Ironically enough, in this timeline De Gaulle could be a likely successor to Petain. In this scenario with allied France led by Petain, De Gaulle would have still served under him. De Gaulle's views weren't that far different from Petain's actually, with some speculting he even wanted a restoration of the monarchy. In a timeline where Petain's successor is De Gaulle we might see the regime slightly more liberal but still in the shape of an authoritarian amd conservative one. De Gaulle's France would be even more independent from the west than in our timeline and with such prominent state on the continent even the politics of other western countries such as Italy could be shifted to the right (of course not as far as f ascism) Maybe France, while still opposing the Soviets would endorse some non communist rivals to the west, such as Argentina during the falkland wars, but that's very far in the timeline
well, the us endorsed literal "bad party germans" to fight communism in germany in our timeline, it would make sense that if france was more right wing, that would make that fact more prominent and a bit more overt
The role of Fleet Admiral Darlan could also be mentionned. The French Navy was his personal fiefdom at the time, and so with the destruction of the Army, he led the only capable fighting force left. In their memoirs, Churchill and De Gaulle agree on just one thing : that if Darlan had declared himself for continuing the fight overseas he would have immediately enjoyed international recognition. In an alternate scenario, there is room for serious political infighting between Petain and Darlan, since despite his prestige the old marshall would always be vulnerable to a coup.
@@orionfreed6763 generally french military leadership was more authoritarian, while the the political was more liberal, even socialist now how much right each was is difficult to say exactly, especially for Darlan as he was assassinated sometime in 1943, but as he was considered for a while as a potential leader for the free French by the allies (particularly the Americans), it's not impossible to think he was more agreeable to the allies thus potentially more of a moderate strongman
@@quentintin1 in domestic politics he was very much on the far-right, but could see that preserving the colonial empire meant having to side with the US-UK.
That would mean no France surrendering jokes. Edit: anyone saying “What about the Franco Prussian war”, and, “1815?” good point, however WW2 popularized the joke a lot.
@@Tahirid_18Nah, probably not. The only reason why "France surrenders" is a meme is because of the Napoleonic wars and WW2 (and arguably the Franco-Prussian war). Since WW2 would've seen France flee to Algeria but continue fighting, while the Napoleonic wars would've just been France surrendering, there wouldn't be enough similarity between those 2 situations for people to make fun of France. Like at that point, it'd be like joking about Poland surrendering during WW2 or something. I doubt people would joke about Paris in this scenario.
One thing I think you've missed is that Petain only became Prime Minister after his Predecessor, Paul Reynaud, chose to resign rather than Surrender to Germany. So France could've technically continued without Petain becoming Prime Minister, all Reynaud would need to do is the same thing Georges Clemenceau did in WW1: Refuse to Surrender, and refuse to step down. If he didn't resign and managed to harass the Cabinet into allowing the war to continue. France wouldn't have surrendered. I'd argue this is a more likely scenario
And Reynaud maintaining control would actually push Europe to Unify, he was in favor of a United States of Europe, which essentially means a Federation like the US. That is provided he stayed in power long enough to see things through.
@spigao_fr sometimes I feel that some Alt-History creators don't understand that sometimes having a different guy make the decision is more historically plausible than having the guy who made the decision change his mind. The decision to surrender was made by Pétain, but if Reynaud was in that situation he wouldn't have surrendered, so the question is what would need to happen for Reynaud to be Prime Minister? Well given that he was Prime Minister like a week before the surrender, all that would need to happen is either for Reynaud to not resign, or for the President to reappoint Reynaud (which he considered doing). And either of those possibilities would be more likely than Pétain changing his mind.
I mean, portugal moved it's government to Brazil during the napoleonic wars so it's not unheard of. And Britain planned to move to Canada in case of an invasion
@@thatoneduck3875 I mean… losing your monarch to a colony they genuinely prefer over their home country is pretty embarrassing. Or would be, if you didn’t just have a revolution.
You've got it completely backwards. Surrendering in WW2 has turned France into the butt of jokes worldwide. When people now think about France militarily, this one capitulation ranks higher than France's many military victories. By comparison, continuing to fight from the colonies would today be regarded as one of France's defining and most courageous moments in its long history.
@@gengarzilla1685 lol, definitly not, mostly because they might get double handed by the algerians who hate them a lot, and it would still be remembered as a humiliating defeat because the anglo sphere still dislikes france(although more ironically that the places conquered by france)
the Saarland being french was actually pretty likely even in our timeline - the only thing that prevented it, is that France wanted to be on good terms with Germany after the war, and due to the creation of the European Coal and Steel community (which later became the EU) the Saarland stopped being so critically important - its not as important to control the steel production in the Saarland, if you can just buy that steel from Germany.
Everything perfect for Italy is literally just the Everything perfect for Roman Empire video. If Everything went perfect for Italy, Rome wouldn't have fallen.
For an in-depth and carefully researched exploration of this scenario (France continuing the war from North Africa), see 1940: Et si la France avait continué la guerre?
@@londegel Une autre version qui situe le point de divergence un peu plus tôt, mais avec le même résultat. Aussi connue sous le nom de Fantasque Time Line. Deux volumes et trois BD publiées pour le moment.
The siege of toulon would have been epic. I live there and there are fortification everywhere. The port is surrounded by mountain and all the enter point are blocked by fortified artillery position, underground tunnel, pill box etc... It's a multi layer defence and there is no other option that to face it frontally.
5:10 Ah yes, relocating to otherseas territories, a "grave humiliation", as opposed to capitulating, letting Germany plunder the country to its heart’s content and becoming its willful, enthusiastic slave and collaborator. France might have had good reasons for surrenduring, but avoiding humiliation was by far the stupidest.
Withdrawing to Algeria would have been more humiliating, because the entire metropolian France would have been occupied by Germany and god knows what would have happened there. Of course entire France was ulitimately occupied in 1942 but this was obviously not known in 1940. Moreover, arriving to your colony after being kicked from your mainland territory with the status of defeated would also have been humiliating, and would have unpredictable consequences too. The whole point of surrendering was to preserve at least something out of France, as opposed to losing entire metropolian France. Technically, even German-occupied Northern France was within borders of Vichy France and it would have been returned after war with Britain (in summer 1940 everyone thought Britain would sign peace deal and war would have ended soon). After the war, France would have only lose Alsace-Lorraine, Pas-de-Calais and Nord. So, losing entire metropolian France as opposed to losing only Northern France (and this only temporarily) was seen as more humiliating.
@@differentview374 wouldn’t surrendering mean that the Germans could theoretically take or impose anything they desire on a helpless France? like having their overseas territories & colonies be broken up & redistributed to the Axis powers, forcing France to demilitarise, give away their Navy, aircrafts, and military vehicles, etc.? What made them think they can realistically “keep whatever they had left” by surrendering? If they’re bound to lose everything anyway, wouldn’t it be better for French “pride” if they continue to fight to the bitter end?
