Considering how pissed the Japanese public was when they WON the war, I think the country would face an immediate coup or social collapse if they lost.
@@sorcererberoll4641 Japan got crappy land gains and was close to defaulting on its debt/loans if the war didn't end. Plus their casualty ratio vs Russia really killed public support.
@@enduser8410 manchuria was the biggest natural resource in the region, it gave japan the necessary resources to further industrialise into becoming the behemoth that it was in WW2 so i wouldn't consider getting manchuria as crappy land
Well, I don't know about the UK not entering WW1, because they entered the war when Belgium was invaded and Belgium was Britain's foothold in Europe. And it would still be fairly easy to make Austria and the Ottoman Empire collapse with the ethnic tension in those two, as you said "Pan-Slavism would grow in Russia so it's quite easy to think that Pan-Slavism would grow in Slavic areas occupied by the central powers and that could be a key to instability in those countries.
@@mehmetcetin3530 When i said slavics lands i was refering to the lands conquered by Germany in central and east Europe, and the balkans ones in Austria-Hungary. Not really about the Ottomans.
The UK didn't join WW1 because of Belgium's neutrality being violated by Germany. Little Belgium does not dictate a global superpower's foreign policy. (No offense to Belgians). The UK used that as an excuse to join the war. The real reason they joined the war was to maintain a balance of power on the mainland of Europe. They wanted to make sure Germany didn't get too powerful, because after Russia lost the Russo-Japanese war, they were no longer perceived as a threat and the focus shifted to Germany, as stated in the video. Without the UK's involvement, Germany would have won the war and would be the undisputed European power. Then they would be capable of truly challenging the UK's dominant superpower position, including their navy, which Germany was even trying to match before the war started. The UK knew this and would have none of it. So they joined the war after having an easy excuse.
Industrial revolution by 2nd century BC, spaceflight and nuclear energy mastered by the 1st century AD, runaway global warming and global nuclear war in the 2nd century, Dark Ages until the 10th century, followed by high Middle Ages, Renaissance, Enlightenment, and finally, another industrial revolution in the 19th century. In the 21st century the technological advancement is at more or less the same level as in our timeline. Overall, things are roughly the same, except we're dependent on nuclear and renewable energy, since the Ancients used up all the fossil fuels. Also, autonomous, AI controlled spaceships with godlike powers defying human comprehension are roaming the Solar System and we worship them as deities.
@Bruno Jr why would it be united? I mean, that almost happened in our timeline, that was the main objective of Bolivar and in 1816 in modern day Argentina a Southamerican Union was declared, but it didn't work at the end. So why do you say that would change?
@@SuperxDfAb I don't think so. Napoleon was the last great episode of France, after he failed, France became more and more unimportant. So french would be the wrong language for Europe, english or german would fit far better.
@Metsarebuff 22 i don't think there would be distinctions by race, specially because not all races had the same amount of power. Latin america splitted up mostly because of cultural and political differences. Race didn't play a major role at all.
I think he can. Leadership in war is much more important on the offensive and WW1 was really “sit in your trench and pound the enemy with artillery” It was a war of attrition and would be won by Germany by them just out producing the Russians. (Also he could just have them both be killed of and replaced by men of their original competence by WW1)
@@Kubinda12345 And in WW1 and WW2 the nation with the two front war (on land) was the one eventually losing. And the American civil war didn't see a two front war in the same sense. Yes there were multiple fronts, but neither side was being attacked by two entities from completely opposite side (geographically speaking) and thus didn't have what is understood as a two front war.
That’s very true...the veteran generals from this alternate Russo-Japanese War would play a role in this alternate World War I. Still, I think Germany and Japan would have an advantage over Russia. The real decisive battle in this WW1 in Asia would be a naval battle in which the German Pacific Squadron and the Imperial Japanese Navy combined forces against the Russian Pacific Fleet based in Port Arthur and Vladivostok. Germany would be in a much better position to defend its colonies outside Europe or even invade French colonies with the Royal Navy out of the war.
Russian manchuria is remembered as a good period in the region cities like harbin where founded during the period and the the Russians treated the chinese and manchuriens very humanily!
Justin Y 2 - Electric Boogaloo he isn’t wrong but it’s sensible because in Qing China living standards were fairly low, Russia had bad living standards too but China had it worse so it was a improvement even though it was still bad as they were treated as the Russian government would treat a Russian worker, very poorly just better than China
Just a nitpick, I’d love to see more gusto in your narration of your research, and maybe add in some soft music just so it doesn’t get boring. I really think this channel has some potential as a great alternate history channel, and it’d be awesome to see it evolve greatly. Another nitpick is I noticed some of your videos need careful editing just so it doesn’t look like an awkward cut version. Again, you make great AH ideas, I personally think it needs effort in the production. That’s just my opinion.
In one of the Greek states left over by Alexander near India there were statues of Buddha carved in the Greek style, with Greek mythology (like Hercules) as part of the display as well. It would be interesting to see the syncretism if there was more contact given that there was already evidence in our timeline.
@@rishuyadav4410 that's not possible. It is a derivative of hindu or what I would call it: the cultural encasement of vedic, sanatani philosophy. You must remember, hinduism as such was never a religion rather a cultural identity hence it was open to interpretations.
The Anglo-American war would have likely happened in this time line as Britain would have still viewed itself as the greatest power and America wouldn’t have been so anti expansionist because they wouldn’t have seen Europe tear itself apart
I say again: What if Japan had become a Catholic nation in the 16th century? To further expand, assume that the Shogunate is itself Catholic (let’s say Tokugawa converts).
Japan actually used to use a romanization scheme before Hepburn that was based on Portuguese and it was a fucking nightmare: Hentai could be written as Fentai, Femtaj, or Fẽtay
Catholicism was doing pretty well in Japan before it was banned. With less isolation and more cultural exchange, Japan would almost definitely "westernize" and industrialize faster. By the 1700's, they could be a western-style colonial power capable of challenging the Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch or Russians. If you want a timeline, where Japan has a "Ring of Fire" style colonial empire across East Asia, Pacific and Americas, that's a good way to start it.
I am Korean and I can assure almost no Koreans would call themselves 'Japanese Ally'. Korean Imperial Government did declare neutrality when the war broke out. However Japanese troops illegally occupied Korea and even had a battle within Korean territory.
Whatifalthist: 8:12 "The rise of American Power after WWI would never happen" 9:34 "It depends on whether the United States - the world's largest industrial and economic superpower - gets involved" Me, as I scratch my head: "Wait... what?"
No he’s right. He just said it backwards. The USA would have continued to rise to become the preeminent superpower regardless of what happened. The only difference in this scenario that he presents is without the utter devastation of the WWI that we knew the European empires wouldn’t have fallen into such decline. It’s not so much the rise of America that matters: that was a forgone conclusion. It was the precipitous decline of the Europeans that really shook things up.
I can't understand people whinning about this channel, I think it's very good alt-history. You told the story very clear and thoughtful with facts. Thank you
Another hundret years of civil war in Rome because Anthony was 1) not as skilled in politics 2) was married to a eastern queen 3) Would have most likely not lived this long This civil war would have been to much for rome and it would collapse/be conquered by barbarians. => We would now live in the middle ages as hundrets of years of development were lost.
Also interesting to note that this change might never see the rise of China's CCP. A huge factor of their success was the toll the Japanese invasion took on the KMT. China was in the process of modernization when Japan attacked, which greatly interrupted the process
Without Soviet support, there would not have been a strong communist presence in China. Moreover, with Japan's loss, they would have focused more effort on supporting pro-Japanese pan-Asiatic anti-colonial Asian revolutionaries. Both factors would lead to the Republic of China under Chiang Kai-Shek's absolute authority, which would become a German and Japanese-aligned buffer state to Russia. However, with Russia's eventual WW2 loss, Japan would claim Korea and Manchuria and invade China, starting the Sino-Japanese war. The Chinese would be more unified and modernized than they historically were, but they would still be at a significant disadvantage due to Japan's early modernization. Colonial powers like Britain, France, the Netherlands, America, and Russia would turn this into a proxy war against Japan to protect their Asian holdings. The war would be fought to a stalemate at the cost of tens of millions of Chinese lives and a significant portion of coastal China occupied by Japan. Facing the tremendous burden of the loss, China may become a fascist state possibly still under Chiang Kai-Shek and induce policies of rapid industrialization, pro-western realignment, and state-enforced childbirth in preparation for the next Sino-Japanese war.
If we taking Russia as sour loser of ww1 , and zero communists presence Then Ukraine Belarus and Baltics would be Already under heavy influence of Germany so...There is no need for war. Russia most probably will stay neutral in WW2.
The real kicker was, Russia really could have won. I'm right in the middle of doing a grad school paper on this right now. Kuropatkin's ideal plan would have been to withdraw, avoid wasting men and materiel just to hand the Japanese a victory; and wait for the Trans-Siberian railway to be finished so he could bring the behemoth of the Russian army to bare. But unfortunately, he immediate superior in the region Viceroy Alexeiev had invested a lot in the Russian Timber Company in Manchuria and was unwilling to see his investment destroyed, or suffer the shame of his territory being lost without a fight. As a result, the army would receive conflicting orders from Alexeiev and Kuropatkin, sewing confusion in the ranks. On the navy side of things, Port Arthur had a brilliant Admiral stationed there. Admiral Makarov was admired by his men and was a noted tactician, so noted that his adversary Admiral Togo Heihachiro had Makarov's book in his possession. Makarov took an aggressive stance with the Pacific fleet, that put the cautious Togo's ships in danger, and thwarted his attempts to close/blockade the port. But unfortunately for the Russians, in a sheer stroke of bad luck, a mine would strike Makarov's flagship, ignite the magazine, and blow the bridge, killing all but one person. Had Makarov survived and Port Arthur held (though he could potentially had retreated to Vladivostok), he could have kept Togo's fleet occupied until the arrival of the Baltic fleet and pulled a massive turn around. Not to mention, Togo failing to blockade the port would actually damped Japanese war support faster, in our timeline, successful raids on ships by the fleet in Vladivostok would sew fear in the population, and there would be clamoring for a greater garrison to remain behind to defend the homeland. This would be ten times worse if Makarov survived, in turn that would mean less reinforcements for the Japanese, and it would be harder to bring supplies from the homeland.
Anyone who knows anything about the Russian 2nd Pacific Squadron knows just how much of a stretch of the imagination this is to suggest them being competent let alone effective.
