To be fair, Italy’s soldiers themselves in WW1 were built different. The Arditi were insane fighters. It was their generals that had no clue what they were doing
In ww1 and ww2 we italians were proud and strong soldiers willingly to fight even while bleeding from 4 different places with a missing arm while most of our officers led infront diying alonside eacother The only issue were our generals and Leaders As Rommel stated in the african campaing: "The Italians are an army of Wolfs commanded by sheeps."
3:27 Should mention that Mexico had been in a civil war for 7 years by then The Mexican revolution started in 1910, and historians debate whether it ended in 1917 or in 1921, but in either case, they were in no position to do that
Which is why some believe the whole Zimmerman telegram was a ruse by the British and not actually sent by Germany. It didn't make much sense really for Germany to do that.
@@Kelnx I'd honestly believe it was a ruse if Germany hadn't admitted to it. The idea that Mexico (who was on its like 5th coup and 3rd civil war) was in any shape capable of fighting USA is laughable. If Germany just pretended they didn't do it everyone would've believed them.
@@KelnxBut then again, Germany since the lapse of the Three Emperors' League has some of the moat hilariously bad foreign policies in history. Take for example the Daily Telegraph scandal, where the Kaiser's unfiltered interview with the British newspaper the Daily Telegraph caused an uproar in Britain due to its anti-British thesis. While the British Press may have contributed to this scandal (due to their decades-old anti-German screed), the Kaiser (who is over 40 years old when it happened) did not think of his replies through, and the Chancellor (who was supposed to polish up those replies for publication) essentially let the whole thing go unedited and proceed to throw the Kaiser under the bus by saying he did not* receive the replies in his office. Not only did the scandal further inflame negative perception of Germany to the British but it caused an international relations downfall by presenting Germany as somewhat incompetent...
"the small nation of 4.5 million people had mobilized 1.2 million men." Did they just say "alright, every male aged 15-50 to the front?" That is an absurdly large force.
Mainly because of the previous 2nd Balkan War, where in 1913, Bulgaria was invaded on all fronts and lost considerable territory. Nationalism was at its height.
In the 2nd Anglo-Boer War (1898-1902) my relatives in the Transvaal and the Orange Free State enlisted all the men aged 16 to 60. They were mostly farmers. Our whole army was a militia.
France was 40 millions and sent 8 millions to the front (plus 500K from the colonies). So basically around 1/4 of your total population seems possible, even more so that here France had a huge war industry needing people.
@@graphite8842 How is that bias? Its reductionist, sure, but that alone does not demonstrate an anti-russian bias... Maybe stories about Russian history are just dark, depressing, and full of blood, leading to you to believe there is some sort of broader bias, but it is rather, just history...
I like seeing Bulgaria in alt-history stuff. There's never any great stroke of luck needed or nigh on impossible situations/odds, just "they didn't get absolutely shat on this time so they won". Makes me proud of my adoptive home.
"WW1 was a loss for every one" - well, Poland considers it a major win. In this alternate timeline, its chances for regaining independence are sigificantly smaller.
Germany advocated for Polish independence because they wanted an independent buffer state against the upcoming Soviet tide, which worked in 1920. It was only in WWII that the memo changed.
@@zombieranger3410 You mean Act of 5th November? That was a move to create puppet buffer state to recruit Poles to fight Russians before even turned soviet. Ultimately became a cornerstone for free Poland
@@zombieranger3410 So Germany wanted the land to at least be non-Russian if it can’t be German after supporting the Russian communists in that civil war but surrendering in 1918. It obviously didn’t like a strong Tsarist Russia or Polish independence in Prussia before.
I remember googling this years ago, and most of the takes I've seen argued that the Central Powers would've eventually lost anyway due to exhaustion and the US already constantly sending supplies to the Entente, and that the US joining in an official capacity simply accelerated it. It's interesting that you said they could've inched out a victory, especially since you brought up a lot of points those posts didn't.
if the US didnt join, it's likely they're gonna settle for peace anyway because the war was going nowhere(specially for central powers where france and austria was holding back the germans and italians respectively) and as seen with russia, the soldiers will mutiny and refuse to fight as they're tired of the war
victory in massive quotation marks mind you, ain't no route out of ww1 that doesn't leave a good chunk of europe about as steady as an earthquake testing facility
Bc he has the American look in history in this area. Despite when u look deeper r American troops itself didn't really play a very important role at the front, let alone decisive role for ending the war. He forgets US money, resources, industrial capacity is what helps entene to get an edge over the central power, and all that was done before US even joined the war.
because he is wrong it took a year for American soldiers to arrive to the Western front. A year Germany had free. They did nothing. They didn't have troops to commit to other theatres, to push, to do anything really. While the population was on food rations in Germany and people were starving to death in Vienna, and all of this after taking Ukraine and Romania. There's no way they would have won, that's the point. Hell. Even if they did manage to somehow win on land the Brits could have just choked them out navally and make them fall
The reason why they only sent 24 people is because that was the size of their entire army... but who's to say they didn't have a reason not to expand it? A Brazilian soldier could probably beat 10 Captain Americas all at the same time. Let's say that a Captain America is worth at least 1,000 soldiers. You do the math.
Fun fact: the armistice was signed at 5:45. 2738 people died between then and the "11th hour of 11/11" that the victors decided would be the official end.
@@cactusking4045 the time delay was necessary, as the ceasefire notice needed to be distributed to everywhere on the front before it went into effect, and even then there were still groups who kept fighting because they didn't know they were supposed to stop. A onesided armistice because one group stopped while another kept going would have killed way more people
@@greg_mca If lives mattered, I'm sure they could have found a way to coordinate a "dont plan any big charges across minefields tomorrow, boys" message
@@ChisledFish430 what? Please elaborate. Germany would have still lost the war without America joining the Entente. America wasn't the deciding factor of the war.
@@biryanilover7147 It was, without them the war would have ended in a German-leaning stalemate. and probably a full German victory if America sent no aid at all.
@@d-.-5180 I would say very selectively applied to nations which didn't clash with British or French interests or weren't allied with Central Powers. Poland got its points, even boosted those by Belarusians and Ukrainians, who were denied self determination because they were aligned with Germany (to make Brest Litovsk happen). But Arabs, who fought for their independence in a unified state only to get a British and French backroom deal slapped in the face because "NEED MOAR COLONIES"
As the way I see it, the only way a lasting pecae coul've been achieved after WWI was to force an unconditional surrender of the German forces and then splitting Germany into smaller countries, dwarfing Prussia and charging war reparations over Prussia only, so the other German states wouldn't want to unify again.
What if Germany used dinosaurs in WW2 like in Dino D-Day? Edit: thanks for the likes and i'm happy that this idea sounds interesting or funny (Dino D-Day is indeed weird game, but in very good way)
It's also a shitty deal. "Hey Mexico go start a needless war, basically by yourself, with the largest single industrial power on Earth" "If you do that, and you do super well, in the peace you can have SOME of the territory you lost in 1836" SOME, it was Texas, New Mexico and Arizona that was promised. It ignores California and Utah and parts of Colorado, Oklahoma, Kansas and Wyoming
Do you know what else? They also asked Japan to attack the US. They had no reason to do that. More than a decade earlier, we stopped them from being taken over by Russia!
It’s the largest hypocrisy that is still not widely known today. Even pre-Geneva convention, it was understood that weapons smuggling to one side of a war makes you a viable target.
And the support ships were told not to sail with the ship, and several aid ships were commanded to turn away when they were on their way aid the survivors, and that the British intentionally hid munitions, guns, and war supplies on civilian ships to box in the Germans so the shipments would either arrive, or the Germans would be forced to fire on civilians. I love it when people talk ahout unrestricted submarine warfare as though there was no cause and effect or order of events. Not defending it btw, just pointing out that the idea they did it just to terrorize the enemy is silly as many knew it would tank their reputation, but felt they had no choice, even if they did.
Yeah the USA was manipulated into the war by Britain. They are the real villains. British scheming of that era knew no boundaries and hurt everyone in the name of empire.
It is mind boggling that after helping the Bolsheviks, sending the telegraph to Mexico and confessing to it despite having plausible deniability, Zimmermann was not accused of stabbing Germany in the back.
One thing you forget, the unrestricted submarine warfare was a major issue for the Entente. If they did stop, the Entente would’ve had more resources from its colony. Not saying the war ends in a complete entente victory, but it also changes the outlook of this war.
@@biryanilover7147 yeah once the Kaiserschlat failed they didn't really have anymore steam. The US being involved ended it quicker and probably saved a lot of lives that would've been lost in however long it would've took Germany to call a cease fire.
@@Mr.Spade1but the French army in particular gained the morale to stop mutinying from American support. no USA = no forced kaiserschlacht = possible breakdown of French lines over a prolonged period
@@Mr.Spade1Even before the Spring Offensive, German soldiers were losing morale. In late 1916, the Germans themselves admitted they couldn't win against the Allies. The Allies just needed to hold until the blockade would fully collapse them. Sure, Russia was knocked out but the Brits, French, Italians, and more collapsed all the Central Powers with practically little to no American aid. It is overstated how bad the situation was for the Allies. The French mutinied, but only a few dozen soldiers actually did and it didn't bring France into collapse, like the German Revolutions of 1919.