France was preserved. Collaboration worked. The resistance also won so France had perfect scenario irl (which he doesnt seem to understand in this vid)
Aaaah, yes because relocating overseas would stop the german from plundering France, yeah ? I love your overly simplistic, if not to say naive, view on this affair. France was facing a demographic hecatombe from WW1, not capitulating means another hecatombe in the same century. I don't think any country would let that happen. At the time France had a population of 39 millions compared to Germany's 72millions. Had France not capitulated, considering all the war crimes Germany did even after France capitulated, it's safe to assume massacres upon massacres would have happen in France, which was already facing demographic disaster. Because IRL stuff isn't as simple as a Hollywood movie, my guy
There was also a proposal that was made just before the government left Paris, when key ministers proposed moving the government to Bordeaux (a city located on very undefensible terrain). To counter this proposal, Charles de Gaulle proposed to move the government to Quimper, and to defend only Brittany (the Breton precarré), which is a much more defensible territory than the south of France (It is a narrow peninsula, with many rivers and some mountains). Paul Reynaud historically chose a compromise, moving the government to Tours (halfway between Bordeaux and Quimper), but subsequently gave in to pressure from the majority of ministers and moved the government to Bordeaux. Not sure that De Gaulle's proposal is realistic, but it is an interesting fact.
It wasn't. De Gaulle later dropped it because it was not possible to hold the line at the neck of Brittany with the forces they had. Holding out in Brittany was a project both Churchill and De Gaulle agreed upon, but both came to the same conclusion that the French Army couldn't hold there by itself and after Dunkirk the British didn't have enough divisions to make it feasible. What is also true is that the British only had enough fighter squadrons to defend Britain, or the Brittany Redoubt, but not both. Without air cover, the ground armies would be ground down, and naval resupply costly. There was simply not enough time for any project of that sort. The collapse of the Allied Armies happened way too quickly and for that Gamelin should be blamed, the dottering fool.
@@crownprincesebastianjohano7069 (and with King Edward VIII who gave the Germans the plans for the allies defense of Belgium, in what actual goal we don't know for sure, perhaps to overthrow his brother and claim back the Throne)
I can’t tell you how much I’ve thought about this scenario. One random day I open YoTube and boom, new Possible History video that answers my question.
Hey, the intro was well done! It's pretty rare to hear people acknowledge that there truly was nothing to do, and that Pétain didn't work with the nazis by choice, but to preserve France as much as possible.
@@minestar2247et nous avons aussi l'obligation morale de rappeler aux Anglais que c'est plus facile pour eux de rembarquer, ce qu'ils avaient déjà commencé à faire en septembre 1914, lors de la première bataille de la Marne. Car lors de cette bataille, les Allemands avaient presque réussi à être aussi rapide qu'en 1940.
00:23 isn't Zaolzie supposed to be part of Poland by the moment you shown? Sorry, for some nerd like stuff, maybe I sniffed too much glue this time. Btw like your videos, u always try to stick with realism and I can only watch you as possible alternative videos. Didn't watched till the end yet, but I'm sure this video would be as great as others.
@ It used to be very rich in coal and steel and the, at that time, only railway connecting Slovakia to Czechia ran through there. So overall, very strategically important for Czechoslovakia
23:48 "hatred of germany" what? did de Gaulle love germany so much more than Petain and that is why he supported the EU or something? Petain be just as likely to support the EU as de Gaulle. Maybe even more since Petain dislike the UK even more, and the in the begining the EU was, at least in from the French perspective, seen as a way to increase their power compaired to the UK. Also why whould the Russians get so much land in Europe if they made way less progress when the germans surrendered. The equivalent Yalta conference would be extremely different.
The irony in here is that its petain the main reason for the capitualtion as the plan to continue in the colonies was the main one, and petain ditched it and imprisonned the politician who mooved to algeria to create a government in the colonies, he was pretty much an anti war figure, he not only capitulated to germany but also didnt went to war with britain after they attcked the french fleet (despite the will of the french admiralty) and gave up indochina to japan even after the local forces beat them back at first
From what I understand, Operation Torch gave the Americans the experience of invading by sea and fighting the Germans. A 'D-Day' style of Normandy in this timeline might of been more bloodier, as the Americans may not have the experience, even if the Germans haven't fully fortified the French coast.
Counter-point: operation Husky would still happen, and with the French Navy in play, the Regia Marina is vastly outmached from the start and probably can't control the Central Mediterranean for over two years unlike OTL
Some corrections on Portugal and the Portuguese Overseas War: - It lasted 13 years, not 18; - The economy was actually not declining, instead, it had never been so great, reaching its peak of grouth in the 60s and earlie 70s.
I'm a french guy, and the idea of Philippe Petain choosing to fight is just saddly hilarious. This guy didn’t care to continue fighting, and didn’t understood the worldwide dimension of these events. He just wanted to eliminate the republican regime, and transform his mainland in a way more traditionnal way, without judes, socialists, foreigners or any democratic network (like freemasons). In fact, he took power by virtually an internal coup inside the french governement, putting some adversaries in custody (the《Massilia's affair》) and subverting the rest of frenches parlementaries. He never understood that nazi Germany wasn’t a fair partner, and believed until the end that his governement could gain a prominent rank in the future Reichseuropa. He took power, in fact, with a bunch of right-winged personnalities, who had in common to be largely out of play in the french politic. Practically, he was just《 un vieux con》, an old fart... way too old, too ambitious, and too bitter. De Gaulle was, by the way, Petain’s subordinate in the 20s, and he stated later that the energetic and innovative Philippe Petain he had known, virtually died after 1925. You should rather imagine that Petain wasn’t called at all, and maybe Reynaud resigned for a governement of national emergency, with strong people like Pierre Mandes France, Georges Mandel, Jean Zay, Charles de Gaulle, and (why not?) Pierre Laval (which was totally unethical, but really talented and appreciated by his fellows statemens...Historically, De Gaulle was personnaly sad to reject his request of grace in 1945, but couldn’t save him from his collaborationnist’s misdeeds). With such a team, the rest of the scenario should be much more believable.
Minor detail, Austria might be given South Tyrol after the war as the main power which opposed this was the Soviet Union. Without their occupation (like potentially in the scenario) the could get it
Basically the combo UK (mightiest Fleet and overseas Empire) - USA (mightiest by FAR industry and economy) - USSR (mightiest ressources, and largest army) makes it impossible for them to win. I guess their only viable option would have been to distance themselves from Japan, don't attack the USSR and put everything into fighting the UK. I can actually (to my utter fear and disgust) see the Germans winning it through settlement if they just keep the war "small" and European.
