive attack on Germany, but Allies refused. And we know how that ended.
@@A_B_1917 Poland taking a small town of polish residents is not comparable to a brutal full-scale invasion of Poland with tens of thousands of civilians slaughtered. Not to mention trying to conquer Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Bessarabia. And please link the “pre-emptive” strike that the ussr was supposedly planning
22:00 Ho Chi Min in this timeline would probably be considered to be a nationalist, rather than a communist, as in his own words "nation comes first, then communism".
My headcannon is that in the alternative timeline where Munich was nuked. The bomb that was used had "made with JEWISH science and american muscle" written on the side of it as a sorta last "screw you" to the Nazis.
Cool idea, but sadly the US didn't really know/care about the Holocaust until a few years after the war. It was the Soviets who liberated the concentration camps, and they took their sweet time releasing that knowledge to the West. America also was kind of dickish about Jewish immigrants fleeing Europe during the war. "The Holocaust" as a concept to define the pure evil of fascism by didn't take hold until knowledge of it became more widespread; during the war, it was just "They invaded every nation in Europe, many after completely violating treaties, so they're bad". In this timeline, that will stay the case until AFTER peace is concluded - most likely peace with the Soviets as well. So while it is common knowledge that the fascists are super racist towards Jews at this point, the US simply isn't going to care enough about that to write a message no one will read (because they'll be dead). The "this was made by Jews" irony becomes much more powerful a few years down the line.
@@oilybat3269 Except no, they didn't. They fled from German persecution, sure. But there's a difference between discrimination laws etc., and an outright extermination attempt. The concentration camps weren't public knowledge until way later. At best, they were just a "myth".
As much as it pains me to admit, Finland would probably lose to the Soviets in this timeline. In actual history they were weeks away from a total victory when Stalin lost his nerve over an Allied intervention (that we know would not have been coming). If he was already at war with them then there'd be no reason to stop. However, the aftermath would probably have been different. Stalin's plan was for Finland to become a "people's republic" like the Warsaw Pact countries after the war. The new borders would have included quite a bit of Karelia in exchange for most of the Isthmus, but not quite enough to cover the Murmansk railroad. We can be pretty sure this was the actual plan, since they released new maps and officially recognized the (treasonous) government of O.W. Kuusinen at the start of the Winter War. The Wikipedia article for "Finnish Democratic Republic" is pretty good and has the maps if you're interested.
But about Poland, Władysław Sikorsky and his followers were in opposition to pre-war Polish government. So he maybe establishes autocracy but even slighter than pre-war one, due to the fact that AK (strongest resistance organization in Poland) and exiled politicians want to establish democracy. For example, Stanislav Mikołajczyk. But yes chance to that Poland invade newly established countries is possible, and first one definitely be Lithuania due to the fact that Polish people and government want to regain Wilno (In Wilenszczyzna as well as in Wilno Poles were majority)
17:16 isn't the Rhineland majority catholic? I could easily see the allies puting the Rhineland in a Southern german state to further reduce the ecconomy of the 'Prussian' Germany 19:05 also the Sudeten question also arises in this timeline, since without the soviets a forced German expulsion is significantly less likely. but also giving it to Germany is unlikely too. i imagine a regional autonomy compromise is likely for both east Prussia and the Sudetenland. especially as the Germans effectively switched sides in this timeline and were already 'punished' with 2 nukes I see expulsions as even less palatable to the western powers than in our timeline. In terms of general notes, its likely the european coal and steel community includes ex-soviet states from the begining, including russia, and ofcaurse poland. or near the begining. after all the goal was to make wars less likely and there is no communist reason to exclude the eastern states. another interesting aspect is there is likely 2 russian liberation armies in this timeline, the german one would still exist. but there would likely be a western allied one too. they would likely be murged after the german surrender. speaking of russia, i am not sure how much the ukrainians would be able to play victum. seeing as the genocide famines affected russians as much as ukrainians and according to soviet archives the conflict the peasants had was more religious than ethnic (ie the allies would have concluded that if the 1920s, and 1930s famines were deliberate genocides they would have considered them relgious not ethnic ones, where atheists tried to supress relgious both christians and musilims) and Ukrainians were important parts of the government. I think central asia would be split off, as would the baltics. but the slavic parts of the USSR would likely be occupied as one system, and devided after occupation based on referendums (it resulting in an independant ukraine is likely, but its borders being greater or smaller than the ones in the video are both possible since southern russia and souther-eastern ukraine was a mixed region with lots of russian and ukrainian speakers on both sides of the Ukrainain SSR's border with the Russian SSR's). regardless of the borders, tensions would be less likely to arise since both russia and ukraine are likely to join the coal and steel community to reduce the chance of war, and thus free movement is likely. Regardless, Communism would probably be (righly) as demonised as fascism in this timeline since the war with the ussr was hot, and de-communising ex-ussr is probably as extensive as de-nazification in germany. furthermore there is no period of pro-ussr propoganda during the war and no meanstream 'the communists helped defeat the nazis and so are good guys' arguement. Another thing to think about is post-war rebuilding. how much does the us put into doing it without a soviet rival? Would the chinese nationalists be the timeline's alternate cold war rival? (i don't think so, not initially anyway).
I honestly doubt that Germany in any capacity would/could continue the war against the communists after a total surrender, a partial surrender giving back alsace Lorraine, while keeping the rest of the imperial borders Austria and maybe the Sudetenland makes more sense if the allies want Germany to fight on.
Should have mentioned the massive famine that would happen in the ussr if the Germans held the Caucasus and Ukraine in 1942 and into 1943, the area was the bread basket for the ussr and they already don’t get lend lease to relieve them, it at least deserves a mention, and the battle for Moscow would have been interesting to discuss which I haven’t seen you talk about once in the channel
We need continuation on this scenario. It would be interesting to see the predictions for China, Eastern Europe, Japan, Germany, France, Former USSR, and the like. I imagine that within a few years of America pulling back, Poland starts a war against Belarus and Ukraine, Hungary returns to fascism, France sees civil discontent over colonialism and Communism begins to return. China antagonizes Britain, France, and Portugal into forming an intervention against China to try to retain their colonies. Both Germanies are likely angry, and with the fact that the German army in the West had put pressure on the USSR to collapse, fascism stays as an ideology waiting to come back and bring Germany back.
I think Russia would be consumed by vengeance towards the West in this timeline, even more so than in our world. I think it'd be like Weimar Germany, where a few decades after the war a radical who seeks to return to the good old days of Russian power takes advantage of an isolationist America to begin reconquering the former Empire. Without the USSR, there isn't as much of an arms race, so nuclear arsenals remain quite small, instead of being a massive deterrent.
I do believe that an EU would still form, since one of its main purposes was to prevent another European war. While it wouldn't be necessary as a bulwark against the Soviets, it would still be seen as a way to help prevent European wars, help Europe rebuild, and help Europe stand up to the USA as the sole superpower.