I know this video is a fun fiction/ story telling ‘what if’, but loads of comments point out it’s really flawed and I’ll add my bit to that. Most people forget that the British Army didn’t stop growing and only became more effective as 1918 began and went on, eventually becoming the most capable fighting force in Europe by the end of the war. Whilst ‘the Western Front was exhausted’ is often said, this is untrue; the French Army took the burden of the war between 1914 and mid 1917, but post the Nivelle Mutinies the British Army took responsibility for offensive fighting in the West (think Paschendaele, Cambrai and Arras, all helped cover the French whilst their army mutinied). It was British troops who bore the brunt of the Spring Offensive, absorbing enormous blows near Ypres and Amiens, and it was subsequently British troops who led the Hundred Days Offensive that ended the war. American troops simply didn’t have enough time to become experienced in modern warfare, and the French Army was by this point only really capable of supporting offensive actions (the few attempted American-French attacks, such as at Meuse- Argonne, went a lot worse than British led attacks in Flanders). This said, I think a point can still be made that without the threat of US Troops, Germany might not have panicked and attempted the Spring Offensive and thus wouldn’t have lost the large number of Eastern Front Veterans sent to the West. This greater concentration of men would’ve made the job of attacking much harder for the Allied Armies, possibly requiring 1918 to be spent rebuilding the French Army ready for a joint Anglo-French Offensive in 1919. Either way, discontent back home, the state of the failing German army and the food + material blockade would’ve almost certainly forced the Germans into armistice sooner or later, and really I don’t think there’s any real way Germany could’ve won the war, at least post 1916.
Cody tries his best, but he does seem to ultimately take the typical American view that the Allies were basically useless until the USA showed up to do the real work. It's incredibly frustrating that WW1 is often treated as a low-tech version of WW2 in terms of war participation.
@@gurigura4457Omg it’s exactly this. I know it’s the very stereotypical British historian thing to bang the drum saying ‘umm actually we were very important in WW2’, but barely anyone here knows how actually important we were in WW1, even though we had a much larger role in WW1 than in WW2. The Russian and Italian Armies crippled the Austro-Hungarian Army, on paper the second most powerful Axis Power. The French Army sacrificed itself in order to hold off the Germans, winning the war of attrition. The British and Commonwealth Armies kept fighting when the French were pushed to the brink, and eventually lead the offensive that would end the war. The Americans tactically did nothing. Arguably their greatest contribution was scaring the Germans so much they attempted the Spring Offensive (an offensive beaten back by the British and French), which ultimately hastened Germany’s end. It took the British 3 years to learn to attack effectively; the French 2 to learn how to effectively defend. The Americans had none of this experience, and suffered horrendous casualties for little gain; they were very much the ‘junior partner’ militarily by the end of the war. World War One was won by the enormous sacrifice of the French, Belgian and British peoples. I’m sorry to say that the same simply cannot be said about the Americans, even if they believe it.
@@DotmatrixHistory Exactly. Not to mention the immense effect of the blockade that we maintained over the entire war. After Jutland (i.e. undisputed naval dominance of the North Sea), the Germans would have had to needed some impossibly spectacular victories to force France to the table. But they kept being slowly drained of food & war resources, so an Allied victory was inevitable. This isn't WW2 - people aren't looking back & thinking "I never want to go throught that again". France and Britain would never surrender without significantly higher casualties than Germany was, by 1916, realistically capable of inflicting. They lacked the stability issues that plagued Russia & AH, and by late 1917 had begun to outpace Germany in terms of technology & doctrine. At best, the USA can claim to have hastened the end by triggering the spring offensive (and offering substantial financial support). Nothing to be looked down on, of course, but not enough to change the (local) course of history significantly.
@@gurigura4457 The issue with this narrative while true in a military sense, it also neglects the vast quantities of trade and supplies the United States continually pumped the Entente with. Hell the US in joined the war out of this economic interest and war profiteering. The Lusitania for example a famous reason for why America joined the war, was in fact carrying Munitions and war materiel. America was hardly neutral and played a vital role ,at least economically to the success of the Entente. Militarily they contributed little. Realistically the Germans had to push quickly or achieve strategic victories in order to win, they could not sustain attrition. They could not pull resources from their overseas colonies like England and France, nor their manpower, and thus had to rely solely on their own homelands of which was being starved out. I disagree that after 1916 they couldn't have won, the past has shown greater comebacks than this, but it is true at this point the scales were heavily tipped.
@sirsteam6455 As you said, France & Britain were both global colonial empires; sure, it was easier to obtain the resources needed from the States given geographic proximity (amongst other reasons), but ultimately the foodstuffs, raw materials, & equipment could have been produced elsewhere and shipped over. Trade with the US (*trade*, they did not give up these necessary materials for free) simply sped up the whole process. They played an part, but not a vital one. As for German victory after 1916, whilst it wouldn't be strictly impossible, it would be so unlikely as to mean that any accelerationism caused by the US hardly matters (to the the ultimate victory, not to the final tally). This isn't 1415, where you can wipe out most of an enemy county's force in a single afternoon. Barring a collapse like what occurred in Russia, it's only a question of manpower reserves & industrial capacity. And the blockade on Germany meant that its ability to maintain either of those was inevitably shrunk. The Battle of Jutland (which forced the High Seas Fleet to remain in port for the rest of the war, making the blockade unbreakable) went about as badly for the British as it might have, and the Germans still lost. The Germans performed as well on land as any might have expected them to, in the early days. But once the advance was halted (which could easily have happened earlier) it was a question of pure attrition, and the Entente had both the overall greater capacity and (at least in the case of the French, who supplied the greater manpower) the greater will to keep fighting. Nobody is denying that the US played a role, and were helpful to the overall victory. But in the same way that the nutritionist of an Olympic athlete doesn't get to stand on the podium at the end of an event, Americans shouldn't claim credit or to be the deciding factor in a war in which they earned neither.
@@ThwipThwipBoom the dolphins were the elite of german uboots, if brazil didnt stoped then germany would be able to destroy all the USA ships going to Europe, brazil basicly saved the day without getting any credit.
"A little more stable, a little less contentious... Let's go to the Balkans." I died of laughter there. Bulgaria were badasses. They won the Battle at Doiran THREE times.
They used backstabbing to great effect, 1st Serbia then Romania. Both nations were occupied with Austria-Hungary and thats when Bulgaria struck. If only Romania had not waitied for Russia's advances to join WW1, but had instead joined when Serbia started the war against Austria-Hungary.
Yeah, no. The US entry into the war was a good bonus, notably for the moral. But on the frontline ? They did not show up until 1918. By wich times the ottomans were already going to collapse and germany’s famine had become horrible. The german army was also very much under equiped : by 1918 France as 6 times more planes and a 100 more time tanks than Germany. If you add the fact that a lot of the eastern frontline troops had to stay in the east to prevent revolutions, and the almost unwinnable greek front, Germany was always going to loose the long game. The big difference maybe peace in 1919, and no USA to moderate the peace. Because Versailles was not harsh compared to what France wanted. Basicly we would see Furherreich, not Kaiserreich.
Typical Brit. They complain that we joined the war. They complain that we didn't join it soon enough. They would have complained had we not joined the war. It doesn't matter what the US does, the Brits will complain about it.
Never knew the extent of Bulgarian efforts. Please pass on a massive well done to James, coming from someone who self publishes it's tough but worth it
@@ThwipThwipBoomit was purely a PR stunt. They knew they were losing and wanted to garner sympathy or stoke tensions within the entente and neutral powers
@@ThwipThwipBoom the french used gas first tho, the germans just stepped up the game, can you blame em, but the shotgun was very tedious for doctors, many survived and were suffering for days to months because of all the shrapnel, doctors were complaining and the germans made work of it, not like the entante ever made work of their doctors pleads, and the americans did not stop using them thus the germans kept using the gas to. germans were willing to talk the americans were not.
America declared war in 1917, but it wasn't until spring 1918 American troops started to arrive in any significant numbers. By that point the outcome of the war was pretty much already a foregone conclusion, Germany was literally running out of the raw material and food to supply its soldiers and would have succumbed either way. The only difference would have been Britain and France taking an extra 1% more casualties than they had already taken.
But you gotta keep in mind that the whole sprint offensive which put germany into this position was only because they knew the US would be arriving and tired to win before they did. And without the US in the war Britain and France recive far fewer supplies
Nah I think another year and you would have seen more state collapses along the lines of Russia. Communism and revolution were real pressures for every WW1 state at the end of the war
Summer 1918 actually. US troops don’t start arriving en masse to actually make army formations until the beginning of June 1918, by which point the Spring Offensive is long over. A timeline without the U.S. still sees an Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian collapse, which still puts Germany in the unenviable position of fighting the U.K., France, and Italy without a major ally.
"This videos is sponsered by..." - Me, sighing, ready to skip ahead - "... James...." - Me: Huh. - "...Who asked me to promote his self published book" - Me: Yea okay i'll watch this one Kudos on supporting your community like this. Even if you got paid, I feel like that's a nice touch not every youtuber would have done
Honestly, considering Woodrow Wilson's failure with the Versailles treaty, it would have been a good thing. Not to mention how incompetent the League of Nations was when it came to actually keeping the peace.
the versailles treaty wasn't even that bad tbh: it was hardly any worse than basically any other treaty signed in the late 19th to early 20th centuries. it was hardly worse off than the treaty that prussia forced on france in 1871 wanna talk about bad treaties? saint-germain-en-laye and _especially_ sevres were way worse than versailles! brest-litovsk was incredibly harsh, far harsher than saint-germain and versailles, yet nobody talks about how it should've been different: which it _was_ as it was made more harmful!