I think in this scenario, its even less likely for Germany to become neutral than in our own Timeline. historically, stalin proposed a democratic unified neutral german state, but his idea was declined because the allies feared stalins definition of "democratic", and because they fought that west germany was more useful to them than east germany was to the soviets. With east Germany being even weaker here, I dont think the Allies would ever accept Stalins proposal.
Hitler might focus on the Med and Middle East because of the greater - and focus starting right after the fall of France. And he is able to bring in Spain since French colonies are on table.
I really doubt Italy would have invaded Greece in this scenario. With the loss of Libya and Ethiopia, the prestige of the "undefeated" Italy would have been harmed. And in this ATL, Italy would have had to commit much more military for the occupation of France, as well have to deal with the defence of their own shores from both a French and a British fleet. At least, even if the story of Greece and the Balkans unfolds the same way, I really doubt the Fall of Crete would have happened, with two major fleets defending it around it, the French and the British...
The main problem in your scénario is Pétain leading a non-surrendering France. Pétain décided the Armistice of June 1940 for ideological reasons, and Weygand supported it also because of his political stances. To make France fight on, you have to put or maintain someone else in charge of the French governement, like Paul Reynaud or Charles de Gaulle, who was the Minister of War in early June 1940. So, many developments you make in your scenario, related to Pétain's personality and ideology, wouldn't happen.
In this timeline nuclear weapons being less taboo leads to a very different Korean war. MacArthur was basically salivating to use tactical nukes, but got told no. I bet he'd get to use them this time, leading to the first time nukes are used in combat in a war seen as much less important than WWII. I wouldn't be surprised if this timeline ends up being a nuclear hellscape when the Soviets try to extend their influence into a weaker Europe and accidentally turn the Cold War hot.
Shortening the war makes USSR stronger as they simply lose less young working age people, less immediate influence might not be a bad thing in the long term
Not necessarily. A big part of treaty negotiations is the clout so to speak. The fact that the Soviets liberated much of Eastern Europe as well as Berlin gave them a massive card to play in negotiations, and was part of the reason that the region fell under Soviet Influence. If the Western Powers were able to turn around their side of the war faster and beat the Soviets to those points, then they'd have more influence and could prevent the Soviets from establishing that zone of influence.
I know, what I'm saying is that avoiding losing tens of millions of able bodied people would have boosted their economic output and potentially led to a stronger USSR by 1985 even if initially would have been weaker on a clout standpoint.
21:15 a quick google search reveals your age number to be completely wrong! He was born in 1856, which would make him 89 years old in 1945, he never even made it to 98! He died in 1951 at the age of of 95.
I have contemplated this for a long time. Listened to a great book on the fall of France and I was wondering if a lack of surrender by France would have any long term effects. Happy to see someone make a scenario.
Before I ask, I must say I really love your videos, especially from your video on if the Christmas Truce had ended the 1st World War, to explaining why the Austro Hungarian empire were truly doomed by the time of WW1 whether from WW1 itself or some arbitrary time afterwards. I especially liked how during your video on what if the Axis won, you reiterated just how terrible the results would be for the world as a whole. I understand that this is extremely unreleastic, but I was curious what would the effect be of either the Great Prussian Uprising of 1260 completely crushing the Teutonic order. Alternatively, what if there was a revitalization of Baltic Prussian language and culture, like what had happened during the 1970's to roughly 2009, only in this timeline following Germany's defeat in World War 1 and throughout the interwar period.
@@pieraig915 they would need some valid claimant to have any domestic support, Britain didn't help much to help Portugal keep Brazil and basically cheered them on.
8:44 Franco was personal friends with Petain in real life. The Spanish dictator was a student under Petain and, before the war, the Marshall of the Republic was assigned to be the consul to Spain, given his affinity for Franco. Even de Gaulle wasn’t that far off them, ideologically. The main conflict between de Gaulle and Petain was which side would be the most beneficial for France.
5:10 it was not the relocalisation of the governement that was a humiliation for Pétain but the fact that, if the army capitulated, the defeat was due to the army, and the shame too. However, if the state asked for an armistice, the defeat was due to the governemnt, leaving the pride of the old military guard intact... At Mers el Kebir, multiple cousins and brothers of my great grandfather died. In families tied to the marine, it is still a trauma and a lot of them still keeps a grudge to the british for this treason. A very important thing that is almost always overlooked was the fact that De Gaulle and Pétain knew each other very well as De Gaulle was a student of Pétain and dedicated its first books to him even if they did not agreed about a lot of things. 21:25 Some territories in Italy were claimed by the french after WW2 but we only gained Belfort (that was french before, lost and regained after WW2) 24:55 Pétain would likely support a third way party in Italy between US friendly and communist parties. This would lead (if successful) to a latin alliance even larger than described here. Stability of Pétain's regime is unpredictible as you said due to the rivality between Pétain and UK (so not that much support to expect from there) and communist opponent that would get a lot of good arguments against an authoritarian regime. 25:32 he wasn't 98 yo but 89. Still very old but 9 years less. 27:27 it is possible that, because the french fought from north africa (especially algeria) in this scenario, and with a state way less destabilized, north african colonies would have been kept. Morroco was a protectorate and would have been let go without too much troubles but Algeria was not an "exploitation colonies" like the others but a "living colonie" and was organised in full french departments with the inhabitants having (in some cases) the full french citizenship. Mitterand (future french president but at that time, minister of interior) said "Algeria is France and France does not recognise any other autorities than hers in her territory." This really show that at this time, french peoples really wanted to keep Algeria. If the "crisis" was properly treated, Algeria would likely be french still today. The use of paratroopers for police operations and violent actions against civilians was a turning point in this and lead to a change in popular opinions, both in France and Algeria leading to a costly war of independance and major atrocities from both sides. However, other colonies in Africa would have likely seceded without that much troubles as their status was really not the same. Indochina is unpredictible as it was a mixed colonies with local elites highly educated in the french ways and favorable to french authority or local independance. Same problem as Algeria but with a communist guerilla from the beginning instead of progressively organised. Thank you for the video. This scenario is really well done and interesting.
Petain was no hero of WW1. He was a clown who's only accomplishment was killing hundreds of thousand of his own men, and the men of other commander, by clowning around like an idiot.
There is a serious uchrony about that in French. They even wrote some books about it. "1940 et si la france avait continué la guerre" I know there is a english translation ongoing on some forum
Everything perfect for Italy is literally just the Everything perfect for Roman Empire video. If Everything went perfect for Italy, Rome wouldn't have fallen.
@@thediethrower1803 Sure, it may not be Roman today, but that doesn't mean it was never Roman. Unless you're from some alternate timeline where Carthage and Rome switched places in history.
