What would WW1 have looked like had the US joined the Central powers in 1917?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 26 сен 2024
- Play Supremacy 1914 for FREE on PC and Mobile:
💥s1914.onelink....
Receive a Special Starter Pack, available only for the next 30 days!
This video explores a big "what if?": What would the World War 1 look like if the US had jointed the Central powers, instead of the Allies? The video explores both the non-combat support of years prior to 1917 and the combat options available to the US once it does officially join the war.
Music by Matija Malatestinic www.malatestini...
Images used in thumbnail:
Mark VII tank by niet toegeschreven, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
Vickers gun by Ernest Brooks, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
Go to / binkov if you want to help support our channel. And enjoy the perks such as get access to our videos with no ads and get early access to various content.
Suggest country pairs you'd like to see in future videos over at our website: www.binkov.com
You can also browse for other Binkov T-Shirts or Binkov merch, via the store at our website, binkov.com/
Subscribe to Binkov's channel for more videos! / binkovsbattlegrounds
Follow Binkov's news on Facebook! / binkovsbattlegrounds
Follow us on Twitter: / commissarbinkov
Play Supremacy 1914 for FREE on PC and Mobile:
💥s1914.onelink.me/TX2k/ea033ca2
Receive a Special Starter Pack, available only for the next 30 days!
no
Make Tesco vs Asda
@@shrekisthebestanime3644 Joe mama
You really need to make a video on Egypt vs Ethiopia over the renaissance dam, and if taking it down is an available option.
F35 ADIR SOUTHERN SQUADRON
You did it wrong ffs
Well, the French are gonna be the ones complaining about the trench shotguns for a start
Considering how terrible and unpopular they were by those who used them, and how few ever reached the front, I don't think the French would be be too concerned
calm down COD lord
probably no US troups could came without being sinked by french and england combined navy so it's very unlikely tbh
French Canadians maybe. The US would be bogged down in a front with Canada before they would have a chance to even attempt to get to Europe across the Atlantic, then they would still need to contend with the Entente's navy. Their Pacific Navy would be engaging Japanese forces in Asian waters also, so a Pacific route would also be unlikely.
However, with the US, German uboats can now resupply in North America and the Phillipines. Germany can now strike farther and more often against the British navy.
French troops had their own shotgun, granted it was always ad hoc and they weren't as widespread as in the us military, nor the same quality as the infamous 1897, most of the time trench raid team had one or two double barrels shotgun "landed" to them.
Is it just me or is it weird seeing Pre-NATO Germany being the “blue” team on a map for once?
Good point... I wonder how we got that blue=good guys red=bad guys thing? It seems like pre-cold war, though that maye have what solidified it.
Exactly my reaction lol
@@BigStrap Nato pretty I believe... because you know Comies are Red and Americans blue.
@@BigStrap I think the justification in this case is "British Empire = Red"
@@obnoxiousvf or US = blue
I mean the USA joining the war on the German side would be a HUGE morale boost for the Germans so I belive many of the mutinys that happend in the real world would never happen here
Also the French army mutinies would probably have been more widespread and severe.
@@peterdonlon2083 yeah
Germany was starving from 1916 and onwards, they would be dead by 1918 either way unless France breaks which is unlikely as they outproduced the Germans
@@itsjonny1744 Germany was starving but didn't capitulate until Entente forces were literally in Germany, and German forces didn't make their desperate assaults on the Western Front until news of US reinforcements were coming. None of that would occur, if anything, it would be the Entente making desperate moves before the entire might of US industry kicks off.
The US entry is a psychological game changer. The French would be much worse off and the Germans better. The effect on Italy has to be considered as well. Caporetto in October 1917 had the Italians holding on only with British-French support as it was.
Canada would have a rough time, considering how many of their fighting age men were overseas.
Yup would have thought that the US would have taken a lot more of Canada if not the entire country in this scenario
I agree the vast majority of our fighting men would be overseas. I don't see any reason why the US wouldn't take as much of Canada and Newfoundland as it wanted.
Well extra forces could be taken from other fronts to fight in Canada and Canada ciztens could also be used the us army wasn't very large out powerful in the beginning of the conflict and that time need to make it more powerful could be used to set up strong defenses in the region and bring in some extra troops. It wouldn't be that easy for the us.
@@kordellswoffer1520 US army strength would be minimal, but the UK would have needed to keep a large segment of the Canadians in Canada to oppose it - even a poorly trained army of conscripts would be difficult for the Canadians to defeat (even considering their impressive skills in Europe).
And considering how impossible it would be for the Royal Navy to transport supplies to Canada, the UK might write off Canada as a lost cause overall.
@@daemonofdecay the uk would have been able to keep large numbers of troops there and a big problem is of course transportation but if the uk can find away around it canada could even without getting troops from other fronts hold a strong enough defense line until Germany collapsed and the uk could send even more troops and the royal navy to Canada with the potential help from Japan and France.
"The main fact of the 20th century is that American's speak English" - Otto Von Bismark
How did he say that if he died before the 20th century? A prediction?
@@silverhost9782 yeah, he predicted that the 20th century would be the century of USA, and, since they spoke english, he also predicted that england and USA would most likely end up allies
Well, Stalin crushed 2 millions and the Western Front was only 7 Division strong.
@@azariahchhangte6872 and ? what the point of your sentences ? we are not talk;ing about USSR and WW2 -_-
you are off topic
@@azariahchhangte6872 Source?
'What are we gonna do master Wilson? There are too many of them!?"
-Canadian boy scout drafted to Homeland defense after their army gets stuck in Europe, probably
Really? British merchant Marine was larger than the rest of the worlds merchant marine *combined*, even after U Boat losses. More than half the AEF was transported to Europe on British shipping. The British could have moved the Canadian Corps back to Canada without much in the way of issues. There is no way the US Atlantic Fleet is challenging the Royal Navy, not during this time period. Twenty years later, sure, but not in 1917 - 1918.
And let me be frank, that magnificent Corps would have absolutely hammered the US Army of 1917, they would have smashed it. The US Army when the US entered the war was simply not equipped or trained to fight the war they found themselves in. They learned, and they learned fast, but had the US gone towar on the side of Germany they would have had to learn the same way the British did on the Somme. With most of their pre-war professional army dead in the mud and the blood and the tactics being figured out by half trained troops fighting a highly trained, highly experienced, highly motivated Canadian Corps that, quite rightly, earned their reputation as some of, if not the finest combat troops of any side in WWI.....
@@alganhar1 bro it was a star wars reference
@@alganhar1 I know how good the Canadians are, that's exactly why i'm not sure if they'd be sent back to Canada in time in the event of war with the US.
The British Merchant Marine and RN would still need ports to land on, and the forces taken from the western front, well, won't be on the western front, and since they're some of the finest troops too, you need either just as great troops or more troops to fill the quality gap.
@@alganhar1 If the US entered the war on the German side, the US would have taken over Canada before ships could arrive from French ports to Halifax . . . never mind the time it takes for the Canadian troops to disengage and march from the German-facing frontline to Channel ports or the time it takes to ship them from Halifax to Ontario and other points on the 4000 miles long front line between US and Canada. For comparison: the distance from Leningrad to Stalingrad (the WWII Eastern Front, which was nearly twice as broad as that of WWI) was only about 1000 miles. 90% of Canadian population live within 60 miles of the US border! There would be no strategic depth whatsoever.
@@finisterre2415 my man
The Spring offensive wouldn't happen if the US was on Germanys side. It was basically a "do or die" strategy as it was aimed to make massive gains before the US troops would have come in en masse.
@@arkroyal i partially agree. I can see the food shortage being a bit alleviated if the british have to loosen the blockade due to the threat of the US fleet. Also if they manage to break the Italians there is the the very fertile Po delta to supply at least some more food.
The Revolutions (in germany) worsened only after the spring offensive.
The threat of the U.S. buildup would have set Great Brittan on edge. If Germany just dug in and hunkered down, Brittan would have had to start sending huge numbers of troops to help defend Canada which would have left France pretty much alone on the Western Front. With the French near mutiny, the British leaving would have sent the French morale plummeting. I believe the U.S. would invade Canada with two or three million men, build up a two ocean navy to defeat the Japanese (like World War II) and the Royal Navy, while the British tried desperately to hold eastern Canada. In Europe, Germany would pressure the French until they broke on their own accord without a huge offensive and the war would end.
@@CorsetGrace Germany was more at risk of collapsing under pressure than France. French mutinies didn't impact France's ability to defend because their mutiny was about working conditions and not the war itself. French resources and manpower could still check Germany and the advantage would go to France more and more as time went on (more planes, tanks, motorised units, more automatic weapons, better food supply, etc). The US couldn't mobilise a 2 million man army with all its equipment, proper training, and good officers until at least 1919 or 1920, and Germany was starving and coming apart at the seams. If the US struck fast they'd be pitted against a larger more experienced opponent on land and at sea. If they waited and built up then Germany would be in a worse position (or gone) and the entente would be able to match the US buildup with troops and munitions. There's also the point that even if Britain pulls away all its soldiers from Europe, they'd still outnumber the Americans many times over and would have more equipment and experience. The US would simply have timed its move too poorly either way to be truly successful
@@arkroyal Revolution in Germany was only taking place because of the long term hopelessness of German strategic situation with US on the other side and US President Wilson's very inspiring 14 points and a fair peace (essentially a deception operation as part of the war effort both to mobilize Americans and to demoralize Germans: the only way the bank loans to UK and France could be paid back was to exact a very heavy war penalty on a defeated Germany; Wilson was the banks' agent, having signed both income tax and the federal reserve into existence in 1913, just before the war). If US had been on German side, the food shortage in Germany would end after the signing of Brest-Litovsk as American food could be shipped via trans-siberian railroad after going to Russian ports under naval escort. OTOH, the war would never have taken place if the banks had not been sure that they could sway US to the side of UK and France in the eventuality of German gaining military upper hand on European continent . . . Which in a lot of ways would not be in the strategic interest of the US either: as Germany would dominate the central land mass between rivers Rhine and Armur (eventually all the way to Yangtse), i.e. The World Heartland in Mackinder's lingo, thereby eventually would dominate outlying world islands such as the Americas. So the US/UK had to be on the side of Eurasia that can keep that huge continental landmass divided. Germany was sh*t out of luck for being too strong.
@@arkroyal The Royal Navy didn't have much naval presence in the Pacific during WWI (even the little German Tsingtao squadron of a couple armored cruisers plus 4 light cruisers wiped out the biggest RN squadron in the Pacific (commanded by Cradock). The US Navy was more than enough to take care of the Japanese Navy (as proven by the Great White Fleet visit circa 1907-09), and would have turned the Pacific into an American lake 30 years earlier. The Russian civil war wouldn't be much of an issue if the US had been on the side of Germans: food shipment from the US and money would quickly re-align all factions in Russia to pro-German (and pro-American).