@@piyo744 whataboutism. Invalid argument. just because others were worse doesn't mean versailles was a valid response. Germany being saddled with such horrifically crippling debt despite only having responded to a standard call to arms from an ally was incredibly unacceptable and the french should have been diplomatically isolated for such a malicious act.
@@alphamaccao5224 i was using 1871 as an example, not an excuse: the argument is "versailles wasn't special nor overwhelmingly harsh for the time period", not the strawman you've dreamed up
@@alphamaccao5224 if you want another example: brest-litovsk basically neutered russia and eastern europe as a whole, permanently subjugating it under a kind of proto-lebensraum, complete with plans of german settlement in the baltics and ethnic cleansing of russians (which happened IRL after the polish-soviet war!) if you wanna talk about "international isolation", this would be your treaty! this is the unusually harsh and crippling treaty versailles is made out to be; and again, look at saint-germain-en-laye and trianon! the rise of you-know-who is the fault of the weimar government (scratch a liberal) and the incompetence of the comintern, not the entente like i said in my other comment, i was using 1871 as an *example* and a *demonstration* of treaties from the same time period similar to versailles, not your strawman of "but what about 1871???"
@@sillyone52062Tolkien used his experience in the Somme when soldiers where forced to charge into machine gun fire and certain death to write the charge of the rohirim scene
Absolutely incorrect. After WW1 the USA and UK were gearing up for war with each other with Japan allied to the UK. It's why the Washington Naval treaty of 1922 happened to stop a naval arms race between the USA vs UK and Japan.
That is an issue in this video, in my opinion. Given the debt that Entente powers held to America, it is likely that America would make the choice to prop THEM up instead, ensuring Britain and France's continued colonial administration to pay back the debts they owed to America.
2:40 to be fair, the Lusitania actually WAS carrying war materiel for the UK! And germany only adopted shoot-first submarine warfare after the hrits started arming convoy ships
There are some inaccuracies. Woodrow Wilson wanted to get into the WW1 so he could have a say in the treaty and create the league of nations. The general American population did not want to go to war, and so Wilson had to act like he was trying to stay neutral. Britain stopped marking their war ships as military and the Americans were shipping military weapons on civilian ships. In 2008, it was confirmed the lusitania had military weapons on it. Germany in response said to Britain they would fire on their civilian ships. The Germans published articles in travel magazines warning American citizens not to go to Europe. The US state department tried to remove those warnings from the magazines because they were shipping arms on ships. Colonel Edward House, Woodrow Wilson, JP Morgan, David Lloyd George were the 4 people who essentially made the decision for all of America to join the war.
The issue that also played in part was a bunch of civilian liners were refitted to have guns for *protection*. Then when one gets sunk the country that has them can claim it was simply a civilian liner. Who are the people going to believe the lying government or the people who sunk the boat.
@@joshuafrimpong244 You got me. I made this all up. The truth is America is always good and we fought WW1 because Germans are inherently evil. Woodrow Wilson's position on staying out of the war had absolutely nothing to do with his re-election campaign, but instead he was genuinely compassionate where he would lose sleep over weighing these options. In the end, the barbaric Germans took things too far. There was absolutely no other option than war. Not one. By the way JP Morgan making a killing on loans had no influence whatsoever either. America went to war because Democracy and stuff, and also 'muhrica!
14:03 Minor mistake: The Name of the (West (55-90)) German Army: 1871-1918 Deutsches Heer ((Imperial) German Army) 1918-1935 Reichswehr (Reich Defence) 1935-1945 Wehrmacht (Defence Force) 1955 until today Bundeswehr (Federal Defence)
I'm just now studying WW1 and Germany was WILING out this entire time. Post Bismark, they were so bad a diplomatic thinking that it really just seems like they wanted to take on the whole world from the moment Austria-Hungary said 'got my back? They took the "war is diplomacy by other means" wayyy beyond logical conclusion.
I would argue that the war would probably still end the same if going on for another year or two of Germany’s economic problems were too steep and the UK was suffering was still in the orange compared to the rest of Europe which was in the red
depends on how fast the ukrainian and romanian recources could be extracted, basicly fixing germany'' food, coal and oil shortages. not saying it's a fix all but it's enough to stay afloat, and smal victories would keep moral high, it's just that the front in france had to stay stable, and for the turks to win they needed the germans, ownly with their help they could retake egypt, witch would save the ottomans economy and possibly the state. not mentioning the french army was crumbling it's self already even with american aid and reinforcements. at some point italy might just have singed a seprate peace or switched sides, as they could give lands to austria and gain some from france. afther seeing the balkans fal, and seeing a invasion of egypt they would surtenly think it over. with that switch france would surrender as they could not fight a two front war. american industry really did a lot for the entante but with it going the other way the states would start suplying germany to or just germany instead, betting on a winning horse is the way of the states.
A more reasonable German victory scenario probably involves America forcing Britain to end its blockade. In OTL, the British make a load of concessions to ensure that America goes along with the blockade, but if the British take a more hawkish approach they could end up in hot water very quickly.
@@charliebasar9068 I think this scenario is far more likely but the reality is is the UK had the Naval power to take in America and Germany at the same time even with Germany gaining new resources in the naval theatre late war the reality is if you want to make Germany win the war you have to go a lot earlier
@@dennisvisser3910 there’s a few problems with that number one Italy would’ve most likely never switched sides. Italy had already poured a crap ton of resources into attacking Austria and there was no on on either side that you can realistically have them switch side on top of that the UK was still dominating with its blockade and resources and still had quite a bit of manpower to go and France was having moral issues yes but so was Germany and small victories would not be enough to change that people forget the Germans have already got the biggest victories they could get they won an entire front of the war and it did not fix there issues with morale amongst the soldiers
The 1918 Spring Offensive was the Battle Of The Bulge of WW1. A desperate hail mary to try and end the fighting, only to burn through almost all of their precious few remaining resources, and their lines collapsed.
The German army wasn't known as the Wehrmacht until 1935 when the Nazis were already in power; In ww1 it was known as Deutsches Heer (German Army) or for short just Heer.
They get to the negotiation table in 1918 and Germany acts like it has won. UK and France reject any deal, go on fighting for another two years, and win anyway.
Absolutely, there wouldn't be any binding treaty without a direct attack against the main strength of the entente, and by 1918 Germany just could not pull that off successfully, especially in this timeline where it's committing to more minor fronts than in history
The Entente would absolutely collapse. With America not joining the war their morale would already be really low and the defeats in Greece wouldnt help. On the other hand Germany's morale would improve because of the victories. The Americans, seeing the Entente lose on all fronts might force the Entente to sue for peace because they wanted their loans payed back and that is impossible if the Entente's economy completely collapses.
@@hellboyhero7819 but the entente wouldn't be losing on all fronts, because they wouldn't have lost on the one front that really matters: in the west. If Germany won in the west then a peace treaty would be likely. But Germany wasn't capable of that, and in this timeline their chances were even lower because they wouldn't be pulling men from every other front to give them the numbers. Even without the US, Germany is not winning on the western front in 1918. The entente just had too many advantages
@@hellboyhero7819 The central powers were cut off. Germany was crippled under blockade. The Austrians were on the brink of imploding and the ottomans had still lost the Middle East. The western power had the only real tanks, oil supply supremacy and air power mounting. They still had access to their massive empires. Germany tried to yolo the western front before the Americans got there and while they had the troops from the eastern front. It backfired massively and they didn’t achieve anything. If anyone’s breaking the western front it’s not going to the central powers who are on the brink.
Wilson absolutely did not wanna keep the US out of the conflict, publicly he did but in private he did all he could to get the US involved. You mentioned the Lusitania but failed to mention the massive amount of ammunition it was carrying therefore making it a legitimate target for Uboats.
Slightly unrelated to the video but I hope people are preserving the original versions of some of this historical footage and we don't lose it for the colourised stuff. I don't think the existence of the latter is bad and a fictionalised retelling of history is as good a place as any to feature it but it's always a shame when things that need to be archived are lost in a bid to make things palatable for a contemporary audience.
I feel you, more than half of the time the colorizations of black and white film aren't even correct, ESPECIALLY when if comes to colors that are supposed to be vibrant, they always get washed out as if to say something to the tone of "the past was miserable and dull", it just feels so disrespectful to those people's image since bad colorizations make it that much harder to understand and relate to the time period they were in
I know its fiction. I Know its not meant to really go into detail and I certainly know that this critic is just going much into detail but what most of the people talking about WW1 miss is the nordic sea blockade. I mean Germany had like a third of the production material avaiable in 1918. Germany back then was really dependent on the swedish ores and therefore a longer war would likely mean a defeat for Germany because of a munition shortage. Furthermore the german people were starving at home and the country was at the brink of a revolution (which in our timeline occured twice). To conclude I would say that Germany and the middle powers would not have won WW1 simply because the USA did not join. However the war would take longer to end (maybe 1919) and millions more would die because of it and the spanish flu.
That and the resources in the wider British Empire were still available. While the threat of US troops arriving spurred the Germans into making hasty attacks, the tide of the war was already set by the time the US managed to get troops in theater in Spring 1918. The US just accelerated the war and reduced the overall dammage.
Maybe there still would have been a pandemic in 1918, but it almost certainly wouldn't have been the misnamed Spanish Influenza. It got the name because Spain was the first place it arrived that news of it wasn't suppressed because of wartime censorship. The available evidence indicates it began in US training camps and was brought to Europe by the AEF. Without the US in the Great War, Spanish Influenza doesn't happen.