I like the idea that this scenario's cold war would be between the US and republic nations against empires like Britain. Would truly make this a narrative masterpiece
That seems incredibly unlikely. Britain and the US had well and truly buried the proverbial hatchet by this point. The US might not like imperialism, or they might not care, but they wouldn't fight over it. The British were also a little less reluctant about decolonisation than the French after World War 2, partly due to war exhaustion, and partly because they viewed the Commonwealth as a suitable substitute. There might be less Anglo-American cooperation, but they'd probably still be mostly friendly. France held on a bit more tightly (and still does through less direct means), but I don't think there's much prospect of a cold war there. China is probably the dark horse here, as whoever ended up on top in the end would likely still be authoritarian and expansionist, but it would likely take a few decades to develop.
Scenario idea: what if America took a more imperialistic stance in the Americas (not just what if everything went perfect for america 2 though), like annexing more of mexico (which only didn't happen because of the diplomat who was sent didn't aprove of the war the us wanted to annex more) and trying to kick out all europeans. Basically a more aggressive usa
Eastern Europe would be even bigger powder keg after this timeline with all the countries becoming independent due to all the genocides, that happened in the interwar period and during the war itself (like Ukraine-Russia Holodomor, Ukraine-Poland Vollhynia and Poland-Russia Katyń). With no big brother cracking down on even the mentions of these topics I'm pretty sure it'd cause the second Balkans the moment Western armed forces leave the area.
So in this timeline, only bad thing is, we don't get Vietnam war music. Also maybe Czechoslovakia (Czech part) could get bit of land from germany or from austria. There was also border dispute after ww2 between poland and czechoslovakia, so this land claim from germany could probably prevent it.
It’s pretty sad how many RUclipsrs nowadays are practically begging for subscriptions. I wish that RUclips would update to care more about watch time, video interaction, and the ‘come-back’ factor. Anyways, this is your first video I’ve watched. Just subscribed. The video was decently detailed and (at least to a casual like me) VERY well thought out and very well reasoned out. I would also be interested to know if there is a history of conquered armies being utilized against other enemies. Would the Nazis really prove great allies against the Soviets? Or just a multitude of unwilling cannonfodder? Forcing the Nazis into allies would change history a lot. Nowadays (in the west), the Nazis are held down as the pinnacles of evil “never surpassed the dark and lamentable catalogues of human crime.” But I imagine that turning them into later in the war allies would greatly soften their image in contemporary eyes. Their crimes earlier in the war may even be modesty shrugged off a bit, or a strong point of contention (similar to how racists and slave owners are now). The Soviets and the Japanese might be held up as the ultimate evil cultures. It also makes sense that Russia wasn’t divided up because that may set them up to feel reuniting should be a future war’s ambition.
I doubt it. First the Allies offered to help out Finland because they wanted to occupy Swedish Iron mines and they said no. But even if a three way war happened the Allies would be more powerful than the Axis and Communists but would be unable to take either out for fear of making the other more powerful it would be far more likely that the Allies reestablished western dominance in France but hold off on an all out invasion hoping both sides just wipe each other out and intervening only when one side got an advantage. As for the Nazis and Imperial Japanese just surrendering that's just a pipe dream nukes are a devastating wepon but the most powerful effect was shock and awe in truth regular firebombing caused just as much initial damage as any nuke of the time (as they had little understanding of the lasting effects) and both sides were militaristic with indoctrinated populations, both were willing to fight to the bitter end for old timie honour and whatnot. Europe was too large for nukes to have a notisable initial effect and the only reason it worked on Japan was size and a two front war. There was too many men willing to die on the line for just these two nations for any reasonable occupation without total destruction or a braking of their spirits in some way for any occupying army to hold. Imo the Allies would hold out in western Europe and prevent further expansion into their spheres of influence while perpetuating an unending war with the Axis and Soviets perhaps for decades until they are just a shell of what they once were.
Germany was less fanatical than Japan - a significant portion of the Wehrmacht was fighting for Germany and not the Nazis specifically, and there were coup plots against the Nazis from German military commanders, Valkyrie being the most famous. If it was clear they were going to lose and city-destroyers started falling, there's a good chance the German generals would start acting to save the people behind them. As it was, the German strategy after the Battle of Berlin was pretty much trying to pull off exactly this: try to provoke a Soviet-Allied war so they could immediately offer to join the Allies or, failing that, stall the Soviets as much as possible while deprioritising the western front so that the meeting point could be as far east as possible.
@@Draxynnic They literally fought until total destruction was achieved. They had a cult of personality built around Hitler and many committed suicide instead of suffering the humiliation of defeat... Pretty sure this qualifies as a fanatical militaristic culture.
@@kristiancusack7355 The SS did, but the SS wasn't the entirety of Germany, or even the entirety of the German military. There was also an aspect that in the real-world timeline, the motivation for a lot of the soldiers on the Eastern Front was that they knew darn well that the Red Army was going to commit atrocities once they got into Germany so they were fighting to the bitter end on that front for that reason. On the western front, though, there's at least one recorded example of Wehrmacht forces joining the Western Allies to turn on the SS. In this scenario, they'd be surrendering just to Britain and the US, from which they could expect reasonably good treatment of civilians after the surrender, rather than to Britain, the US, and the Soviet Union. So that factor wouldn't be there. For a surrender to happen would probably require Hitler to be overthrown, but that's essentially how WW1 ended, and in our timeline that came pretty close to happening in 1944. The shock of nuclear weapons, combined with the sober assessment that they were losing even without them, would make a coup or, short of that, Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe commanders on the western front making their own arrangements increasingly likely.
It would be cool if you also did a video of a 3 way Cold War between the US, soviets, And the Axis ( The 3 Sides could be Called the West, East, and Center Or middle ).
1. If Yugoslavia become communist with Tito, Greece might become communist with its provisional democratic government if the Allies don't fear the Soviet Union. 2. Are you sure that US could make 3 nukes a month? That really seems a lot without Zippe-tyoe Centrefuge... 3. The borders in the Levant would be different. At least Jordan would'nt abandon the West Bank of the Jordan River without its civil war against the PLO, and the PLO was created by the Soviet Union. 4. I doubt Poland would loose that much territory in the East. 5. Decolonization might also happen faster with weaker Weastern European after more destruction caused by the War. 6. China could be close to the US and the Allies if the West fear the Chinese communists.
For the USA... No major power enemy... So, no need to spend $mega on making Nuclear Missiles, or Nuc powered Subs... So, more money for improving the standard of life in the heartlands.
The one Thing i Contest is Poland getting east prussia, for the fact that there are still loads of germans there primarily, and that i believe that the idea of destroying prussian militarism was heavily influenced by the USSR, and would be *even* less popular after germany turned into an ally against the soviets. I would also argue that the two germany's would seek reunification sooner or later, especially when religion becomes less important
![Seungmin "그렇게, 천천히, 우리(As we are)" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kAzmhLHePqU/mqdefault.jpg)
This feels like an average hoi4 single player game tbh XD
Except Romania didn’t conquer 65% of the Soviet Union
And there aren't a bunch of landlocked states inside of Russia
think at least there is no borde-gore
and the german reich didn't somehow survive and get away with a portion of east prussia at the end of the war
AI Turkey being the most useless addition to the allies in game by declaring war in historical:
Hoi4 on historical when you do Anschluss a day too early:
Lol
or just HOI4 on historical
🤓☝️
@@IOWNYOULILBRO?