@gorblo I find that very optimistic to say the least. However, on merit of what you’re saying; a tie would still be a strategic victory for the Japanese. The Japanese had in their favour: • Other naval forces on the area to reengage the surviving Russian forces. • The Russians had next to no remaining ammunition after the Dogger Bank incident, let alone after the battle. Any further engagement would have been a very short affair regardless. • The Russians were in completely hostile territory and short on coal which would have made predicting their next destination incredibly easy. (It was by knowing that the Russians had taken on a little amount of coal that the Japanese know that the Russians were coming through the straights of Tsushima in the first place)
Another terrible scenario. Britain didn't declare war on Germany because they were part of the Triple Entente. It wasn't a mutual defense treaty, so Britain was not forced to join the war. On top of this, Anglo-German relations weren't all bad. Germany had wanted to approach Britain diplomatically, and improve relations. This was in large part due to their common enemy; France. It also helped that the King and Kaiser were cousins. However, due to the scandalous Daily Telegraph Affair ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_Telegraph_Affair ), where Wilhelm II royally fucked up (no pun intended), the idea was clouded in so much doubt that no one took it seriously. No, the reason they invaded was because of Belgium. Britain was allowed to move their ships through Belgian ports, resulting in the nation becoming Britain's geopolitical foothold in Europe. So when Germany, following the Schlieffen plan, invaded Belgium, Britain was forced to intervene to save their interests. This brought them into WW1, on behalf of their allies in the Entente. So in this scenario, unless Germany doesn't adhere to the Schlieffen Plan (which you don't specify) Britain wouldn't stay neutral. Also, Britain wouldn't be enemies with Russia, like you say. The Great Game, where Russia and Britain competed over control of Iran and Central Asia, had been going on for several decades at the time of the Russians' victory in this timeline. Even if Russia flexes their muscles a bit, that certainly wouldn't deter the British from trying, like you claim. Thus, the Anglo-Russian agreement ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Russian_Convention ) would still be signed, and the Triple Entente would still exist. Germany annexing the entirety of Eastern Europe is ridiculous. Around WW1, the Poles and Ukrainians gained an incredible nationalistic fervor, and sought to reinstate polish statehood. In addition, they sought to kick out foreign influence, especially that of the Russians. Rebel groups would certainly fight tooth and nail against the Germans, who would rule over an Eastern Europe with an overstretched army and destroyed infrastructure. How the hell do you even supply an army that big? You also appear to be ignorant in regards to Austro-Hungary. The empire was incredibly unstable, and a civil war between the Hungarians and Austrians would tear the empire apart. Independence groups would, without a doubt, seize the opportunity and declare independence. Keep in mind that the war started because of Austria-Hungary's control of ethnically Serbian lands. Another thing you don't mention is the state of the Austro-Hungarian government during the war. In our timeline, by the end of the war, the government was effectively ruled by the German military ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austria-Hungary#Analysis_of_defeat ). So in this timeline, due to the Central Powers' victory, would they not be under control, and be free to do whatever they want? You don't even address this, at all. Also, when would the Ottomans discover oil exactly? You show a map of the amount of oil that was in the Middle East at the time. If we actually look at the historical facts, we find that it would be impossible for the Ottomans to extract it. Oil in Iraq and Syria was owned by private British companies at the time. Would the Ottomans take control of the oil wells, and seize control over the companies? If they did, wouldn't this greatly damage relations with the British? You also don't address this. Oil in Saudi Arabia, the most plentiful in the region, was in our timeline only discovered in 1938. Keep in mind, the discovery happened only with the supervision and technological support of an American oil company. The same can be said about Syria, where oil was only discovered in 1956, also thanks to an American company. So, would the Young Turk government invest in oil drilling technology? If they did, does this mean they would discover oil in the Middle East DECADES earlier than in our timeline? You don't address this, either. Also, why don't the Ottomans take parts of the Caucasus away from Russia in the peace deal? Much of the reason Russia and the Ottomans hated each other was because of conflicts along the caucasus, so wouldn't taking these areas be the ultimate middle finger to Russia? Again, you don't address this. With the WW1 you have crafted in mind (while at the same time ignoring it's implausibility), Russia turning to a form of radical Pan-Slavic nationalism in the aftermath seems logical. France turning to ultranationalism in the other hand, seems stupid. Due to France's history with socialist revolts, its many powerful labor movements, and the nation's popular left-leaning parties, a communist revolution would have taken place. At the time French nationalism, though still noticeable within French politics, and certain intellectual circles, didn't have the prolific history of rebellion and mass appeal that the leftists and trade unionists had. Monsieur Z's video on a Central Powers victory ( ruclips.net/video/ADLXmGzWWS8/видео.html ) showcases such a scenario happening in France after their defeat in WW1, and I suggest you check it out. The British Empire not declining, and the United States not becoming a world power, is also ok within the confines of the scenario you have created. Would the Great Depression happen in this timeline? Once more, we can find you not addressing a critically important question. When it comes to Russia industrializing, you are just spewing bullshit. The Russian economy before WW1 was primarily based on agriculture, and suffered from a serious lack of industrialization. Whether this was because of the Tsar not really caring about the people, or the Bolshevik and Menshevik rabble-rousers constantly diverting the Tsar's attention away from actually reforming the economy, is a hotly debated topic. However, what is known is that it was only Stalin's mass industrialization programs (however brutal they were) that brought the Russian economy and industry into the modern age. The same can be said about the Russian farmland, and the Kulak situation. With the geopolitical situation of the timeline you have created in mind, the alliances for the most part make sense. But WHY do the Ottomans get involved? Once again, you don't address this. Contrary to your one-sided beliefs, the Nazis were not genocidal maniacs that started WW2 because they wanted to conquer Europe and eradicate tons of ethnic groups. They invaded Poland because the German minority was being mercilessly slaughtered. A lot of the concentration camps were full of rebels and political enemies, which there were a lot of. But in this timeline, the German Empire would have cemented its rule over Eastern Europe, unless it wanted to lose its hold over the region, and would have dealt with rebels and enemies a long time ago. As such, the colossal level of brutality we saw coming from the Nazi occupants would not be present when they push eastward... or so I assume, SINCE YOU DON'T EVEN FUCKING ADDRESS IT. Why would the United States be the world's largest economic and industrial power? I thought you said they weren't a great power in this timeline. Lets disregard your earlier statement then, and think about this for a second. Their economic and industrial conditions would depend on how hard the U.S. would be hit by the Great Depression, and who their main trade partners would be at the time. The policies of the president and congress would also have an effect on the outcome. But uh oh! Guess what folks, he doesn't address it! So I guess we'll never know. Seriously, do you actually know anything about history?
"Contrary to your one-sided beliefs, the Nazis were not genocidal maniacs that started WW2 because they wanted to conquer Europe and eradicate tons of ethnic groups. They invaded Poland because the German minority was being mercilessly slaughtered.". He obviously know nothing about history but do you know what is worse than not knowing history? Spreading historical revanshism like you just did here. Show me any historical publication that confirms your bullshit about those "poor" Germans being killed by evil Poles. Nazis WERE genocidal maniacs, my country lost 6 milion people thanks to them, mass killings, slave labour forced upon "lower" slavic race, civil targets bombings, entire villages wiped from the face of the map, cultural herritage lost forever. Camps were filled with rebels? What we were suppose to do? Smile at them untill they leave our countries? Bollocks
@@dispen275 No, I don't think the conflict was that one-sided, and that the "big bad poles" started it all. I think both sides committed atrocities, and ruined negotiations. Bloody Sunday, which took place a few days after the start of the invasion, is a perfect example of this. Both Poles and Germans massacred each other during the event, and I think both should be criticized for it. But that doesn't change the fact germans were being killed, and that the German intervention was the only way to save them. Also, I am not shaming the partisans that fought against Nazi occupation. I am merely trying to disprove the notion that all concentration camps were there for the Jews and Gypsies. Finally, I should probably address the racial thing. A common misconception in regards to Nazi racial theory is their views on Slavs. According to most people, the Slavs were always seen as subhuman and degenerate. To understand how this sis wrong, we must take a look at the term Untermensch, and how it was modified during the war. The term subhuman was first created by the American Klansman Lothrop Stoddard. He used the term to refer to those who were unable to function in civilization, which he generally, but not entirely, attributed to racial grounds. The term was first used by the Nazis in 1927, when Julius Streicher spoke to the Bavarian regional parliament. He used the term to address communists in the Bavarian Socialist Republic. In his 1930 publication The Myth of The 20th Century, Alfred Rosenberg also used the term, this time to refer to Russian communists. As we can see in all of these examples, the Untermensch concept was mainly a political one, not necessarily a racial one. The Nazis believed that anyone, be they German, Jewish or Slavic, could be similarly depraved if they supported the ideology and values of socialism and communism. In fact, Joseph Goebbels is quoted as saying that: "subhumans exist in every people as a leavening agent". In the book Germany Speaks, Walter Gross, leader of the Office of Racial Policy, contributed a chapter called National Socialist Racial Thought. Here he speaks on racial hatred: "Most open to misinterpretation are National Socialist views on the relations between the various races of the world. It has been questioned whether the fundamental racial principles of the new world theory must not breed condescension, even contempt of people of different race. Quite the contrary; these very principles offer the very best guarantee for mutual tolerance and for the peaceful co-operation of all. We appreciate the fact that those of another race are different from us. This scientific truth is the basis, the justification and, at the same time, the obligation of every racial policy without which a restoration of Europe in our day is no longer practicable. Whether that other race is "better" or "worse" is not possible for us to judge. For this would demand that we transcend our own racial limitations for the duration of the verdict and take on a superhuman, even divine, attitude from which alone an "impersonal" verdict could be formed on the value or lack of such of the many living forms of inexhaustible Nature. But we of all people are too conscious of the inseparable ties of the blood and our own race to attempt to aspire to such an ultra-racial standpoint, even in the abstract. History, science and life itself tell us in a thousand ways that the human beings inhabiting the earth are anything but alike; that, moreover, the greater races are not only physically but especially spiritually and intellectually different from each other. Yesterday one passed this fact by, and in attempting to unify political, economic, cultural and religious standards for all nations of the earth, one was sinning against Nature, violating the natural attributes of various racial and national groups for the sake of a false principle. Today we bow to the racial differences existing in the world. We want every type of being to find that form of self-expression most fitted to its own particular requirements. The racial principles of National Socialism are, therefore, the surest guarantee for respecting the integrity of other nations. It is incompatible with our ideas to think of incorporating other nationalities in a Germany built up as a result of conquests, as they would always remain, because of their alien blood and spirit, a foreign body within the German State. Such foolhardy thoughts may be indulged in by a world which has as its goal economic power or purely territorial expansion of its frontiers, but never by a statesman thinking along organic, racial lines whose main care is the preservation of the greatness and along with it the essential unity of his people held together by the ties of blood relationship. For this reason, we have nothing in common with chauvinism and imperialism because we would extend to other races peopling the earth the same privileges we claim for ourselves: the right to fashion our lives and our own particular world according to the requirements of our own nature. And if National Socialism would wish to see the unrestricted mixing of blood avoided for the individual, there is nothing in this to suggest contempt. After all, we Germans ourselves, viewed ethnologically, are a mixture. The National Socialist demand is only that the claims of the blood and the laws of biology should be more closely observed in future. Here again our standpoint is not so very far removed from that of other people with a sound mental outlook. The American Immigration Laws, for instance, are based on definite racial discrimination. The Europeans and the inhabitants of India, the Pacific Islands, and so on, have instinctively held aloof from a mingling of the blood, and both sides genuinely regard any transgression as very bad form. Nevertheless, this natural attitude in no way detracts from the possibility of close co-operation and friendly interaction. And, speaking on behalf of the new Germany, let me once more emphasize: We do not wish our people to intermarry with those of alien race since through such mingling of the blood the best and characteristic qualities of both races are lost. But we will always have a ready welcome for any guests who wish to visit us whether of kindred or foreign civilization, and our racial views only lead us to a fuller appreciation of their essential peculiarities in the same way as we would want our own peculiarities respected." However, when the war began all of this was thrown out of the window. The Untermensch concept was greatly modified, and was used as propaganda to motivate German soldiers to push eastward. This was quite similar to how soldiers were promised land and territory if they contributed hard enough to the war effort. See the diary of William Hoffman as an example of this ( ruclips.net/video/hrXGg4LRmbE/видео.html ). From Wikipedia ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Untermensch#Nazi_propaganda_and_policy ): "Another example of the use of the term Untermensch, this time in connection with anti-Soviet propaganda, is a brochure entitled "Der Untermensch", edited by Himmler and distributed by the Race and Settlement Head Office. SS-Obersturmführer Ludwig Pröscholdt, Jupp Daehler and SS-Hauptamt-Schulungsamt Koenig are associated with its production. Published in 1942 after the start of Operation Barbarossa, the German invasion of the Soviet Union, it is around 50 pages long and consists for the most part of photos portraying the enemy in an extremely negative way (see link below for the title page). 3,860,995 copies were printed in the German language. It was translated into Greek, French, Dutch, Danish, Bulgarian, Hungarian, Czech and seven other languages. The pamphlet says the following: Just as the night rises against the day, the light and dark are in eternal conflict. So too, is the subhuman the greatest enemy of the dominant species on earth, mankind. The subhuman is a biological creature, crafted by nature, which has hands, legs, eyes and mouth, even the semblance of a brain. Nevertheless, this terrible creature is only a partial human being. Although it has features similar to a human, the subhuman is lower on the spiritual and psychological scale than any animal. Inside of this creature lies wild and unrestrained passions: an incessant need to destroy, filled with the most primitive desires, chaos and coldhearted villainy. A subhuman and nothing more! Not all of those who appear human are in fact so. Woe to him who forgets it! Mulattoes and Finn-Asian barbarians, Gipsies and black skin savages all make up this modern underworld of subhumans that is always headed by the appearance of the eternal Jew." That's my argument.
@@icyguy2547 Thank you for your input very interesting points especially about Nazi racial ideology I would propably need more time to dig into informations you provided. Now is my turn I guess? "Bromberg massarce" happened after invasion not before, how can it be used as excuse? There is no proof Germans were massacred before WW2, no historical research proofs that besides German propaganda and that is a fact. It stinks like German apologism from mile away. Germans in Poland had more rights than Poles in Germany during Prussian rule. They had their own schools, representatives in Polish Sejm ( Polish Millitary Junta was actually openly supported by minority parties ), German was used in various state institutions. Poles in Germany had no rights, and polish children were beaten for speaking polish. Of course Germans start their rant of how they lost "historic land" and how it excuse them to become murderers. ( we lost a fucking country for over 100 years, why would we give a fuck what Germans were thinking, they never bothered to care about us? ) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanisation_of_Poles_during_the_Partitions Of course gencocide of any kind should be condemed but you can't put equality sign between German-Polish ethnic clashes and total planned destruction of Polish nation that is the point I try to make en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_crimes_against_the_Polish_nation en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalplan_Ost
@@dispen275 You misunderstand. I'm not using the massacre to excuse anything. I'm merely stating that it's a perfect example of the sheer brutality that came from both sides. Please, give me your source in regards to the Germans in Poland having more rights then the Poles in Germany. You want my source on the Germans being massacred in Poland? Here: www.scribd.com/doc/53056883/Hans-Schadewaldt-1940-the-Polish-Atrocitites-Against-the-German-Minority-in-Poland#scribd And before you immediately disregard my source as Nazi propaganda, let it be known that violence against minorities in Poland a well-known phenomena. Read this ( www.sciencespo.fr/mass-violence-war-massacre-resistance/en/document/chronology-mass-violence-poland-1918-1948 ) report by SciencesPo for specific info.