There wouldn't be any need for the suicidal "last sortie" order for the German Navy if the US had been on the German side. German high command would be keeping their capital ships in harbor while building more Mackenssen Class and Bayer Class (totaling 11 ships, each comparable to Queen Elizabeth Class and Royal Sovereign Class, far out-classing everything else in the RN fleet during WWI) while waiting for the UK to starve without food from Canada, while themselves enjoying food from Russia and the US.
The main contribution of the US to the Entente, was it's industry and money though. Without the US industries cranking out enormous amounts of ammunition, guns and other equipment (and indeed even causing some attrition to stocks of those themselves), the Entente armies would be much weaker. The Italians, for example, were only able to recover from Caporetto thanks to the US replacing their losses. Without the US replacing the lost Italian equipment, the Italian army would effectively be out of the war and the allied offensives of 1917 would be significantly weaker and, correspondingly, the German forces in the west would be that much stronger.
The US also exported significant quantities of food to the Entente in the real timeline (part of what later caused the Dust Bowl) and US shipping took large parts of the German submarine attacks, which would mean, that French and especially British food imports would be heavily hit, even more so than with just the absence of US exports, thanks to a far more strained merchant marine.
Britain produced like 250 k machine guns 25 k artillery 52 k planes around 4 milion rifles and over 170 m rounds of shells this was actually more than usa produced and sent to allies before they joined by few times
What about france italy who also produced a lot?
Yes you are right that happend in our timeline allies were importing food but thats where they had leverage against germany because they used their colonies which could replace allied needs
So usa cutting out food would not really have a big effect because allies would hold on their colonies
@@vuktodic1356 Sure, Britain produced large amounts of equipment and ammunition, no one is disputing that, but the US production obviously had buyers, so taking it away will still take away an equal amount of equipment and ammunition from the front.
Additionally, the US might have moved money to Germany through Sweden or Switzerland (money even then didn’t need to physically moved if you had a good credit rating)
@@MajinOthinus Weaker? Both the French and British already had significant numbers of troops freed up from the collapse of Bulgaria, Austria Hungary and Turkey. The British deployed a further 600,000 men to France in the first weeks of the German spring offensive, by the end of the german spring offensive the British and French alone outnumbered the Germans. The decisive factor was British naval dominance and total entrenchment of the western front. With the British blockade, Germany was starving and would capitulate.
Agreed. Britian produced a lot but mostly for self consumption. American Coal was used to make Comp B for Artillery Rounds that kept French Guns firing. Almost everyone went into the war with insufficient rounds for their Artillery. Depending on when America cut the tap to join Germany the French would have crumbled.
I mean, the atlantic Fleet wasn't really a thing. It was the grand fleet, and the german and US fleets don't even need to meet. The US navy existing is a credible enough threat to demand redirection of most royal assets to protect trade. The French will be required to commit some of their dreadnoughts and pre-dreadnoughts to the grand fleet to keep numerical superiority over the Germans. This then means the Austro-hungarian navy under Horthy can do wonderful things against the now isolated Italian fleet. It really nice to see you've actually thought about this, you've also considered the japanese side of this.
No not really... the Astro Hungarians are simply bottled up in the Adriatic. Vulnerable to destroyer and torpedo boats and Italy’s entry into war merely sealed this fate indefinitely. The US didn’t have the coaling stations to project power and their battle fleet was made up of dreadnoughts that could only make 18-21knots the British battleships made between 21-24 knots. Furthermore the cruiser advantage was in Britain’s favour. Destroyers were irrelevant in the mid-Atlantic bar against submarines because of their range. The US also had no battlecruisers, so her own cruiser squadrons could expect to get outgunned, outran and be offensively useless against such vessels. Cruisers were needed to be the scouts/eyes of the fleet, with out them the main battle fleet would be blind. Battlecruisers being battleship sized ships with battleship armament but with armour only effective against cruiser guns, so that they can match (or even outmatch) cruisers with their 25knot-32knot speeds. This weakness is really reflected in the USN’s reaction to the Japanese but UK designed and built Kongo class that caused great anxiety in the US navy. Put simply the US couldn’t counter these ships, they would dance around the USN battle fleet whilst eliminating her helpless scouting cruiser squadrons. So yeah invariably the US would have to leave 1/3 of its fleet in the pacific and then go against the Grand fleet.
@@GG-ir1hw I agree with you on all things excepting battleline speed. Apart from the queen Elizabeth's (the revenges don't count as they where 23 ish knots on a good day) the grand fleets battle speed is 21 knots same as the US battleline speed. The us also has the so called standard battleships which it can deploy and it's theses modern coal (with some oil) fired vessels with 14in guns I see being deployed in the Atlantic. The older vessels (probably led by new york and texas) will probably transit the Panama canal to square off against the Japanese. The chronic lack of modern cruisers and complete lack of any fast (25+ knot) capital ships is really gonna hurt the US though. They have no answer to the British battle cruiser's or the QE's however that may not be a problem as I suspect the UK will leave the battle cruiser fleet to square off against it's German opposites in the north sea, backed by the french and the older dreadnoughts of the Grand fleet.
@@jacobmoss6830 You are correct about the QE class speed but it’s still a decent difference, certainly one that would allow the Royal Navy to dictate the terms of the engagement. The US battle line doesn’t have a uniform 21knot speed because obsolete triple expansion engines were used on the South Carolina class. These two dreadnoughts could only make 18.5 knots... and US would have to use pre-dreadnoughts like the Germans did to achieve more balanced odds. Basically yeah the Americans could attempt to withdraw but unless they want to Abandon these ships to the wolves, they best withdraw at 18.5knots. With a battleship squadron of five QEs making 23knots at your heels... basically the US fleet would have to attempt a fighting retreat whilst British battlecruiser and the QEs try to cut off the main fleet. The Standard types with the 14inch guns are in my humble opinion the rough equivalent of the Orion, KGV and Iron duke classes plus HMS Canada for around 13 capital ships with 13.5/14inch guns (in my mind roughly equivalent to the US 14”). The Standard types would be a sturdy battle line indeed though. However with their cruiser scouts wiped out and then unable to dictate the terms of battle or even potentially retreat... it could go south real quick. Good points!
@@GG-ir1hw I just wouldn't commit anything less modern than the first standard type BB to the atlantic. Send New York, Texas and all the 12in gun BB's (including the South Carolinas and heck if we're are sending them some of the last gen Pre-dreads of the USN) to the pacific to blunt the japanese advance. Or at least make them think twice about taking anything but the Philippines
@@jacobmoss6830 Idk you would have a similar problem against the Japanese. The IJN certainly had 23knot capable battleships in the form of two Fuso class and two more Ise on the way, let alone the Kongos being unrivalled and unchallenged in the pacific. The New York’s could match these BBS sure but if things go south and they are encircled by the Kongos and chased by the Fusos they are in the same situation again, just in the pacific against once again a very capable navy. It’s America’s choice of where they want to be weak really. Either way their fleet will not be dictating terms of engagement, whether against the RN or IJN because of that lack of speed for their scouting and battle line that the battlecruisers provide.
There might not have been a WWII since Germany wouldn’t have been totally screwed over. Hitler might have not been as near as influential or focused more in Austria than in Germany. We’ll never know but I enjoy some alternate history speculation.
Hitler wouldn’t be hitler if Germany won ww1
Yeah but Britain, France, and russia would want revenge
Not the ww2 that we know but a diffrent one
@@taptiotrevizo9415 The Entente nations wouldnt have been as much humiliated from a peace treaty as Germany did. Even if the Central Powers win by taking Paris they wouldnt be able to make any claims against Britain, because they cant get naval superiority over them.
Maybe in other timeline where Austria win ww2
I think you would see the Caribbean being a front, too. American naval strength would be higher there, and the Americans would easily be able to assault British and French possessions there.
The US Navy was a joke during this period. Even a small number of French or British ships could knock America back into the mainland.
Ok, 1918, modern Dreadnought and Superdreadnought numbers. This is NOT including older Dreadnought the Royal Navy had reassigned to second line duties.... Which was a goodly number by this point....
Royal Navy, 35, including the 5 Queen Elizabeths, widely regarded as the best Battleships of WWI, and the 5 Revenges. USN had 16. German Navy had 18. So the Grand Fleet alone, had as many modern Dreadnought Battleships as the USN and German Navy *combined*.
Fact is the Roya lNavy did actually have the numbers, if it chose, to split the Grand Fleet and meet both the USN AND the German Navy on equal footing....
So yes, the US could have taken some of those Islands, and possibly even invaded Canada, however, a few things to consider. In WWI ALL the heavy equipment the US Army needed to fight a modern industrialised war other than its uniforms, the rifles, and its gasmasks were supplied by Britain and France. ALL of it. Artillery, mortars, grenades, aircraft, everything.
Next, the USN could not have opposed the British sailing the Canadian Corps back to Canada to help the defense of their country, and the LAST thing the tiny, inexperienced, ill equipped US Army wanted to go up against in 1917 was the Canadian Corps. It would have wiped the floor with them.
So yeah, maybe they could have taken some of the Carribean Islands, they would not have been able to KEEP them though. Germany was finished, it just didnt know it at the time. How long do you think a US occupation force on a carribean Island would have lasted against a well equipped, well trained, and most crucially of all, HIGHLY EXPERIENCED Army of french or British in 1918, lacking most in the way of heavy equipment, artillery and other such heavy equipment? Not long at all.
@@alganhar1 Even if all you say is true, and the veteran Canadian-British force defeated the small, raw American force at the outbreak of their war, what then? The Canadians could not have pushed into the U.S. and conquered it. American military might would begin to swell like a massive tsunami, and when it came back it would sweep aside anything Canada or Britain had to offer. And then Canada would be entirely conquered, and likely annexed. With the British navy now beaten back from American waters and rapidly dwindling in strength the moment would sooner or later come where the German fleet could come back to smash through on the backside--perhaps with simultaneous help from the American fleet on the frontside. That breaks the blockade on Germany, while imposing one on Britain, and Britain likely sues for peace by that point (if not before).
@@alganhar1 You're not thinking much. How is the Entente navy going to fight the US in the Caribbean when the British are busy defending their coast against Germany, the French and Italians are defending against Ottoman and Austrian navies, and Japan can't reach the Caribbean. America would have a free hand in the Caribbean, it would all fall. Canada as well, seeing as most of their troops were a continent away.