@@IOWNYOULILBROnot funny
Scenario Idea: What if Genoa didnt sell Corsica to France and Napoleon became an Italian General?
This sounds epic ngl
YESSS
Or if it was incorporated by Tuscany or Piedmont
Napoléon would have never became a italian général
@@madpig7120 he actually was a Corsican nationalist and Anti-French in his youth
I think something big that would happen in this timeline is that Japan (aka the Japanese leadership) would actually be punished for its war crimes all over Asia because there is no Soviet Union or Communist China. America would have no reason for a democratic ally in the region as soon as possible, so they might be treated more like Germany.
the japanese leadership WAS punished? all those integral were executed or detained and a fairly large amount of ppl with minor roles were also tried and punished. communism only impacted japan with the reverse course where the US purged japanese leftist.
"democratic ally in the region as soon as possible" But That's not what happened in our timeline anyway. One of the main problems of Japan's reckoning with its war past is the fact that it was foreigners that judged the Japanese war criminals, instead of the Japanese themselves, as had happened in Germany. The Japanese from then on felt the victims of foreign powers meddling with their identity. Japan was further completely restricted from having an army and Japan only served as a base for resupply in the near future wars. In 1945, The Americans did not care much about the Asian Theatre, that is also why they basically allowed the Republic of China to collapse to the Communists. It was only the Korean War that changed American policy - a permanent presence and reindustrializing Japan (who's economic miracle started here by supplying the Korean War).
Germany was basically a similar case. The US originally wanted to completely deindustrialize Germany and starve millions in the process. It was only the start of the Cold War (especially the coup d'etat in Czechoslovakia) that saw large investment to reindustrialize and strengthen it. Contrary to what we assume today, even though the Germans tried their own war criminals, the popular sentiment in Germany was that they were victims crushed by the might of the Allies, not that they did anything bad. It did not help that the need to reindustrialize the state meant that many fascists were rehabilitated will little to no penalties, something that the Socialist GDR often used in propaganda (though they also rehabilitated key members of the previous regime for similar reasons). Especially the Eastern Front was considered an honourable war for the next decade. It was only around 1968, when a new generation of Germans matured to university age, that the issue was re-opened and addressed on a wider social level. Wider sentiment in German society only changed after this point, especially later in the 1970s and 1980s, with the Germany committing to Israel (like after the Munich Atentat).
So America had similar plans for both Germany and Japan in the immediate post-war. The changes to those plans brought on by outside geopolitics only took place after the gears were already set into motion. The main difference is that Japan would have likely had a weaker economy in the post-War than the miracle it experienced in our timeline.
japanese higher ups WERE punished. idk why my og comment was deleted but most ppl involved were detained or handled.
After reading about it a bit more, I think you are right. The pardoning of prince Yasuhiko Asaka, which I was mainly referring to as one of the examples of the Japanese leadership not being punished, was done mainly to make the occupation much easier after the war and not so much for having a democratic ally. The Japanese economic miracle was indeed for that purpose, so that wouldn’t happen, but I might actually see the Japanese being treated even easier given that the us also had to occupy parts of the former Soviet Union in this timeline. Maybe even more pardons would be given out to control the people.
@@wormlington the americans weren’t going to target anyone related to the imperial family. konoe was an exception because he was prime minister and directly caused the war. if they did it would of made it harder like you said. but also the japanese economic miracle isn’t purely because of the US, after the dodge line good economic planning by the shigeru then later ikeda administration led to that.
Suggestion: What if everything went perfectly For Napoléon III
W scenario, get this to be top comment so PH will see it
You already suggested it last time
He was the best ruler France has had
no he wasn’t he was a wimp
@@crsmith6226 Except the 1st
Honestly if the British took the gamble that the Molotov-Rippentrop pact was gonna turn on itself and declared war on the USSR it very much would have turned it into a 3 way war
Yea, I'm pretty sure 'History Matters' YT channel did a video on why the UK almost (but didn't) declare war on the USSR, if I remember right.
This alternate WWII was probably closer to happening than any other.
(Editted for slight correction)
The UK nearly did, we only stopped because the Winter War finished, Sweden pro-axis government and Norway invasion.
@@Inucroft Pro-axis? Why? Because Sweden deny passage to the allied troops?
Sweden was mostly neutral, but, having the Axis powers all around them, they chose to trade a lot with Germany.
So they basically weren’t "pro-axis", but still helped them a lot (on a Sweden scale 😅) during the war, even if they helped the oppressed minorities by protecting them under their borders (pushed by the Denmark’s government).
They believed Hitler will destroy the Soviet Union, because they saw the SU as very weak and had the same perception as him, if you kick in the door, the house will crumble. That is why they stopped any action against them and turned to an ally suppling critical goods to the SU in 1941.
I really like how u took karelia into account. I never see people outside of finland doing that!
Remember the Inngria tragedy.
@@charmyzard i googled the inngria tragedy but couldnt find anything. what happened there?
@duogamers9617 a lot of Ingrian Finns living in and around Leningrad, St. Petersburg were deported to Siberia and other areas in mass much like Germans after ww2 in soviet controlled areas, look up deportation of ingrian finns you should be able to find some stuff
@@Finn_the_Cat thank you for the info.
@@Finn_the_Cat typical Soviet behavior, yeah. Though Tsarist Russia did the same with their own minorities. Didn't know about Ingria but doesn't surprise me in the slightest :/
Uk: I like the map colours
Us: it's colors..
UK: COLOURS
US: COLORS
*The English Cold War*
Also knows as the… CHIPS VS FRIES WAR
@@Idonothing-jj7qeor chips vs crisps or walkers vs lays
Elevator vs Lift
Cream vs Lotion
Groomer vs Vacuum
Advert vs Commercial
-Even though this is more international than just the two-
Football vs Soccer
Realistically because of Poland being part of the allies polish majority areas such as Vilnius would probably stay within the country
Yeah the poland border changes were sad to see. I think they should’ve atleast kept Vilnius and Galicia since most parts of those areas are polish majority or have significant polish populations.
@@Yoshi-uz6ndbig Poland would be much worse
I thought it was stupid how PH took pre-war territories away from Poland even though they were clearly on the winning side of the war. I don't really think the Allies realistically would've done that, even if they wanted to create an independent democratic Ukraine and Belarus. I just don't see it as very likely that 'victims' of the war like Poland and Czechoslovakia would have to lose a bunch of land after the war. Also the German-Polish border was also stupid imo.
@@default9555 why's that
@@Maltheus_ It's also funny how in the "What if everything went perfect for Poland?" - a series btw where the goal is maximum territorial expansion - Poland ends up have less land than OTL, and Ukraine still gets the Polish land that wasn't Ukrainian before the deportations and UPA genocide.
For Germany, the allies had already planned to restore the old borders. Never understood the idea of splitting the nation as it'd likely never suceed with Southern Germany having distinctly become its own culture with its influences in Austria and Northern Germany.
Getting Bavaria independent surely wouldn't have been difficult.
Adding the rest of southern Germany to it would definitly be harder though.
Morgenthau plan
Yeah it was only divided because the Soviet Union wanted a piece. I don’t think this scenario makes any sense tbh. Like just the premise of it is hugely illogical. I also think what was more likely bid there’d be a peace agreement once the Americans entered the war. The USSR would not totally capitulate like this and the allies would be too war weary todo it.