Fair enough, Germany really weren't prepared for war, they could handle France on her own cuz well France was weaker but taking on both European superpowers and Uncle sam? It's almost as if they were asking for defeat
@@aarthirajaraman7453 "they could handle France on her own cuz well France was weaker" Uuh, no... I think you're transposing WW2's situation with WW1's situation... France was definitively not weaker than Germany. In fact, even when WW2 started France was much more a threat than Germany. Strategy and ballsy tactics (blitzkrieg) + France's generals of the time's stupidity (and terrible lack of insight) is what made France taking a quick and harsh loss, not the fact France was weaker. Their entire arsenal was bigger than Germany's.
@@LeKain08 The french efforts in world war 1 were commendable but France was clearly weaker in terms of it's military, economic and demographic capabilities. That's just the nature of Germany being a larger and more populous country. I think it's fair to say that on paper France should have been much more formidable in world war 2, but too blame a few generals for the fall of france is just silly. France could have recovered from the breach in the ardennes, but it did not. The key reason is that the french people did not have the will to fight. France was clearly scarred from the last war and despite having conscripted millions of men, almost all simply surrendered. Clearly indicated by the french death toll in world war 2, being extremely low. If that does not make France weaker, I don't see what would.
More political stability and no coups after coups dictatorships and revolts after revolts. Wouldn't be a superpower, but certainly a richer and nicer country to live in.
@JacobFraps the germans last offensive stalled out. Their supply lines were overextended and the entente showed that they could gain ground just as fast as the germans.
@@juliandacosta6841 the offensive was rushed due to the fear of the Americans, had they not joined the war the Germans could have been more strategic with higher morale and their enemy more willing to negotiate
@omarmg2458 this is world war 1 we are talking about, the Germans can't be much more strategic than throwing themselves at the enemy. That failed even with all the reinforcements from the russian front, Germany was never going to win, with or without the USA joining the war, not to mention that germany was on the brink of starvation and economic collapse due to the British blockade, time was running out for germany, they couldn't have waited much longer
@@omarmg2458 Let's not forget about the hundreds of tanks the British and the French had ready to go by that point, best case scenario would be less humilliating peace conditions for Germany, but that's it.
It's important to remember why Germany launched unrestricted submarine warfare - they focused on the western front in 1916, and failed to make a breakthrough, while the Brussilov offensive in the east destroyed much of the Austrian army. This panicked Germany into resorting to unrestricted submarine warfare. Had Germany focused on the East in 1916, they could have outflanked Brussilov and destroyed the Russian army 18 months or so earlier than in our timeline. This would leave the central powers in a much stronger position, including the Ottomans
today is such a great day. i finally got a job after 7 months of searching, i got some money i was owed so i have cash in my pocket, and now my favourite youtube channel has published a video about my favourite era in history. things are really looking up 🙂
'Germany threw everything in the kitchen sink'.... Is that a Herbert Kitchener reference? For those who dont know: Herbert Kitchener was a British ww1 Field Marshal that was sent to Russia and his ship got sunk by a German sea mine killing him. aka Kitchener sank
@@maryhough8041didn’t you love the part where Cody said “it’s alternate history time” and alternate histories all over the place, which then caused the world to clap?
Awesome video as always. I continue to be amazed by your knowledge of Balkan history, it's very impressive, even in comparison to other historians and/or RUclips history channels.
I feel like a lot of people underscore how pivotal the First World War was… Being overshadowed by the much larger second world war, but in reality, the first world war was far more consequential How many countries were destroyed at the end of World War II? Basically Germany was split in half and a couple borders were shifted in Europe while in Asia colonies broke free from their Imperial rule. At the end of the first world war, we saw the demise of four great ancient empires, we saw the rising Italian empire stunted in its tracks, and the path of colonization begin. The rise of the United States as the Premier global power, the rise of liberalism over monarchy… The great socialist experiment in the Soviet union. The creation of 14 new nations in Europe. The league of nations as well as some type of international global standard of trade and conflict mediation (it failed, but was a steppingstone) It’s also arguable that the technological advancement of the First World War was greater than that at the second. Sure nuclear power is pretty impressive, but World War I brought us the airplane, tank, creeping artillery garage, and the submarine all on large scales. It truly is a conflict that boggles the imagination… It was different than all conflicts that came before it and we relegate it to a minor historical event when it was the defining moment of the 20th century
It seems silly in hindsight, but at the time the U.S. had recently invaded Mexico trying - and failing - to hunt down Pancho Villa after he led a raid into Texas. So US-Mexico relations were already at a low-point. I figure all the Germans were really hoping for was to keep the US distracted with Mexico long enough to end the war without their intervention. Fun fact: the American officer who led the invasion of Mexico was "Blackjack" Pershing himself, future leader of the AEF.
It seems silly in hindsight, but at the time the U.S. had recently invaded Mexico trying - and failing - to hunt down Pancho Villa after he led a raid into Texas. So US-Mexico relations were already at a low-point. I figure all the Germans were really hoping for was to keep the US distracted with Mexico long enough to end the war without their intervention. Fun fact: the American officer who led the invasion of Mexico was "Blackjack" Pershing himself, future leader of the AEF.
I always thought it was an interesting but stupid gamble on Germany’s part: Germany didn’t like that we were acting as an arms dealer, they knew they’d had success getting Mexico and the US to fight for the last five-ish years, and they didn’t think the telegram would explode in their face. Guess Germany forgot how serious the US was about the Monroe Doctrine and Roosevelt Corollary.
bro i have been binging your videos for a while and i am surprised that you still haven't done a video on Egypt even tho it's very large and interesting history so i have ideas for you. (for me the most interesting are 1,2,3,6,9) 1-What if ancient Egypt was more imperialistic and focused more on expanding rather than securing borders. 2-What if rome became Egyptian with the whole thing with cleopatra and ceaser and stuff. 3-What if Cleopatra Aligned with Mark Antony Before Caesar? 4-What if Napoleon Bonaparte Established a Long-Term Egyptian Empire? 5-What if the Mamluks Had Allied with the Ottomans or hadn't had all their problems or if they were atleast so unstable. 6-What if Egypt Colonized the Mediterranean Instead of Rome? 7-What if Egypt Retained Control of Palestine and Syria after the Battle of Megiddo? 8-What if Egypt Won the Arab-Israeli Wars? (in either 1948 or 1967) 9-what if muhhamed ali pasha allied the british and French in the 2nd Egyptian ottoman war in 1839. 10- what if Egypt never got colonized by the british.
it always depresses me when I watch videos discussing either of the world wars and Canada is at no point ever mentioned. Maybe our infantry wasn't as influential as the US, but we still did a lot of work. From the good of the 100 Days Offensive to the bad of literally inventing war crimes, it always feels off to never hear us be mentioned.
Our infantry was much more influential than the US in the first world war. The US showed up in 1918 when the war was decided. Canada was there at the start and sent 1 million soldiers throughout the war.
@@themistva It makes some amount of sense for World War 1, but Canada declared on Germany independently of Britain for WW2, and that's talked about so little I learned about it years after high school by a friend I made who lives in Denmark.
Agreed. And another thing that seems to be unremembered is that Canada was in the process of training up an additional army. I believe it was 100k? Germans did not like facing Canadian troops. An influx of that many shouldn’t be overlooked by historians
Dang it alternate history hub; I was so distracted by buying that Deadlands Freedom book I forgot to finish the video. Darn you for finally getting a sponsor I’m interested in.
@@KenXIndustries your welcome dude; I’m deployed in freakin boonies with limited internet and cell service. I seriously need a new book I just finished my other series.
I am starting to write even before the "predictions" part starts, because as soon as I hear an american accent, I know there will be huge blindspots in history. Here the blindspot is that the few american troops which actually fought didn't do much, and that without them, nothing would have been different. The ottoman empire fell appart, the austrian empire fell appart, even if Germany had held the line on the western front, which is seriously controversial considering how much devastated by years of economic blockade, they would have ended with a huge southern front for which they had no troops to man. By 1918, France alone produced more airplanes than all the central powers combined, and thousands of F17 tanks were operational (against litterally nothing on the central side), and planning production for the Char C super heavy tanks. And politically, Clemenceau is the original Churchill, Churchill who actually was present when Clemenceau made his speech "The germans can take Paris, it doesn't matter. We will fight behind the Seine, and if they pierce, we will fight behind the Loire. And if it comes to that, we will fight in the Pyreneans. And if the pyreneans fall, we will fight from the sea. But we will never surrender.
Nah. This one is way off. The British and French resisted Germany's last major roll of the dice in Operation Michael, and were on a counter offensive which would ultimately lead to victory well before the US reached anything like a meaningful contribution to the Entente ware effort either in terms of men or material. That offensive would still have to had come even without the pressure of imminent American troop build ups on the Western Front. The only way Germany forces the Entente to the table in 1918, is to reach Paris. Britain and France are far too invested politically to drop the ball because Greece falls. No way. Germany must use the troops freed up from the East and the Russian collapse offensively before their internal issues cause collapse anyway. By early 1918 the British army was the world's most effective combined arms force. Bar none. It also had the ability to continue the fight far past Germany's end point. Once Germany's last offensive fails . . . The roll up happens just the same.
@@tibsky1396 hardly. There is more to an army's effectiveness than a few experimental tank models. The French army was in ruins post Verdun and rife with borderline rebellion. They were absolutely the junior partner after Verdun.