One minor correction I had an itch to mention, you mentioned at 25:13 that “by 1945, Pétain was 98 years old” Thats not correct, he lived up to 95 in 1951, he was 89 at the time of 1945, not 98 Still a great video, just a nitpick I noticed
Neat video. Though you do touch upon the French Navy at the beginning you underestimate the butterfly effect 4-6 more battleships (depending on how much life the allies feel like they can get out of the French pre WW1 ships) has on the Allied war at sea. This is very well troden ground in the Navy History crowd but ill give a summary of what happens. With Richelieu avalible, HMS Hood gets its long awaited refit and misses Denmark Straits, meaning it isnt sunk by Bismarcks golden BB. Wiithout the sinking of Hood the German Surface fleet gets the scrapping order from Mustashe man earlier. While in the med, the extra ships allow the Italian Navy to be bottled up sooner which in turn frees up more ships for the Far East. So Japan is faced with a larger Force Z which means it doesnt get overwhelmed, which means Singapore cant fall. Which means Japan fails to capture the Dutch East Indies. Even without Perl Harbour the US is still getting involved as soon as Japan attacks Britain and France. (Any attempt by Japan to take Indochina in this situation would cause the US to entre the war forgoing the embargo).
"What if France didn't surrender ?" The question is a bit tricky because it supposes that France has surrendered, which is partly true. You introduce the video showing two types of reactions after a defeat; and France has in fact chosen both types. Surrendered and betrayed, but also kept fighting in the free world. So it's a little more ambiguous as you introduce it.
So, I'm guessing... -Italy invades and fails to annex Ottoman Libya -Italy joins the Central Powers and loses a few territories to France and Yugoslavia -Italy turns fascist and tries to invade Ethiopia (or Libya again) and fails -Italy joins the Axis Powers and loses even more territories maybe
In my opinion, you are missing the most important thing... the French army south of the German breakthrough was still quite large. The battles of June clearly showed this and the Germans had great difficulty developing towards Paris (before finally succeeding, after which the city was declared open to avoid its destruction). The battles of June were more deadly than those of the First World War. Without the capitulation of France, its conquest by the Germans would have required a considerable sacrifice of material and the loss of tens of thousands of men, delaying the Battle of England by several months and even rendering obsolete the idea of the Operation Barbarossa. In my opinion, you have completely missed the scenario.
Alternative Philip Petain: « Nous nous battrons sur les plages, nous nous battrons sur les terrains de débarquement, nous nous battrons dans les champs et dans les rues, nous nous battrons dans les collines ; nous ne nous rendrons jamais ! »
Guess what, we are getting a "What if everything went perfect for Australia" before Italy
Fr
I'll try to remember this to see if it comes true
"what if everything went perfect for a random ass tribe in 56 B.C."
What if everything went perfect for Brainrot
What if everything went perfect for black people
My therapist: French Taiwan isn't real, it can't hurt you!
French Taiwan:
French-occupied Taiwan is not real, what are you on about?
〇
@@Tee_34He meant a situation akin to Taiwan
@@Blankpieceofpaper Here, you dropped this. 👑
Did you meant French Corsica?
Ironically enough, in this timeline De Gaulle could be a likely successor to Petain. In this scenario with allied France led by Petain, De Gaulle would have still served under him. De Gaulle's views weren't that far different from Petain's actually, with some speculting he even wanted a restoration of the monarchy. In a timeline where Petain's successor is De Gaulle we might see the regime slightly more liberal but still in the shape of an authoritarian amd conservative one. De Gaulle's France would be even more independent from the west than in our timeline and with such prominent state on the continent even the politics of other western countries such as Italy could be shifted to the right (of course not as far as f ascism)
Maybe France, while still opposing the Soviets would endorse some non communist rivals to the west, such as Argentina during the falkland wars, but that's very far in the timeline
Sei ancora vivo, wow
well, the us endorsed literal "bad party germans" to fight communism in germany in our timeline,
it would make sense that if france was more right wing, that would make that fact more prominent and a bit more overt
I could see them being similar to Franco’s Spain in this case, probably eventually still joins NATO controversially
@minestar2247 Source?
@@TeSu-fs7mp watch the "why germany never ne na si fied" by bes d marx
The role of Fleet Admiral Darlan could also be mentionned. The French Navy was his personal fiefdom at the time, and so with the destruction of the Army, he led the only capable fighting force left. In their memoirs, Churchill and De Gaulle agree on just one thing : that if Darlan had declared himself for continuing the fight overseas he would have immediately enjoyed international recognition. In an alternate scenario, there is room for serious political infighting between Petain and Darlan, since despite his prestige the old marshall would always be vulnerable to a coup.
Now the question is what if Darlan couped and took power for himself.
Wasn’t Darian far right tho?
@@orionfreed6763 generally french military leadership was more authoritarian, while the the political was more liberal, even socialist
now how much right each was is difficult to say exactly, especially for Darlan as he was assassinated sometime in 1943, but as he was considered for a while as a potential leader for the free French by the allies (particularly the Americans), it's not impossible to think he was more agreeable to the allies thus potentially more of a moderate strongman
@@quentintin1 in domestic politics he was very much on the far-right, but could see that preserving the colonial empire meant having to side with the US-UK.
That would mean no France surrendering jokes.
Edit: anyone saying “What about the Franco Prussian war”, and, “1815?” good point, however WW2 popularized the joke a lot.
Maybe they could still make fun of France in some way...
THERE HAS TO BE A WAY!
Yet still "who was in Paris" jokes
That would be cool, because these jokes are stupid. You can make fun of the french in funnier and less annoying way
there would be jokes about france being easy to conquer
@@Tahirid_18Nah, probably not. The only reason why "France surrenders" is a meme is because of the Napoleonic wars and WW2 (and arguably the Franco-Prussian war).
Since WW2 would've seen France flee to Algeria but continue fighting, while the Napoleonic wars would've just been France surrendering, there wouldn't be enough similarity between those 2 situations for people to make fun of France.
Like at that point, it'd be like joking about Poland surrendering during WW2 or something. I doubt people would joke about Paris in this scenario.
One thing I think you've missed is that Petain only became Prime Minister after his Predecessor, Paul Reynaud, chose to resign rather than Surrender to Germany.
So France could've technically continued without Petain becoming Prime Minister, all Reynaud would need to do is the same thing Georges Clemenceau did in WW1: Refuse to Surrender, and refuse to step down. If he didn't resign and managed to harass the Cabinet into allowing the war to continue. France wouldn't have surrendered.
I'd argue this is a more likely scenario
And Reynaud maintaining control would actually push Europe to Unify, he was in favor of a United States of Europe, which essentially means a Federation like the US. That is provided he stayed in power long enough to see things through.
I saw your comment after post nearly the same. i'm tottaly agree with that: Reynaud was the Key of a change in history, not Petain :)
@spigao_fr sometimes I feel that some Alt-History creators don't understand that sometimes having a different guy make the decision is more historically plausible than having the guy who made the decision change his mind.