The Germans in this scenario could also be seen as victims of Nazism rather than participants of it, so things like French nationalism would be less enthusiastic about utterly destroying the idea of a German state.
@@sheep5514that was never seriously considered by anyone besides morganthou himself, the most extent I could see of it being realistically implemented is maybe an indecent rhinish state
Noticed you didn't make Iceland independent, despite being the Kingdom of Iceland since 1918 and becoming a republic in 1944. There was a treaty since 1904 with Denmark that said we would renegotiate Iceland's independence in 1944.
Almost as if Iceland is irrelevant
@@scavulous6336 lol
@@scavulous6336the brits and americans occupied them in our timeline
That's only because they're covering up the uncomfortable truth. A successful Britain that isn't humbled by the Suez Crisis meant that they went full-nuclear in the Cod War...
@@scyobiempire4450 so?, irrelevant
'What if Carthage won the Second Punic War' sounds lit!
Isnt that just post finem
@@Soiladpost finem is quite unrealistic
Lithuanian!
Sorry
That’s going to happen
@@Soilad Post finem essentially assumes that:
Carthage does nothing after the punic war aside from balkanise italy and convert it to their religion
The wars of the diadochi never end and no middle eastern powers ever coalesce
The germanic and brittonic tribes never unite to any degree
The huns never do anything
Some disagreement I have is I don't think Germany would be divided as they're surrender enjoyed a support of the Soviet invasion, which does make things very tense and European cooperation... Pessimistic, I also assume ermland goes to Poland as you say but konigsberg likely goes to Lithuania a proposition that happened in our timeline for various reasons mostly the history of the Baltic Germans.
Another point against dividing germany is the Atlantic charter which may or may not exist in this world but the sentiments of the document definitely would exist
one thing some people may not know: The people in charge of making the Bavarian constitution (which were Bavarians) were actually considering wanting to be independent of the rest of Germany but that got a clear no from the US. (For those interested, beside the overall German constitution, every state in Germany has its own constitution too.)
I dont understand how there is the political power to partition Germany after you just turned them into an ally? The Allies used and fought the Soviets together with the German army which (according to you) still is quite powerful in the East and fields millions. How can the allies come up with the political capital to split Germany in two after Germany basically helps them win the war?
It’s not like Germany would have much of a say.
Yeah, good point, I too was really surprised that Germany was still torn to shreds in this timeline with the Soviets, or now only Russian, coming out with merely a slap on the wrist. Pretty disappointing from Possible History.
The divisions aren't what throws me off, they could easily leverage Bavarian and allemanic seperatism for that.
But I can't imagine the external border changes. In this situation, any border changes which would lead to massive deportations would be a insane decision.
In regards to the German military, I'm going to assume Germany was made to demobilise and demilitarise before the peace conference began. As for the political capital, the only people that really need to be convinced would be the Allies(and their citizens), which wouldn't be impossible considering Germany began two world wars within a 30 year time span
France is gonna France.
In this scenario Greece would keep Northern Epirus, as the main reason why it didn't was the objection of the Soviet Union
PH is really obsessed with those Polish borders and I'm not sure why, as in this scenario they make no sense. Poles in this timeline would've been seen as heroes, fighting against both the Fascists and the Communists, and never giving up. I don't know why they would lose so much land to Ukraine and Belarus, nations that, despite suffering under the USSR, were part of it nonetheless.
Yeah I highly doubt Belarus would exist in this timeline. Already it's basically a fictional nation, basically a part of Russia.
That sounds like an extremely sus take. @@RMProjects785
@@RMProjects785😒Seriously? Sthu with that bullcrap.
@@XD-yn6hb how? Belarus is a puppet
Most intelligent pole
another possible history banger
Fun fact: Before Truman was presdient, he said the usa should suport which side is losing, in order to make both countties weaker.
I'm paraphrasing, but i believe it went something like this "if the Germans are winning/have the momentum, then we should shore up the Soviets. If the Soviets gain the momentum, we should do what we can to benefit the Germans in the East, but no matter what though, Hitler & the Nazi's regime should NOT be allowed to decisively win against the Russians." Or something like that I think at least, anyone feel free to correct me if i recall anything in a way that needs fixing, clarification, re-word or rephrasing, etcetera.
Don't forget the full quote:
“If we see that Germany is winning the war, we ought to help Russia; and if that Russia is winning, we ought to help Germany, and in that way let them kill as many as possible.”
By his view, it was 2 totalitarian countries going at it. Win-win either way, though this was before Pearl Harbor.
So usa would be helping Germany?
I don't think that germany would be split up as you showed in the video because they helped to fight against the USSR
They probably only allowed Germany exist because they helped.
@@lithunoisan
Yeah but in this scenario a military coup happens as to not waste lives and save germany. Then the army is used against the soviets. Tell me why would they do that. 1. The allies force them to fight as labourer soldiers, which is not a thing they do. 2. The promise to gain something from fighting the soviets. No what could that something mean. Maybe a not so harsh peace deal, for example not lossing east prussia.
Otherwise I do not see the germans fight a war they already lost.
Its idiotic tho. How they gonna just turn east after a tough war and 2 entire cities fried. How does the relationship work? For high ups thw Soviets may be orime target but for commoners it be allied bombs falling on their heads and western troops more likely to reahc their homeland.
The other European powers who were brutally subjugated would never allow a united Germany. UK, France, Benelux, Yugoslavia, Denmark, Norway, Czechoslovakia, and most of all Poland would never allow it
Poland was still punished a litlle to hard cities like vilnius and gomel where almost 80% polish so They probably shoud have been still left polish
To Me Poland and Germany got the short end the stick like a really short one
@@KiraiKatsuji Maybe they actually grow closer in their shared bitterness.
@@KaiHung-wv3ul Like nothing unites humans more than hatred of the same thing
What if everything went perfect for Norway?
(Please do a what if everything went perfect for Norway scenario)
Yes please!🇳🇴🇳🇴
I support this idea as a Norwegian
Norway world hegemony
Everything did go right for Norway
@@tujrgerwgNot really. We lost a lot of people and influence to the... *Cough* swedes and danes
3 way wars involving separate nations are incredibly rare so it probably wouldnt ever have happened. Interesting to consider how it'd go if somehow it had though.
Heavilly feel like the peace and changes in Eastern Europe and the former USSR seem way too idealistiv rather than what the Allied Powers really settled down, especially with their track record of border changes (Carving up Africa and post WW2)
Id imagine that the map would look very similar to this I suspect poland wouldn’t lose any eastern land and that germany is gored further
@@Hys-01 bro, you have the juche symbol as user icon, you cant criticise anyone on thier views on foreing policy. I dont love the US, but i would sure as hell rather live there, than in north korea
counterpoint: they viewed Europeans as real people (see: treaty of Verseilles and the Austrian treaty (forgot the name)). Even though those treaties were harsh, they weren't nearly as harsh as the Ottoman treaty, because the European powers saw the Ottomans as just another colonial land grab (especially after making promises to several native groups, which they saw as easily exploitable).
While yes, it may seem idealistic, its not nearly as idealistic as you may think.