@@CharliMorganMusic like in the revolutionary war or 1812?? The British straight up lost in the first one and 1812 was a stalemate. Plus they wrecked Spain in 1898. My point is the Americans were underestimated and yet how did that work out? Same as in WW2 the Americans are weak. Yet they mobilized over 16 million men and still outproduced all other countries including Russia except in Tanks. Were major contributors in Europe (8th basically reduced Germany to rubble by 44) and basically crushed Japan singlehandedly. 🤷♂️
The US just would have used it as an excuse to take Canada.
Americans remembering war of 1812: I offered you friendship, and you spat in my face.
canada and britian would use it as reason to burn down the white house again
@@ILoveFishMilk The British wouldn't be able to get across the Atlantic, the Canadians would be mostly alone in that fight.
@@ILoveFishMilk Unlikely the USA had 4.7 million men Canada had 600.000 with about 400.000 already in Europe leaving Canada defense for at 200k men
the USA had 600 heavy tanks and 1.500 light tanks mean while ww1 in our timeline the war ended before Canada even finished its first tank battalion
USA had 1223 aircraft and Canada never had its own air force in the war
i think you get the point the USA would simply overwhelm the Canadian forces and crush them the only thing Canada would have been able to do is retreat further inland & pray the British could liberate
which then you have to ask is could the British carry out a invasion of the USA and hold the front in France against the Germans now most of the US navy would be trying to stop the Japanese so the British could effectively land in the Canada or even main land USA but given the fact that the population of the USA was 103 million people there gdp 32 billion which made America the second largest economy in the world they could of conscripted a army large enough to push out a British if you take in the fact that Britain would of have had to cross the Atlantic which the vast majority of there heavy transports could not do and that's not even counting the fact that the the general public in the US at the time were damn near brainwashed to have undying loyalty to the country and where all heavily armed
so they may of been able to burn the capital when it was defended by a rag tag group of militias but not when America was a land mass the size of Europe
@@emrysgeibhendach7572 sail the Atlantic fleet to DC bombard the capital, drop a few marines, burn the White House, pick the marines back up and return back to back to Britain. give Canada full independence and it’s no longer Britain’s problem. Done
“The entrance of the United States caused many reactions, it caused the French to realize they would win after all and demand stricter terms for peace, it caused the British to realize that the war must end in 1918 before the Americans dominated the globe, and the Germans realized they must ship as many divisions to the west before too many Americans arrive”
France always knew it would win, so that's nonsense. The British blockade and the French attacks were starving the Germans who went into full famine mode. The US intervention saved France from a lot of pain but the tide of the war was already in the Entente's favor even after Russia collapsed.
@@yaz2928 why don’t you go read the accredited historical work by the accredited author, then come back to me with that yeah?
@@looinrims I agree with everything said in that quote except the "cause the French to realize they would win after all", it makes it look like France thought it was going to lose when Germany was the one going through a famine and mutinies. But everything else is correct.
@@onehope6448 it doesn’t matter if you agree that’s how they felt
Germany by the way wasn’t the only one with mutinies, as even said in this video
There’s a reason that the losses in this war shaped interwar French politics for the entirety until Mr Mustache started making himself felt, the French economy was nearly collapsed by the war, they were barely holding on against Germany with British help, while their enemy had a second front
I don’t know what kinda revisionist view you have but I’m sorry it’s not true
@@looinrims France feeling that way doesn't make sense, yes France too was suffering from mutinies, but most importantly, was not undergoing the literal famine that Germany was after that failed harvest. Both France and the UK knew that their blockade and attrition warfare was working with the widespread starvation going on in Germany, where people were eating sawdust. If France was convinced it would lose then it would've likely just surrendered to spare what remaining industries it had, counting on the UK to liberate it.
Probably one of the biggest impacts would be come WW2 the US having been a German ally in the First World War allies itself with Germany in the second. That could be a really interesting follow up video to this one
If the US sided with Germany ww2 as we know it probably wouldn't happen. If the US sides with Germany, weimar won't exist, won't borrow too much, the depression won't be as bad for them, therefore no nazis.
There wouldn't be a second world war without a humiliating treaty of Versailles
there is litterally no way to predict how things would play out post war. USSR? Left-Right post war struggles? Banking Collapse? Arms race? Naval Treaty? all these factors played into how ww2 developed.
@@shadowlord1418 thats what happened when ego is bigger than brain
@@MrChickennugget360 The USSR would have been a much weaker power without the Eastern Bloc countries to drain from. It would have bankrupted itself much quicker.
US Join the Central Power
Canada: Aw....I'm really really screw....
Time to send those British loyalists ALL the way home.
The Austro-Hungarian internal situation was quite severe, but defections within the empire (as well as in Bulgaria and Ottoman Empire) were directly tied to an expectation of defeat in the war. The various ethnic groups within the empire hoped to be included on the "winning" side in peace negotiations by defecting to the allies. US intervention on the side of the Central Powers would have reversed this situation. In the long term, the vast advantage of American resources would likely have produced an allied defeat. With food imports from Ukraine and eventually elsewhere through Russia, this would have resolved the defection issue which brought down the Central Powers.
The Allied economies would have been severely affected by the loss of all imports from the Western Hemisphere. Through blockade or invasion the US would have been able to stop any South American exports to Europe within the first year, especially Argentine beef and the nitrates for gunpowder. Canadian resources would also have been seized early on, both removing these exports and requiring the diversion of substantial forces to mount an impossible defense of the coastal population centers.
Germany and Austria-Hungary had moderate long-term food problems, but by 1918 the Germans could receive food from the Ukraine. By 1919 or 1920 they could also receive oil from Baku. Britain on the other hand would have faced an acute shortage in 1917-1918 without food imports. American and South American food would have been completely removed from the equation, and imports from Asia and Africa would have been severely threatened by commerce raiding. I am not a conspiracy theorist and I know that the German U-Boat campaign came nowhere close to achieving its aims, however the UK would not have been able to implement the convoy system without American warships, and with American U-boat and surface raiders it would have been even worse. The UK would also have lost the ability to import merchant ships and steel from the US. In this scenario the UK may have faced a complete collapse of maritime commerce. At the same time, Germany would have had maintained access to the resources of Northern and Eastern Europe, as well as significant imports from the former Russian Empire, albeit limited by the ongoing civil war in that country.
Also, the loss of American troops on the Western front, the withdrawal of Canadian troops, and the diversion of British troops to defend frontier areas from the US would have allowed Germany to maintain at least a parity of force in the long term. The advantage in tanks would only mitigate this issue.
Finally, the situation of Japan is overly optimistic. The British Navy would not have been able to do anything useful against the US in the Atlantic, and the US could have diverted most forces to the Pacific. In that scenario they could have contained Japan or even gone on the offensive in Asia as a way of striking against Britain. Japan would probably not have benefited from the intervention of the larger US navy into the war.
About your Japan situation, I agree. Something in the video talks about the USA taking decades to re-conquer territories lost in the pacific, doesn't that seem a bit extreme? If America focused it's entire effort in the Atlantic with the intent to battle the British navy and win the war, even if they lost almost their entire fleet, as long as stalemate/peace/victoy could be reached in Europe, America could overcome japan. As long as American Morale wasn't too heavily destroyed, or there was a lack of willingness for continued combat. It does not seem realistic that it would take 10s of years for America to compete for it's pacific islands.
Even if these revolutions happen Germany would most likely use its free manpower from the russian front to take control over the Austrian - Hungarian Empire and integrate its military assets into their army like Germany did with most of Italy in WW2 after the armistice.
Well said
"Remember 1812" would probably be used against Britain and Canada
Maybe, but US schools barely let 1812 be a footnote. Probably for similar reason that the IJ being worse than the Nazis isn't covered.
@@CharliMorganMusic I’ve never heard of LJ being worse then the nazis. I’m interested, can you send me a link?
@@Skywarslord they killed more civillians
@@CharliMorganMusic what exactly is the LJ
@@Skywarslord They got off with a slap on the wrist compared to the nazis. The rape of nanking and various groups using chinese people for extreme studies that even made ss members sick.
One thing you didn't address is the 1918 Spanish flu. Seeing as it's generally believed to have originated in Kansas and been brought to Europe by American soldiers, Europe might have gone untouched by it in this timeline.
Doubtful. The 1918 flu spread even in the most remote regions on Earth, those who hadn't had outside contact for decades. Kansas is one possibility, but there are several others, and there's no current consensus as to what the origin was. I expect we'll never be certain.
@@arkroyal It's easier for everyone to blame something hideous and tragic to some "Chinese volunteers", or some "African refugees", or.... whatever. It's still true even to this day (cough*Trump blames chinese covid*cough)
@@linhhoang1363 maybe because it a manufacturered bio weapon developed in China by the CCP, which have commited numerous Human rights abuse. But I guess orange man bad is more important to you I suppose...
@@GrimReaper-qp6fv Yeah alright guy whose subbed to Steve Crowder, keep believing that nonsense
@@mahari893 You are ignoring people suffering under China like the Tibetans, Hong Kong, Taiwanese, and the Chinese people themselves being under a draconic tolitarian rule but you really don't care do you? All that matters are "social" issues which never really been a big problem in the first place.
“It’s my turn to colonize you, Britain.”
Never going to happen Britains will never never never be slaves
You can’t colonise Britain 🇬🇧
@@nozlenc3885 Unless you're french.
Georgia the state vs Georgia the country, I’ll never quit.
3:01
"They didn't do much during the war", that's just not correct.
They didn't *achieve* much maybe.
But *do* much?
The border between Austria-Hungary and Italy was a bloody front just like the others.
In some ways it was arguably worse.
The Italian Alpini and their Austrian counterparts say that on the Alpine front the real enemy was the mountain.
I love in Bormio nearby some WW1 trenches at more than 3000 meters ASL, crazy what they managed to build and love in just to fight on.
Erm no, he’s completely correct they didn’t do much to any extent of the imagination if ur comparing
@@kingmac6638 there is a movie/documentary called Fango e Gloria, la Grande Guerra it's about the WW1 Alpine front, and what ultimately lead to the building of the tomb of Ignoto Militi (the tomb to the unknown soldier) in Rome because of the sheer amount of casualties that were suffered in the Alps that could not be recovered.
The Alpine front was brutal, think trench warfare at -20 and 3000 meters above sea level
@@marcofava Yet again, not much comparing fronts at all to any extent of the imagination.
@@kingmac6638 true but when you consider that 3 years of war on the Alpine front caused 300.000 casualties on the Austrian and Italian side and Austria as a whole fighting on 3 fronts took 650.000 casualties it puts the Alpine front into prospective
Don't forget, those major German offensives in 1918 were a direct result of the US joining the war on the side of the Entente, as a last ditch effort to win before all hope was lost. In this scenario that wouldn't be necessary, so Germany wouldn't exhaust itself on unnecessary offensives.