@@icyguy2547 You will never hear me deny brutallity of those times, pre war Poland had its flaws that is obvious and it is not a point I try to make. How can I not call it Nazi propaganda if it begins with obvious lie? I know about which "poem" is he talking about in the begining. It is not "Polish hymn of hate" but "Rota" (Oath) written by Maria Konopnicka as response aganist German Kulturkampf directed towards Poles (Germanisation as I showed before) Poem with words he cited is nowhere to be found, real words go as followed: We won't forsake the land we came from, We won't let our speech be buried. We are the Polish nation, the Polish people, From the royal line of Piast. We won't let the enemy oppress us. So help us God! So help us God! To the last blood drop in our veins We will defend our Spirit Till into dust and ash shall fall, The Teutonic Order's windstorm. Every doorsill shall be a fortress. So help us God! So help us God! The German won't spit in our face, Nor Germanise our children, Our host will arise in arms, Spirit will lead the way. We will go when the golden horn sounds. So help us God! So help us God! We won't have Poland's name defamed, We won't step alive into a grave. In Poland's name, in its honor We lift our foreheads proudly, The grandson will regain his forefathers' land So help us God! So help us God! "One, however, of the Slav Peoples, the Poles, forms a sorry exception. Violence and intolerance have left their mark on its history" another polonophopic statement before we even began the lecture, when it comes to treating minorities Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was a exeption i Europe to not actually kill heretics. Poland being this evil slav is directly taken from Tzarist Russia propaganda (becouse Polish population wasn't much into this "slavic brotherhood" bullshit) even though Jews and Poles were openly prosecuted. Another gem I found was taken from Méthée: Histoire de la Prétendue Révolution de Pologne. 1792. Funny, as it is time when Poland was in process of reform to prevent further partition and survive and was made in regard of Poland becoming revolutionary state (it was written by french anti-revolutionary) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Sejm en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_3_May_1791 All of this is nitpicked anti polish bias that is meant to spark negative emotions towards Poles, of course it can not be treated seriously. The second source you provided says nothing about Germans (besides that they sometimes complained about being in Poland and later it says a lot how Krauts treated Poles) My whole comment was and is about Germans but I do agree that Eastern Poland was a shady business... but Ukrainian OUN members murdering Polish interior minister in response to Polish Government promising autonomy for Ukrainian population didn't hel either ( Ukrainian nationalists believed that autonomy would "lower the nationalist support in the region" so they did anything they could to make Poles not give them one ). This "Pogroms" were made during times of defacto anarchy on the frontlines of Polish-Soviet war. Jews in some small cities weren't prosecuted by some mythical Judeobolshevism but for openly siding with Bolshevics ( like "selling" local Polish authorities to the Russians ) as were other dissidents. Germans were protected for most of inter-war period by Little Treaty of Versailles that was signed by Poland in 1919. Treaty was denouced in 1934 (with rights remaining in place) as a nod to Hitlers new government to show that diplamacy is possible between two nations without rules forced upon world by entente. Billateral minority protection was assured not always respected on both sides true that). Of course, Polish nationalist opposition organised several anti-German rallies, and some people were beaten by thugs ( Police did prosecute people doing that) Polish Millitary Junta had special "reeducation camps" for both Polish Nationalists and Separatis where they could meet each other and understand each other better ( it was sarcasm ) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bereza_Kartuska_prison Can we just agree that XX cenutry was fucked up and we should not repeat it?
the baltic fleet never got to use the suez actually, they shot at british fishing vessels in the north sea for 30 mins because they thought they were japanese *in the north sea* so britain blocked access to the canal and they had to go around the whole of africa where half the crew got ill then they arrived at japan and got wiped out
Something you missed is that without ww1 the Irish home rule act would have passed leading to a civil war in Ireland between the now legitimized nationalists and the recently delegitimized loyalists , the UK couldn't back the loyalists since they were rebels and the Irish nationalists kept the government in power but backing the nationalists would eventually bite them in the ass since they're helping people try to create an Irish republic , it they stay neutral , then the nationalists win and inevitably declare independence and in any case the UK and Ireland will end up at war the UK will reconquer the island but nationalist forces will devolve into guerilla warfare , by now its probably 1920 and as in our timeline the British government think that the war could just go on forever so try to make peace resulting in Ireland becoming a dominion , which as in real life would lead to other colonies which are far more populace and further away from Britain (like India) trying to themselves break away , the support of Russia or Germany in many case would lead to rebel victories and the large scale dissolution of the British empire
The British Empire would not feel threatened by the Russians winning a war in the far east in 1905. Manchuria is just too far away from Britain to be of any concern. Besides, Britain can feel threatened by Russia and Germany at the same time, and would not risk Germany upsetting the European balance of power and invading their ally Belgium. To do so would be to surrender control of Europe to the Germans, which is something I don't think would be considered by the British government. We would still enter WW1 (I'm a Brit).
A bit too many assumptions in this one, the Brits joined WW1 because the Germans invaded Belgium, you didn't really give any reason for them not to do so in your timeline, why would they care about the war in the far east when they're world mission was not to let any one power take over Europe.
Britain got involved because Germany attacked Belgium and thats the reason Britain joined i think that they would still do. Also there is a possibilty that britain enlarges its military to match Russia but end up using it against Germany which leads to actually more help coming faster to the French
What do you think about making a video about "what if the SPANISH armada succeeded?" 8 thank that would have a huge effect on history. I mean it would be a world without Britain becoming a superpower...
I definitely disagree with the British bits. If Britain hadn’t got involved, they would’ve been seen as lying down and letting Germany take that #1 European Power spot. It would be seen as a great humiliation.
There is literally no way the Russians could defeat the Japanese at Tsushima, a few repairs are not going to make up for this. The Japanese had far more experienced crews, the Russians had been sailing for months and were plagued by disease, desertion, maintenance issues on the ships, that Russian admiral who can't be spelled already being sick before Tsushima, a few wild animals running around on a few ships, the Suez Canal being largely closed to the Baltic fleet (only the black sea fleet was allowed to pass it in fact because of firing incidents) and other hilarious dumb incidents like Sailors buying cigarettes that were accidentally filled with Opium, all that stuff hampered the Russians from the get go. You see the odds were overwhelming, the Japanese had just stocked up on Russian ships, they were far more experienced due to action in the yellow sea and the Russians had been at sea for months, by Tsushima, they were completely spent. And I have a few more nit picks: 0:17 Port Arthur was on the Yellow Sea This guy completely ignored the ramifications this would have on Nations like Italy or Romania or Greece, the latter two remaining Neutral and Italy definitely joining the Central Powers to become a rising star on the worlds stage after the end of ww1
The Russians should have concentrated there forces on winning the land war instead of getting the Baltic fleet to cross the planet. They just needed to pour in troops, supplies and long range artillery which could have been shipped most of the way via the transsiberian rail-line which unfortunately for the Russians was still unfinished. Japanese had long range howitzers which destroyed the Russian fortifications and fleet. Read - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/28_cm_howitzer_L/10 - If you want to read on all the details on what happened in Port Arthur then read this - warfarehistorynetwork.com/daily/military-history/baiting-the-russian-bear-the-siege-of-port-arthur/
I kinda disagree with your assessment of Russia industrializing rapidly, the point of the treaty was to strip Russia of important resources and weaken it by magnitudes
With a less bloody WWI, it would be less likely for the losers to go fascist. In fact, I can imagine a scenario where everyone tries to prove they are more liberal and democratic than the other guy, in an attempt to win over Britain and the US. Russia would probably not be very much of either, but that would not necessarily be obvious to the public (depending on how many dissident intellectuals there would be). Germany could go in the direction of social democracy (the social Democrats were strong before WWI). Austria and the Ottomans would be torn apart by nationalism. The Ottomans would not be rich, since oil was not a big export until after WWII. The US would ultimately clash with Japan -- so axis defeat in WWII would again be almost inevitable.
Russia is an amazing country they defend so well defeating Hitler and Napoleon but attack so poorly losing to the Japanese , in Afghanistan and performing miserably in the Ukraine today
I think the Russian revolution would still be possible. Even though the war wouldn’t have gone on as long, Russia would still have lost the most men in the war by far, just like they did in our timeline. The chronic effects of tsarism would not be fixed simply by them winning a war with Japan. The tsar could’ve also taken direct control like he did in real life during the war, leading to his downfall. Plus, kerensky not leaving the war at Russian expense would make him hated. I say there’s still a chance Lenin seized power in this timeline. Plus, the central powers would be funding the bolsheviks more because Japan would be involved. This would also mean one less ally to White Russian forces. The big change would be that the USSR would not be able to expand west into former territory like Belarus, Poland, and Ukraine. The only reason this was possible was because Germany didn’t keep these nations as puppets. They would literally be boxed in by Germany and Austria to the west, the ottomans to the south, and Japan to the east. It’s likely a further war could’ve occurred to put the bolsheviks down (Germany had this intention in our own timeline). Thus, a puppet government would also be installed in Russia, making the central powers basically unstoppable on land. Again, just a prediction. Yet if this happened, it would take the UK, France, and the US combined to beat this foe. Another Russian revolution might also need to occur.
Still waiting for "What if France became Protestant (Huguenot)" BTW, the Russian Pacific Fleet was simply awful. Here's an article dedicated to the doomed voyage of the Second Pacific Fleet: www.hullwebs.co.uk/content/l-20c/disaster/dogger-bank/voyage-of-dammed.htm
I enjoy your videos, but can you please invest in a better microphone or simply turn the sound up on your videos before release? Everything you put out is so quiet and forces me to double or triple my usual audio settings
China should be grateful to Japan for protecting Manchuria from land grabbing Russia. If Russian had won the Russo-Japanese war the entire Manchuria, which was under the influence of Russians already, would be incorporated into Russian empire. They did the same thing before with outer Manchuria in 1860's when they colonized that area and deported most of Chinese people in there and established cities like Vladivostok
Video Idea: What if the Native Americans had never crossed into the New World and the Americas remained uninhabited until the arrival of Columbus (or Leaf Erickson but I think taking it from Columbus and exploring the changes to the Columbian exchange would be more interesting.
You can't just ignore the fact that the prerequisites required for Russia to win the Russo-Japanese War being present would inherently impact Russia's performance in WWI. Germany couldn't beat Russia without destabilizing it, especially if Russian leadership were competent and its armies properly equipped. Entente would still win for sure, but Russia would receive pretty significant territorial gains.
Problems with this scenario: "Russia was industrializing before WW1" This was thanks to Stolypin's reforms. Pyotr Stolypin was Prime Minister (A position that wouldn't exist without the Duma). So without Russia's defeat that lead to the revolutions that created the Duma, which created the position of prime minister, which Stolypin held and made his land reforms. Russia would have never developed. "February Revolution would have happened but not the Bolshevik coup" The Bolshevik coup, or October revolution happened because Alexander Kerensky's provisional government, like the Tsar before him, was incompetent. People were starving (communist seizing their means of production, like farms), The military collapsed because of the failed Kerensky offensive and conflict was just bound to happen between the Marxist (Petrograd soviet, basically a rival government to Kerensky's). So the October Revolution would have still happened, leading the the Russian Civil War which the Reds would have won leading to a smaller Soviet Union: Just Russia and Central Asia not Caucasus, Baltic States, Ukraine or Belarus. In WW2, there would have been massive revolts against Stalin since it was Kaiser's Germany who would be seen as Liberators. Germany had 2nd largest Navy in the World so they could have invaded Britain too! "Austria-Hungary would have survived" With United States of Danube, the states would have just declared independence because Germany wouldn't save AH. Austria joins Germany, Czechs and Slovaks create Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Germany invade and Germany Annexes Czechia while Slovakia is Annexed by Hungary. East Galicia joins German Ukraine, West Galicia joins Poland. Transylvania has Civil war over weather to join Hungary or Romania, but because of Hungary's communist revolution in 1919, the Romanians Win. Hungary and Germany invade and split the Serb-Croat State so they can get a coast line. Oh and Slovenia is annexed by Germany. The ethnic Serbs, Slovenes, Bosniaks, and Croats are forced to move to Bulgaria. While the Hungarians is Transylvania are forced to move to Hungary who makes them settle in their newly acquired lands. All of the Germans who lived throughout AH have to move to the German lands to ethnically cleanse them. "Ottoman Empire would have reformed under the Young Turks" Seriously? Young Turks carried out the Armenian Genocide and hated anyone who wasn't Turkish, leading to widespread revolt. The Ottomans needed the German to prop them up and the German Advisers would have just seized the middle east for German colonies to take all of that oil.
To be fair the Russian admiralty had been outmaneuvered by the British who were courting the Japanese. The British had bought every damn lump of coal along the route of the Baltic fleet which meant they were running on fumes when they arrived to battle. Simply buying up and reserving the coal along the route could have shifted this battle. Secondly The British only joined WW1 when the Germans violated Belgium neutrality.
Wouldn't the British get evolved anyway if Germany invaded Belgium? Also another interesting Scenario could be what if the Dogger Bay Incident escalated to the British getting involved in the Russo-Japanese War?