@@korvmaster229 Don't worry, I used to think like you when I was 14
@@Hys-01 have you been to north korea? You should go there
You think the Wehrmaht would just start to serve the Allies against the Soviets? Majority of them would lie down their aems and Soviets would retake at least their land.
I wouldn't go that far with it, but yeah the idea that the Germans and Soviets would basically just completely ignore the Allied fronts is dumb.
I suppose, but I imagine the allies would force them
@@You-vv1xvforce them do what if they mutiny or become corrupt and drain allied resources
@@Ethnogoblin i imagine allied forces would force the wehrmacht to fight against the soviets. Obviously this would require no lend lease, but i dont think its tooo far fetched as most soldiers irl wanted to surrender to the western allies anyway. Also I don't think any german generals would even get allied resources. They'd probably be under western generals.
The big difference you overlooked is a lack of a country to supply the former colonies with weapons. If no Soivet Union or communist China exist, rebellion would be very hard in this world due to the lack of a nation to supply weapons to the rebellion faction.
one note about the Polish borders:
as a Pole, learning about Polish history in school in much greater detail than most people, I can safely say that Poland would only lose minor territories in the east, and would certainly keep Vilnius. Operation "Gate of Dawn" was an effort to liberate Vilnius from German occupation to send a message to the west that "this is Poland". with the Soviets and the Germans both being the antagonists, I can see this affair going through in Poland's favour. as for the western border, the disputed areas of Silesia and southern east Prussia would be added to Poland, as there were plebiscites held after WW1, and even an uprising in Silesia itself, though much of east Prussia would either remain in Germany, or become its own independent country, like South or North Germany.
all in all, I can see Poland giving up cities like Baranowice (modern day Baranavichy, Belarus) and Równe (modern day Rivne, Ukraine), but keep Lviv and Vilnius, as these had a majority Polish population.
also, for Crimea, it's very well possible that it's independent, as it was after WW1 for about 6 hours.
Sounds pretty good.😊
Allies don't have friends, they have interests. And they will gladly sacrifoce poland as the see fit. Even more so in this timeline since there is no other world power poland can get help from and keep the allies in check
Idea: what if barbarossa was actually launched "later", like most axis victory scenarios propose? I like the fact that you are oftentimes realistic on what would actually happen, so covering that stuff would be great :3
Arguably, later actually makes it worse; delaying the invasion both gives the Soviets more time to prepare that they desperately needed, and means the period of time where the Soviets are being attacked and the US isn't helping them is much shorter. Delaying Barbarossa is really only helpful if the Germans somehow capitulate Britain in the meantime, and that ship had already sailed (pun intended) with the Luftwaffe's failure to defeat the RAF.
germany needed invade ussr in 1941 because they had food shortages. It was either now and hope for quick win or never
@@somenon-human0267 exactly. Also had the ussr been invaded later then there would have been more t-34's, better airfields, more aa coverage, massive red army reorganizations, etc which would mean germany would be rext almost inmediately after starting barbarossa.
@@plasmakitten4261also germany would have even less oil
If anything invading a month or two earlier (which Germany planned to do before they had to deal with Yugoslavia and Greece) would've been better, as the Germans might've encircled Moscow before the winter set in. However, even if Moscow was taken it'd be a phyrric victory, being probably the bloodiest battle of the war, like Stalingrad but worse. Summer offensive in 1942 as a result isn't as successful, but the USSR finds mobilization difficult as the railway network centers around Moscow, and there's the very real possibility of Stalin and other high-profile officials being killed or taken prisoner in Moscow, considering they pledged not to leave the capital like Hitler did in our timeline. Barbarossa was pretty doomed no matter what
Why is Poland, 4th power in allies (without china) the bigest loser in this scenario? They lost far more than Italy or Romania. This looks really unfair that bigest victim of war is done so dirty...
Exactly
wkurzyło mnie to że potraktowali nas gorzej niż stalin
Polish imperialism isn't justified just because they were oppressed before
It's justified to gain land that are mainly Polish (most of citizens were Polish) around Belarus, Wilno and Lwów.@@ayhan4472
One of the best episodes so far!
I dont think the peace deal would be so harsh on germany. Since their soldiers fought the soviets together and some earlier territory transfer like the sudetenland where also accepted. I think in this timeline it would be much more likely, that germany would be allowed to keep its eastern territories except poland. Why do those eastern european states have to be formed with former polish territory anyway?
intresting thought ...
it would matter greatly from how sencire and strong fighting the german army would be viewed i guess..
But , the century long phylosofy of balance or power the UK strived for would not be broken.. so the UK WOULD strive for a German that could blanance France it's power somewhat after that war!
Germany already seems WAY bigger in this scenario then current unified Germany, if the German minorities where well treated under the Polish state.. mmm, difficult to estimate :-) . food for thought!
I have to say, I consider Poland Losing Vilnius to be very unlikely, the area around it and the city itself especially were overwhelmingly Polish, even with OTLs Population expulsions Lithuania still has a large Polish minority. I highly doubt that Lithuania would be given the area, instead I think that what would effectively happen is that Poland would have a thin wedge of land going to Vilnius, basically separating Belarus from Lithuania.
19:00 but handing polish eastern territories to Belarus, Ukraine, Lithuania also involves massive deportation of Poles. Land given to Lithuania was mostly inhabited by Poles that time.
I kind of doubt that Poland would lose any land in this scenario, especially to former soviet countries. Poland was the main reason the war started, and it definitely wouldn't go over well that the allies gave away Polish land to their former enemies. Also, Germany wouldn't have been partitioned if it continued fighting against the Soviets as they would've just surrendered if they hadn't been given territorial guarantees.
My idea is that the rest of Ukraine and Belarus are still split off, but they are given to Poland to form a sort of "Polish-Ruthenian commonwealth"
@@avandorhu-3389That sounds like it would better help fix border conflicts since language boundaries can be more fluid.
17:34 i dont really think poland would loose any territories would they? in our timeline poland only lost their eastern territories due to the soviets wanting some territory from the war. i dont see why poland, which now was completely on the side of the allies, would loose any territories?
the west only let stalin keep parts of poland due to him being crucial to defeating germany, in this case there is nobody demanding any territory from poland, and poland would either be slightly expanded east, or belarus and ukraine would be created only from soviet territories.
I would only at most see vilnius being kept part of lithuania for various reasons.
however in this case poland wouldnt take as much of germany, as in our timeline it was stalin who wanted the lines drawn this way, to keep more of europe in his sphere of influence if his DDR project failed.
9:35 this fails to consider the possibility that the Germans, after seeing the British (who they are at war with) take all their oil, would conduct an offensive against the British to take said oil. They didn't come all the way to the Caucasus just to be like "oh well, I guess the British took it before we could" No! they are going to fight for it!
they would've lost, as they would've been too overstretched
@@Gvazdika.nah the Brits would’ve lost in Africa before then they nearly did. The quick capture of Stalingrad would’ve lead to more divisions going to Rommel and they would’ve pincered the caucuses as was planned
I would argue that Italy would lose Trentino/South Tyrol as a key factor in preventing this loss of territory was fears that the Italian Communist Party would win the election;
without Soviet/influence the Allies may actually give away the territory,
Great video!