Their goal was to knock out france before us arrived with their soldiers
Us or no us germany is losing maybe western front would not change but just because german army is barely standing on western front does not mean they are winning it
By the time of german surrender there was 2 milion allied soldiers marching from italy trough austria (mainly italians with british french serbia and greek troops) to german border
Since every other front would go preety much same balkans alps and middle east
Germany would be facing invasion from south with no reserves to counter invasion
This offensive from south in germany was set to begin on november 30 th which is just 3 weeks before germany realized they realized that allies would be walking in berlin if they tried to be heroes
Take few more weeks possibly with some delays germany would be in no position to continue war past 1919 or they would but german army would not exist anymore by that point with milions of troops arriving from middle east and balkans to fight germany
Its game over in any case
Germany lost preety much from start of the war when they were unable to knock out france but when her allies surrendered their fate was sealed they could possibly survive for few more months but they are going to get beaten down in a long run
You forgot about Ireland, they could have joined the war with the Central powers there was even a treaty signed between Ireland and German for WWI
Ireland was a part of the UK at this point in time, they didn't gain independence until after WWI.
Ireland is a non factor. No military capable of an expeditionary force.
Ireland was an integral part of the United Kingdom during WW1.
It's like saying Bavaria could have joined the Allies.
That would be an interesting question. There could have been supplies of arms to the Irish with a post 1916 rising; this would have been welcomed. Possibly a small contingent of “American Volunteers” being brought over via Mexico.
If for no other reason than to see discontent among the BEF.
@@Kromsmitesyou Yes but they could have let US shops dock there, there where lots of people who wanted to rebel from the up so they could have became independent and helps by letting the US dock and refuel there
Well I don't think Germany would have attacked in 1918 because thoses offensives were conducted because of the entry of the US in the war
They would have happened anyway. Germany was starving. It could not wait, it either had to attack in 1918, Spring 1919 at the very latest, or Germany was going to collapse. US Troops landing in France probably upped the timetable by a few months, but chances are it was going to happen in any event.
Yea few hundred tousands of americans changed the war
Not like allies had over 5 milion troops just on western front and were already pushing germany into starvation with their blockade
Goal was to knock out france and force allies to surrender
Even if for some strange reason western front does not move and germany never attacks then they lose on other fronts
German surrender saved them from being beaten to the ground from west and south
By the time of german surrender there was some 2 milion allied soldiers mainly italians aided with british and french walking across alps in austria who by that point have decided that they want to die to the german southern border
Its estimated that by november 30 th invasion would begin with no reserves and milions of allied soldiers being freed up from balkan and middle east germany would lose badly
Allied soldiers would be walking in berlin in matter of weeks germany would try to send soldiers from western front but at the same time allies expected to strike germany by that point so it lead to chaos in german army and defeat
Germany can fight more yes but outcome is same they lose no matter what
@@vuktodic1356 The Entente was financed and fed by the Americans, without, their supplies would have crumbled and they would have been starving as well, especially with supplies from Canada being chocked.
I see one huge strategic mistake in Binkov's analysis: With America on Germany's side in 1917, Germany would not feel the urgent need to launch an all or nothing attack on the Western Front in 1918, as in the real timeline that attack took place to try to defeat the French before too many American soldiers were available to solidify the Allied lines. No, in this alternate timeline Germany would continue to play defense, and wait for American military might to build and be unleashed on the English and French navies, thus simultaneously destroying their ability to continue to the blockade against Germany, and imposing a blockade on them. America also seizes the whole of Canada, not just a few bits. The Allies lose totally in this timeline, IF America maintains the will to see it through.
Oh man, you DEFINITELY need to do a follow up to this with America and Germany together in WW2
I believe that a victory for the Central Powers, with the United States at their side, would be completely possible. With the entry of the United States into the war on the side of the Central Powers, its troops would have morale rising, while the morale of the Allies would decrease, and riots in the Allied armies could increase, the United States Navy and the Kaiserliche Marine could cooperate together to destroy the British trains and German submarines could operate from American ports on the east coast, forcing the Royal Navy to take part of its fleet from Europe and transfer it to the Atlantic and thus be able to relieve the German navy in Europe a little. Together the United States Navy and Kaiserliche Marine could gradually destroy the Royal Navy thanks to its superior and growing industrial capacity compared to the Allies and also to its military growth throughout the war, so that the United States could supply its European allies with supplies, weapons and ammunition, Germans could eat making advances in France and Austro-Hungarians in Italy, with that they would be weak and perhaps in late 1918 and early 1919 France and Italy would surrender leaving only the United Kingdom in the war, perhaps the Americans would land in Occupied France to support the Germans in a future invasion of Britain. In the Pacific, the United States could retreat to a point that prevented the Japanese from approaching the west coast, managed to keep them contained and with the end of the threat of the Royal Navy in the Atlantic and with the surrender of all Allies on the European continent, the Americans could transfer part of its forces in the Atlantic and Europe to the Pacific to fight against the Japanese, gradually managing to regain their territories and also the German territories probably reaching a point where Japan will surrender. Probably the war would end in 1919 with an absolute of the Central Powers.
People really underestimate how balanced the great war truly was. I think you are correct, the German army was a formidable fighting force and perhaps one of the greatest fighting forces to ever exist. The World War One Heer was even arguably as efficient if not better then Germany's Whermacht, aside from obvious constraints of technology. Germany's true defeat was not by military means but by methods of siege, with the Allies having vastly superior collections of resources. An American entrance into the war would completely disrupt Atlantic trade, and bring about a major loss of funding and production.
Don't make me laugh. Modern battleships in 1918. Britain, in the Grand Fleet, mustered 35, USN Navy in its entirety 16, German Navy in its entirety 18. Thats just the modern dreadnoughts. That does not including older 12 inch Dreadnoughts the Royal Navy had 'retired' to second line duties as they were considered too old for a modern battle line. Battlecruisers? Royal Navy 11, USN 0, German Navy 5.
Sorry, but even without the French and Japanese the Royal Navy was more than capable of meeting the combined USN and Imperial German Navy on at least equal terms. With the french and Japanese... forget it....
How are the Americans going to get those transport ships to Germany hmm? You literally would have to pass the convoys within strike range of the main Naval Base at Scapa Flow, its literally the very REASON why the Royal Navy built a naval Base in that godforsaken part of Scotland, because anything trying to get into the Baltic has to pass nearby, or anything trying to get out.... You aint taking them through the Med either, got to either get them through the Suez (British controlled), or through the Gibralter Strait (oh wait... British controlled).
Oh, what about all those troops? How you going to SHIP them? More than HALF the American troops shipped to France from1917 were transported on BRITISH shipping, the US simply did not have enough transports or troops ships to do the job. How are you going to ARM them? Apart fromtheir rifle, gasmask and uniform EVERYTHING the US Army used was supplied by Britain and France. Their artillery, their tanks, their aircraft, their fucking horse transport, absolutely EVERYTHING. And then, once you get them there, how is the US going to supply them? Because now the US is not neutral, and the Royal Navy can simply sink any American ship they see....
If you want to place a country to utterly control the sea routes into and out of North Western Europe you literally could not place it much better than the British Isles.... As I have shown you, the combined German and US fleets are NOT in fact larger than the Royal Navy in this period. They also have significant disadvantages. The Royal Navy had Coaling stations around the world, which neither Germany or the US had, the German Fleet was still limited to using crappy German bitumous coal, which means they could not make their designed speed and ran dirty, requiring more maintenance time. The german fleet was in poor repair after so long in port, and its crews had lost most of their edge by 1917, the USN were inexperienced, and as shown by the 9th US Battlesquadron when it transferred to the Grand Fleet in Scapa Flow their Gunnery was *terrible*.
Fact is, it would be near *impossible* for the US to get troops to France to help Germany. Combined the Japanese and British Fleets could keep the US Fleet bottled up without Britain having to reduce its balance of forces dangerously low to keep the German Fleet similarly bottled up. Britain could still maintain its Blockade. And even if the US could get troops to Germany it could not supply them, and they would be fighting with rifles only.... In other words, they would essentially be useless....
@@alganhar1 You seem to think that the US is going to go have a giant dreadnought battle with the UK when that literally makes no sense.
IF the US simply invaded Canada and engaged ins massive Cruiser/submarine construction UK would be forced to seek terms to avoid starvation.
You seem to have completely forgotten that the UK is an island and to fight a war it needs food and supplies and the that US and Canada were the main sources of these things.
If the US and Germany do nothing but
A- German High seas fleet keep most of the RN guarding the North Sea
B- US remove Canada from supporting the UK
C- US engage in major Anti-commerce actions to cripple Allied Trade
@@MrChickennugget360 the german fleet still pumped goods from portugal and brazil, always forgotten in the war by those who do not study history.
the central empires wouldn't give it a chance and i doubt mexico wouldn't give its bombed goods too the usa would have a lethal war from all directions.
@@alganhar1 the point of the US navy entering isn’t that it could destroy the British navy but instead split it. The US navy would have free reign over the Atlantic and German U boats would be able to us american ports. I think you also overestimate Japanese interest in participating in ww1. They were more concerned with using ww1 as a distraction so they could expand their sphere of influence in China and Korea while also taking the undefended German islands. It’s possible they may not have declared war on the US opting instead to focus on other matters in asia.
The US also provided immense amounts of supply’s and material to the allies throughout the war and without any of that support allied morale and fighting capability would be greatly diminished. The US could also ship supplies through soviet Russia as Russia civil war didn’t truly go into full swing until 1918 and the soviets would have been looking for funds to kickstart the economy and rebuild the country.
I think it should also be stated that knowing support was coming would have greatly helped German morale and decreased allied morale. Knowing that help was coming and supplies were being shipped could have stopped the riots in Germany since things wouldn’t have seemed so bleak and there was a way out. The French army was on the brink of mutiny at this point and american entry into the central powers would have worsened this.
Now this opens up a possibility for the central powers to win ww1 since if France fell it’s unlikely that britain would have attempted to fight the war alone and likely would have tried to sue for peace in some way. Now another possibility is that peace negotiations could have began to end the war without a decisive victory for either side since the allies would realize even if Germany fell fighting the US would be an immense task neither the French or british would be equipped to carry out. This could have led to an armistice of some kind and would certainly stop Germany being decimated by the treaty of Versailles like in our timeline
The largest wildcards of this scenario.
3. Loans and materials trade to UK and France
2. French army morale
1. "Spanish" flu
I have always been interested in how this would go. Thank you Binkov i always love how you do your videos, focusing more on statistics and history than just history.