@@dryfesands1367 However, the German offensive of Spring 1918 seriously shook the British Army, then led by Douglas Haig. On March 21, more than 60,000 British soldiers were captured. The bleeding was only stopped by the sending of French Reserve troops. Attacked in turn, the French hold up, and are able to lead a counterattack, developed by Foch. This Second Battle of the Marne marks the return to war of Movement, where the French carry out operations almost alone. It was from this battle that the Germans lost the initiative of the offensive, because it was their last chance to breakthrough. After that, they only defended and suffered. All this thanks to the Mass motorization of the French Army, as well as its practical logistics turnover across the entire Western Front. If you talk about he mutinies in 1917, they were quickly settled. The Soldiers just asked the Officers to be more strategic, and that is what happened. In 1 month, calm returns with simple remedies: - Improvements to the living conditions of soldiers in the trenches (notably Food). - Strictly regulated shifts and permissions. - Creation of training courses in new combat methods, in anticipation of now short and carefully planned maneuvers. From June 1917, the Germans launched numerous assaults. The French soldiers stubbornly hold their positions and repel the enemy. Then, in October 1917, Pétain brilliantly won the Battle of Malmaison, inflicting heavy losses on the Germans with minimal damage. At the end of 1917, the French soldier regained all his confidence in his command, and the Germans noticed nothing. At the beginning of 1918, on the Western Front, 105 French divisions, 56 British Divisions and 6 Belgian Divisions faced 197 German Divisions.
@@tibsky1396 What a shame your copy and pasting of Wiki articles didn't actually include what happened in 1918. The 100 days Offensive spearheaded by the British 1st, 3rd and 4th Armies with the French only taking a supporting role. You know, the actual business of winning the war? Offensives won by the use of primarily British divisions and using British approaches to combined armed offensives. There was a reason the French army weren't deployed in this offensive capacity. Perhaps you can work it out from the articles you've evidently misunderstood. Start with the battle of Amiens and work your way forward.
I’m so glad that you mentioned Bulgaria. Despite having one of the best defences of WW1, they sadly aren’t talked about as much as they should be, even if Britain itself congratulated them on repelling them over and over again and how they fought like gentlemen as well. "The Valley of Death" is an amazing song that goes over this aspect, and the history video that accompanies it goes into great detail about how crazy the Bulgarians were during the Battle of Doiran and how crazy Vladimir Vazov was, where he was greeted with honour when he visited Britain after WW1.
Get a copy of Deadlands Freedom, supporting the channel and our friend James www.amazon.com/DeadLands-Freedom-James-G-R-Allen/dp/B0DC5GZLZM
Thanks so much ❤
Not only do I get to dive into a new world, but I get to support an independent writer doing it? Sign me up!
Wiw
What if England won the Hundred Years’ War
@@KristiyanaKoleva-mj2md❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤
Crazy how Italy always is choking even in Alternate History
I think Cody is a bit biased against Italy haha
I think Italy is biased against italy
To be fair, Italy’s soldiers themselves in WW1 were built different. The Arditi were insane fighters. It was their generals that had no clue what they were doing
In ww1 and ww2 we italians were proud and strong soldiers willingly to fight even while bleeding from 4 different places with a missing arm while most of our officers led infront diying alonside eacother
The only issue were our generals and Leaders
As Rommel stated in the african campaing: "The Italians are an army of Wolfs commanded by sheeps."
Italy hasn't been a super power since the before the 12th century.
3:27 Should mention that Mexico had been in a civil war for 7 years by then
The Mexican revolution started in 1910, and historians debate whether it ended in 1917 or in 1921, but in either case, they were in no position to do that
Which is why some believe the whole Zimmerman telegram was a ruse by the British and not actually sent by Germany. It didn't make much sense really for Germany to do that.
And let’s not forget the border crisis that the US had to put up with because of that revolution.
@@Kelnx I'd honestly believe it was a ruse if Germany hadn't admitted to it. The idea that Mexico (who was on its like 5th coup and 3rd civil war) was in any shape capable of fighting USA is laughable. If Germany just pretended they didn't do it everyone would've believed them.
@@TheModernTrenchfoot especially given the last time mexico on paper was able and ready to fight the us they lost hard
@@KelnxBut then again, Germany since the lapse of the Three Emperors' League has some of the moat hilariously bad foreign policies in history. Take for example the Daily Telegraph scandal, where the Kaiser's unfiltered interview with the British newspaper the Daily Telegraph caused an uproar in Britain due to its anti-British thesis. While the British Press may have contributed to this scandal (due to their decades-old anti-German screed), the Kaiser (who is over 40 years old when it happened) did not think of his replies through, and the Chancellor (who was supposed to polish up those replies for publication) essentially let the whole thing go unedited and proceed to throw the Kaiser under the bus by saying he did not* receive the replies in his office.
Not only did the scandal further inflame negative perception of Germany to the British but it caused an international relations downfall by presenting Germany as somewhat incompetent...
"the small nation of 4.5 million people had mobilized 1.2 million men."
Did they just say "alright, every male aged 15-50 to the front?" That is an absurdly large force.
Mainly because of the previous 2nd Balkan War, where in 1913, Bulgaria was invaded on all fronts and lost considerable territory. Nationalism was at its height.
More like 7 to 70. I think every Balkan country has at least one famous child soldier of this war that enrolled because they had nowhere else to go.
In the 2nd Anglo-Boer War (1898-1902) my relatives in the Transvaal and the Orange Free State enlisted all the men aged 16 to 60. They were mostly farmers. Our whole army was a militia.
France was 40 millions and sent 8 millions to the front (plus 500K from the colonies). So basically around 1/4 of your total population seems possible, even more so that here France had a huge war industry needing people.
pretty sure everyone did for the last year and a half
The Kaiserreich devs are gonna see those shots fired across their bow and be like 'fuck that guy, I'll show him overlooked.'
Plan means keikaku.
They still haven't done an Austria rework. A Balkan update would be at least a couple years out.
@@auroraofclanborealis they need to put old germany and russia back
In two months, the game will be patched where anarchomonarchist fasciosyndicalist francoamerican hindusumerian Bulgaria gains cores on Hawaii.
@@irhinohammer keikaku means cake.
7:34
"Tens of thousands die for a plot of land not big enough to bury them"
I had to rewind the video to listen to that again. What a line...
Same
Made me rethink the entire World Wars.
7:30
0:21 “Russia got so tired of fighting other people it started fighting itself”💀💀💀
I know right, there is always some special bias when it comes to stories about Russia
@@graphite8842 How is that bias? Its reductionist, sure, but that alone does not demonstrate an anti-russian bias... Maybe stories about Russian history are just dark, depressing, and full of blood, leading to you to believe there is some sort of broader bias, but it is rather, just history...
@@graphite8842maybe just Russia sucks ass and has always sucked ass
And then it got worse
@@graphite8842 He's being sarcastic and joking dumb dumb
i misread the title as "what if jamaica never joined ww1" and man was i hyped for 2 seconds
Jamaica turned the tide! Single handly kept the British fighting
"What if Jamaica won WW1"
@@fafjaafh Jamaicareichman
@@fafjaafh jamaicareich
@@fafjaafh no more skinny women
What if Teddy Roosevelt turned into a nuclear potato
You know he only does alternate history, not actually history.
Bro what is that username
@@Siggen-rs8jy don't question it
@@DR.CONDOM-BREAKER445 I’d rather not actually
@@Siggen-rs8jy :D
“The Ottomans get a high five and a participation trophy”
😂
That's kinda what happened the the arab states and a lot of Africa in both world wars
Azerbaijan isn't bad as a gain.
"Bulgaria comes out in the best shape"
I don't think those words have ever been spoken before.
And likely never will again.
Bulgaria's history is a long and sad one indeed
I assure you all words in that sentence have been spoken before.....just not in conjunction with one another.
I like seeing Bulgaria in alt-history stuff. There's never any great stroke of luck needed or nigh on impossible situations/odds, just "they didn't get absolutely shat on this time so they won".
Makes me proud of my adoptive home.
Bulgaria never wins wars
"WW1 was a loss for every one" - well, Poland considers it a major win. In this alternate timeline, its chances for regaining independence are sigificantly smaller.
I guess a weaker soviet union could improve its long term prospects
@@queekheadtaker7327 The region would probably be more developed, but the Polish State would never be as big even if more Poles would exist overall.
Germany advocated for Polish independence because they wanted an independent buffer state against the upcoming Soviet tide, which worked in 1920. It was only in WWII that the memo changed.
@@zombieranger3410 You mean Act of 5th November? That was a move to create puppet buffer state to recruit Poles to fight Russians before even turned soviet. Ultimately became a cornerstone for free Poland
@@zombieranger3410 So Germany wanted the land to at least be non-Russian if it can’t be German after supporting the Russian communists in that civil war but surrendering in 1918. It obviously didn’t like a strong Tsarist Russia or Polish independence in Prussia before.
I remember googling this years ago, and most of the takes I've seen argued that the Central Powers would've eventually lost anyway due to exhaustion and the US already constantly sending supplies to the Entente, and that the US joining in an official capacity simply accelerated it.