I'm very happy with the borders you ended up giving Finland. Many alt-historians tend to give way too much land to Finland, all of Karelia, and sometimes even the Murmansk peninsula (wich is ridicioulus)
The border that you drew here is very rational. It makes Finland much bigger but it's somewhat reasonable, not taking too much from Russia, and not giving tons of undesired. land to Finland.
I’m interested 30:41
23:07 is the best thing to come out of any alternate history channel ever
Common possible history W
No
Barbarossa in this scenario is unrealistic: soviets have less soldiers on west but they end up on the same lines as in our timeline
It’s cause most os the Soviet army and planes at the front were historically destroyed in the first phase of operation Barbarossa and couldn’t help to defend the soviets
@@wurstbrot7164 yes, but soviets would lose more ground than in our timeline
The actual soviet soldiers present barely affected how far the Germans were able to get; weather, terrain, and scorched earth tactics (mostly carried out by random civilians!) were the cause of that.
Spain watching in the corner with popcorn.
One note on probable postwar Polish government, the exiled one was formed mostly on basis of various opposition forces to the military prewar junta. This included peasant party, socialists and catholic nationalists, but for obvious reasons excluded communists, probably even more in this timeline.
31 minutes?! You blessed us today!
Love the interesting take on the typical scenario! I’m sure I’m not the only one who would love a part 2. Maybe on Beyond PH??
I think it’s unlikely Germany would lose all of Prussia, especially since a military coup against Hitler was mentioned and that Germans fought the USSR. Germany would have feel immensely betrayed by the loss of Eastern Prussia as a whole. I think that the independence of Bavaria and the formation of an Austro-Bavarian confederation is likely, but Baden-Württemberg, being Protestant, and not Catholic, would probably be given the choice between joining south Germany or remaining with the rest of Germany. And when it comes to the East, Germany would probably lose Upper Silesia as well as half of East Prussia (Ermland Masuren) to Poland, while keeping the rest of Königsberg in borders similar to what thr “Kaliningrad Oblast” is today, but it would be German. Finally, would a Cold War between emerging countries like China and India against the West be possible?
East prussia is the undirect reason the war started. Germany couldn't be allowed to keep it and in the most extreme case there would be a free state. BTW allies didnt really care about the opinion of Germany. Also, Baden is mostly catholic although it has a lot of protestants.
@@bulkax303 the reason the war started was Austria TWICE I’m tired everyone blaming Prussia for everything
Honestly, fantastic job with this one, really fascinating to think about!
Continue this scenario, there its a lot of potential.
Very interesting video! You do a great job of parsing what is realistic and what isn't from existing scenarios.
This is the scenario Patton was born for
the 10 extra minutes that the video has compared to a normal one makes this a way better video
And people say the colonialists were bad at making borders. They're still right to say that, of course, but the USSR really wasn't much better if the various border conflicts amongst the post-Soviet republics of Central Asia and the Caucasus are anything to go off of. Even Russia itself thinks the borders are full of crap given how they refuse to respect the one with Ukraine.
Another channel has shown that, in the middle east at least, there really wasnt a way to divide it well. These places have so many different cultures and religions, plus they're often migratory.
That's because the USSR was a colonial power as well.
@@schwinkle716no, it wasn't.
@@Спирт-ъ3й In name maybe it wasn't, but the soviet union was basically the second russian empire. Nominally it wasn't of course, but the communists were very good at making things seem a certain way when it really wasn't. All the commies did was replace one dictatorship with another, less fancy dictatorship.
Don't you realize that Russia/USSR was as much of a colonial empire as e.g. France and Britain? Just because the Russians weren't necessarily always colonizing the lands of specifically 'people of colour' doesn't make them any less colonialist and imperialist. The fact that the USSR stated that they were 'anti-imperialist' or 'anti-colonialist' doesn't mean this statement is true, since their actions in Eastern Europe and Central Asia clearly says otherwise. I'd say the Soviets was just as bad as the other colonial powers, if not even worse in many aspects, which a lot of tankies will refuse to accept.
19:38 I think you forgot to update this slide when you made Poland not lose as much territory (it lost all of its Eastern territory here)
In a scenario where both Germany and USSR are defeated by the Allies, it is inconceivable to not reestablish pre-war Polish borders since a strong Polish ally is needed in Eastern Europe, not a weakened one. White Russia and the Ukraine wouldn’t get preferential treatment over Polish claims since these new states would be weak politically-speaking due to communist insurgents, similar to what Mao was doing in China in OTL. They would need Allied troops to bolster their governments. The Poles would likely play a role with the occupation of its neighbors, including Germany, but Germany and Austria would also be restored to their 1937 borders since they were allied in the war against the Soviet Union after Hitler was overthrown, which would be similar to how Italy turned sides in OTL and wasn’t treated too badly after the war.
Absolutely interested in a continuation!
This might be one of if not the best WW2 scenarios
Do a continuation please, alternate history doesnt have to always be realistic, lets just see how the world might develop after this
I don't think in this scenario Poland would lose land with Polish majority - as it makes no sense.
I don't know how to describe it but this timeline feels more realistic than what happened in OTL
Yeah it feels like a massive plot hole in reality that the USSR essentially sided with the Axis in the first year and nobody really cared
@@RMProjects785 honestly.
Though tbf there is a good reason why the Allies didn’t declare war on the USSR. Britain was in a life-or-death struggle with the Axis, declaring war on another superpower wouldn’t have helped. As well as that, the British government knew the Axis would eventually go to war with the Soviets.@@robertortiz-wilson1588
@@RMProjects785 It's because it never sided with the Axis.
Before WW:II numerous nations had non-agression pact with 3rd Reich, and USSR wasn't even the first nation to use German conquests to gain some territories themselves (the first was Poland with Zaolzie).
USSR actually wanted to start WW:II with Allies by making a pre-emptive attack on Germany, but Allies refused. And we know how that ended.
@@A_B_1917 Poland taking a small town of polish residents is not comparable to a brutal full-scale invasion of Poland with tens of thousands of civilians slaughtered. Not to mention trying to conquer Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Bessarabia. And please link the “pre-emptive” strike that the ussr was supposedly planning
22:00 Ho Chi Min in this timeline would probably be considered to be a nationalist, rather than a communist, as in his own words "nation comes first, then communism".
this was really good, re-subscribed.
9:40 come on bruh this was old 3 years ago
I'm debating with myself if this is your best video ever
My headcannon is that in the alternative timeline where Munich was nuked. The bomb that was used had "made with JEWISH science and american muscle" written on the side of it as a sorta last "screw you" to the Nazis.
hell yeah
Cool idea, but sadly the US didn't really know/care about the Holocaust until a few years after the war. It was the Soviets who liberated the concentration camps, and they took their sweet time releasing that knowledge to the West. America also was kind of dickish about Jewish immigrants fleeing Europe during the war. "The Holocaust" as a concept to define the pure evil of fascism by didn't take hold until knowledge of it became more widespread; during the war, it was just "They invaded every nation in Europe, many after completely violating treaties, so they're bad". In this timeline, that will stay the case until AFTER peace is concluded - most likely peace with the Soviets as well. So while it is common knowledge that the fascists are super racist towards Jews at this point, the US simply isn't going to care enough about that to write a message no one will read (because they'll be dead). The "this was made by Jews" irony becomes much more powerful a few years down the line.