The decision to surrender was made by Pétain, but if Reynaud was in that situation he wouldn't have surrendered, so the question is what would need to happen for Reynaud to be Prime Minister? Well given that he was Prime Minister like a week before the surrender, all that would need to happen is either for Reynaud to not resign, or for the President to reappoint Reynaud (which he considered doing). And either of those possibilities would be more likely than Pétain changing his mind.
25:15 Bro thought he could hide it from us 💀
XD, he HAD to sneak Joseph Biden there...
Bro that's hilarious😂 had to sneak him in
I DIDNT EVEN NOTICE WHEN I WAS WATCHING THE VIDEO!
He really is our oldest president.
@@SinoLegionaireso far 😅
Moving the french government to Africa is to humiliating, instead we should surrender completely and aid our age old enemies.
I mean, portugal moved it's government to Brazil during the napoleonic wars so it's not unheard of. And Britain planned to move to Canada in case of an invasion
@@thatoneduck3875 I mean… losing your monarch to a colony they genuinely prefer over their home country is pretty embarrassing. Or would be, if you didn’t just have a revolution.
You've got it completely backwards. Surrendering in WW2 has turned France into the butt of jokes worldwide. When people now think about France militarily, this one capitulation ranks higher than France's many military victories. By comparison, continuing to fight from the colonies would today be regarded as one of France's defining and most courageous moments in its long history.
@@gengarzilla1685 lol, definitly not, mostly because they might get double handed by the algerians who hate them a lot, and it would still be remembered as a humiliating defeat because the anglo sphere still dislikes france(although more ironically that the places conquered by france)
@gengarzilla1685 it's a joke, the original comment was being sarcastic
the Saarland being french was actually pretty likely even in our timeline - the only thing that prevented it, is that France wanted to be on good terms with Germany after the war, and due to the creation of the European Coal and Steel community (which later became the EU) the Saarland stopped being so critically important - its not as important to control the steel production in the Saarland, if you can just buy that steel from Germany.
He is doing everything before perfect Italy 😭
what if Garibaldi created a southern italian Republic in 1860
@@Darium147 Not perfect.
22:54 no Godzilla!!! Worse alternate timeline now
Best*
@ shush 🤫
True
I've been waiting for that scenario for years, it's finally here and it's a great video
I don’t think bro is making an “Everything Goes Perfect for Italy” video at this point 💀
fr I think it just shows how much he hates italy xD
So uninterested in that video. They were doomed. Going perfect = no Mussolini + join allies asap.
Italy is already very lucky to even exist considering how fragile they are
Everything perfect for Italy is literally just the Everything perfect for Roman Empire video.
If Everything went perfect for Italy, Rome wouldn't have fallen.
@@nathanfallin2750 there isn't only ww2, and mussolini was actually a very liked leader until the war
For an in-depth and carefully researched exploration of this scenario (France continuing the war from North Africa), see 1940: Et si la France avait continué la guerre?
De Alterhis?
@@londegel Une autre version qui situe le point de divergence un peu plus tôt, mais avec le même résultat. Aussi connue sous le nom de Fantasque Time Line. Deux volumes et trois BD publiées pour le moment.
@@londegel wow la vidéo a l'ancienne
The siege of toulon would have been epic.
I live there and there are fortification everywhere. The port is surrounded by mountain and all the enter point are blocked by fortified artillery position, underground tunnel, pill box etc...
It's a multi layer defence and there is no other option that to face it frontally.
5:10 Ah yes, relocating to otherseas territories, a "grave humiliation", as opposed to capitulating, letting Germany plunder the country to its heart’s content and becoming its willful, enthusiastic slave and collaborator.
France might have had good reasons for surrenduring, but avoiding humiliation was by far the stupidest.
France did not, French politicians did, are you agreeing everything your govt do ?
Withdrawing to Algeria would have been more humiliating, because the entire metropolian France would have been occupied by Germany and god knows what would have happened there. Of course entire France was ulitimately occupied in 1942 but this was obviously not known in 1940. Moreover, arriving to your colony after being kicked from your mainland territory with the status of defeated would also have been humiliating, and would have unpredictable consequences too.
The whole point of surrendering was to preserve at least something out of France, as opposed to losing entire metropolian France. Technically, even German-occupied Northern France was within borders of Vichy France and it would have been returned after war with Britain (in summer 1940 everyone thought Britain would sign peace deal and war would have ended soon). After the war, France would have only lose Alsace-Lorraine, Pas-de-Calais and Nord.
So, losing entire metropolian France as opposed to losing only Northern France (and this only temporarily) was seen as more humiliating.
@@differentview374 wouldn’t surrendering mean that the Germans could theoretically take or impose anything they desire on a helpless France? like having their overseas territories & colonies be broken up & redistributed to the Axis powers, forcing France to demilitarise, give away their Navy, aircrafts, and military vehicles, etc.? What made them think they can realistically “keep whatever they had left” by surrendering? If they’re bound to lose everything anyway, wouldn’t it be better for French “pride” if they continue to fight to the bitter end?
France was preserved. Collaboration worked. The resistance also won so France had perfect scenario irl (which he doesnt seem to understand in this vid)
Aaaah, yes because relocating overseas would stop the german from plundering France, yeah ? I love your overly simplistic, if not to say naive, view on this affair. France was facing a demographic hecatombe from WW1, not capitulating means another hecatombe in the same century. I don't think any country would let that happen. At the time France had a population of 39 millions compared to Germany's 72millions.
Had France not capitulated, considering all the war crimes Germany did even after France capitulated, it's safe to assume massacres upon massacres would have happen in France, which was already facing demographic disaster. Because IRL stuff isn't as simple as a Hollywood movie, my guy
Wow. I have been wanting to see a scenario like this for so long. I love the concept
You should do i video that looks into a more harsh treaty of versailles and a less harsh treaty of versailles
He did? It is a viewers voted video.
He did that like a year ago
He did. Also it’s difficult to make a less harsh treaty than our timeline
@@KyloHen4162 Tell that to Austria-Hungary and the Ottomans, Germany is the mem of the due complaining about his migraine to Jesus
@@scorpixel1866Versailles was only for Germany
There was also a proposal that was made just before the government left Paris, when key ministers proposed moving the government to Bordeaux (a city located on very undefensible terrain). To counter this proposal, Charles de Gaulle proposed to move the government to Quimper, and to defend only Brittany (the Breton precarré), which is a much more defensible territory than the south of France (It is a narrow peninsula, with many rivers and some mountains). Paul Reynaud historically chose a compromise, moving the government to Tours (halfway between Bordeaux and Quimper), but subsequently gave in to pressure from the majority of ministers and moved the government to Bordeaux.
Not sure that De Gaulle's proposal is realistic, but it is an interesting fact.