So we have Britain maintaining its position as the global super power by staying out of the great war, though the casualties would be far smaller the horrors of modern war are still seen having similar effects on the European population as a whole. With Britain not having a generation butchered on the continent as well as not having the Romanised view of the empire be broken by the horrors of war the imperial federation would have been successful. The reforms needed to make this system work are hard to say but with the overall enthusiasm and the push from Britain to now build a stronger empire to compete with the new German Hegemony. With WW1 being a German Victory the Kongo would likely be taken by Germany as well as the French colonies in central Africa to create Mittel Afrika where certain areas are colonies by the Germans while much of the interior simply becomes an expansion of Belgian resources extraction in attempts to make the venture profitable as Germanys economy though much stronger would be burdened by suddenly gaining the second largest empire on the planet and would take time to become stronger. With the combatants of this war having to take out large loans from either America or Britain still creating the situation needed to cause a depression though nowhere near as bad. With the racial global perspective not being broken Britain and the other European powers would continue to move parts of their populations to the colonies and with the Imperial Federation going ahead we would see Canadians, Australians and New Zealanders moving to Africa and parts of Asia leading to larger European populations here. In Africa the increase in the Anglo population would lead to another Bore war with the Germans supporting the Boars as this would allow the Germans isolate the remaining British colonies. Though with the larger Anglo population fighting a war where their nearly surrounded out gunned and out numbered to such a degree that victory is impossible without German intervention. The building of Slavic nationalism would be different in different areas, this depends on how Slavic nationalism is sold (meaning as a federation of equals or under the guidance of the Russians) and also how Germany rules its new empire in the east. As far as the Balkans are concerned since their would be no Yugoslavia in this timeline Bulgaria would become a hub of Slavic nationalism with factions between siding with their Russian and Slavic kin to break away from the German Hegemony and a faction that would support the status quo as Bulgaria would be economically dependent of Germany. During the enviable Austro-Hungarian civil war the southern Balkans would likely break away of be occupied by Bulgaria. As far as the Austrians are concerned this is Bulgaria denying these lands to the Hungarians, Germany would support Austria but with Bulgaria's actions as well as Russian support to the Hungarians would likely see either a stalemate or an escalation of the war. Germany wanting to have some order in the Balkans would allow Bulgaria control over the lands they would have occupied in exchange for closer partnership with the Germans. This would see the remains of the Austrian empire be split between Austria that would now be nothing more than a German Puppet and Hungary that beyond having a relative of the Habsburgs or Hohenzollern on the throne to keep them as part of the German sphere. With Bulgaria having nearly all of the Balkans south of the Danu under their rule they would have to reform into a federation under the rule of the Tsar of Bulgaria creating either the Balkans Federation of The Tsardom of the Balkans. This would act as a model for Russia and for other Slavic nationalists to follow though the success of which is more dependent on other factors. As for eastern Europe as a whole i can see Poland and Lithuania being Pro German while White Ruthenia (Belorussia) would be more pro Russian while Ukraine could go either way. As for the rest of the world a form of Japanese Fascism not to dissimilar to the suicidal nature of the Japanese outlook on the world of our timeline would develop where like with the Slavic nationalist Japan would promote a form of Asian nationalism where Japan would try and take advantage of the Chines Nationalist movement with the idea of Russia wanting to eventually conquer all of China. France having developed a far right philosophy of wanting to destroy Germany would see the development of the remaining French colonies with the idea of being able to take much of the German positions in Africa. This ideology as far as i can assume would simply be to rekindle the power of Napoleonic France to bring the Germans to heel. With France developing in a similar way to how Hitler re-established the German economy by sacrificing every other part of the economy for the sake of the military. I don't know how the war would start but my best guess is either Slavic nationalists take power in much of eastern Europe provoking a German response and a Russian defence. Or Possibly French ambitions in Wallonia as a way to destabilise the string of German puppet governments in Europe. Britain or the Imperial Federation may involve itself in the war though attacking Mittel Afrika or by being allied to France. However its entirely possible that the Imperial Federation may be seen as a threat to the Monroe doctrine and with the large German American population not having intergraded into American culture their may well be those pushing to attack Britain to help their German kin in Europe, though i find the unlikely as Britain would have spent the past 2 decades centralising and building up their empire which would be far more patriotic and willing to defend its position as the global hegemon. This is not me saying that America wouldn't win this is me saying that America wouldn't see the war as worth it preferring a potential alley rather than a bitter enemy. The war would be a German defeat simply because without Germany taking the offensive and having to fight a two front war with bitter and more industrialized powers would see them slowly be crushed though i can see this war lasting longer simply because Germany has more resources to begin with. The Tsardom of the Balkans would for a time remain neutral but when forced they would side with the Russian though until this point they would aid the Germans with resources though once the Russians are on the border they would betray them and seek to take as much land as possible. The war would end with the Germany having a large part of its western territory put under French occupation with the establishment of a puppet government in the Rhin land with probably more restrictive measures put on them by this timelines peace treaty than the treaties that ended the great war in our timeline. As for eastern Europe Russia would incorporate most of eastern Europe into its greater Slavic federation with the Pols suffering the most due to their support of the Germans. Though Notable i see the Bulgarians staying allied but separate from the Slavic federation due to a fear of being completely dominated by the Russians but still willing to cooperate. As for Asia its hard to say with the Japans being more desperate for allies may lead them to be less brutal to win allies but with most of the Russian build up being in the west Japan may be able to successfully land in Russia and Korea but only if they can destroy the Russian pacific fleet. The state of China would see the KMT holding on to power and eventually subjugating the war lords but holding off on attacking Russia as since the nation wouldn't be ready for a war like that, though they may still support the Japanese and would only side with the Central powers if the outcome was a certainty, without the intervention of China Japanese ambitions would lead to defeat. As for Africa the larger Anglo population would see the German colonies quickly taken and divided up amounts the British and French with the Kongo being split. Though the war would be costly with another 20 years of British build up and America acting as creditor to the allies would. With the continent in shambles we would see a return to a post Napoleonic state of the world Britain would enter into a new golden age with due to continued American isolationism and with France and Russia content with their new empires
5:50 Ohh, yes - everyone remembers that the Japanese actually didn't want the island of Sakhalin and would've never taken it fully in a war. That's why they didn't occupy it fully after all. It totally wasn't a blunder made by the American negotiators who tried negotiating in favor of the Europeans and didn't lead to the Japanese constantly trying to prove to Europe that they are equals by establishing a grand colonial empire. No, absolutely no ramifications. The Japanese didn't care.
What if the Ottoman Empire won on all fronts in WWI ? It's interesting because the reason why Ottoman Empire fell is because of rebellions when minorities realised that army was not doing good , and since Ottoman Empire had the Caliph rank in Islam , what would happen ?
I figure it'd only really extend the Ottoman Empire's lifetime by another 30-40 years. If the Turks had expanded, then the ethnic minority problem would've only intensified, which they clearly didn't handle well in real history.
You know I really want to play a great game like conquer. But highly advanced. If a developer or something has the time to create one... I’m all ears for creating.
Hey friend, I like your videos but here are to points of critic. 1. Your sound levels are all over the place. 2. You say the word never a lot I a hypothetical context with basically infinite variables. Wich just kinda bugs me. ^^ Anyway keep 'em comming your ideas are cool!
I would think the following: France wouldn't have any chance with Belgium as Germanys puppet. The Americans would be against the war, as there would be no Pearl Harbor. So the CP would win. This would change a lot of things: A Nato lead by Germany, less wars in the Middle East, no Al Qaida, no wars against communism, no massacre of Mao, no massacre of Stalin, meaning socialism could be more popular than in OTL Summa summarum: It would be a better world.
What if Europe, Middle East, America and Africa had adopted the cult of Makima, Revy, Cutie Honey, Marin Kitagawa, Trixie Tang, Judy Neutron, Marge Simpson, Wendy Corduroy, Lois Griffin, Sailor Moon and Maddie Fenton instead of Abrahamic shit?
The Russians fleets where extremely poorly trained and had taken damage from the travel to the Pacific plus the Russian battleships where a lot weaker it would take a absolutelt miracle for the Russians to win
And then Russia rushes in out of nowhere and says "stop, no, you can't take that! We were gonna build a railroad through here to try to get some warm water."
Without the Russian Revolution I don’t think that you’d see a rise in fascism in with the Romanovs still in power. Even while they were in power they didn’t really focus on their military modernization as evidenced by Russia’s defeat in this war. An alt-history where they are the victors would be miraculous. It may have led to more mild and continental WWII but only as long as Germany didn’t see them as either a true threat or easy pickings. The larger impact would likely be from their ability to prevent their revolution and the spread of Communism. America too would eventually be pressed to ally with either the Axis or the Russian Empire if they didn’t ally with each other, and our military might would be more limited not having fought in WWI. There might have even been a chance that the US focuses more on its manifest destiny and begins taking over Latin America and the Caribbean (either through force or economic/diplomatic means) and perhaps Canada with the British Empire waning.
The Russians were the counter-balance to the Japanese in Korea. Once the Japanese won the 1905 war, the Koreans were left to fend for themselves against the Japanese.
There is a South Korean Movie called "2009" where the japanese governor isnt killed in Harbin, like in our timeline ,And Japan becomes a major power and it still kept their colonies as Korea.
Zinovy Rozhestvensky was already a brilliant leader, the reasons for Russian defeat at Tsushima are not him but rather his crew being full of revolutionaries, his auxiliaries being actively detrimental to the fleets war making potential, the bulk of his fleet needing to traverse around Africa, the Kamchatka, the Kamchatka and the Kamchatka.
Oh look, it’s another timeline that would be great as a Hearts of iron 4 mod..
Yeah HOI4 at this point is just a template for alt history mods shame that not a lot get finished
*Darkest Hour
Hoi4 sucks
Hirohitoreich
Tsarimperiya
Diesel1919 there is a mod,
Considering how pissed the Japanese public was when they WON the war, I think the country would face an immediate coup or social collapse if they lost.
End User hol up they were pissed they won
@@sorcererberoll4641 Japan got crappy land gains and was close to defaulting on its debt/loans if the war didn't end. Plus their casualty ratio vs Russia really killed public support.
@@enduser8410 manchuria was the biggest natural resource in the region, it gave japan the necessary resources to further industrialise into becoming the behemoth that it was in WW2
so i wouldn't consider getting manchuria as crappy land
@@evanmedi6144 I thought they didn't occupy Manchuria until after WW1?
@@enduser8410 do you are have stupid
Well, I don't know about the UK not entering WW1, because they entered the war when Belgium was invaded and Belgium was Britain's foothold in Europe. And it would still be fairly easy to make Austria and the Ottoman Empire collapse with the ethnic tension in those two, as you said "Pan-Slavism would grow in Russia so it's quite easy to think that Pan-Slavism would grow in Slavic areas occupied by the central powers and that could be a key to instability in those countries.
Exactly......
@@mehmetcetin3530 When i said slavics lands i was refering to the lands conquered by Germany in central and east Europe, and the balkans ones in Austria-Hungary. Not really about the Ottomans.
Weren't the UK and Japan allied against the Russians which would make the UK join the central powers
The UK didn't join WW1 because of Belgium's neutrality being violated by Germany. Little Belgium does not dictate a global superpower's foreign policy. (No offense to Belgians). The UK used that as an excuse to join the war. The real reason they joined the war was to maintain a balance of power on the mainland of Europe. They wanted to make sure Germany didn't get too powerful, because after Russia lost the Russo-Japanese war, they were no longer perceived as a threat and the focus shifted to Germany, as stated in the video. Without the UK's involvement, Germany would have won the war and would be the undisputed European power. Then they would be capable of truly challenging the UK's dominant superpower position, including their navy, which Germany was even trying to match before the war started. The UK knew this and would have none of it. So they joined the war after having an easy excuse.
@@nickmoore6381 pffff beligan neutrality what a joke
What if the Late Bronze Age collapse never happened?
Hum, it would be nice but toodifficult
Egypt would have conquered the middle east
Industrial revolution by 2nd century BC, spaceflight and nuclear energy mastered by the 1st century AD, runaway global warming and global nuclear war in the 2nd century, Dark Ages until the 10th century, followed by high Middle Ages, Renaissance, Enlightenment, and finally, another industrial revolution in the 19th century. In the 21st century the technological advancement is at more or less the same level as in our timeline. Overall, things are roughly the same, except we're dependent on nuclear and renewable energy, since the Ancients used up all the fossil fuels. Also, autonomous, AI controlled spaceships with godlike powers defying human comprehension are roaming the Solar System and we worship them as deities.
@@TapOnX Why do you believe they will be Dark age? Multiple time, we could be destroy by nuclear war but it didn't happen.
@@htoodoh5770 Be patient. It will happen eventually
What if Napoleon never tried to occupy Spain
All of Europe would speak french (except spain)
@@silano360 and that's a good thing
@Bruno Jr why would it be united? I mean, that almost happened in our timeline, that was the main objective of Bolivar and in 1816 in modern day Argentina a Southamerican Union was declared, but it didn't work at the end. So why do you say that would change?
@@SuperxDfAb I don't think so. Napoleon was the last great episode of France, after he failed, France became more and more unimportant. So french would be the wrong language for Europe, english or german would fit far better.
@Metsarebuff 22 i don't think there would be distinctions by race, specially because not all races had the same amount of power. Latin america splitted up mostly because of cultural and political differences. Race didn't play a major role at all.
You can't ignore the WW1 ramifications of Russia having 2 military geniuses
Then again, they're fighting a two-front war and that's never gone well for anybody.
@@bruhtonbruhkkinson6848 Many wars were fought on multiple fronts; WW1 and WW2, American Civil War...
I think he can. Leadership in war is much more important on the offensive and WW1 was really “sit in your trench and pound the enemy with artillery” It was a war of attrition and would be won by Germany by them just out producing the Russians. (Also he could just have them both be killed of and replaced by men of their original competence by WW1)
@@Kubinda12345
And in WW1 and WW2 the nation with the two front war (on land) was the one eventually losing.