It's interesting that you said they could've inched out a victory, especially since you brought up a lot of points those posts didn't.
if the US didnt join, it's likely they're gonna settle for peace anyway because the war was going nowhere(specially for central powers where france and austria was holding back the germans and italians respectively) and as seen with russia, the soldiers will mutiny and refuse to fight as they're tired of the war
US bankers had given a lot of money to Britain and France, and they would have lobbied hard for the US to protect that money.
victory in massive quotation marks mind you, ain't no route out of ww1 that doesn't leave a good chunk of europe about as steady as an earthquake testing facility
Bc he has the American look in history in this area. Despite when u look deeper r American troops itself didn't really play a very important role at the front, let alone decisive role for ending the war.
He forgets US money, resources, industrial capacity is what helps entene to get an edge over the central power, and all that was done before US even joined the war.
because he is wrong
it took a year for American soldiers to arrive to the Western front. A year Germany had free. They did nothing. They didn't have troops to commit to other theatres, to push, to do anything really. While the population was on food rations in Germany and people were starving to death in Vienna, and all of this after taking Ukraine and Romania.
There's no way they would have won, that's the point. Hell. Even if they did manage to somehow win on land the Brits could have just choked them out navally and make them fall
U have no idea how important those 24 Brazilian officers where bro. They were game changing 😅
The reason why they only sent 24 people is because that was the size of their entire army... but who's to say they didn't have a reason not to expand it?
A Brazilian soldier could probably beat 10 Captain Americas all at the same time. Let's say that a Captain America is worth at least 1,000 soldiers. You do the math.
luxemburg could have won if there was 24 brazilian officers on their side (third side)
@@AMan-xz7txthis what you do is astrology military. Averge american would have better armement for example.
@@0Kubus0 someone didnt get the joke
They were essential in a heavy naval battle near Italy....
Against a group of dolphins
Cody you're underestimating the Brazilian War Machine in 1917, we also shot a Dolphin because we thought it was a U-Boat
Shooting a Dolphin due to thinking it is a submarine sounds like the most Brasilian (or Floridian) naval thing I can think of.
@@Dartingleopard We just shot the Dolphin and said "Yeah the Germans will feel this" and went back home
I don't know why but that is exceedingly funny.
@@Maddog3060 It is indeed
the brazilian navy was truly a force to be reckoned with 🙏
Your narrative is so good that sometimes you lose track of where the real history ends and the alternative history begins.
Europe: Has a family fight (again)
USA and Swizterland: *Share popcorn*
Communism: *starts to rise*
USA and Switzerland: “wait no not like that”
Switzerland was suffering in WW1 from a lot of shortages too.
ultra mega reddit take- tens of millions of die and its lmao xD FAMILY FIGHT TIME JUST LIKE ME
@averymiller2255 i mean, its literally true. All of the European royalty were literally blood relatives.
No more family fight ): (?)
Fun fact: the armistice was signed at 5:45. 2738 people died between then and the "11th hour of 11/11" that the victors decided would be the official end.
Literally died for nothing.
@@cactusking4045 welcome to the Great War!
@@cactusking4045 the time delay was necessary, as the ceasefire notice needed to be distributed to everywhere on the front before it went into effect, and even then there were still groups who kept fighting because they didn't know they were supposed to stop. A onesided armistice because one group stopped while another kept going would have killed way more people
@@greg_mca If lives mattered, I'm sure they could have found a way to coordinate a "dont plan any big charges across minefields tomorrow, boys" message
@@KevFrost The reality of logistics back then meant it was a lot harder to have a message disseminated simultaneously at such a large scale.
normally I skip paid promotions but yknow, James' book there actually sounds kinda cool
Why thank you! 💜
4:36 : Luigi Cadorna: “doing the thing we have done 473 times before IS THE LAST THING THEY WOULD EXPECT!”
Lol blackadder reference
i can only imagine marshal borojevic seeing the italians climbing his mountain for the 473rd time and taking a long morose sigh
"Let's look at something less contentious... the Balkans."
In what timeline are we right now, that this statement got made?
Israel/Palestine has the dubious honour of being the only place that makes the balkans look stable and peaceful by comparison 😂
@@sirsurnamethefirstofhisnam7986not exactly, it’s only cuz Palestine and Israel are new, and still high in popularity
@@NormalPerson-idk”popularity” is definitely a choice to use
@@surenderreddy8144 heated also works, but popular is what was on my mind at the time.
That's the joke.
In this universe Oswald Mosley fails art class and then massive opsies
I believe this video is poorly researched, Germany still loses. Same situation, again.
@@biryanilover7147 your joking right?
@@ChisledFish430 what? Please elaborate. Germany would have still lost the war without America joining the Entente. America wasn't the deciding factor of the war.
@@biryanilover7147 It was, without them the war would have ended in a German-leaning stalemate. and probably a full German victory if America sent no aid at all.
12:21 "Seriously, don't drink this stuff"
DougDoug would like to have a word with you
Man you beat me to it.
fr, olive oil is the goat drink
I've been looking to find this comment, I knew for a fact someone would have beaten me to it
At least I wouldn’t have needed to remember Wilson’s 14 points for that high school history test…
They still would have made you remember them only now it would be: "And what were Wilson's rejected 14 points?"
@@GhengisJohn his points where ignored in our timeline too
@@d-.-5180 I would say very selectively applied to nations which didn't clash with British or French interests or weren't allied with Central Powers. Poland got its points, even boosted those by Belarusians and Ukrainians, who were denied self determination because they were aligned with Germany (to make Brest Litovsk happen). But Arabs, who fought for their independence in a unified state only to get a British and French backroom deal slapped in the face because "NEED MOAR COLONIES"
@@d-.-5180 Eh some of his points got accepted in our timeline but yeah most were ignored.
As the way I see it, the only way a lasting pecae coul've been achieved after WWI was to force an unconditional surrender of the German forces and then splitting Germany into smaller countries, dwarfing Prussia and charging war reparations over Prussia only, so the other German states wouldn't want to unify again.
This might be my favorite sponsor for a video ever. Truly hope to see it become a trend!
Thank you! 💜
What if Germany used dinosaurs in WW2 like in Dino D-Day?
Edit: thanks for the likes and i'm happy that this idea sounds interesting or funny (Dino D-Day is indeed weird game, but in very good way)
What if WW2 happened in prehistoric times?
@@GrantGraff in fact, it happened... have you ever eard about the Great Tyrano Conflict? It was, like, the 3rd great conflict of Cretace
Hitlersaurus rex
@@zaidb9468Benitodactyl Saurolini
@@nxtvim2521 Naziraptor hitleris
Describing the Zimmerman telegram as “asking an amputee to sucker punch Mike Tyson” is hilarious and hella true when you think about it
It's also a shitty deal. "Hey Mexico go start a needless war, basically by yourself, with the largest single industrial power on Earth"
"If you do that, and you do super well, in the peace you can have SOME of the territory you lost in 1836"
SOME, it was Texas, New Mexico and Arizona that was promised.
It ignores California and Utah and parts of Colorado, Oklahoma, Kansas and Wyoming
Braindead spam comment
This just made my day.
Do you know what else? They also asked Japan to attack the US. They had no reason to do that. More than a decade earlier, we stopped them from being taken over by Russia!
I don't know. Some amputees (especially ex-military) can kick major ass.
7:59 if you do that route, the comment section will be a hellhole of toxicity
Let’s not forget that the Lusitania had over 180 tons of war material on board and that info wasn’t released by Britain until 60 years after.
After blueprint for Armageddon, I realized there was a whole bunch of old ww1 propaganda that was taught as fact in school.
It’s the largest hypocrisy that is still not widely known today. Even pre-Geneva convention, it was understood that weapons smuggling to one side of a war makes you a viable target.
And the support ships were told not to sail with the ship, and several aid ships were commanded to turn away when they were on their way aid the survivors, and that the British intentionally hid munitions, guns, and war supplies on civilian ships to box in the Germans so the shipments would either arrive, or the Germans would be forced to fire on civilians.
I love it when people talk ahout unrestricted submarine warfare as though there was no cause and effect or order of events. Not defending it btw, just pointing out that the idea they did it just to terrorize the enemy is silly as many knew it would tank their reputation, but felt they had no choice, even if they did.
Yeah the USA was manipulated into the war by Britain. They are the real villains. British scheming of that era knew no boundaries and hurt everyone in the name of empire.
So basically Britain was using the civilians on board as human shields
Seriously. Best ad ever. First time I saw the whole ad
Thank you 💜
Yes.
Hype and personal trust in all of us.
That’s what I was thinking actually gave the book a look and going to read a bit tonight
@@johnbenavidez3315 Thank you! 💜
@@KenXIndustries are u james?
It is mind boggling that after helping the Bolsheviks, sending the telegraph to Mexico and confessing to it despite having plausible deniability, Zimmermann was not accused of stabbing Germany in the back.
One thing you forget, the unrestricted submarine warfare was a major issue for the Entente. If they did stop, the Entente would’ve had more resources from its colony. Not saying the war ends in a complete entente victory, but it also changes the outlook of this war.
Basically yeah. Unless the "not resuming unrestricted warfare" also came with, say, the US also forcing Entente shipping to not use disguised Q-ships
I think by 1918, the war was practically lost for Germany, regardless of the U.S.A or not.
@@biryanilover7147 yeah once the Kaiserschlat failed they didn't really have anymore steam. The US being involved ended it quicker and probably saved a lot of lives that would've been lost in however long it would've took Germany to call a cease fire.