It wasn't. De Gaulle later dropped it because it was not possible to hold the line at the neck of Brittany with the forces they had. Holding out in Brittany was a project both Churchill and De Gaulle agreed upon, but both came to the same conclusion that the French Army couldn't hold there by itself and after Dunkirk the British didn't have enough divisions to make it feasible. What is also true is that the British only had enough fighter squadrons to defend Britain, or the Brittany Redoubt, but not both. Without air cover, the ground armies would be ground down, and naval resupply costly. There was simply not enough time for any project of that sort. The collapse of the Allied Armies happened way too quickly and for that Gamelin should be blamed, the dottering fool.
@@crownprincesebastianjohano7069 (and with King Edward VIII who gave the Germans the plans for the allies defense of Belgium, in what actual goal we don't know for sure, perhaps to overthrow his brother and claim back the Throne)
I can’t tell you how much I’ve thought about this scenario. One random day I open YoTube and boom, new Possible History video that answers my question.
Bro, I thought I helucinated Biden in 25:15. I don't even have scisophrinia
I paused the video to read comments just when I saw Biden 😂😂
@@clairelu6924 same here XDDD
😂 sleepy joe
Hey, the intro was well done! It's pretty rare to hear people acknowledge that there truly was nothing to do, and that Pétain didn't work with the nazis by choice, but to preserve France as much as possible.
it's still a humiliating defeat that we have the moral obligation to remind them at every opportunity
Most people interested in history already recognize that Pete wasn't the moustache-twirling villain he was painted as.
@@minestar2247et nous avons aussi l'obligation morale de rappeler aux Anglais que c'est plus facile pour eux de rembarquer, ce qu'ils avaient déjà commencé à faire en septembre 1914, lors de la première bataille de la Marne. Car lors de cette bataille, les Allemands avaient presque réussi à être aussi rapide qu'en 1940.
@@MyVanirVery true, but I'm tired of hearing the same bullshit all the time
00:23 isn't Zaolzie supposed to be part of Poland by the moment you shown? Sorry, for some nerd like stuff, maybe I sniffed too much glue this time. Btw like your videos, u always try to stick with realism and I can only watch you as possible alternative videos. Didn't watched till the end yet, but I'm sure this video would be as great as others.
And yeah, next second it depicts already partitioned Poland, I'm speaking 'bout the map after Czechoslovakian partition.
Zaolzie is shown as a part of Poland, the area actually isn’t as big as one might think
@@Diam0nD_007 oh, sorry then
What’s so important about this region again?
@ It used to be very rich in coal and steel and the, at that time, only railway connecting Slovakia to Czechia ran through there. So overall, very strategically important for Czechoslovakia
Awesome video,Keep it up!
I refuse to live in a world without Godzilla and Fallout 3 . Thank you for your sacrifice , Monsieur Petain .
23:48 "hatred of germany" what? did de Gaulle love germany so much more than Petain and that is why he supported the EU or something? Petain be just as likely to support the EU as de Gaulle. Maybe even more since Petain dislike the UK even more, and the in the begining the EU was, at least in from the French perspective, seen as a way to increase their power compaired to the UK. Also why whould the Russians get so much land in Europe if they made way less progress when the germans surrendered. The equivalent Yalta conference would be extremely different.
Agree, as Russians even tho would be promised something akin to canon they would have less of a say due to their performance.
What if everything went perfect for Italy
I think it was done before
Yes, and the Kingdom of Greece.
@@unfunny4346 Nope
@Oppenheimer.J.Robert must've been the wind then
@@Oppenheimer.J.Robert actually there was what if everything went perfect for rome, ig it could count as italy?
Keep up the great content!
THANK YOU PH! I'm so happy
Idea: on April folks make a vid called: What if Earth never existed? (Maybe go on a tangent about the upcoming alien invasion or something)
Here before italy guy. This feels wrong
The irony in here is that its petain the main reason for the capitualtion as the plan to continue in the colonies was the main one, and petain ditched it and imprisonned the politician who mooved to algeria to create a government in the colonies, he was pretty much an anti war figure, he not only capitulated to germany but also didnt went to war with britain after they attcked the french fleet (despite the will of the french admiralty) and gave up indochina to japan even after the local forces beat them back at first
Georges Mandel?
Please do a “what if everything went perfect for Italy”
I love your videos and i am a huge fan of you and alternate history
From what I understand, Operation Torch gave the Americans the experience of invading by sea and fighting the Germans. A 'D-Day' style of Normandy in this timeline might of been more bloodier, as the Americans may not have the experience, even if the Germans haven't fully fortified the French coast.
Counter-point: operation Husky would still happen, and with the French Navy in play, the Regia Marina is vastly outmached from the start and probably can't control the Central Mediterranean for over two years unlike OTL
Some corrections on Portugal and the Portuguese Overseas War:
- It lasted 13 years, not 18;
- The economy was actually not declining, instead, it had never been so great, reaching its peak of grouth in the 60s and earlie 70s.
Congrats on reaching 1M views on a video!🎉
Do what if the Franco British union happened (and succeeded)
4 comments on one video is crazy
@@Syrianmapper1No it's not
HOI4 moments:
Which one, the one proposed in WW1 or the one proposed in WW2?
Video 18 of asking for what if sun yat sen’s china survived
What if the big bang never happend
25:14 bro thought he was slick 💀
10:05 what is the music used here called?
I'm a french guy, and the idea of Philippe Petain choosing to fight is just saddly hilarious.
This guy didn’t care to continue fighting, and didn’t understood the worldwide dimension of these events. He just wanted to eliminate the republican regime, and transform his mainland in a way more traditionnal way, without judes, socialists, foreigners or any democratic network (like freemasons). In fact, he took power by virtually an internal coup inside the french governement, putting some adversaries in custody (the《Massilia's affair》) and subverting the rest of frenches parlementaries. He never understood that nazi Germany wasn’t a fair partner, and believed until the end that his governement could gain a prominent rank in the future Reichseuropa.
He took power, in fact, with a bunch of right-winged personnalities, who had in common to be largely out of play in the french politic. Practically, he was just《 un vieux con》, an old fart... way too old, too ambitious, and too bitter. De Gaulle was, by the way, Petain’s subordinate in the 20s, and he stated later that the energetic and innovative Philippe Petain he had known, virtually died after 1925.
You should rather imagine that Petain wasn’t called at all, and maybe Reynaud resigned for a governement of national emergency, with strong people like Pierre Mandes France, Georges Mandel, Jean Zay, Charles de Gaulle, and (why not?) Pierre Laval (which was totally unethical, but really talented and appreciated by his fellows statemens...Historically, De Gaulle was personnaly sad to reject his request of grace in 1945, but couldn’t save him from his collaborationnist’s misdeeds).
With such a team, the rest of the scenario should be much more believable.
Possible History Never Fails To Deliver Despite His Pregnancy!