This is a hypothetical question, far away from reality. A more realistic possibility would have been if the US had stayed neutral. P. Zelikow has just shown how near the conflict came to peace came in the end of 1916. Lets assume no peace conference 1917, fighting continues, but also, no us intervention. That is a basis for an interesting scenario - like holger afflerbach has written about.
American historians will say that the central powers would have won.
British and French historians will say that the allies would have won.
Not so far from reality. At this time the US still considered the Monroe Doctrine a serious matter. They wanted European powers out of the Western Hemisphere. Britain was considered an adversary, not an ally. The US only sided with Britain for financial gain. There was plenty of pro-German sympathy and anti-British sentiment in the US. The US had/has a very large German immigrant population and a long history of conflict with Britain as well as opposition to colonies in general. They had the same feelings towards Spain and seized an opportunity to remove Spain from the Americas in a similar fashion only a few years earlier when Spain experienced a moment of vulnerability. The idea that the US would have taken the opportunity to remove Britain and France from the Americas was a legitimate possibility had politics overridden finances.
@@winstonsyme7672 In addition, American Jews tended to be pro-German and anti-Russian ;)
The US literally had plans to invade the british empire so its not exactly that far fetched.
@@winstonsyme7672 "The US had/has a very large German immigrant population and a long history of conflict with Britain as well as opposition to colonies in general. They had the same feelings towards Spain and seized an opportunity to remove Spain from the Americas in a similar fashion only a few years earlier when Spain experienced a moment of vulnerability. The idea that the US would have taken the opportunity to remove Britain and France from the Americas was a legitimate possibility had politics overridden finances."
Which was why silver was demonetized in the US in 1871 (just about when the German Empire was founded). Gold-only money meant the US banking system would eventually be integrated into the British system through credits as people usually don't see actual gold often in gold-only money systems but only deposit receipts then credit money then fiat money.
One of the few videos that the central powers is blue while entente is red.
Ah now THIS. Is the superior timeline
The reason why germay build so few tanks was because the used their scarce metals for submarines, since a blockade seemed to have better effect to starve Britain.
Nah. Tanks were new to warfare. The Brits introduced them on the battlefield in 1916; Germans were not able to get them into production until 1918. WW1 tanks also were not nearly as effective as they would be later on.
@@arkroyal Tanks didn't really effect WW1. Changes in tactics broke the stalemate
@@arkroyal No what changed the stalemate was stuff like stormtrooper tactics and the creeping barrage. Tanks were slow and not very mobile. Looking at overall tactics you wouldn't even notice the tanks.
@@arkroyal Tanks were extremely unreliable. To the point the Germans didnt really bother making them. A better understanding of combined arms and better infantry tactics along with the remainder of German morale and supplies being consumed during the spring offensive due to the US joining the war. Tanks sucked in ww1. There were only about 500 British tanks in 1918.
@@arkroyal Here this can explain it better than I ever could.
www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/42z7q1/how_could_the_western_front_stalemate_have_been/?
You should continue on this timeline I would love to see how this affect World War II
@Vincent Agema--BoyA(C) At least not as soon and it would be a completely different scenario.
I think I speak for everyone when I say that I’d love to see you take on an alternate world war 2 following this same timeline. Even if it’s entirely alternate history
That be lot weirder.
The usa would need to be more afraid of the ussr then the evil boys
@@electricangel4488 There wouldn't be Nazis in this timeline, as Hitler wouldn't have had much of a platform to stand on.
This assumes that he survives the additional year of warfare.
A war 2 years in is nigh impossible to accurately predict, and you’re asking to see the post war political effects of a defeated (potentially) France? A dethroned Britain? A massively powerful Japan? A still maybe kneecapped German empire? 20 years of American politics alone are nigh impossible to predict
It would be, impossible
@@rakisuzuki-burke4148 he was out of the fighting for many months after his gas injuries and temporary blindness
Any Superpower: Invades Europe
Switzerland: *chuckles* I'm safe
Also at that time the Germans were one of if not the largest ethnic group in the US. Even to this day I belong to the ethnicity here and we still consist of the largest European Ethnic identity in the US
That's false, Germans don't constitute the largest white ethnicity in the US.
Anglo/Celtic people from the British isles are the largest single bloc of whites in the US.
The myth about the Germans stems from a change in the census, previously under the ethnicities category you could only choose from groups from Europe, but then they changed it, you could put "American" as your ethnicity, so vast numbers of mainly Anglo/Celtic Americans switched to "American".
The same can be seen in regards to Australia, once they made Australian a choice a vast number of the previous mainly Anglo-Celtic bloc just flipped over to Australian ethnicity on the census.
One theory as to why is that these people do not view themselves as "ethnics" who are separate in identity to the nation in which they reside, that *THEY* are in fact what constitutes the nation, they're *not* transplanted Poles, Germans, Spaniards or Italians, they're not merely a subset of America/Australia, but the natural beating heart of it, the center of the nation, what others are supposed to assimilate to, what outsiders are supposed to imagine when they think of America/Australia.
This not to say that they're all raging nationalists, but that this is an organic process that forms over generations, beginning with the establishment of the colonial settler-states in the US/Australia.
The founding ethnicity group becomes so culturally invested in the settlement project that they become inseparable from it, when someone from Kentucky has a family lineage that consists overwhelmingly of white settlers with multiple linkages to the first white settlers of Kentucky they're extremely likely to view themselves ethnically as "Americans" rather than as Scottish/English/Welsh/Irish/Manx/Cornish.
If you were to reverse the change you'd find English would be the largest ethnicity, followed by Celtic varieties, Irish, Scotch-Irish, Scottish, then probably Germans, seeing as the Welsh, Manx & Cornish were typically assimilated into one of the other British ethnicities.
@@the_Kutonarch I agree, and that's not including those who identify as "American". The majority of those individuals is made up of old British colonial decedents.
@@the_Kutonarch british is not an ethnicity tho, it’s a Split between celts and Germanics, not even the same major ethnic group
@@the_Kutonarch where did you pull that info? German ancestry is still the largest out of all in the US even today. Are you a brit or something? I am not german or have any ties with them but pretty much everywhere i read it is as i said.
I cannot imagine Spain in 1917 even considering cooperation with the United States. The US would have to give Spain possessions it had taken in 1898 for Spain to even consider this relationship, and pretty much all of the US possessions taken from Spain (Philippines, Puerto Rico, Guam, Ports in Cuba) were taken for their strategic value. Gibraltar and Portugal were not things that the US could promise, and the US couldn't part with possessions that were completely essential to secure American interests. Neither side would have enough to gain to justify the transaction.
You covered the short-term strategic position perfectly, I just think it's even less realistic than at first blush.
In 1917, the french army didn't do a mutiny, but there was a serie of military strikes, the soldiers refusing to keep on attacking, but they didn't take up arms against France or anything, they even kept their trenches.
There is more than one type of mutiny. Refusing to obey the orders of a person in authority is mutiny. For example, the US UCMJ: www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/894
They were willing to defend their country but not to die in human wave offensives
But by 1918 it didnt really matter central powers were getting destroyed in balkans middle east and alps and when you really look at it allies had 6.6 milion soldiers in hundred days offensive
Out of those only around 1.9 m were americans of which only 1 milion were combat troops
Even when allies started offensive they did not even need that many reason for this is that germans were surrendering not because they thought usa was strong but because of situation back home so many soldiers surrender that allies could most likely do this offensive with even half of their numbers
The French went on strike? Why am I not surprised?
Its a fucking Mutiny. "military strikes" are mutiny
@@MrChickennugget360 first of all… wow, do you kiss your mother with that mouth? No need to go to « fucking ». Second of all, in this video the strikes are represented almost as a soldiers’ revolt, mobilising ressources to be crushed, which it was not. Soldiers refusing to go over the top isn’t a mutiny dangerous for the army, it’s just men refusing to continue already stalled attacks, it was dealt with in a matter of a week, which cannot be described as a « fucking mutiny ».
Finally, he make a video about this
He* makes a video about this
Shut up smoke
@@xeji4348 He* made a video about this
@@gunnsteif677 *Finally, he made a video about this
@@gemliimax4338 @Xeji *Finally, He made a video about this
Interestingly enough, as long as the US keeps the Philippines and Guam, if Germany won WW1, the pacific war would happen pretty much as it did in our timeline.
No
@@looinrims Yes. Even with germany being a power in the pacific instead of the UK, Japans history post WW1 is pretty much unaffected by the actual result of WW1. They might lack a few islands they captured from germany post WW1, but besides that, their political situation would be pretty much exactly the same as it was in our timeline, and so, as long as Japan still wants to expand and the US still doesn't want that, the pacific war would still happen.
@@Chrischi3TutorialLPs the presence of the Philippines gave FDR (who frankly isn’t likely to be in power as the political history would be very different) the space to declare all nations in the south East Asian area to be under US protection, if a hypothetical oil embargo happens again, Japan wouldn’t give a fuck about fighting the USA as what are they gonna do without a presence in the western pacific? Nothing, so they’d just southern plan the British and Dutch (again)
@@looinrims The US conquered the Phillippines in the spanish-american war, and thus held the Phillippines before joining WW1 and probably wouldnt lose them either though, so that is a completely irrelevant point to this discussion? And besides, realistically speaking, the japanese could have probably attacked the indies and british holdings in the region without US interference, to they just made it harder on themselves by attacking the US. There was no political reason for the US to attack Japan over Japan attacking the colonial holdings of a nation that one of their allies had reduced to a government in exile and the colonial holdings of a nation that considered that first country an ally, with neither of those being itself allied to the US. As long as the US stays isolationist like in our timeline while also having the Phillippines as a base in the western pacific, there is no reason why the pacific war wouldn't happen, provided Japan stays as expansionist as in our timeline. And like i said, unless germany winning WW1 somehow results or requires an invasion of Japan duing WW1, the ultimate fate of Japan isn't massively impacted by the result of WW1.
@@Chrischi3TutorialLPs that is a completely discussion reliant point, does the US keep the Philippines in a central power US world against Japan
You must not know the real history, FDR literally said all nations in SEA were under US protection, hence the whole Pearl Harbor thing, no realistically they couldn’t
After learning all the details of one a two I love watching your "what ifs".
One factor you left out is it is very unlikely the British would just let Canada fall, seeing more troops sent to the Canadian front, and the British navy being split
First 10 seconds of the video and all I can hear is Sabatan.
US Fleet gunnery was also abysmal in 1914-17. The US fleet training had only occurred in flat weather, and the Atlantic is rarely flat
you don't think there would be a learning curve?