@@Mr.Spade1but the French army in particular gained the morale to stop mutinying from American support. no USA = no forced kaiserschlacht = possible breakdown of French lines over a prolonged period
@@Mr.Spade1Even before the Spring Offensive, German soldiers were losing morale. In late 1916, the Germans themselves admitted they couldn't win against the Allies. The Allies just needed to hold until the blockade would fully collapse them. Sure, Russia was knocked out but the Brits, French, Italians, and more collapsed all the Central Powers with practically little to no American aid. It is overstated how bad the situation was for the Allies. The French mutinied, but only a few dozen soldiers actually did and it didn't bring France into collapse, like the German Revolutions of 1919.
I know this video is a fun fiction/ story telling ‘what if’, but loads of comments point out it’s really flawed and I’ll add my bit to that. Most people forget that the British Army didn’t stop growing and only became more effective as 1918 began and went on, eventually becoming the most capable fighting force in Europe by the end of the war. Whilst ‘the Western Front was exhausted’ is often said, this is untrue; the French Army took the burden of the war between 1914 and mid 1917, but post the Nivelle Mutinies the British Army took responsibility for offensive fighting in the West (think Paschendaele, Cambrai and Arras, all helped cover the French whilst their army mutinied). It was British troops who bore the brunt of the Spring Offensive, absorbing enormous blows near Ypres and Amiens, and it was subsequently British troops who led the Hundred Days Offensive that ended the war. American troops simply didn’t have enough time to become experienced in modern warfare, and the French Army was by this point only really capable of supporting offensive actions (the few attempted American-French attacks, such as at Meuse- Argonne, went a lot worse than British led attacks in Flanders).
This said, I think a point can still be made that without the threat of US Troops, Germany might not have panicked and attempted the Spring Offensive and thus wouldn’t have lost the large number of Eastern Front Veterans sent to the West. This greater concentration of men would’ve made the job of attacking much harder for the Allied Armies, possibly requiring 1918 to be spent rebuilding the French Army ready for a joint Anglo-French Offensive in 1919. Either way, discontent back home, the state of the failing German army and the food + material blockade would’ve almost certainly forced the Germans into armistice sooner or later, and really I don’t think there’s any real way Germany could’ve won the war, at least post 1916.
Cody tries his best, but he does seem to ultimately take the typical American view that the Allies were basically useless until the USA showed up to do the real work. It's incredibly frustrating that WW1 is often treated as a low-tech version of WW2 in terms of war participation.
@@gurigura4457Omg it’s exactly this. I know it’s the very stereotypical British historian thing to bang the drum saying ‘umm actually we were very important in WW2’, but barely anyone here knows how actually important we were in WW1, even though we had a much larger role in WW1 than in WW2. The Russian and Italian Armies crippled the Austro-Hungarian Army, on paper the second most powerful Axis Power. The French Army sacrificed itself in order to hold off the Germans, winning the war of attrition. The British and Commonwealth Armies kept fighting when the French were pushed to the brink, and eventually lead the offensive that would end the war. The Americans tactically did nothing. Arguably their greatest contribution was scaring the Germans so much they attempted the Spring Offensive (an offensive beaten back by the British and French), which ultimately hastened Germany’s end. It took the British 3 years to learn to attack effectively; the French 2 to learn how to effectively defend. The Americans had none of this experience, and suffered horrendous casualties for little gain; they were very much the ‘junior partner’ militarily by the end of the war. World War One was won by the enormous sacrifice of the French, Belgian and British peoples. I’m sorry to say that the same simply cannot be said about the Americans, even if they believe it.
@@DotmatrixHistory Exactly. Not to mention the immense effect of the blockade that we maintained over the entire war. After Jutland (i.e. undisputed naval dominance of the North Sea), the Germans would have had to needed some impossibly spectacular victories to force France to the table. But they kept being slowly drained of food & war resources, so an Allied victory was inevitable. This isn't WW2 - people aren't looking back & thinking "I never want to go throught that again". France and Britain would never surrender without significantly higher casualties than Germany was, by 1916, realistically capable of inflicting. They lacked the stability issues that plagued Russia & AH, and by late 1917 had begun to outpace Germany in terms of technology & doctrine. At best, the USA can claim to have hastened the end by triggering the spring offensive (and offering substantial financial support). Nothing to be looked down on, of course, but not enough to change the (local) course of history significantly.
@@gurigura4457 The issue with this narrative while true in a military sense, it also neglects the vast quantities of trade and supplies the United States continually pumped the Entente with. Hell the US in joined the war out of this economic interest and war profiteering. The Lusitania for example a famous reason for why America joined the war, was in fact carrying Munitions and war materiel. America was hardly neutral and played a vital role ,at least economically to the success of the Entente. Militarily they contributed little. Realistically the Germans had to push quickly or achieve strategic victories in order to win, they could not sustain attrition. They could not pull resources from their overseas colonies like England and France, nor their manpower, and thus had to rely solely on their own homelands of which was being starved out. I disagree that after 1916 they couldn't have won, the past has shown greater comebacks than this, but it is true at this point the scales were heavily tipped.
@sirsteam6455 As you said, France & Britain were both global colonial empires; sure, it was easier to obtain the resources needed from the States given geographic proximity (amongst other reasons), but ultimately the foodstuffs, raw materials, & equipment could have been produced elsewhere and shipped over. Trade with the US (*trade*, they did not give up these necessary materials for free) simply sped up the whole process. They played an part, but not a vital one.
As for German victory after 1916, whilst it wouldn't be strictly impossible, it would be so unlikely as to mean that any accelerationism caused by the US hardly matters (to the the ultimate victory, not to the final tally). This isn't 1415, where you can wipe out most of an enemy county's force in a single afternoon. Barring a collapse like what occurred in Russia, it's only a question of manpower reserves & industrial capacity. And the blockade on Germany meant that its ability to maintain either of those was inevitably shrunk.
The Battle of Jutland (which forced the High Seas Fleet to remain in port for the rest of the war, making the blockade unbreakable) went about as badly for the British as it might have, and the Germans still lost. The Germans performed as well on land as any might have expected them to, in the early days. But once the advance was halted (which could easily have happened earlier) it was a question of pure attrition, and the Entente had both the overall greater capacity and (at least in the case of the French, who supplied the greater manpower) the greater will to keep fighting.
Nobody is denying that the US played a role, and were helpful to the overall victory. But in the same way that the nutritionist of an Olympic athlete doesn't get to stand on the podium at the end of an event, Americans shouldn't claim credit or to be the deciding factor in a war in which they earned neither.
4:45 Cody forgot to mention the biggest thing brazil done in ww1, the Toninhas battle, when Brazilian navy killed a buch of dolphins in Gibraltar.
What the fuck Brazil?! Those dolphins were just chillin' and stuff
@@ThwipThwipBoom the dolphins were the elite of german uboots, if brazil didnt stoped then germany would be able to destroy all the USA ships going to Europe, brazil basicly saved the day without getting any credit.
God bless Brazil
@@ThwipThwipBoom Nah, dolphins are outright evil, they deserved it.
@@T_Playz42pov: the most interesting thing related to south america
"A little more stable, a little less contentious... Let's go to the Balkans."
I died of laughter there. Bulgaria were badasses. They won the Battle at Doiran THREE times.
Sabaton wrote a song about it. :D
@TMNWG I know.
Ayep. Badasses. Especially when it comes to civilians.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgarian_occupation_of_Serbia_(World_War_I)#War_crimes
They used backstabbing to great effect, 1st Serbia then Romania. Both nations were occupied with Austria-Hungary and thats when Bulgaria struck. If only Romania had not waitied for Russia's advances to join WW1, but had instead joined when Serbia started the war against Austria-Hungary.
Both Serbia and Romania had backstabbed Bulgaria, they were just feeling retribution.
Yeah, no. The US entry into the war was a good bonus, notably for the moral. But on the frontline ? They did not show up until 1918. By wich times the ottomans were already going to collapse and germany’s famine had become horrible. The german army was also very much under equiped : by 1918 France as 6 times more planes and a 100 more time tanks than Germany.
If you add the fact that a lot of the eastern frontline troops had to stay in the east to prevent revolutions, and the almost unwinnable greek front, Germany was always going to loose the long game.
The big difference maybe peace in 1919, and no USA to moderate the peace. Because Versailles was not harsh compared to what France wanted.
Basicly we would see Furherreich, not Kaiserreich.
I don't think the german could force Great Britain to give up any colony
Good on you for using logic
Actually Winston Churchill had argued that Britain and Germany could have reached a negotiated settlement of the war, had America did not join WW1.
to be fair, Winston was very much full of alcohol and hot air at he best of times, and he had many takes, most of them bad.
Typical Brit. They complain that we joined the war. They complain that we didn't join it soon enough. They would have complained had we not joined the war. It doesn't matter what the US does, the Brits will complain about it.
to be fair winston churchill was a moron
@@melfice999 Everyone has many bad takes.
@@Arkantos117 most of us aren't Prime Minister of the UK...
Never knew the extent of Bulgarian efforts. Please pass on a massive well done to James, coming from someone who self publishes it's tough but worth it
"Uncle Sam rushing with his trusty war crime grade shotgun..."
Hey - it isn't a war crime the first time!
That's Canada
Just like the Chubby Electron Mover said.
The Germans were using mustard gas but had the audacity to complain about shotguns
@@ThwipThwipBoomit was purely a PR stunt. They knew they were losing and wanted to garner sympathy or stoke tensions within the entente and neutral powers
@@ThwipThwipBoom the french used gas first tho, the germans just stepped up the game, can you blame em, but the shotgun was very tedious for doctors, many survived and were suffering for days to months because of all the shrapnel, doctors were complaining and the germans made work of it, not like the entante ever made work of their doctors pleads, and the americans did not stop using them thus the germans kept using the gas to.
germans were willing to talk the americans were not.