And the American civil war didn't see a two front war in the same sense. Yes there were multiple fronts, but neither side was being attacked by two entities from completely opposite side (geographically speaking) and thus didn't have what is understood as a two front war.
That’s very true...the veteran generals from this alternate Russo-Japanese War would play a role in this alternate World War I.
Still, I think Germany and Japan would have an advantage over Russia. The real decisive battle in this WW1 in Asia would be a naval battle in which the German Pacific Squadron and the Imperial Japanese Navy combined forces against the Russian Pacific Fleet based in Port Arthur and Vladivostok.
Germany would be in a much better position to defend its colonies outside Europe or even invade French colonies with the Royal Navy out of the war.
what if bronze civilizations never collapsed.
*cries is sea people memer*
Russian manchuria is remembered as a good period in the region cities like harbin where founded during the period and the the Russians treated the chinese and manchuriens very humanily!
@Koλѣ Georgievъ not big thing, but it was.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konstantin_Rodzaevsky
Nothing big changed though. The Qing were a Manchu (Manchu-ria) dynasty so yeah
Y'know, I think I found the Russian!
Justin Y 2 - Electric Boogaloo he isn’t wrong but it’s sensible because in Qing China living standards were fairly low, Russia had bad living standards too but China had it worse so it was a improvement even though it was still bad as they were treated as the Russian government would treat a Russian worker, very poorly just better than China
They were better than most other countries but let’s not act like they didn’t suppress locals and culture
Your British Empire map includes Iraq, which would still be Ottoman in that timeline.
7:45
also in this timeline Israel would never exists which is interesting
Just a nitpick, I’d love to see more gusto in your narration of your research, and maybe add in some soft music just so it doesn’t get boring. I really think this channel has some potential as a great alternate history channel, and it’d be awesome to see it evolve greatly. Another nitpick is I noticed some of your videos need careful editing just so it doesn’t look like an awkward cut version. Again, you make great AH ideas, I personally think it needs effort in the production. That’s just my opinion.
Agreed
@Ryan McCreedy No hahahaha
@Ryan McCreedy His videos are already long enough, I only wish most of his content is compressed with time and effort put into each episode.
@Ryan McCreedy I'm certain he does decently with his research. It's the presentation that needs work.
What if Buddhism went west into the Mediterranean and had more contact with Rome?
I’m so curious
What if Buddha never copied Hindu Philosophy?
In one of the Greek states left over by Alexander near India there were statues of Buddha carved in the Greek style, with Greek mythology (like Hercules) as part of the display as well. It would be interesting to see the syncretism if there was more contact given that there was already evidence in our timeline.
@@rishuyadav4410 that's not possible. It is a derivative of hindu or what I would call it: the cultural encasement of vedic, sanatani philosophy. You must remember, hinduism as such was never a religion rather a cultural identity hence it was open to interpretations.
@@danshakuimo afganistan or perhaps Iran? Where even?
The Anglo-American war would have likely happened in this time line as Britain would have still viewed itself as the greatest power and America wouldn’t have been so anti expansionist because they wouldn’t have seen Europe tear itself apart
Nah it still would have been
@Bunyamin Esen yes
@Bunyamin Esen no
@Bunyamin Esen no
I say again: What if Japan had become a Catholic nation in the 16th century?
To further expand, assume that the Shogunate is itself Catholic (let’s say Tokugawa converts).
16th century Japanese really believed their emperor was the bloodline of the Sun Goddess, it would be hard to turn them Catholic
they could try to merge shinto with catholicism
like how japanese put shinto and buddhism together
Japan actually used to use a romanization scheme before Hepburn that was based on Portuguese and it was a fucking nightmare: Hentai could be written as Fentai, Femtaj, or Fẽtay
Catholicism was doing pretty well in Japan before it was banned. With less isolation and more cultural exchange, Japan would almost definitely "westernize" and industrialize faster. By the 1700's, they could be a western-style colonial power capable of challenging the Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch or Russians. If you want a timeline, where Japan has a "Ring of Fire" style colonial empire across East Asia, Pacific and Americas, that's a good way to start it.
Power of God and Anime
Idea: what if the Cavaliers won the English Civil War?
Re: the slide 30s in: the Koreans would highly object to being called a “Japanese ally”, but rather a vassal/subject or client/puppet state.
This was a bit before they were annexed by Japan so eh idk
I am Korean and I can assure almost no Koreans would call themselves 'Japanese Ally'. Korean Imperial Government did declare neutrality when the war broke out. However Japanese troops illegally occupied Korea and even had a battle within Korean territory.
@@BirdTurdMemes Yeah, so they would be a vassal or something similar. A vassal is nominally independent.
Whatifalthist:
8:12 "The rise of American Power after WWI would never happen"
9:34 "It depends on whether the United States - the world's largest industrial and economic superpower - gets involved"
Me, as I scratch my head:
"Wait... what?"
Lol Yeah
They would likely still have a ton of industry and resources
@@alexalexandrov7767 where is that industry came from? I don't really know.
No he’s right. He just said it backwards. The USA would have continued to rise to become the preeminent superpower regardless of what happened. The only difference in this scenario that he presents is without the utter devastation of the WWI that we knew the European empires wouldn’t have fallen into such decline.
It’s not so much the rise of America that matters: that was a forgone conclusion. It was the precipitous decline of the Europeans that really shook things up.
yes
What if the Celtics of Gaul were skeptical and that didnt accept Rome s "protection " ?
They had no choice anyway
Just More blood spills , Result the same.
Rome puts on their brass knuckles and says "We'll do it the hard way then". Thats what happens
I can't understand people whinning about this channel, I think it's very good alt-history. You told the story very clear and thoughtful with facts. Thank you
Not usually the biggest fan of your vids but this was well researched, thought out, original and presented well.
Props to you
What if Mark Anthony defeated Octavius Caesar ?
Or if Lepidus did the same?
Do this one WIAH
Another hundret years of civil war in Rome because Anthony was
1) not as skilled in politics
2) was married to a eastern queen
3) Would have most likely not lived this long
This civil war would have been to much for rome and it would collapse/be conquered by barbarians. => We would now live in the middle ages as hundrets of years of development were lost.
Ryan McCreedy it literally means jizz in ass.
The Persians would occupy that, what in OTL would later be Byzatium. The Germans would occupy part of Gaul........Interesting Timeline
Thanks I have been waiting for this for months, your one of the best alternative historian you tubers I know, love your scenarios. (Most of them)
Ye but would anime exist tho? 🤔
The nukes wouldn't have dropped then so no.
No nukes=no anime
@@grepukun5557 Anime was created before the nukes, do your research.
@Blue Mu Nice! Well thank you for being so kind! I now know more!
Anime was created in 1904,so yes.
Also interesting to note that this change might never see the rise of China's CCP. A huge factor of their success was the toll the Japanese invasion took on the KMT. China was in the process of modernization when Japan attacked, which greatly interrupted the process
What if Oliver Cromwell´s Republic continued and the British were never more a monarchy ? What if the British crown was no more in that time?
Without Soviet support, there would not have been a strong communist presence in China. Moreover, with Japan's loss, they would have focused more effort on supporting pro-Japanese pan-Asiatic anti-colonial Asian revolutionaries. Both factors would lead to the Republic of China under Chiang Kai-Shek's absolute authority, which would become a German and Japanese-aligned buffer state to Russia. However, with Russia's eventual WW2 loss, Japan would claim Korea and Manchuria and invade China, starting the Sino-Japanese war. The Chinese would be more unified and modernized than they historically were, but they would still be at a significant disadvantage due to Japan's early modernization. Colonial powers like Britain, France, the Netherlands, America, and Russia would turn this into a proxy war against Japan to protect their Asian holdings. The war would be fought to a stalemate at the cost of tens of millions of Chinese lives and a significant portion of coastal China occupied by Japan. Facing the tremendous burden of the loss, China may become a fascist state possibly still under Chiang Kai-Shek and induce policies of rapid industrialization, pro-western realignment, and state-enforced childbirth in preparation for the next Sino-Japanese war.
If we taking Russia as sour loser of ww1 , and zero communists presence Then Ukraine Belarus and Baltics would be Already under heavy influence of Germany so...There is no need for war. Russia most probably will stay neutral in WW2.
I don't understand why colonial powers go into a war with japan. Didn't japan attack china?
China's ethnographic makeup makes fascism unlikely
So, china would become the asian third reich?
@@emreahmet167 and then they attacked the colonies
The real kicker was, Russia really could have won.
I'm right in the middle of doing a grad school paper on this right now. Kuropatkin's ideal plan would have been to withdraw, avoid wasting men and materiel just to hand the Japanese a victory; and wait for the Trans-Siberian railway to be finished so he could bring the behemoth of the Russian army to bare. But unfortunately, he immediate superior in the region Viceroy Alexeiev had invested a lot in the Russian Timber Company in Manchuria and was unwilling to see his investment destroyed, or suffer the shame of his territory being lost without a fight. As a result, the army would receive conflicting orders from Alexeiev and Kuropatkin, sewing confusion in the ranks.
On the navy side of things, Port Arthur had a brilliant Admiral stationed there. Admiral Makarov was admired by his men and was a noted tactician, so noted that his adversary Admiral Togo Heihachiro had Makarov's book in his possession. Makarov took an aggressive stance with the Pacific fleet, that put the cautious Togo's ships in danger, and thwarted his attempts to close/blockade the port. But unfortunately for the Russians, in a sheer stroke of bad luck, a mine would strike Makarov's flagship, ignite the magazine, and blow the bridge, killing all but one person. Had Makarov survived and Port Arthur held (though he could potentially had retreated to Vladivostok), he could have kept Togo's fleet occupied until the arrival of the Baltic fleet and pulled a massive turn around. Not to mention, Togo failing to blockade the port would actually damped Japanese war support faster, in our timeline, successful raids on ships by the fleet in Vladivostok would sew fear in the population, and there would be clamoring for a greater garrison to remain behind to defend the homeland. This would be ten times worse if Makarov survived, in turn that would mean less reinforcements for the Japanese, and it would be harder to bring supplies from the homeland.
Anyone who knows anything about the Russian 2nd Pacific Squadron knows just how much of a stretch of the imagination this is to suggest them being competent let alone effective.
Drach viewer I presume.
@@henrytang7025 indeed.
@gorblo I find that very optimistic to say the least. However, on merit of what you’re saying; a tie would still be a strategic victory for the Japanese.
The Japanese had in their favour:
• Other naval forces on the area to reengage the surviving Russian forces.
• The Russians had next to no remaining ammunition after the Dogger Bank incident, let alone after the battle. Any further engagement would have been a very short affair regardless.
• The Russians were in completely hostile territory and short on coal which would have made predicting their next destination incredibly easy. (It was by knowing that the Russians had taken on a little amount of coal that the Japanese know that the Russians were coming through the straights of Tsushima in the first place)
what if all Germany's allies weren't totally incompetent
10.000 Subs With No Videos Central Powers or Axis would rule
theLundLs So you’re saying WW1 will continue for like...26 more years?
Then there would be communist anime.
Can we create this today or do we need to Nuke Japan again
Jean Louise Scout Finch Yes
Blue Mu What!?
Another terrible scenario.
Britain didn't declare war on Germany because they were part of the Triple Entente. It wasn't a mutual defense treaty, so Britain was not forced to join the war.
On top of this, Anglo-German relations weren't all bad. Germany had wanted to approach Britain diplomatically, and improve relations. This was in large part due to their common enemy; France. It also helped that the King and Kaiser were cousins. However, due to the scandalous Daily Telegraph Affair ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_Telegraph_Affair ), where Wilhelm II royally fucked up (no pun intended), the idea was clouded in so much doubt that no one took it seriously.
No, the reason they invaded was because of Belgium. Britain was allowed to move their ships through Belgian ports, resulting in the nation becoming Britain's geopolitical foothold in Europe. So when Germany, following the Schlieffen plan, invaded Belgium, Britain was forced to intervene to save their interests. This brought them into WW1, on behalf of their allies in the Entente.
So in this scenario, unless Germany doesn't adhere to the Schlieffen Plan (which you don't specify) Britain wouldn't stay neutral.
Also, Britain wouldn't be enemies with Russia, like you say. The Great Game, where Russia and Britain competed over control of Iran and Central Asia, had been going on for several decades at the time of the Russians' victory in this timeline. Even if Russia flexes their muscles a bit, that certainly wouldn't deter the British from trying, like you claim. Thus, the Anglo-Russian agreement ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Russian_Convention ) would still be signed, and the Triple Entente would still exist.
Germany annexing the entirety of Eastern Europe is ridiculous. Around WW1, the Poles and Ukrainians gained an incredible nationalistic fervor, and sought to reinstate polish statehood. In addition, they sought to kick out foreign influence, especially that of the Russians. Rebel groups would certainly fight tooth and nail against the Germans, who would rule over an Eastern Europe with an overstretched army and destroyed infrastructure. How the hell do you even supply an army that big?
You also appear to be ignorant in regards to Austro-Hungary. The empire was incredibly unstable, and a civil war between the Hungarians and Austrians would tear the empire apart. Independence groups would, without a doubt, seize the opportunity and declare independence. Keep in mind that the war started because of Austria-Hungary's control of ethnically Serbian lands.