@@plasmakitten4261 the Jewish scientists who made the bomb would certainly know what was going on, that’s why they fled.
@@oilybat3269 Except no, they didn't. They fled from German persecution, sure. But there's a difference between discrimination laws etc., and an outright extermination attempt. The concentration camps weren't public knowledge until way later. At best, they were just a "myth".
@@plasmakitten4261Yes, but people knew that Nazi Germany didn’t like Jews.
I like the variety of background music. Definitely brings more flavor than other alt his videos that probably use the same bland music for years.
As much as it pains me to admit, Finland would probably lose to the Soviets in this timeline. In actual history they were weeks away from a total victory when Stalin lost his nerve over an Allied intervention (that we know would not have been coming). If he was already at war with them then there'd be no reason to stop.
However, the aftermath would probably have been different. Stalin's plan was for Finland to become a "people's republic" like the Warsaw Pact countries after the war. The new borders would have included quite a bit of Karelia in exchange for most of the Isthmus, but not quite enough to cover the Murmansk railroad. We can be pretty sure this was the actual plan, since they released new maps and officially recognized the (treasonous) government of O.W. Kuusinen at the start of the Winter War. The Wikipedia article for "Finnish Democratic Republic" is pretty good and has the maps if you're interested.
Did you watch the video?
Please continue this scenario. This one is one of your bests! Greeting from Finland
But about Poland, Władysław Sikorsky and his followers were in opposition to pre-war Polish government. So he maybe establishes autocracy but even slighter than pre-war one, due to the fact that AK (strongest resistance organization in Poland) and exiled politicians want to establish democracy. For example, Stanislav Mikołajczyk. But yes chance to that Poland invade newly established countries is possible, and first one definitely be Lithuania due to the fact that Polish people and government want to regain Wilno (In Wilenszczyzna as well as in Wilno Poles were majority)
17:16 isn't the Rhineland majority catholic? I could easily see the allies puting the Rhineland in a Southern german state to further reduce the ecconomy of the 'Prussian' Germany
19:05 also the Sudeten question also arises in this timeline, since without the soviets a forced German expulsion is significantly less likely. but also giving it to Germany is unlikely too. i imagine a regional autonomy compromise is likely for both east Prussia and the Sudetenland. especially as the Germans effectively switched sides in this timeline and were already 'punished' with 2 nukes I see expulsions as even less palatable to the western powers than in our timeline.
In terms of general notes, its likely the european coal and steel community includes ex-soviet states from the begining, including russia, and ofcaurse poland. or near the begining. after all the goal was to make wars less likely and there is no communist reason to exclude the eastern states.
another interesting aspect is there is likely 2 russian liberation armies in this timeline, the german one would still exist. but there would likely be a western allied one too. they would likely be murged after the german surrender.
speaking of russia, i am not sure how much the ukrainians would be able to play victum. seeing as the genocide famines affected russians as much as ukrainians and according to soviet archives the conflict the peasants had was more religious than ethnic (ie the allies would have concluded that if the 1920s, and 1930s famines were deliberate genocides they would have considered them relgious not ethnic ones, where atheists tried to supress relgious both christians and musilims) and Ukrainians were important parts of the government.
I think central asia would be split off, as would the baltics. but the slavic parts of the USSR would likely be occupied as one system, and devided after occupation based on referendums (it resulting in an independant ukraine is likely, but its borders being greater or smaller than the ones in the video are both possible since southern russia and souther-eastern ukraine was a mixed region with lots of russian and ukrainian speakers on both sides of the Ukrainain SSR's border with the Russian SSR's).
regardless of the borders, tensions would be less likely to arise since both russia and ukraine are likely to join the coal and steel community to reduce the chance of war, and thus free movement is likely.
Regardless, Communism would probably be (righly) as demonised as fascism in this timeline since the war with the ussr was hot, and de-communising ex-ussr is probably as extensive as de-nazification in germany. furthermore there is no period of pro-ussr propoganda during the war and no meanstream 'the communists helped defeat the nazis and so are good guys' arguement.
Another thing to think about is post-war rebuilding. how much does the us put into doing it without a soviet rival? Would the chinese nationalists be the timeline's alternate cold war rival? (i don't think so, not initially anyway).
No way the allies force the eastern poles to relocate themselves to silesia and pomerania
This is really good, I would love to see a continueation of this video!
I honestly doubt that Germany in any capacity would/could continue the war against the communists after a total surrender, a partial surrender giving back alsace Lorraine, while keeping the rest of the imperial borders Austria and maybe the Sudetenland makes more sense if the allies want Germany to fight on.
Should have mentioned the massive famine that would happen in the ussr if the Germans held the Caucasus and Ukraine in 1942 and into 1943, the area was the bread basket for the ussr and they already don’t get lend lease to relieve them, it at least deserves a mention, and the battle for Moscow would have been interesting to discuss which I haven’t seen you talk about once in the channel
the part around 22:30 reminds me of the end credits/epilogue of a show where they say what each main character goes on to do
We need continuation on this scenario. It would be interesting to see the predictions for China, Eastern Europe, Japan, Germany, France, Former USSR, and the like. I imagine that within a few years of America pulling back, Poland starts a war against Belarus and Ukraine, Hungary returns to fascism, France sees civil discontent over colonialism and Communism begins to return. China antagonizes Britain, France, and Portugal into forming an intervention against China to try to retain their colonies. Both Germanies are likely angry, and with the fact that the German army in the West had put pressure on the USSR to collapse, fascism stays as an ideology waiting to come back and bring Germany back.
I think Russia would be consumed by vengeance towards the West in this timeline, even more so than in our world. I think it'd be like Weimar Germany, where a few decades after the war a radical who seeks to return to the good old days of Russian power takes advantage of an isolationist America to begin reconquering the former Empire. Without the USSR, there isn't as much of an arms race, so nuclear arsenals remain quite small, instead of being a massive deterrent.
Your music choices are on point.
I do believe that an EU would still form, since one of its main purposes was to prevent another European war. While it wouldn't be necessary as a bulwark against the Soviets, it would still be seen as a way to help prevent European wars, help Europe rebuild, and help Europe stand up to the USA as the sole superpower.
Poland getting betrayed is crazy
I like the idea that this scenario's cold war would be between the US and republic nations against empires like Britain. Would truly make this a narrative masterpiece
That seems incredibly unlikely. Britain and the US had well and truly buried the proverbial hatchet by this point. The US might not like imperialism, or they might not care, but they wouldn't fight over it. The British were also a little less reluctant about decolonisation than the French after World War 2, partly due to war exhaustion, and partly because they viewed the Commonwealth as a suitable substitute. There might be less Anglo-American cooperation, but they'd probably still be mostly friendly. France held on a bit more tightly (and still does through less direct means), but I don't think there's much prospect of a cold war there.
China is probably the dark horse here, as whoever ended up on top in the end would likely still be authoritarian and expansionist, but it would likely take a few decades to develop.
It’s a good day when possible history uploads.