This whole scenario completely misses out the single most important factor of WWI and the reason Germany lost. That is the failure of the 1917 harvest which along with the allied blockade meant Germany ran out of food. 2 million German civilians had starved to death by July 1918, Germany couldn't continue. So the idea of a stalemate after July 1918 is impossible there was no food for either the army or people and tens of millions would be facing starvation, the country would collapse.
But don't you think that could have been avoided by American imports? In 1917 America supplied large quantities of food to France, Britan, and Italy, so those imports being sent to Germany would significantly bolster the country. (?)
@@troutwarrior6735 I think you missed the whole..... America has no way of reaching Germany in any capacity bit....
@@troutwarrior6735 You're forgetting that the French and British fleets outnumbered and outgunned the American fleet, Germany lost because of the blockade, and supplies from America count for shit when the coastal defences in the channel or the grand fleet in the North sea would chew up any American resupply effort, not to mention the American fleet couldn't have projected force out to Europe to even attempt to break the blockade
@@troutwarrior6735 With the absolute stranglehold the Allies held over the Atlantic, there wouldn't be any imports. Britain will intercept them, and worse still will try and steal them for itself, making any German loss of materiel a British gain. The Allies are under stress with supplies of food, but are nowhere near as desperate as Germany and Austria. Britain didn't even introduce rationing until the last few months of the war and unlike Germany had no issues with actual starvation.
Faced with a hostile Canadian border, and with the Japanese (probably aided by the ANZAC and Raj forces) quickly gnawing at US colonial possessions in the East, the US will be unable to directly support Germany militarily or economically. Basically it will already have its plate full. The US will need to decide whether to defend Hawaii from inevitable invasion, or to use its fleet to escort food and weapons to Germany. I suspect they will opt to guard Hawaii.
As a member of the Central Powers, the US has to keep its friends in the fight and I just don't see any way it could achieve that by joining them in 1917. It might possibly keep the Ottomans in a bit longer simply because Britain may need to divert troops away from the Middle East Campaign.
As I see it, without direct help, sheer lack of food mean Germany and Austria are doomed to collapse early in 1919, leaving the US alone to face the Allies. Given just how bad that outcome would be, it's obvious the USA would _never_ have allowed itself to get into that situation in the first place. In reality there was open antipathy from most Americans towards the autocracies of the Central Powers meaning this whole scenario is pretty much unthinkable.
@@CountScarlioni Britain would have had to withdraw its forces from the Western Front to defend Canada, and France would have stood alone in the Western Front.
First time I've seen this particular scenario played out. Well said and done like usual Binkov!
"And I think to myself... what a wonderful world."
Harry Turtledove: "Allow me to introduce myself..."
I would also like to see "What would WW2 have looked like had the US (or UK) joined the Axis"
17:00 During this time Germany started mass production of own tank designs and very potent anti tank weapons.
There is a great alternative history book series - Great War by Harry Turtledove, describing something similar. The South won the US Civil War when it was recognized by UK and France. So the Union joined the Central Powers in WW1, and waged a two front war against The Confederacy and Canada.
Lacking US support, the Allies experience a lot more hardship than in our timeline.
Well in our timeline the British were using the US passengers on the Lusitania as human sheilds so this might make them mad at Britain and want to support Germany instead, but for some reason in our timeline they did the exact opposite even though Britain was just as much to blame. Damn, people are stupid.
Its time for a new microphone mr binkov. It rustles a little
This changes everything
Hey binkov continue this series about hypotetical war it is better than arms analysis great job thank
Great video. The only thing is that you mentioned the Lusitania in your alternate timeline. With us support going to Germany, the Lusitania would have never been sunk since there would have been no weapons or unrestricted submarine warefare
Thank you for all that you do. I love watching your videos. The puppet gets me everytime
Someone please make a HOI4 Alternate Reality about this, id play the hell out of that!!
HOI4: Kaisers und Cowboys
You also have Kaiserreich, which is if the US stayed neutral in WW1.
@@country_flyboy ye I know. Played it alot
ASEAN VS China
Feat. Myanmar Civil War
ROK, Japan and US vs DPRK, Russia and China
Feat. Second Korean War
EU vs OIC
Feat. Another Crusade War
I believe any conflict on that scale would also include : Australia, New Zealand, Philippines, India, Vietnam, Taiwan. Pakistan likely to join China Axis.
I think if it came down to it the US would be willing to trade losing the Philippines for gaining Canada
I would not want to be a America soldier stationed in occupied Canada if that's the case.
I can see it now... America politicians blaming the deaths of America soliders on Canadian insurgents.
they would get the Philippines back
Time traveler: sneeze
The timeline:
I think one thing this scenario does leave out is the effect of "continued animosity" between the Us and the UK. with such animosity, the US fleet would HAVE to be bigger from the beginning of the war just to account for this, and that would have a tremendous effect on this alternate time line
If Us entered the war, Canada would be lost, but Japan would take over Philippines. Decolonization would have happens quicker as the US would arm natives to have uprisings against British and french.
You say that like the US wasn't a big colonial power at the time
Something you may not be aware of it that back then there was less than 10 million black people in the world and in places like south africa whites outnumbered them by more than 10 to 1. So outside of north africa that's unlikely.
@@ANSELAbitsxb you're not too smart.
@@greg_mca You say that like the USSR and the USA of the cold war weren't big colonial powers supporting independence movements all over the world
@@jonathanduplantis1403 I strongly urge you to prove me wrong. Africa's population was constantly starving under colonial rule, it wasn't until independance and food aid that the populations grew.
Depending on when the US would join the central powers, Canada would be very vulnerable. Most of the soldiers would already be fighting in europe.
America still has continuously updated invasion plans for canada, and believe it or not they almost joined germany in both world wars.
@@ANSELAbitsxb no. Bullshit
@@jonathanduplantis1403 Are you aware of the fact that most of continental US spoke german at that time? Many americans left to fight for germany and there was a strong movement to join their side.
In ww2 the democrat party was particularly sympathetic to germany and there were many large scale pro socialist protests nation wide, specifically in large cities. They were largly responsible for America joining the war only after pearl harbor.
The one iteration of attack plan on canada is called war plan red. It's still ongoing today.
Ad hominem attacks are the trademarks of a person out of their depth.
@@ANSELAbitsxb that's utterly false. The US opposed the Germans in ww2 from the start just not directly. Ww1 was a less pure-determined fate but they were never that friendly wth the German empire and it was unlikely they'd risk fighting all the other major navies in the world and lose most of their trade for little benefit.
@@Joesolo13 The US at the time was one of the biggest supporters of white supremacy with something ridiculous like 15% of the eligible white us population part of the kkk and wiped out 100 million + native americans.
The movie Birth of a Nation was openly supported by politicians and sitting presidents.
Anti semitism and racism was a part of daily life with Germany even opening an american branch of the **** party and doing large scale rallies.
America even considered doing the same forced sterilization, eugenics and "gas chambers" like the Germans, while none of those were realsied they did sanction testing std's, polluted water and radiation on non whites.
Germany was america's wet dream. It wasn't until the large scale propaganda of the 40's that *open support* died down.
ASEAN vs China
Seriously, we are still waiting.
Yes please
Feat. Myanmar Civil War
Real life confrontation in the making
Agreed
Still waiting for Bangladesh vs Myanmar myself
Without USA France and UK would still have won. But if USA join Germans, not sure...
The US does not have the technology of the tanks, nor the tactical experience, not enough heavy artillery, since they had to be given some, the allied planes are of a higher level, etc.
The US does not have enough cadres, nor enough trained troops.
WW1: No
WW2: increase chance but depends on if they were in ww1 or not in this new time.
I think the US would of lost quite quickly depending, If the US joined the central powers it have to contend with 3 possible fronts (Canada, pacific and Atlantic) and depending when it joined a possible forth with Russia possibly invading Alaska. the US in WW1 had two very distinct advantages that the Europeans, a relatively untouched industry and distance going to war would make so those advantages wouldn't last as Canada could easily invade from the north and the British and Japanese could easily costal raid the Americans. the Americans may of had a decent navy back then but it could hold against the combined numbers of the allies and that's not factoring the fact that the allies had gained a strong technological edge with creation of the tank. the central powers were going to loose when the Americans originally joined the war, all the Americans did to really help was make it end slightly quicker with the moral boost and troops from a new ally and better rations. in this case it might do something a bit different, pay reparations like the Germans and loose it's say at the table so to speak.
the US had pushed for the league of nations and other policies that were considered less harsh to the central powers, with them on the loosing side they don't get a say with could of possibly lead to the dismantling of Germany, the US losing saves of land to numerous empires (Alaska becoming part of Canada or Russia depending on if it was Russia or the British invading) and japan controlling all of America's Island territories in the pacific and possibly a number of costal territories if they were brave enough to invaded the mainland or demand it at the table.
@eLKy 15 absolutely not for the WW1
@eLKy 15 I m not American yet, but soon 🙏🏻🇺🇸
I think the reason that it was called the war to end all wars, was because at that point no other war in the entirety of history could even possibly compare to WW1, not because it would lead to no war ever being fought again, but it was a war that non could compare
Here is my take
I think the Entente wouldve lost completely
Here is why, american support throughout the war was alot more than just loans, the US supplied alot, ammo, food, oil, etc.
As well the US navy had previously shown to be formidable against European fleets in the past even without a numerical advantage , that alone would cause the British some strife and probably force them into more defensive operations rather than trying to directly attack the US navy probably having to use their ships to defend convoys from the American navy
As well denying the british additional troops from canada and its other colonies would be really devastating to the overall war effort as said troops were often used for the British armies invasions and counter offensives and with america taking a role in the central powers it would also force the british to stretch themselves further to help defend canada and france and supply both with men and recources to hold onto territory seriously weakening their grip
Same with the US invading places like Morocco, it wouldn't necessarily help the front directly but forcing manpower off the main front releiving the armies and allowing them to reorganize would be incredibly useful especially if it forces the french navy to have to reroute ships and the like to defend Morocco giving other central power navies a chance to possibly get out of port and actually engage
As well with more assets being stretched it could allow the german navy a chance to actually engage proper since the british and French navies would be forced to redistribute their forces to try and defend more land it could allow a more centralized german navy to push out and deal blow against smaller british fleets which could be devastating
Not to mention the fact that the british economy would suffer immensely which wouldnt just affect them, the British economy suffering would cause ripples across the entire ententee likely causing some countries to be unable to even fight properly and fighting without cash
There are so many factors that go into this it's kinda insane but the war would likely last longer
Like a fair bit longer
Do a part two of this timeline for ww2
Actually the US would likely reach mid WW2 mega production if this were to happen
WW2 more than likely wouldn't have happened
@@ironnads7975 not what they were saying, they were saying levels of production equal to the US's in WWII
Other factor is that in many respects the US was trained by the allies as its army was obsolete
As if the Germans with at what the time was considered the best army couldnt do the exact same thing.