Another thing you don't mention is the state of the Austro-Hungarian government during the war. In our timeline, by the end of the war, the government was effectively ruled by the German military ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austria-Hungary#Analysis_of_defeat ). So in this timeline, due to the Central Powers' victory, would they not be under control, and be free to do whatever they want? You don't even address this, at all.
Also, when would the Ottomans discover oil exactly? You show a map of the amount of oil that was in the Middle East at the time. If we actually look at the historical facts, we find that it would be impossible for the Ottomans to extract it. Oil in Iraq and Syria was owned by private British companies at the time. Would the Ottomans take control of the oil wells, and seize control over the companies? If they did, wouldn't this greatly damage relations with the British? You also don't address this. Oil in Saudi Arabia, the most plentiful in the region, was in our timeline only discovered in 1938. Keep in mind, the discovery happened only with the supervision and technological support of an American oil company. The same can be said about Syria, where oil was only discovered in 1956, also thanks to an American company. So, would the Young Turk government invest in oil drilling technology? If they did, does this mean they would discover oil in the Middle East DECADES earlier than in our timeline? You don't address this, either.
Also, why don't the Ottomans take parts of the Caucasus away from Russia in the peace deal? Much of the reason Russia and the Ottomans hated each other was because of conflicts along the caucasus, so wouldn't taking these areas be the ultimate middle finger to Russia? Again, you don't address this.
With the WW1 you have crafted in mind (while at the same time ignoring it's implausibility), Russia turning to a form of radical Pan-Slavic nationalism in the aftermath seems logical.
France turning to ultranationalism in the other hand, seems stupid. Due to France's history with socialist revolts, its many powerful labor movements, and the nation's popular left-leaning parties, a communist revolution would have taken place. At the time French nationalism, though still noticeable within French politics, and certain intellectual circles, didn't have the prolific history of rebellion and mass appeal that the leftists and trade unionists had. Monsieur Z's video on a Central Powers victory ( ruclips.net/video/ADLXmGzWWS8/видео.html ) showcases such a scenario happening in France after their defeat in WW1, and I suggest you check it out.
The British Empire not declining, and the United States not becoming a world power, is also ok within the confines of the scenario you have created.
Would the Great Depression happen in this timeline? Once more, we can find you not addressing a critically important question.
When it comes to Russia industrializing, you are just spewing bullshit. The Russian economy before WW1 was primarily based on agriculture, and suffered from a serious lack of industrialization. Whether this was because of the Tsar not really caring about the people, or the Bolshevik and Menshevik rabble-rousers constantly diverting the Tsar's attention away from actually reforming the economy, is a hotly debated topic. However, what is known is that it was only Stalin's mass industrialization programs (however brutal they were) that brought the Russian economy and industry into the modern age. The same can be said about the Russian farmland, and the Kulak situation.
With the geopolitical situation of the timeline you have created in mind, the alliances for the most part make sense. But WHY do the Ottomans get involved? Once again, you don't address this.
Contrary to your one-sided beliefs, the Nazis were not genocidal maniacs that started WW2 because they wanted to conquer Europe and eradicate tons of ethnic groups. They invaded Poland because the German minority was being mercilessly slaughtered. A lot of the concentration camps were full of rebels and political enemies, which there were a lot of. But in this timeline, the German Empire would have cemented its rule over Eastern Europe, unless it wanted to lose its hold over the region, and would have dealt with rebels and enemies a long time ago. As such, the colossal level of brutality we saw coming from the Nazi occupants would not be present when they push eastward... or so I assume, SINCE YOU DON'T EVEN FUCKING ADDRESS IT.
Why would the United States be the world's largest economic and industrial power? I thought you said they weren't a great power in this timeline.
Lets disregard your earlier statement then, and think about this for a second. Their economic and industrial conditions would depend on how hard the U.S. would be hit by the Great Depression, and who their main trade partners would be at the time. The policies of the president and congress would also have an effect on the outcome. But uh oh! Guess what folks, he doesn't address it! So I guess we'll never know.
Seriously, do you actually know anything about history?
"Contrary to your one-sided beliefs, the Nazis were not genocidal maniacs that started WW2 because they wanted to conquer Europe and eradicate tons of ethnic groups. They invaded Poland because the German minority was being mercilessly slaughtered.". He obviously know nothing about history but do you know what is worse than not knowing history? Spreading historical revanshism like you just did here. Show me any historical publication that confirms your bullshit about those "poor" Germans being killed by evil Poles.
Nazis WERE genocidal maniacs, my country lost 6 milion people thanks to them, mass killings, slave labour forced upon "lower" slavic race, civil targets bombings, entire villages wiped from the face of the map, cultural herritage lost forever.
Camps were filled with rebels? What we were suppose to do? Smile at them untill they leave our countries? Bollocks
@@dispen275
No, I don't think the conflict was that one-sided, and that the "big bad poles" started it all. I think both sides committed atrocities, and ruined negotiations. Bloody Sunday, which took place a few days after the start of the invasion, is a perfect example of this. Both Poles and Germans massacred each other during the event, and I think both should be criticized for it. But that doesn't change the fact germans were being killed, and that the German intervention was the only way to save them.
Also, I am not shaming the partisans that fought against Nazi occupation. I am merely trying to disprove the notion that all concentration camps were there for the Jews and Gypsies.
Finally, I should probably address the racial thing.
A common misconception in regards to Nazi racial theory is their views on Slavs. According to most people, the Slavs were always seen as subhuman and degenerate. To understand how this sis wrong, we must take a look at the term Untermensch, and how it was modified during the war.
The term subhuman was first created by the American Klansman Lothrop Stoddard. He used the term to refer to those who were unable to function in civilization, which he generally, but not entirely, attributed to racial grounds.
The term was first used by the Nazis in 1927, when Julius Streicher spoke to the Bavarian regional parliament. He used the term to address communists in the Bavarian Socialist Republic.
In his 1930 publication The Myth of The 20th Century, Alfred Rosenberg also used the term, this time to refer to Russian communists.
As we can see in all of these examples, the Untermensch concept was mainly a political one, not necessarily a racial one. The Nazis believed that anyone, be they German, Jewish or Slavic, could be similarly depraved if they supported the ideology and values of socialism and communism. In fact, Joseph Goebbels is quoted as saying that: "subhumans exist in every people as a leavening agent".
In the book Germany Speaks, Walter Gross, leader of the Office of Racial Policy, contributed a chapter called National Socialist Racial Thought. Here he speaks on racial hatred:
"Most open to misinterpretation are National Socialist views on the relations between the various races of the world. It has been questioned whether the fundamental racial principles of the new world theory must not breed condescension, even contempt of people of different race. Quite the contrary; these very principles offer the very best guarantee for mutual tolerance and for the peaceful co-operation of all.
We appreciate the fact that those of another race are different from us. This scientific truth is the basis, the justification and, at the same time, the obligation of every racial policy without which a restoration of Europe in our day is no longer practicable. Whether that other race is "better" or "worse" is not possible for us to judge. For this would demand that we transcend our own racial limitations for the duration of the verdict and take on a superhuman, even divine, attitude from which alone an "impersonal" verdict could be formed on the value or lack of such of the many living forms of inexhaustible Nature. But we of all people are too conscious of the inseparable ties of the blood and our own race to attempt to aspire to such an ultra-racial standpoint, even in the abstract.
History, science and life itself tell us in a thousand ways that the human beings inhabiting the earth are anything but alike; that, moreover, the greater races are not only physically but especially spiritually and intellectually different from each other. Yesterday one passed this fact by, and in attempting to unify political, economic, cultural and religious standards for all nations of the earth, one was sinning against Nature, violating the natural attributes of various racial and national groups for the sake of a false principle. Today we bow to the racial differences existing in the world. We want every type of being to find that form of self-expression most fitted to its own particular requirements.
The racial principles of National Socialism are, therefore, the surest guarantee for respecting the integrity of other nations. It is incompatible with our ideas to think of incorporating other nationalities in a Germany built up as a result of conquests, as they would always remain, because of their alien blood and spirit, a foreign body within the German State. Such foolhardy thoughts may be indulged in by a world which has as its goal economic power or purely territorial expansion of its frontiers, but never by a statesman thinking along organic, racial lines whose main care is the preservation of the greatness and along with it the essential unity of his people held together by the ties of blood relationship.
For this reason, we have nothing in common with chauvinism and imperialism because we would extend to other races peopling the earth the same privileges we claim for ourselves: the right to fashion our lives and our own particular world according to the requirements of our own nature.
And if National Socialism would wish to see the unrestricted mixing of blood avoided for the individual, there is nothing in this to suggest contempt. After all, we Germans ourselves, viewed ethnologically, are a mixture. The National Socialist demand is only that the claims of the blood and the laws of biology should be more closely observed in future.
Here again our standpoint is not so very far removed from that of other people with a sound mental outlook. The American Immigration Laws, for instance, are based on definite racial discrimination. The Europeans and the inhabitants of India, the Pacific Islands, and so on, have instinctively held aloof from a mingling of the blood, and both sides genuinely regard any transgression as very bad form. Nevertheless, this natural attitude in no way detracts from the possibility of close co-operation and friendly interaction. And, speaking on behalf of the new Germany, let me once more emphasize:
We do not wish our people to intermarry with those of alien race since through such mingling of the blood the best and characteristic qualities of both races are lost. But we will always have a ready welcome for any guests who wish to visit us whether of kindred or foreign civilization, and our racial views only lead us to a fuller appreciation of their essential peculiarities in the same way as we would want our own peculiarities respected."
However, when the war began all of this was thrown out of the window. The Untermensch concept was greatly modified, and was used as propaganda to motivate German soldiers to push eastward. This was quite similar to how soldiers were promised land and territory if they contributed hard enough to the war effort. See the diary of William Hoffman as an example of this ( ruclips.net/video/hrXGg4LRmbE/видео.html ).
From Wikipedia ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Untermensch#Nazi_propaganda_and_policy ):
"Another example of the use of the term Untermensch, this time in connection with anti-Soviet propaganda, is a brochure entitled "Der Untermensch", edited by Himmler and distributed by the Race and Settlement Head Office. SS-Obersturmführer Ludwig Pröscholdt, Jupp Daehler and SS-Hauptamt-Schulungsamt Koenig are associated with its production. Published in 1942 after the start of Operation Barbarossa, the German invasion of the Soviet Union, it is around 50 pages long and consists for the most part of photos portraying the enemy in an extremely negative way (see link below for the title page). 3,860,995 copies were printed in the German language. It was translated into Greek, French, Dutch, Danish, Bulgarian, Hungarian, Czech and seven other languages. The pamphlet says the following:
Just as the night rises against the day, the light and dark are in eternal conflict. So too, is the subhuman the greatest enemy of the dominant species on earth, mankind. The subhuman is a biological creature, crafted by nature, which has hands, legs, eyes and mouth, even the semblance of a brain. Nevertheless, this terrible creature is only a partial human being.
Although it has features similar to a human, the subhuman is lower on the spiritual and psychological scale than any animal. Inside of this creature lies wild and unrestrained passions: an incessant need to destroy, filled with the most primitive desires, chaos and coldhearted villainy.
A subhuman and nothing more!
Not all of those who appear human are in fact so. Woe to him who forgets it!
Mulattoes and Finn-Asian barbarians, Gipsies and black skin savages all make up this modern underworld of subhumans that is always headed by the appearance of the eternal Jew."
That's my argument.
@@icyguy2547 Thank you for your input very interesting points especially about Nazi racial ideology I would propably need more time to dig into informations you provided. Now is my turn I guess? "Bromberg massarce" happened after invasion not before, how can it be used as excuse? There is no proof Germans were massacred before WW2, no historical research proofs that besides German propaganda and that is a fact. It stinks like German apologism from mile away. Germans in Poland had more rights than Poles in Germany during Prussian rule. They had their own schools, representatives in Polish Sejm ( Polish Millitary Junta was actually openly supported by minority parties ), German was used in various state institutions. Poles in Germany had no rights, and polish children were beaten for speaking polish. Of course Germans start their rant of how they lost "historic land" and how it excuse them to become murderers. ( we lost a fucking country for over 100 years, why would we give a fuck what Germans were thinking, they never bothered to care about us? )
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanisation_of_Poles_during_the_Partitions
Of course gencocide of any kind should be condemed but you can't put equality sign between German-Polish ethnic clashes and total planned destruction of Polish nation that is the point I try to make
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_crimes_against_the_Polish_nation
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalplan_Ost
@@dispen275
You misunderstand. I'm not using the massacre to excuse anything. I'm merely stating that it's a perfect example of the sheer brutality that came from both sides.
Please, give me your source in regards to the Germans in Poland having more rights then the Poles in Germany.
You want my source on the Germans being massacred in Poland? Here: www.scribd.com/doc/53056883/Hans-Schadewaldt-1940-the-Polish-Atrocitites-Against-the-German-Minority-in-Poland#scribd
And before you immediately disregard my source as Nazi propaganda, let it be known that violence against minorities in Poland a well-known phenomena. Read this ( www.sciencespo.fr/mass-violence-war-massacre-resistance/en/document/chronology-mass-violence-poland-1918-1948 ) report by SciencesPo for specific info.