Minor detail, Austria might be given South Tyrol after the war as the main power which opposed this was the Soviet Union. Without their occupation (like potentially in the scenario) the could get it
And wouldn't that be great
I love how every time there is a WW2 scenario the axis get fucked lmao
Basically the combo UK (mightiest Fleet and overseas Empire) - USA (mightiest by FAR industry and economy) - USSR (mightiest ressources, and largest army) makes it impossible for them to win. I guess their only viable option would have been to distance themselves from Japan, don't attack the USSR and put everything into fighting the UK.
I can actually (to my utter fear and disgust) see the Germans winning it through settlement if they just keep the war "small" and European.
I think in this scenario, its even less likely for Germany to become neutral than in our own Timeline. historically, stalin proposed a democratic unified neutral german state, but his idea was declined because the allies feared stalins definition of "democratic", and because they fought that west germany was more useful to them than east germany was to the soviets. With east Germany being even weaker here, I dont think the Allies would ever accept Stalins proposal.
I love the new format where you look pretty far out in to the future!
Its strange that Petain thought it was more humilating to relocate the government somewhere temporarily then losing a war.
because despite being part of france, algeria was seen as less important than the mainland, especially the natives(current algerians).
Pétain want same for France in 1940 than Germany 1918.
Majority of French support him until 1944 and has NEVER Heard of De Gaulle...
France has always and still does put too much stock on their own pride, to hell with what anyone else thinks.
Do what’s if everything went perfect for Iran or armenia
Any specific starting time period you had in mind? They have a long history
@ probably starting around or a bit before ww1
@@irrelevantcheese8623 Interesting. I really do hope that your idea gets chosen
Hitler might focus on the Med and Middle East because of the greater - and focus starting right after the fall of France. And he is able to bring in Spain since French colonies are on table.
This is such an interesting scenario!! Didn't expect that this decision would change so much things
The flash of Joe Biden picture at 25:13 killed me 😂 I thought I was trippin
Will we ever get a what if history went perfect for Italy?
search possible history Garibaldi South Italy
25:15 is crazy 💀
Ahhhh Dementia Jumpscare !!
I really doubt Italy would have invaded Greece in this scenario. With the loss of Libya and Ethiopia, the prestige of the "undefeated" Italy would have been harmed. And in this ATL, Italy would have had to commit much more military for the occupation of France, as well have to deal with the defence of their own shores from both a French and a British fleet. At least, even if the story of Greece and the Balkans unfolds the same way, I really doubt the Fall of Crete would have happened, with two major fleets defending it around it, the French and the British...
Never underestimate the complete and utter stupidity of Benito Mussolini.
Wonderful! I was waiting for this video, to see what else could be imagined from Alterhis.
The main problem in your scénario is Pétain leading a non-surrendering France. Pétain décided the Armistice of June 1940 for ideological reasons, and Weygand supported it also because of his political stances. To make France fight on, you have to put or maintain someone else in charge of the French governement, like Paul Reynaud or Charles de Gaulle, who was the Minister of War in early June 1940.
So, many developments you make in your scenario, related to Pétain's personality and ideology, wouldn't happen.
I really liked this scenario, and am very excited for the Decembrists!
This was a really interesting scenario, really a fantastic exploration of the "butterfly effect". Thanks, PH!
What if Charles V kept the Netherlands with the Austrian Habsburgs?
I love your vids
I read I love your kids
@@EduardoDistassi same 💀
In this timeline nuclear weapons being less taboo leads to a very different Korean war. MacArthur was basically salivating to use tactical nukes, but got told no. I bet he'd get to use them this time, leading to the first time nukes are used in combat in a war seen as much less important than WWII. I wouldn't be surprised if this timeline ends up being a nuclear hellscape when the Soviets try to extend their influence into a weaker Europe and accidentally turn the Cold War hot.
Another Possible History banger lets gooooooo!!! 🔥🔥🔥🔥🗣🗣🗣🗣
So France not surrendering means no Godzilla?
And no anime
@@ido5269Anime would still exist as long as Japan got their military culture dismantled and still own Northern Honshu.
Shortening the war makes USSR stronger as they simply lose less young working age people, less immediate influence might not be a bad thing in the long term
Not necessarily.
A big part of treaty negotiations is the clout so to speak. The fact that the Soviets liberated much of Eastern Europe as well as Berlin gave them a massive card to play in negotiations, and was part of the reason that the region fell under Soviet Influence.
If the Western Powers were able to turn around their side of the war faster and beat the Soviets to those points, then they'd have more influence and could prevent the Soviets from establishing that zone of influence.
I know, what I'm saying is that avoiding losing tens of millions of able bodied people would have boosted their economic output and potentially led to a stronger USSR by 1985 even if initially would have been weaker on a clout standpoint.
21:15 a quick google search reveals your age number to be completely wrong! He was born in 1856, which would make him 89 years old in 1945, he never even made it to 98! He died in 1951 at the age of of 95.
Possible he got the numbers mixed up
I have contemplated this for a long time. Listened to a great book on the fall of France and I was wondering if a lack of surrender by France would have any long term effects. Happy to see someone make a scenario.
What if everything went perfect for Finland would go so hard
Before I ask, I must say I really love your videos, especially from your video on if the Christmas Truce had ended the 1st World War, to explaining why the Austro Hungarian empire were truly doomed by the time of WW1 whether from WW1 itself or some arbitrary time afterwards. I especially liked how during your video on what if the Axis won, you reiterated just how terrible the results would be for the world as a whole.
I understand that this is extremely unreleastic, but I was curious what would the effect be of either the Great Prussian Uprising of 1260 completely crushing the Teutonic order.
Alternatively, what if there was a revitalization of Baltic Prussian language and culture, like what had happened during the 1970's to roughly 2009, only in this timeline following Germany's defeat in World War 1 and throughout the interwar period.
Video 15 of asking the best history youtuber to do "what if everything went perfect for britan"
What if Portugal won the war of Spanish succession
That's an odd one considering they were just on the side of the hapsburgs and not their own candidate.
yeah like maybe they get the house of braganza backed by Britain or smth like that
@@pieraig915 they would need some valid claimant to have any domestic support, Britain didn't help much to help Portugal keep Brazil and basically cheered them on.
@@MohammedAli-hl4mr yeah but imagine it happened how funny would it be to have two iberian unions
Do what if Burgundy formed the Netherlands
8:44 Franco was personal friends with Petain in real life. The Spanish dictator was a student under Petain and, before the war, the Marshall of the Republic was assigned to be the consul to Spain, given his affinity for Franco.
Even de Gaulle wasn’t that far off them, ideologically. The main conflict between de Gaulle and Petain was which side would be the most beneficial for France.