@@ProvidenceNL haha not if it couldn't send people their to do it and if they were the best it wasn't by much.
thats not really a good point. they would have been easily trained by american generals if they had.
@@ProvidenceNL How would Germany train US troops when none of them could directly contact ? In a zoom meeting ? lol
@@tonyhawk94 send a few generals on a submarine trip?
Austrian drone baloons?
Fun fact: The US developed a helmet very similar to the German Stalhelm, but decided not to make it the standard due to it looking too much like the enemy.
But if that isn't an issue... US troops with stalhelms would be kinda cool.
Great video. But the biggest blunder is not even mentioning oil. The vast majority of ships at the time used oil as their fuel source. France and Italy for example had to rely entirely on imports for oil, while the British at first relied on Persian and Indian oil but with the ottoman entry into the war and the increased demand of war time, even the British came to rely on imports. The effects of an oil shortage on Europe's navy would definitely have been an interesting topic for you to discuss, and I'm quite sad it was overlooked.
Do a continuation video of this one where WW2 start where it left off but the US is against Germany
Please more alternate history stuff.
Like..."what if the US military had "woke" recruitment ads during WW2?"
like napoleon wins at waterloo, rebuilds a fleet and churchill speaks french... ha merde c'est déjà fait !
Some timeline 191 vibes with this one.
This is very epic. Cheers for the videp Mr. Binkov! *Klop*
In WWI, U.S. intervention only accelerated an already quasi-won french and british victory; Germany was almost defeated, and the french-serbian army of general Franchet d'Esperey vanquished Austro-Hungaria and did take Vienna ...
Lol no. Without US intervention, the British and French won't be able to afford to send troops to Salonika and the Middle East. Those Fronts wouldn't move. On another note, without the unsecured US loans and the morale boost of the US entry, Italy will fold first during Caporetto. Meanwhile the Russians might abandon the war even before the October Revolution like that. Having lost two important allies and receiving none new, the outlook of the British and French wouldn't be so bright at all.
Also, d'Esperey barely fought any Austro-Hungarian troops, the Salonika Front was mostly held by the Bulgarians. He certainly didn't "vanquish Austria-Hungary" atleast( although Bulgaria's surrender was certainly one of the key reasons for the Austro-Hungarian disintegration) and he never went anywhere near Budapest, let alone Vienna!
@@fehervari98 The ninth german army who surrendered to Franchet d'Espèrey was made of a mix of austrians, germen and bulgarians; a bit later, those are austro-hugarians who surrendered to him. Right it was not Vienna herself. It does not take away anything from his glory and the glory of the french-serbian army who was outnumbered, exhausted and poorly equipped, and nevertheles victorious.
Turkey vs Israel, can you do it brother
Israel will tear them their ass
@@shayshay8448 like they did in the ottoman 🤣🤣🤣🤣
An interesting scenario would be: Napoleon vs. Rommel.
This timeline would end at the end of 1917. French mutiny was on the horizon in 1917 and without the massive moral boast of America joining the war for the allies, than the French army would simply fall apart. Even if it doesn’t fall apart, it would be significantly weakened. I think that this weakened French army would loss in the German spring offensive of 1918
The French army was not as risk of falling apart in 1917. Their mutinies were about conditions, pay, leave, and not wanting to die due to useless charges. Even at the height of the mutiny the army stayed at its post in the trenches and defended its land fiercely. They just refused to attack in costly offensives, and the issues were all resolved fairly quickly and peaceably. Even if the mutiny continued the army would still be effective in 1918 because the soldiers believed in their cause, not to mention more French technological advantages would come into play
The French army wasn't at risk of falling appart. What stopped the mutiny isn't the US arrival but the arrival of Georges Clémenceau as head of state and a re-organization of the staff with Foch as supreme commander and Petain's strategies better implemented, which meant, better supply lines and better rest time.
The idea that the French army was to collapse right before the US entry in the war is just another propaganda idea further reinforced with the events of WW2...
There was no french mutiny and it did not exist
Soldieds refused to die in useless human wave tactics but did they put down guns? No
Did they left trenches? No
They were not going anywhere because they said that they would defend their country no matter what
Just because few hundred tousand americans were in france mostly behind frontlines waiting god knows what is not going to change how the war goes
Dude at this rate I will be out of a job
Kinda a naval nightmare for the US. Taking on the British, french, Italian, and Japanese navies at the same time would be a tall order
Totally agree American soldiers would never have got over the pond the size or the Royal Navy along dwarfs the us navy. 29 dreadnoughts to 10 , and most of the us navel was obsolete.
Since I watched other channels about this scenario, especially the zvallid one and also using the Kaiserreich version, I can pretty much say that the Central Powers would have won because of the followings:
1. No spring offensive: This one massive offensive that caused a huge loss to Germany, wouldn't happen, as it was a move that Germany made to kick France out of the war before American reinforcements could arrive, with the Americans on the German side now, the Germans can simply dig in and slowly bleed the allies out as they try to make their own offensives and fail
2. Ukrainian grain: With the Germans now not having to make a desperate gamble, and without the creation of the Kalmar Republic, the treaty of Brest-litosvk would still be valid, meaning that Germany and Austria to an extent, would be able to prevent a famine for a while
3. No Canadian troops and fewer British troops in the western front: If the US really entered the war on the Central powers, England would still have time to deploy troops to Canada, since they would know that the US would declare war on them with some weeks or a month in advance, and since Canada was considered a proper British territory, the British would most likely focus on defending Canada than France, they wouldn't entirely abandon the French, but the number of allied troops in the trenches would definitely be way lower than it was in our timeline. MEaning that Germany would still have an advantage since they wouldn't need to make a do or die offensive
4. More German maneuverability: With Russia effectively out of the war, the Germans would free 2 million soldiers from the East, and without the need to use those fresh veteran troops in the trenches, that means that the Germans could focus on other fronts, such as the Italian front, effectively knocking Italy out of the war, since there would be no Battle of Vittorio Veneto, and with the defeat of Italy, it also meant that France would also suffer from a second front at its border with Italy and since France would have committed way more troops to its Northen Front, it could be very possible of France losing most of its southern region, and creating an even longer supply route to the front, if not a total France surrender. And maybe, since Britain would need to divert troops to Canada to prevent a total American onslaught of Canada and the collapse of the western front, meaning that its colonial garrisons getting weaker, and if Germany could divert something like 500 thousand troops to the Levant, the Ottomans with German help could end up taking control of the Suez Canal also giving another huge blow to Allied supplies
5. A stronger spring offensive in 1919: Now this is the thing that will change everything, with Germany now having dealt with Italy, created a second french front, and with most British manpower now trapped in Canada/trying to protect the Suez Canal (or retake it if the Germans took control of it)/redeployed to the new southern french front, means that the Germans would now have the numerical advantage as well as a renewed morale with the victories in the other fronts, and with the diverted troops from the East, means that Germany could effectively launch a more well planned and prepared kaiserschlacht in 1919, without needing it to be the do or die offensive it was, and with more improved infiltration tactics due to the use of that tactic in the other fronts
Conclusion: If the USA enters the war on the side of the Central Powers, Germany wins because they could enter in the defensive in the west while freeing 2 million troops from the east after Russia's exit of the war, giving them important strategic maneuverability for dealing with the other fronts, and then launching the coup de grace offensive into a weakened french defenses
Doesn’t solve the fact Germany was starving, entente had miles to give up. As bad as it is to say Canada was not as important the the home of the empire. That’s also implying the Americans can even hold Canada. The entente had more than enough troops on the front to defend the spring offensive, the entente had a much much much larger pool to conscript from. Even with the us joining the conflict there is little they could even do. The U.K. had enough ships to blockade the us and Germany at the same time. That’s excluding the French navies aswell.
@@carwyngriffiths Not really, as I said, First, without the US with allies there's no spring offensive
Second, the allies didn't have miles to give up, if France loses Paris it'll capitulate. So no, the allies don't have miles to give up, they need to hold the rhine front, or else France will end up capitulating, meaning that Germany will effectively win the war on land
Third, it was needed both the combined strength of France and Britain to stop the Germans, open a new front with a similar size to the Russian in Canada, Britain will need to divert a considerable amount of troops there, and Britain is obliged to defend Canada because Canada is part of the Commonwealth so it can be very well be said to be an integral part of the British empire, that they cannot afford to lose, the home isles can be defended by the home fleet. So if Britain is forced to divert part of it's commonwealth troops to Canada, France is doomed because France alone is just too weak to fight Germany alone
Fourth, Britain was only able to blockade the Germans because they could easily close the choke points at the English Channel and at the North Sea. The US with a long coast and ports directly connected to the Atlantic and Pacific would only be very partially blockaded, and if the British really attempted on fully blockading the US, they would need to weaken the home fleet and stretch their fleet too thin, meaning that Germany would be able to do the second battle of Jutland on their terms, and likely win, considering how close they were to defeat the British vanguard at the battle of Jutland
Fifth, the Americans could very effectively hold Canada since they would have close supply lines and also a huge manpower pool to easily outnumber the Canadians at the entire front, meaning that the Americans would be able to make various flanking maneuvers at the gaps on the Canadian defenses
Sixth, The Entente did have a bigger size and larger manpower pool, but that also meant that if they needed to conscript more soldiers to the trenches, it would be very likely for places like India and Africa to rebel only creating more troubles for the Entente
To simply put, Germany would've won WW1 if the US never entered the war or joined the central powers
1. Spring offensive was launched to knock france out of the war before us troops could arrive in numbers and also to push britain out of mainland europe
Now why not? There is no milion or so us troops arriving at europe but is this changing situation at home? Some 2 milion german civilians had died by mid 1918 from starvatiom alone they dont get to wait out forever they cant simply turtle up and wait for nothing they had other problems like their collapsing allies
Mainly austria when they collapsed there was over 2 milion allied troops mainly italians marching over alps in austria who by that point did not even have army to reach austro german border and hit germany from the south this was set to happen in november 30 th 1918 just like 3 weeks before germany surrendered
Germany had no reserves to counter this threat plus there was like milions of troops arriving from balkans and middle east to fight germany
Im not sure how but germany does not win they can not fight like against 10 milion allied soldiers hitting them from west and south
2.they got ukraine did they? Yes did this solve their issues? No
Its middle of war its chaos those territories were destroyed either on retreat or by advancing german and austrian armies by first ukraine did not even have enough food for themselfs germany actually stole some 1.6 milion tons of food if im right from areas occupied by brest litovsk starving even more starved ukrainan population
Due to everything it would not be until 1921 or 22 before germany can extract decent amount of food from ukraine by that point they would either starve out or run out of population or worser case scenario allied troops would be walking in berlin by 1919 if germany tried to be hero
3.how much fewer? Lets say britain pulls out something and canada pulls their whole army back that together would be possibly like half a milion soldiers
Allies do not need even that much to fight us army who was well trained sure but did they have fighting expirience of world war? No
did they have technology like tanks machine guns and artillery? No
Did they have like large army? No
They could just charge into canada with what limited amount of soldiers they can spare which would be no more than what canada had to defend against usa in same time but can they win just like that? No they cant
Us generals in 1917 faced same problems like french and british in 1914
They would have no idea of how war changed its possible that they would run into canada but would be met with modern better equiped and more expirienced canadian army that would gun them down with machine guns
The time it would take for usa to mobilise and equip their army and learn tactics would be costly usa would be stuck in war with canada for year or two even tho they would march into canada possibly by 1918 but it would be at the great human cost usa would lose many more casulties like 3 times more
And again this would not change western front because shoving up troops in canada is not going to work due to the limited infrastructure meaning allies would not be able to send milions of troops even if they had them and their main front is western front so they would not give up in europe to help canada
4. They dont they maybe have 2 milion in service in the east but they cant send everything back if they could they would do it in our timeline because why not
But somehow has to guard occupied territories and borders and also help their allies on the other fronts, no more than half a milion soldiers were sent from east to west in 1918
Austrian army was collapsing just like their empire
When italians launched vittorio veneto austrian troops began to surrender in masses morale was too low and they were already falling by that point to do anything
5.these are already set points that benefits germany
Its like how much countries and things can we stack on deck until germany finally wins
Germany cant simply wait or make their own war by their desire
How about if Austro-Hungarian with ottoman fleet choke the Suez Canal to not getting oil to Britain
As the RN battleships were fueled by coal ,and Great Britain at the time was the biggest coal producer and ship builder in world ,it wouldn't be a problem.