@@icyguy2547 You will never hear me deny brutallity of those times, pre war Poland had its flaws that is obvious and it is not a point I try to make. How can I not call it Nazi propaganda if it begins with obvious lie? I know about which "poem" is he talking about in the begining. It is not "Polish hymn of hate" but "Rota" (Oath) written by Maria Konopnicka as response aganist German Kulturkampf directed towards Poles (Germanisation as I showed before)
Poem with words he cited is nowhere to be found, real words go as followed:
We won't forsake the land we came from,
We won't let our speech be buried.
We are the Polish nation, the Polish people,
From the royal line of Piast.
We won't let the enemy oppress us.
So help us God!
So help us God!
To the last blood drop in our veins
We will defend our Spirit
Till into dust and ash shall fall,
The Teutonic Order's windstorm.
Every doorsill shall be a fortress.
So help us God!
So help us God!
The German won't spit in our face,
Nor Germanise our children,
Our host will arise in arms,
Spirit will lead the way.
We will go when the golden horn sounds.
So help us God!
So help us God!
We won't have Poland's name defamed,
We won't step alive into a grave.
In Poland's name, in its honor
We lift our foreheads proudly,
The grandson will regain his forefathers' land
So help us God!
So help us God!
"One, however, of the Slav Peoples, the Poles, forms a sorry exception. Violence and intolerance have left their mark on its history" another polonophopic statement before we even began the lecture, when it comes to treating minorities Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was a exeption i Europe to not actually kill heretics.
Poland being this evil slav is directly taken from Tzarist Russia propaganda (becouse Polish population wasn't much into this "slavic brotherhood" bullshit) even though Jews and Poles were openly prosecuted.
Another gem I found was taken from Méthée: Histoire de la Prétendue Révolution de Pologne. 1792. Funny, as it is time when Poland was in process of reform to prevent further partition and survive and was made in regard of Poland becoming revolutionary state (it was written by french anti-revolutionary) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Sejm
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_3_May_1791
All of this is nitpicked anti polish bias that is meant to spark negative emotions towards Poles, of course it can not be treated seriously.
The second source you provided says nothing about Germans (besides that they sometimes complained about being in Poland and later it says a lot how Krauts treated Poles) My whole comment was and is about Germans but I do agree that Eastern Poland was a shady business... but Ukrainian OUN members murdering Polish interior minister in response to Polish Government promising autonomy for Ukrainian population didn't hel either ( Ukrainian nationalists believed that autonomy would "lower the nationalist support in the region" so they did anything they could to make Poles not give them one ). This "Pogroms" were made during times of defacto anarchy on the frontlines of Polish-Soviet war. Jews in some small cities weren't prosecuted by some mythical Judeobolshevism but for openly siding with Bolshevics ( like "selling" local Polish authorities to the Russians ) as were other dissidents.
Germans were protected for most of inter-war period by Little Treaty of Versailles that was signed by Poland in 1919. Treaty was denouced in 1934 (with rights remaining in place) as a nod to Hitlers new government to show that diplamacy is possible between two nations without rules forced upon world by entente. Billateral minority protection was assured
not always respected on both sides true that).
Of course, Polish nationalist opposition organised several anti-German rallies, and some people were beaten by thugs ( Police did prosecute people doing that) Polish Millitary Junta had special "reeducation camps" for both Polish Nationalists and Separatis where they could meet each other and understand each other better ( it was sarcasm ) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bereza_Kartuska_prison
Can we just agree that XX cenutry was fucked up and we should not repeat it?
What if the Iberian Union still existed ?
I think Britain would still join WW1 because of their guarantee on Belgium
the baltic fleet never got to use the suez actually, they shot at british fishing vessels in the north sea for 30 mins because they thought they were japanese *in the north sea* so britain blocked access to the canal and they had to go around the whole of africa where half the crew got ill then they arrived at japan and got wiped out
Something you missed is that without ww1 the Irish home rule act would have passed leading to a civil war in Ireland between the now legitimized nationalists and the recently delegitimized loyalists , the UK couldn't back the loyalists since they were rebels and the Irish nationalists kept the government in power but backing the nationalists would eventually bite them in the ass since they're helping people try to create an Irish republic , it they stay neutral , then the nationalists win and inevitably declare independence and in any case the UK and Ireland will end up at war the UK will reconquer the island but nationalist forces will devolve into guerilla warfare , by now its probably 1920 and as in our timeline the British government think that the war could just go on forever so try to make peace resulting in Ireland becoming a dominion , which as in real life would lead to other colonies which are far more populace and further away from Britain (like India) trying to themselves break away , the support of Russia or Germany in many case would lead to rebel victories and the large scale dissolution of the British empire
Can you make a video regarding
What if Spain won the Spanish-American War?
Thanks.
Sadly I dont think hes going back to alt history
I think you forgot an important fact, Russia coulnd improve his economy because in the Brestlitowsk Russia lost 90% of ist coal 50% of ist iron
That's a good point (though horribly spelled)
The British Empire would not feel threatened by the Russians winning a war in the far east in 1905. Manchuria is just too far away from Britain to be of any concern. Besides, Britain can feel threatened by Russia and Germany at the same time, and would not risk Germany upsetting the European balance of power and invading their ally Belgium. To do so would be to surrender control of Europe to the Germans, which is something I don't think would be considered by the British government. We would still enter WW1 (I'm a Brit).
A bit too many assumptions in this one, the Brits joined WW1 because the Germans invaded Belgium, you didn't really give any reason for them not to do so in your timeline, why would they care about the war in the far east when they're world mission was not to let any one power take over Europe.
What if the British Empire joined the Central Powers during WW1
The entente would have their ass kicked in
What would have happened if the Business Plot against FDR had been successful?
Potential history also posted a video about the russojapanese war this day
Where's the collaboration, eh?
Very good!
Now...
What if France was ruled by Huguenots?
Britain got involved because Germany attacked Belgium and thats the reason Britain joined i think that they would still do. Also there is a possibilty that britain enlarges its military to match Russia but end up using it against Germany which leads to actually more help coming faster to the French
What do you think about making a video about "what if the SPANISH armada succeeded?" 8 thank that would have a huge effect on history.
I mean it would be a world without Britain becoming a superpower...
I definitely disagree with the British bits. If Britain hadn’t got involved, they would’ve been seen as lying down and letting Germany take that #1 European Power spot. It would be seen as a great humiliation.
There is literally no way the Russians could defeat the Japanese at Tsushima, a few repairs are not going to make up for this. The Japanese had far more experienced crews, the Russians had been sailing for months and were plagued by disease, desertion, maintenance issues on the ships, that Russian admiral who can't be spelled already being sick before Tsushima, a few wild animals running around on a few ships, the Suez Canal being largely closed to the Baltic fleet (only the black sea fleet was allowed to pass it in fact because of firing incidents) and other hilarious dumb incidents like Sailors buying cigarettes that were accidentally filled with Opium, all that stuff hampered the Russians from the get go. You see the odds were overwhelming, the Japanese had just stocked up on Russian ships, they were far more experienced due to action in the yellow sea and the Russians had been at sea for months, by Tsushima, they were completely spent.
And I have a few more nit picks:
0:17 Port Arthur was on the Yellow Sea
This guy completely ignored the ramifications this would have on Nations like Italy or Romania or Greece, the latter two remaining Neutral and Italy definitely joining the Central Powers to become a rising star on the worlds stage after the end of ww1
The Russians should have concentrated there forces on winning the land war instead of getting the Baltic fleet to cross the planet. They just needed to pour in troops, supplies and long range artillery which could have been shipped most of the way via the transsiberian rail-line which unfortunately for the Russians was still unfinished. Japanese had long range howitzers which destroyed the Russian fortifications and fleet. Read - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/28_cm_howitzer_L/10 - If you want to read on all the details on what happened in Port Arthur then read this - warfarehistorynetwork.com/daily/military-history/baiting-the-russian-bear-the-siege-of-port-arthur/
@@ab9840 Nice, thank you
I kinda disagree with your assessment of Russia industrializing rapidly, the point of the treaty was to strip Russia of important resources and weaken it by magnitudes
Every world in which Germany wins ww1 sounds so much better
Meanwhile in alternative reality:
What if Japan won russo- japanese war?
Ww1 wouldn't happen like OTL since Austria-Hungary wouldn't make their huge demands to serbia they would probably accept this more moderate demands
I tend to believe that if Russia had won this war, she would have colonized Manchuria and gotten the warm-water port!
Mad respect for not pandering for time when you could have just added seven seconds for a mid roll ad.
They didn’t go through the Suez. They accidentally fired on British ships thinking they were Japanese… in the Baltic sea…
-No communism
-Democracy doesn't take off in europe
-Colonialism doesn't die
-Russia still loses
-Japan still wins
Perfect timeline
Now we have neo-colonialism, which is boring because you can't make cool world empires or invade uncivilized peoples.
@@doggerlander Which is why during the Decolonisation the Soviets tries to save the Africans. By supplying the African Separatists.
With a less bloody WWI, it would be less likely for the losers to go fascist. In fact, I can imagine a scenario where everyone tries to prove they are more liberal and democratic than the other guy, in an attempt to win over Britain and the US. Russia would probably not be very much of either, but that would not necessarily be obvious to the public (depending on how many dissident intellectuals there would be). Germany could go in the direction of social democracy (the social Democrats were strong before WWI). Austria and the Ottomans would be torn apart by nationalism. The Ottomans would not be rich, since oil was not a big export until after WWII. The US would ultimately clash with Japan -- so axis defeat in WWII would again be almost inevitable.
You are probably the best Alternate history youtuber.
Russia is an amazing country they defend so well defeating Hitler and Napoleon but attack so poorly losing to the Japanese , in Afghanistan and performing miserably in the Ukraine today
I think the Russian revolution would still be possible. Even though the war wouldn’t have gone on as long, Russia would still have lost the most men in the war by far, just like they did in our timeline. The chronic effects of tsarism would not be fixed simply by them winning a war with Japan. The tsar could’ve also taken direct control like he did in real life during the war, leading to his downfall. Plus, kerensky not leaving the war at Russian expense would make him hated. I say there’s still a chance Lenin seized power in this timeline. Plus, the central powers would be funding the bolsheviks more because Japan would be involved. This would also mean one less ally to White Russian forces. The big change would be that the USSR would not be able to expand west into former territory like Belarus, Poland, and Ukraine. The only reason this was possible was because Germany didn’t keep these nations as puppets. They would literally be boxed in by Germany and Austria to the west, the ottomans to the south, and Japan to the east. It’s likely a further war could’ve occurred to put the bolsheviks down (Germany had this intention in our own timeline). Thus, a puppet government would also be installed in Russia, making the central powers basically unstoppable on land. Again, just a prediction. Yet if this happened, it would take the UK, France, and the US combined to beat this foe. Another Russian revolution might also need to occur.
Really great video. Do a what if the French won the French and Indian War
Manchurians would be singing God Save the Tsar
What if Italy reunited much earlier ?
Do you mean independently unified?
• Ladislao di Durazzo.
• Venice.
Or unified by a foreign nation?
• HRE.
• Spain.
• France.
@@francesconesi7666 United by itself.A strong state or city unified all such as Venice,Geneve or Rome .
Here's a fun video idea: What if Yukio Mishima's Coup succeeded?
Still waiting for "What if France became Protestant (Huguenot)"
BTW, the Russian Pacific Fleet was simply awful. Here's an article dedicated to the doomed voyage of the Second Pacific Fleet: www.hullwebs.co.uk/content/l-20c/disaster/dogger-bank/voyage-of-dammed.htm
I enjoy your videos, but can you please invest in a better microphone or simply turn the sound up on your videos before release? Everything you put out is so quiet and forces me to double or triple my usual audio settings
China should be grateful to Japan for protecting Manchuria from land grabbing Russia. If Russian had won the Russo-Japanese war the entire Manchuria, which was under the influence of Russians already, would be incorporated into Russian empire. They did the same thing before with outer Manchuria in 1860's when they colonized that area and deported most of Chinese people in there and established cities like Vladivostok
Video Idea: What if the Native Americans had never crossed into the New World and the Americas remained uninhabited until the arrival of Columbus (or Leaf Erickson but I think taking it from Columbus and exploring the changes to the Columbian exchange would be more interesting.
You can't just ignore the fact that the prerequisites required for Russia to win the Russo-Japanese War being present would inherently impact Russia's performance in WWI. Germany couldn't beat Russia without destabilizing it, especially if Russian leadership were competent and its armies properly equipped. Entente would still win for sure, but Russia would receive pretty significant territorial gains.
Video quality and maps are getting better and better with each upload! I liked this one a lot.
Please do an "What if the library of Alexandria was never burnt"
I think we overestimate the "knowledge" we would get.
Never burnt. It was a lack of care. A collapsing Rome and books that need to be renewed every 150 years...
Problems with this scenario:
"Russia was industrializing before WW1" This was thanks to Stolypin's reforms. Pyotr Stolypin was Prime Minister (A position that wouldn't exist without the Duma). So without Russia's defeat that lead to the revolutions that created the Duma, which created the position of prime minister, which Stolypin held and made his land reforms. Russia would have never developed.