Scenario idea: what if America took a more imperialistic stance in the Americas (not just what if everything went perfect for america 2 though), like annexing more of mexico (which only didn't happen because of the diplomat who was sent didn't aprove of the war the us wanted to annex more) and trying to kick out all europeans. Basically a more aggressive usa
Honestly I'd love to see a continuation of this
Eastern Europe would be even bigger powder keg after this timeline with all the countries becoming independent due to all the genocides, that happened in the interwar period and during the war itself (like Ukraine-Russia Holodomor, Ukraine-Poland Vollhynia and Poland-Russia Katyń). With no big brother cracking down on even the mentions of these topics I'm pretty sure it'd cause the second Balkans the moment Western armed forces leave the area.
So in this timeline, only bad thing is, we don't get Vietnam war music.
Also maybe Czechoslovakia (Czech part) could get bit of land from germany or from austria. There was also border dispute after ww2 between poland and czechoslovakia, so this land claim from germany could probably prevent it.
You should do a reverse Cold War scenario
Pls
It’s pretty sad how many RUclipsrs nowadays are practically begging for subscriptions. I wish that RUclips would update to care more about watch time, video interaction, and the ‘come-back’ factor. Anyways, this is your first video I’ve watched. Just subscribed. The video was decently detailed and (at least to a casual like me) VERY well thought out and very well reasoned out.
I would also be interested to know if there is a history of conquered armies being utilized against other enemies. Would the Nazis really prove great allies against the Soviets? Or just a multitude of unwilling cannonfodder? Forcing the Nazis into allies would change history a lot. Nowadays (in the west), the Nazis are held down as the pinnacles of evil “never surpassed the dark and lamentable catalogues of human crime.” But I imagine that turning them into later in the war allies would greatly soften their image in contemporary eyes. Their crimes earlier in the war may even be modesty shrugged off a bit, or a strong point of contention (similar to how racists and slave owners are now). The Soviets and the Japanese might be held up as the ultimate evil cultures.
It also makes sense that Russia wasn’t divided up because that may set them up to feel reuniting should be a future war’s ambition.
I doubt it.
First the Allies offered to help out Finland because they wanted to occupy Swedish Iron mines and they said no.
But even if a three way war happened the Allies would be more powerful than the Axis and Communists but would be unable to take either out for fear of making the other more powerful it would be far more likely that the Allies reestablished western dominance in France but hold off on an all out invasion hoping both sides just wipe each other out and intervening only when one side got an advantage.
As for the Nazis and Imperial Japanese just surrendering that's just a pipe dream nukes are a devastating wepon but the most powerful effect was shock and awe in truth regular firebombing caused just as much initial damage as any nuke of the time (as they had little understanding of the lasting effects) and both sides were militaristic with indoctrinated populations, both were willing to fight to the bitter end for old timie honour and whatnot.
Europe was too large for nukes to have a notisable initial effect and the only reason it worked on Japan was size and a two front war.
There was too many men willing to die on the line for just these two nations for any reasonable occupation without total destruction or a braking of their spirits in some way for any occupying army to hold.
Imo the Allies would hold out in western Europe and prevent further expansion into their spheres of influence while perpetuating an unending war with the Axis and Soviets perhaps for decades until they are just a shell of what they once were.
Germany was less fanatical than Japan - a significant portion of the Wehrmacht was fighting for Germany and not the Nazis specifically, and there were coup plots against the Nazis from German military commanders, Valkyrie being the most famous. If it was clear they were going to lose and city-destroyers started falling, there's a good chance the German generals would start acting to save the people behind them. As it was, the German strategy after the Battle of Berlin was pretty much trying to pull off exactly this: try to provoke a Soviet-Allied war so they could immediately offer to join the Allies or, failing that, stall the Soviets as much as possible while deprioritising the western front so that the meeting point could be as far east as possible.
@@Draxynnic They literally fought until total destruction was achieved. They had a cult of personality built around Hitler and many committed suicide instead of suffering the humiliation of defeat...
Pretty sure this qualifies as a fanatical militaristic culture.
@@kristiancusack7355 The SS did, but the SS wasn't the entirety of Germany, or even the entirety of the German military. There was also an aspect that in the real-world timeline, the motivation for a lot of the soldiers on the Eastern Front was that they knew darn well that the Red Army was going to commit atrocities once they got into Germany so they were fighting to the bitter end on that front for that reason. On the western front, though, there's at least one recorded example of Wehrmacht forces joining the Western Allies to turn on the SS.
In this scenario, they'd be surrendering just to Britain and the US, from which they could expect reasonably good treatment of civilians after the surrender, rather than to Britain, the US, and the Soviet Union. So that factor wouldn't be there. For a surrender to happen would probably require Hitler to be overthrown, but that's essentially how WW1 ended, and in our timeline that came pretty close to happening in 1944. The shock of nuclear weapons, combined with the sober assessment that they were losing even without them, would make a coup or, short of that, Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe commanders on the western front making their own arrangements increasingly likely.
It would be cool if you also did a video of a 3 way Cold War between the US, soviets, And the Axis ( The 3 Sides could be Called the West, East, and Center Or middle ).
1. If Yugoslavia become communist with Tito, Greece might become communist with its provisional democratic government if the Allies don't fear the Soviet Union.
2. Are you sure that US could make 3 nukes a month? That really seems a lot without Zippe-tyoe Centrefuge...
3. The borders in the Levant would be different. At least Jordan would'nt abandon the West Bank of the Jordan River without its civil war against the PLO, and the PLO was created by the Soviet Union.
4. I doubt Poland would loose that much territory in the East.
5. Decolonization might also happen faster with weaker Weastern European after more destruction caused by the War.
6. China could be close to the US and the Allies if the West fear the Chinese communists.
I feel like the opportunity of saying “Chiang Kai-Shek would lose the Mandate of Heaven” was missed
Waasnt the plan of the allies to not make any territorial changes to germany (soviets excludet of course)
This sounds like a HOI4 player trying to make their round in the game sound historic as possible.
For the USA...
No major power enemy...
So, no need to spend $mega on making Nuclear Missiles, or Nuc powered Subs...
So, more money for improving the standard of life in the heartlands.
Heaven
The one Thing i Contest is Poland getting east prussia, for the fact that there are still loads of germans there primarily, and that i believe that the idea of destroying prussian militarism was heavily influenced by the USSR, and would be *even* less popular after germany turned into an ally against the soviets.
I would also argue that the two germany's would seek reunification sooner or later, especially when religion becomes less important
I don’t think Germany would be divided, especially if they fight with the allies against the Soviets
Unfortunately trust can't always be won
This is actually a very nuanced and plausible alternate history, which is rare to find
Stealing Polish land as it marches among winners without soviets occupying their whole country seems just soooo foolish
Wasn't polish land
@@americanmapping832 if you love self determination so much then give land back to natives.
@@Hamdledisboi they aren't majorities in these lands.
@@americanmapping832 so weren’t people in lands presented in video
@@Hamdledisboi exactly, the polish weren't the majority. So had no claim
The soviet airforce is the most underrated thing ever, the soviets would have probably stopped operation pike
suggestion:vlasov becomes prominent in Russia and seizes control in this scenario
White army 2 boogaloo
Please do continuation of this!