There should be a part 2 of this it would be interesting to see where this timeline heads to into the modern world
5:10 it was not the relocalisation of the governement that was a humiliation for Pétain but the fact that, if the army capitulated, the defeat was due to the army, and the shame too. However, if the state asked for an armistice, the defeat was due to the governemnt, leaving the pride of the old military guard intact...
At Mers el Kebir, multiple cousins and brothers of my great grandfather died. In families tied to the marine, it is still a trauma and a lot of them still keeps a grudge to the british for this treason.
A very important thing that is almost always overlooked was the fact that De Gaulle and Pétain knew each other very well as De Gaulle was a student of Pétain and dedicated its first books to him even if they did not agreed about a lot of things.
21:25 Some territories in Italy were claimed by the french after WW2 but we only gained Belfort (that was french before, lost and regained after WW2)
24:55 Pétain would likely support a third way party in Italy between US friendly and communist parties. This would lead (if successful) to a latin alliance even larger than described here. Stability of Pétain's regime is unpredictible as you said due to the rivality between Pétain and UK (so not that much support to expect from there) and communist opponent that would get a lot of good arguments against an authoritarian regime.
25:32 he wasn't 98 yo but 89. Still very old but 9 years less.
27:27 it is possible that, because the french fought from north africa (especially algeria) in this scenario, and with a state way less destabilized, north african colonies would have been kept. Morroco was a protectorate and would have been let go without too much troubles but Algeria was not an "exploitation colonies" like the others but a "living colonie" and was organised in full french departments with the inhabitants having (in some cases) the full french citizenship. Mitterand (future french president but at that time, minister of interior) said "Algeria is France and France does not recognise any other autorities than hers in her territory." This really show that at this time, french peoples really wanted to keep Algeria. If the "crisis" was properly treated, Algeria would likely be french still today. The use of paratroopers for police operations and violent actions against civilians was a turning point in this and lead to a change in popular opinions, both in France and Algeria leading to a costly war of independance and major atrocities from both sides.
However, other colonies in Africa would have likely seceded without that much troubles as their status was really not the same. Indochina is unpredictible as it was a mixed colonies with local elites highly educated in the french ways and favorable to french authority or local independance. Same problem as Algeria but with a communist guerilla from the beginning instead of progressively organised.
Thank you for the video. This scenario is really well done and interesting.
Petain was no hero of WW1. He was a clown who's only accomplishment was killing hundreds of thousand of his own men, and the men of other commander, by clowning around like an idiot.
There is a serious uchrony about that in French. They even wrote some books about it.
"1940 et si la france avait continué la guerre"
I know there is a english translation ongoing on some forum
8:02 wait the numbers they dont add up
Great video
Do what if the Soviet Union annexed Eastern Europe and all its satellites
hoi4 ahhh suggestion
Hoi4 ahhh suggestion
Gorilla warfare time.
Yeah that's highly unlikely.
Eu4 rebel collapse with 90000 aggressive expansion + world coalition ahh suggestion
Everything perfect for Italy is literally just the Everything perfect for Roman Empire video.
If Everything went perfect for Italy, Rome wouldn't have fallen.
People mean modern Italy, usually WW1 or WW2 Italy.
Italy is not and never has been Rome.
@@thediethrower1803 Sure, it may not be Roman today, but that doesn't mean it was never Roman.
Unless you're from some alternate timeline where Carthage and Rome switched places in history.
@@thediethrower1803 yeah and the soviet union isn't russia and macedonia isn't Greece nor is the han dynasty china
@@Yes-qj4bi YES
Video idea: in ww2 what if italy acted like Japan
Possible history,I found that in your history reenacting scenarios,China always plays Germany's role,and India always plays Russia's role.
One minor correction I had an itch to mention, you mentioned at 25:13 that “by 1945, Pétain was 98 years old”
Thats not correct, he lived up to 95 in 1951, he was 89 at the time of 1945, not 98
Still a great video, just a nitpick I noticed
What if the Soviet Union won the Polish Soviet War?
Next video: What if nothing changed for Italy
Neat video. Though you do touch upon the French Navy at the beginning you underestimate the butterfly effect 4-6 more battleships (depending on how much life the allies feel like they can get out of the French pre WW1 ships) has on the Allied war at sea.
This is very well troden ground in the Navy History crowd but ill give a summary of what happens. With Richelieu avalible, HMS Hood gets its long awaited refit and misses Denmark Straits, meaning it isnt sunk by Bismarcks golden BB.
Wiithout the sinking of Hood the German Surface fleet gets the scrapping order from Mustashe man earlier.
While in the med, the extra ships allow the Italian Navy to be bottled up sooner which in turn frees up more ships for the Far East. So Japan is faced with a larger Force Z which means it doesnt get overwhelmed, which means Singapore cant fall. Which means Japan fails to capture the Dutch East Indies. Even without Perl Harbour the US is still getting involved as soon as Japan attacks Britain and France. (Any attempt by Japan to take Indochina in this situation would cause the US to entre the war forgoing the embargo).
Video Idea: What if Zapadoslavia was Formed
25th video asking for "what if everything went perfect for italy"
We will literally get a “What if everything went perfect for Nauru” before Italy.
"What if France didn't surrender ?" The question is a bit tricky because it supposes that France has surrendered, which is partly true. You introduce the video showing two types of reactions after a defeat; and France has in fact chosen both types. Surrendered and betrayed, but also kept fighting in the free world. So it's a little more ambiguous as you introduce it.
Video idea: What if the Jacobite rising of 1745 was successful?
nice video man I'm not usually this early, could you do a video on if China takes Taivvan?
Yay, my suggestion/wish for this video came true
I love this timeline, because Czechia is not suffering under communism
You should do "What If Everything Went terrible for Italy"
What if i you ate Italy.
So, I'm guessing...
-Italy invades and fails to annex Ottoman Libya
-Italy joins the Central Powers and loses a few territories to France and Yugoslavia
-Italy turns fascist and tries to invade Ethiopia (or Libya again) and fails
-Italy joins the Axis Powers and loses even more territories maybe
In my opinion, you are missing the most important thing... the French army south of the German breakthrough was still quite large. The battles of June clearly showed this and the Germans had great difficulty developing towards Paris (before finally succeeding, after which the city was declared open to avoid its destruction).
The battles of June were more deadly than those of the First World War. Without the capitulation of France, its conquest by the Germans would have required a considerable sacrifice of material and the loss of tens of thousands of men, delaying the Battle of England by several months and even rendering obsolete the idea of the Operation Barbarossa. In my opinion, you have completely missed the scenario.
Please do what if everything went perfect for italy
Alternative Philip Petain:
« Nous nous battrons sur les plages, nous nous battrons sur les terrains de débarquement, nous nous battrons dans les champs et dans les rues, nous nous battrons dans les collines ; nous ne nous rendrons jamais ! »
3:54 please, we want a video about it.