"February Revolution would have happened but not the Bolshevik coup" The Bolshevik coup, or October revolution happened because Alexander Kerensky's provisional government, like the Tsar before him, was incompetent. People were starving (communist seizing their means of production, like farms), The military collapsed because of the failed Kerensky offensive and conflict was just bound to happen between the Marxist (Petrograd soviet, basically a rival government to Kerensky's). So the October Revolution would have still happened, leading the the Russian Civil War which the Reds would have won leading to a smaller Soviet Union: Just Russia and Central Asia not Caucasus, Baltic States, Ukraine or Belarus. In WW2, there would have been massive revolts against Stalin since it was Kaiser's Germany who would be seen as Liberators. Germany had 2nd largest Navy in the World so they could have invaded Britain too!
"Austria-Hungary would have survived" With United States of Danube, the states would have just declared independence because Germany wouldn't save AH. Austria joins Germany, Czechs and Slovaks create Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Germany invade and Germany Annexes Czechia while Slovakia is Annexed by Hungary. East Galicia joins German Ukraine, West Galicia joins Poland. Transylvania has Civil war over weather to join Hungary or Romania, but because of Hungary's communist revolution in 1919, the Romanians Win. Hungary and Germany invade and split the Serb-Croat State so they can get a coast line. Oh and Slovenia is annexed by Germany. The ethnic Serbs, Slovenes, Bosniaks, and Croats are forced to move to Bulgaria. While the Hungarians is Transylvania are forced to move to Hungary who makes them settle in their newly acquired lands. All of the Germans who lived throughout AH have to move to the German lands to ethnically cleanse them.
"Ottoman Empire would have reformed under the Young Turks" Seriously? Young Turks carried out the Armenian Genocide and hated anyone who wasn't Turkish, leading to widespread revolt. The Ottomans needed the German to prop them up and the German Advisers would have just seized the middle east for German colonies to take all of that oil.
To be fair the Russian admiralty had been outmaneuvered by the British who were courting the Japanese. The British had bought every damn lump of coal along the route of the Baltic fleet which meant they were running on fumes when they arrived to battle. Simply buying up and reserving the coal along the route could have shifted this battle.
Secondly The British only joined WW1 when the Germans violated Belgium neutrality.
Wait, why does Britain just stay out of WW1 randomly, but then decide to join WW2?
Could you do a “What if the 1948 revolutions in Germany succeeded”?
What revolutions in which germany?
Pilum Do you mean 1848
Wouldn't the British get evolved anyway if Germany invaded Belgium? Also another interesting Scenario could be what if the Dogger Bay Incident escalated to the British getting involved in the Russo-Japanese War?
So we have Britain maintaining its position as the global super power by staying out of the great war, though the casualties would be far smaller the horrors of modern war are still seen having similar effects on the European population as a whole. With Britain not having a generation butchered on the continent as well as not having the Romanised view of the empire be broken by the horrors of war the imperial federation would have been successful. The reforms needed to make this system work are hard to say but with the overall enthusiasm and the push from Britain to now build a stronger empire to compete with the new German Hegemony. With WW1 being a German Victory the Kongo would likely be taken by Germany as well as the French colonies in central Africa to create Mittel Afrika where certain areas are colonies by the Germans while much of the interior simply becomes an expansion of Belgian resources extraction in attempts to make the venture profitable as Germanys economy though much stronger would be burdened by suddenly gaining the second largest empire on the planet and would take time to become stronger. With the combatants of this war having to take out large loans from either America or Britain still creating the situation needed to cause a depression though nowhere near as bad.
With the racial global perspective not being broken Britain and the other European powers would continue to move parts of their populations to the colonies and with the Imperial Federation going ahead we would see Canadians, Australians and New Zealanders moving to Africa and parts of Asia leading to larger European populations here. In Africa the increase in the Anglo population would lead to another Bore war with the Germans supporting the Boars as this would allow the Germans isolate the remaining British colonies. Though with the larger Anglo population fighting a war where their nearly surrounded out gunned and out numbered to such a degree that victory is impossible without German intervention.
The building of Slavic nationalism would be different in different areas, this depends on how Slavic nationalism is sold (meaning as a federation of equals or under the guidance of the Russians) and also how Germany rules its new empire in the east. As far as the Balkans are concerned since their would be no Yugoslavia in this timeline Bulgaria would become a hub of Slavic nationalism with factions between siding with their Russian and Slavic kin to break away from the German Hegemony and a faction that would support the status quo as Bulgaria would be economically dependent of Germany. During the enviable Austro-Hungarian civil war the southern Balkans would likely break away of be occupied by Bulgaria. As far as the Austrians are concerned this is Bulgaria denying these lands to the Hungarians, Germany would support Austria but with Bulgaria's actions as well as Russian support to the Hungarians would likely see either a stalemate or an escalation of the war. Germany wanting to have some order in the Balkans would allow Bulgaria control over the lands they would have occupied in exchange for closer partnership with the Germans. This would see the remains of the Austrian empire be split between Austria that would now be nothing more than a German Puppet and Hungary that beyond having a relative of the Habsburgs or Hohenzollern on the throne to keep them as part of the German sphere.
With Bulgaria having nearly all of the Balkans south of the Danu under their rule they would have to reform into a federation under the rule of the Tsar of Bulgaria creating either the Balkans Federation of The Tsardom of the Balkans. This would act as a model for Russia and for other Slavic nationalists to follow though the success of which is more dependent on other factors. As for eastern Europe as a whole i can see Poland and Lithuania being Pro German while White Ruthenia (Belorussia) would be more pro Russian while Ukraine could go either way. As for the rest of the world a form of Japanese Fascism not to dissimilar to the suicidal nature of the Japanese outlook on the world of our timeline would develop where like with the Slavic nationalist Japan would promote a form of Asian nationalism where Japan would try and take advantage of the Chines Nationalist movement with the idea of Russia wanting to eventually conquer all of China.
France having developed a far right philosophy of wanting to destroy Germany would see the development of the remaining French colonies with the idea of being able to take much of the German positions in Africa. This ideology as far as i can assume would simply be to rekindle the power of Napoleonic France to bring the Germans to heel. With France developing in a similar way to how Hitler re-established the German economy by sacrificing every other part of the economy for the sake of the military. I don't know how the war would start but my best guess is either Slavic nationalists take power in much of eastern Europe provoking a German response and a Russian defence. Or Possibly French ambitions in Wallonia as a way to destabilise the string of German puppet governments in Europe. Britain or the Imperial Federation may involve itself in the war though attacking Mittel Afrika or by being allied to France. However its entirely possible that the Imperial Federation may be seen as a threat to the Monroe doctrine and with the large German American population not having intergraded into American culture their may well be those pushing to attack Britain to help their German kin in Europe, though i find the unlikely as Britain would have spent the past 2 decades centralising and building up their empire which would be far more patriotic and willing to defend its position as the global hegemon. This is not me saying that America wouldn't win this is me saying that America wouldn't see the war as worth it preferring a potential alley rather than a bitter enemy.
The war would be a German defeat simply because without Germany taking the offensive and having to fight a two front war with bitter and more industrialized powers would see them slowly be crushed though i can see this war lasting longer simply because Germany has more resources to begin with. The Tsardom of the Balkans would for a time remain neutral but when forced they would side with the Russian though until this point they would aid the Germans with resources though once the Russians are on the border they would betray them and seek to take as much land as possible. The war would end with the Germany having a large part of its western territory put under French occupation with the establishment of a puppet government in the Rhin land with probably more restrictive measures put on them by this timelines peace treaty than the treaties that ended the great war in our timeline. As for eastern Europe Russia would incorporate most of eastern Europe into its greater Slavic federation with the Pols suffering the most due to their support of the Germans. Though Notable i see the Bulgarians staying allied but separate from the Slavic federation due to a fear of being completely dominated by the Russians but still willing to cooperate.
As for Asia its hard to say with the Japans being more desperate for allies may lead them to be less brutal to win allies but with most of the Russian build up being in the west Japan may be able to successfully land in Russia and Korea but only if they can destroy the Russian pacific fleet. The state of China would see the KMT holding on to power and eventually subjugating the war lords but holding off on attacking Russia as since the nation wouldn't be ready for a war like that, though they may still support the Japanese and would only side with the Central powers if the outcome was a certainty, without the intervention of China Japanese ambitions would lead to defeat. As for Africa the larger Anglo population would see the German colonies quickly taken and divided up amounts the British and French with the Kongo being split. Though the war would be costly with another 20 years of British build up and America acting as creditor to the allies would. With the continent in shambles we would see a return to a post Napoleonic state of the world Britain would enter into a new golden age with due to continued American isolationism and with France and Russia content with their new empires
They actually both are geniuses. They made stunning success in logistics, planning, and administration. And then someone gave then a gun
Great video, however I had to keep turning the sound up and down as your audio mix was all over the place.
5:50 Ohh, yes - everyone remembers that the Japanese actually didn't want the island of Sakhalin and would've never taken it fully in a war. That's why they didn't occupy it fully after all. It totally wasn't a blunder made by the American negotiators who tried negotiating in favor of the Europeans and didn't lead to the Japanese constantly trying to prove to Europe that they are equals by establishing a grand colonial empire. No, absolutely no ramifications. The Japanese didn't care.
Somebody has to make a Hearts of Iron IV mod of this scenario - it is great!
What if the Ottoman Empire won on all fronts in WWI ? It's interesting because the reason why Ottoman Empire fell is because of rebellions when minorities realised that army was not doing good , and since Ottoman Empire had the Caliph rank in Islam , what would happen ?
I figure it'd only really extend the Ottoman Empire's lifetime by another 30-40 years. If the Turks had expanded, then the ethnic minority problem would've only intensified, which they clearly didn't handle well in real history.
Russian would be even further extending their supply lines and having two fronts during WW1. Nasty war.
You know I really want to play a great game like conquer. But highly advanced.
If a developer or something has the time to create one... I’m all ears for creating.
Hey friend, I like your videos but here are to points of critic.
1. Your sound levels are all over the place.
2. You say the word never a lot I a hypothetical context with basically infinite variables. Wich just kinda bugs me. ^^
Anyway keep 'em comming your ideas are cool!
Gandhi wrote how, all across India, there was a surprised feeling of joy that an Asian power could defeat a Western nation...
What if Ethiopia modernized around sometime between the interwar period?
A year late, but they did attempt to since the 1910s which was interrupted in 1935
I would think the following: France wouldn't have any chance with Belgium as Germanys puppet. The Americans would be against the war, as there would be no Pearl Harbor. So the CP would win. This would change a lot of things: A Nato lead by Germany, less wars in the Middle East, no Al Qaida, no wars against communism, no massacre of Mao, no massacre of Stalin, meaning socialism could be more popular than in OTL
Summa summarum: It would be a better world.
one of my favourite videos of yours.
"Having the germans not be genocidal maniacs"... fucking great man
What if the sea that existed in Amazonia Rainforest didnt dry ?
Is that true?
Mate I see you every 4 comments
@@teffical9304 I really like this channel . I even intend to take this gender of alternat history in my language
Kung Lou Good
9:02 "Attack the soviet union" instead of Russia
What if Europe, Middle East, America and Africa had adopted the cult of Makima, Revy, Cutie Honey, Marin Kitagawa, Trixie Tang, Judy Neutron, Marge Simpson, Wendy Corduroy, Lois Griffin, Sailor Moon and Maddie Fenton instead of Abrahamic shit?
*war between Sweden and Norway in 1905*
The Russians fleets where extremely poorly trained and had taken damage from the travel to the Pacific plus the Russian battleships where a lot weaker it would take a absolutelt miracle for the Russians to win
Not to mention the Kamchatka...
And then Russia rushes in out of nowhere and says "stop, no, you can't take that! We were gonna build a railroad through here to try to get some warm water."
Without the Russian Revolution I don’t think that you’d see a rise in fascism in with the Romanovs still in power. Even while they were in power they didn’t really focus on their military modernization as evidenced by Russia’s defeat in this war. An alt-history where they are the victors would be miraculous.
It may have led to more mild and continental WWII but only as long as Germany didn’t see them as either a true threat or easy pickings. The larger impact would likely be from their ability to prevent their revolution and the spread of Communism. America too would eventually be pressed to ally with either the Axis or the Russian Empire if they didn’t ally with each other, and our military might would be more limited not having fought in WWI. There might have even been a chance that the US focuses more on its manifest destiny and begins taking over Latin America and the Caribbean (either through force or economic/diplomatic means) and perhaps Canada with the British Empire waning.
Well it's Russia. Both Slavic and Germans were rivals.
Japan occuipied Korea in 1910, and it's after Russo-Japanese war..
Korean history nerd it was under their de-facto control before that, correct me if I’m wrong but I believe that’s when they officially annexed Korea.
The Russians were the counter-balance to the Japanese in Korea. Once the Japanese won the 1905 war, the Koreans were left to fend for themselves against the Japanese.
Remember time traveller's, help the Russian empire to win against the Japanese.
There is a South Korean Movie called "2009" where the japanese governor isnt killed in Harbin, like in our timeline ,And Japan becomes a major power and it still kept their colonies as Korea.
Zinovy Rozhestvensky was already a brilliant leader, the reasons for Russian defeat at Tsushima are not him but rather his crew being full of revolutionaries, his auxiliaries being actively detrimental to the fleets war making potential, the bulk of his fleet needing to traverse around Africa, the Kamchatka, the Kamchatka and the Kamchatka.
What if Rome industrialized?