@@lloydnaylor6113 is it? I was hearing Britain was reviving Persian Oil
@@tahahormozan are we talking 1914 like the video or 2021?
@@lloydnaylor6113 5:32 “still Persian oil was at least produced enough for Royal Navy”
@@lloydnaylor6113 no I just mentioned the Narrator
This reminds me of Harry Turtledove’s Southern Victory series - what would have happened if the south would have won the American Civil War.
The direct follow up is for the USA to be on the Allied side in 1914 while the CSA join the Central Powers.
A must read for any alternative history fan.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Victory
Great reference, very fun series
Other way around--USA joins Central Powers, CSA joins Allies
Finally,u approved my suggestion
Thanks for this topic
Here's more realistic US involvement in the war. Start preparing for war early, and have a goal of conquering all allied colonial possessions in the Americas and the Pacific very second Germany wins against Russia and to start building the navy required to keep those. If there's a stalemate in Europe with the British Empire being threatened on the other side of the globe, there would be a negotiated peace where the US keeps some of its conquests, Germany keeps what it conquered, and France and Britain don't lose more than they already have and even could get something back in exchange for peace.
Wait if the US came out of the war on top then why would they tolerate losing the Philippines to Japan, why wouldn't they just turn around and fight the Japanese. The US navy was planning to continue expansion into the 20's and while the Japanese had their own plans, I would doubt that they would be able to meet the US at this time if the US decided to go after them in full force
I don't really understand the point of administering the Philippines. What did the US gain from it? Why control a people which by any definition, are foreigners? At least Canada has no ethnic foundation, so to administer them wouldn't do anything other than absorb another multicultural state.
@@silverletter4551 ethnicity plays very little part in that kind of colonial possession in terms of why you have it, the Philippines was really a symbol of America being a true great power in the fact that it could and did have colonial possessions. The British had no claim on Nigeria in terms common culture or ethnic history.
@@thepotatoe332 I'm sure Britain had a greater purpose in mind when it colonized Australia and other lands. Mere status doesn't grant much purpose for the American administration in Manilla.
@@silverletter4551 It actually does. If you read anything on the history of colonization, you will find that by the mid-1800s, establishing colonies had graduated from being a resource-driven operation to a nationalism-driven operation. Germany immediately moved to establish colonies in Africa and Asia as part of its "time in the sun" move under Otto von Bismarck. The United States didn't need to hold onto the Philippines or Cuba after it defeated Spain, but did so because it wanted to establish to the great powers that it was now on equal footing with them. Australia was taken by the British, not because of any particular reason, but because it was there. The British government struggled to justify the presence there, and the policy of "transportation" (moving prisoners to Australia) was done as a means of justifying the cost of running the continent and maintaining troops there.
@@silverletter4551 it was mostly to keep other colonial powers from taking it as and disrupting americas neo colonialism in china and to protect trade and influence in the pacific, think about how important they were in ww2.
The USA staying neutral would be the most plausible scenario.
And no that 20 tanks is not a typo
that's gotta be the worst burn uve sent at them lmfao
This video needs a sequel.
World War 2 but Germany and the US as allies. AKA revenge of the Central Powers.
Also...
US: Spain is neutral, we can ask them to land our troops there.
Spain: After our war more than a decade ago and you took Cuba, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines, not a chance.
The US would never ally Germany in WW2.
There is no way the axis lose if america joins germany and japan in world war 2.
In this scenario, it is not Nazi Germany but the German Empire surviving, the Kaiser rules and not Hitler. Also US and Japan are enemies still. Japan is allied with Britain
@@madmarvshighwaywarrior2870 prolly just another stalemate if thats the case. It might depend on which side the USSR is on
why just take Vancouver? i wanna see Alaska be connected with Washington. oh well, maybe in the next fictional timeline.
They would undoubtedly take all of Canada (maybe save for Newfoundland) to themselves as without Quebec and Ontario Canada would pretty much not be able to exist anymore, it just isn't portrayed in this video.
@@PeliSotilas i had assumed we were just banishing them to live with the moose
@@PeliSotilas Yeah. I assume the US would get about as far in as shown in the video before Canada would likely capitulate as most Canadian citizens live relatively close to the US border.
because they're aren't being realistic, the entire west coast of Canada and the prairie provinces as well all the up to the Saint Lawrence seaway would have been gobbled up, the rest of Canada, not much after.
russian pacific fleet would also assist japan in the pacific war, though i doubt russian army would help them as they needed them against the germans and austrians
Not with the Communist Revolution going on. Russia was out of the war.
@@winstonsyme7672 wait in the scenario when did murica join cuz that depends if the russian pacific fleet can assist
@@nikomylnikov4540 He had them joining at the same time they did historically. April 1917. The revolution had begun in February and was in full swing.
@@winstonsyme7672 in April 1917 the provisional government was in power and was in favour of continuing the war (which they did). The Russian fleet would still be available until November assuming no other timeline changes. If there were successes against the US it might prevent the bolsheviks from getting popular as more people would have faith in Kerensky's government
@@winstonsyme7672 oh nvm then
USA entry would have led to a decisive CP victory. The motive for USA entry would be anger over violation of USA neutral rights at sea, plus lust for Canada. Also, American Irish and German-American sympathy for the Central Powers, and traditional anti-Brit feeling among old stock Americans. The German and USA fleets might even have combined near Ireland to confront the Royal Navy, and brought independence for Ireland. USA cruisers and subs would have ravaged British commerce. In reality, the Brits would simply have caved in to USA demands for a USA mediated end to the war more favorable to the CP.
The scary things is that today when they look at the Lusitania, the explosion was so big that it turns out the ship was smuggling weapons to Britain. The real reason for the loss of life was the ship sunk so fast because of the huge explosion of weapons on board.
Basically, the USA was smuggling weapons to Britain and went to war on false pretense. Of course, how you justify staying neutral while selling weapons to one side is not logical. And then get upset when people onboard the ship die.
The next election that in 1918, Wilson was voted out . So was the decision to go to war against Germany democratic, or did the the current President just use that as an excuse to go to war for his own personal reasons or greed? Could UK pay back the loads if it could not win?
My understanding at that time, half of American's white population were descended from UK and the other German. Early attempts by America to enter the war did not happen because half the American's population were German descended. And justifying going to war when people in a war zone die allows you to bypass democracy.
@@alastair9446 USA would have sold Germany weapons, but Germany was blockaded. Lusitania sank 1915. Wilson was re-elected in 1916 and could theoretically have been elected again in 1920. Catholics, Jews, Southerners and Westerners tended to vote Democratic (Wilson). German and Irish Americans were anti-war but they did not count politically compared to pro-war WASPs. When it became clear to insiders that Britain would issue what became known as the Balfour Declaration, wealthy Zionist Jews became pro-war, but more Jews were leftists and were anti-war at least until the Tsar fell. The Zimmermann Telegram, which Herr Zimmermann admitted writing, and the mad bombing and assassination campaign in America of von Papen, German military attache in Washington, also made Americans angry at Germany. Businessmen and planters who stood to profit also favored war. Brit propaganda about German atrocities was effective and in part true. Most Americans would have preferred no war, or at most a limited naval war to vindicate our neutral rights. But then our kill-crazy "altruistic punisher" collective mind took over and we sent millions of troops to France.
@@georgefitzhugh5408 America entered the war in 1917, so I am not sure Wilson reelection in 1916 has anything to do with that or am I missing something?
Of course, the questions begs, why could the British stop American ships going to Germany but Germany could not stop American ships from going to UK.
Both had a blockade. If someone doesn't listens than the application of force is required. Did Americans ships just listen to UK? Doesn't sound very fair or neutral to me.
@@alastair9446 It was not fair, but Britain's Grand Fleet was strong enough to keep Germany's High Seas Fleet bottled up in Bremerhaven, their base. The USA's navy was #3 in strength, followed by France. US businessmen were making lots of money selling to Britain, only. Germany was able to sneak some submarine tankers into New York filled with die stuffs, but that's about it. USA pressure was enough to get the Brtis to agree to allow sale of USA food to neutral Netherlands and Scandinavia, which helped Germany a little. The combined blockade of USA and Britain against Germany was even tighter than the British blockade. . . . . Having lied successfully in 1916, promising to keep USA out of war, Wilson was free to push for war in 1917 at the beginning of his second term as president.
Canada's population in 1911 was only 7m. There's no way they don't get overrun eventually as the U.S. mobilizes unless Britain sends a huge amount of help. The border is over a dozen times longer than the Western Front in Europe with large swathes being completely undefendable. Its simply impossible to have trench warfare there except around the St. Lawrence river and the Detroit/Windsor and Niagara Falls areas. Without Canadian and U.S. troops I don't see what chance the Allies have in pushing out Germany in 1918.
This is a great video, actually goes in depth and looks at the facts instead of just going 'obviously central powers win now'