America declared war in 1917, but it wasn't until spring 1918 American troops started to arrive in any significant numbers. By that point the outcome of the war was pretty much already a foregone conclusion, Germany was literally running out of the raw material and food to supply its soldiers and would have succumbed either way. The only difference would have been Britain and France taking an extra 1% more casualties than they had already taken.
i would say it was a bit more but yeah
People are really forgetting that Starvation is like
a major reason why germany surrendered
A army marches on its stomach after all
But you gotta keep in mind that the whole sprint offensive which put germany into this position was only because they knew the US would be arriving and tired to win before they did. And without the US in the war Britain and France recive far fewer supplies
Nah I think another year and you would have seen more state collapses along the lines of Russia. Communism and revolution were real pressures for every WW1 state at the end of the war
Summer 1918 actually.
US troops don’t start arriving en masse to actually make army formations until the beginning of June 1918, by which point the Spring Offensive is long over.
A timeline without the U.S. still sees an Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian collapse, which still puts Germany in the unenviable position of fighting the U.K., France, and Italy without a major ally.
"This videos is sponsered by..." - Me, sighing, ready to skip ahead - "... James...." - Me: Huh. - "...Who asked me to promote his self published book" - Me: Yea okay i'll watch this one
Kudos on supporting your community like this. Even if you got paid, I feel like that's a nice touch not every youtuber would have done
What if Sigismund prevented the swedish civil war of 1598 and saved the Polish-Lithuanian-Swedish union?
Poland probably rebels, as he would have had to covert to Protestantism to prevent civil war.
Nej tack
Swedish Brandenburg.
No.
Honestly, considering Woodrow Wilson's failure with the Versailles treaty, it would have been a good thing.
Not to mention how incompetent the League of Nations was when it came to actually keeping the peace.
If only Taft or Roosevelt had been been elected instead 😔
the versailles treaty wasn't even that bad tbh: it was hardly any worse than basically any other treaty signed in the late 19th to early 20th centuries. it was hardly worse off than the treaty that prussia forced on france in 1871
wanna talk about bad treaties? saint-germain-en-laye and _especially_ sevres were way worse than versailles! brest-litovsk was incredibly harsh, far harsher than saint-germain and versailles, yet nobody talks about how it should've been different: which it _was_ as it was made more harmful!
@@piyo744 whataboutism. Invalid argument. just because others were worse doesn't mean versailles was a valid response. Germany being saddled with such horrifically crippling debt despite only having responded to a standard call to arms from an ally was incredibly unacceptable and the french should have been diplomatically isolated for such a malicious act.
@@alphamaccao5224 i was using 1871 as an example, not an excuse: the argument is "versailles wasn't special nor overwhelmingly harsh for the time period", not the strawman you've dreamed up
@@alphamaccao5224 if you want another example: brest-litovsk basically neutered russia and eastern europe as a whole, permanently subjugating it under a kind of proto-lebensraum, complete with plans of german settlement in the baltics and ethnic cleansing of russians (which happened IRL after the polish-soviet war!)
if you wanna talk about "international isolation", this would be your treaty! this is the unusually harsh and crippling treaty versailles is made out to be; and again, look at saint-germain-en-laye and trianon!
the rise of you-know-who is the fault of the weimar government (scratch a liberal) and the incompetence of the comintern, not the entente
like i said in my other comment, i was using 1871 as an *example* and a *demonstration* of treaties from the same time period similar to versailles, not your strawman of "but what about 1871???"
I’m always looking for unique books and new authors so I don’t get stuck in an echo chamber, so thanks James can’t wait to read Deadlands.
Thank you so much for your support! I hope you enjoy it!
1:00
America: "DEAAAAATH! DEATAAAATH!! DEAAAAAAAAAAATH!!!"
The Ride of the Rohim, 1917 style.
"50 war tribes in a trenchcoat pretending to be a country"
@@sillyone52062Tolkien used his experience in the Somme when soldiers where forced to charge into machine gun fire and certain death to write the charge of the rohirim scene
@@RipOffProductionsLLC war tribes? lol
@@oscarc7017 Habitual Line Crosser meme, guy has a way with words
America to Britain following OTL WWI: "You're my greatest ally!"
America to Germany following alternate WWI: "You're my greatest ally!"
“I see this as an absolute win!”
Absolutely incorrect. After WW1 the USA and UK were gearing up for war with each other with Japan allied to the UK.
It's why the Washington Naval treaty of 1922 happened to stop a naval arms race between the USA vs UK and Japan.
Money over Briches
USS Liberty moment
That is an issue in this video, in my opinion. Given the debt that Entente powers held to America, it is likely that America would make the choice to prop THEM up instead, ensuring Britain and France's continued colonial administration to pay back the debts they owed to America.
20:18 THE ONE PIECE
THE ONE PIECE IS REAL
I love when alternate history alternates all over history!
Same tbh
well said
Nice
2:40 to be fair, the Lusitania actually WAS carrying war materiel for the UK! And germany only adopted shoot-first submarine warfare after the hrits started arming convoy ships
We're not allowed to talk about that
the brits only lied about that for 93 years
RUclipsr sponsorship for novels sounds neat.
6:02 all this time I tought Jimmy was just a character that Cody invented to symbolise the audience
Yeah, I never would have considered that we were Jimmy all along.
There are some inaccuracies. Woodrow Wilson wanted to get into the WW1 so he could have a say in the treaty and create the league of nations. The general American population did not want to go to war, and so Wilson had to act like he was trying to stay neutral.
Britain stopped marking their war ships as military and the Americans were shipping military weapons on civilian ships. In 2008, it was confirmed the lusitania had military weapons on it. Germany in response said to Britain they would fire on their civilian ships. The Germans published articles in travel magazines warning American citizens not to go to Europe. The US state department tried to remove those warnings from the magazines because they were shipping arms on ships.
Colonel Edward House, Woodrow Wilson, JP Morgan, David Lloyd George were the 4 people who essentially made the decision for all of America to join the war.
So, did you think before writing this, or did you not?
@@joshuafrimpong244 where was he wrong?
The issue that also played in part was a bunch of civilian liners were refitted to have guns for *protection*. Then when one gets sunk the country that has them can claim it was simply a civilian liner. Who are the people going to believe the lying government or the people who sunk the boat.
@@joshuafrimpong244 You got me. I made this all up.
The truth is America is always good and we fought WW1 because Germans are inherently evil. Woodrow Wilson's position on staying out of the war had absolutely nothing to do with his re-election campaign, but instead he was genuinely compassionate where he would lose sleep over weighing these options.
In the end, the barbaric Germans took things too far. There was absolutely no other option than war. Not one.
By the way JP Morgan making a killing on loans had no influence whatsoever either.
America went to war because Democracy and stuff, and also 'muhrica!
So Germany was justified in taking down the Lusitania
_"Be careful what you wish for,_
_Because you might just get it all!"_
- *The lesson from this timeline.*
14:03
Minor mistake: The Name of the (West (55-90)) German Army:
1871-1918 Deutsches Heer ((Imperial) German Army)
1918-1935 Reichswehr (Reich Defence)
1935-1945 Wehrmacht (Defence Force)
1955 until today Bundeswehr (Federal Defence)
*Wehrmacht
@@eskaflorence5659 thx
@@eskaflorence5659he corrected it already
I almost choked when he said that. But I think it was a brainfart, not a case of he didn't know better. At least I hope so.
I guess I'll buy James book. Thanks James, I hope to enjoy it.
❤❤❤❤❤❤
I'm just now studying WW1 and Germany was WILING out this entire time.
Post Bismark, they were so bad a diplomatic thinking that it really just seems like they wanted to take on the whole world from the moment Austria-Hungary said 'got my back?
They took the "war is diplomacy by other means" wayyy beyond logical conclusion.
I would argue that the war would probably still end the same if going on for another year or two of Germany’s economic problems were too steep and the UK was suffering was still in the orange compared to the rest of Europe which was in the red
depends on how fast the ukrainian and romanian recources could be extracted, basicly fixing germany'' food, coal and oil shortages.
not saying it's a fix all but it's enough to stay afloat, and smal victories would keep moral high, it's just that the front in france had to stay stable, and for the turks to win they needed the germans, ownly with their help they could retake egypt, witch would save the ottomans economy and possibly the state.
not mentioning the french army was crumbling it's self already even with american aid and reinforcements.
at some point italy might just have singed a seprate peace or switched sides, as they could give lands to austria and gain some from france.
afther seeing the balkans fal, and seeing a invasion of egypt they would surtenly think it over.
with that switch france would surrender as they could not fight a two front war.
american industry really did a lot for the entante but with it going the other way the states would start suplying germany to or just germany instead, betting on a winning horse is the way of the states.
A more reasonable German victory scenario probably involves America forcing Britain to end its blockade. In OTL, the British make a load of concessions to ensure that America goes along with the blockade, but if the British take a more hawkish approach they could end up in hot water very quickly.
@@charliebasar9068 I think this scenario is far more likely but the reality is is the UK had the Naval power to take in America and Germany at the same time even with Germany gaining new resources in the naval theatre late war the reality is if you want to make Germany win the war you have to go a lot earlier
@@dennisvisser3910 there’s a few problems with that number one Italy would’ve most likely never switched sides. Italy had already poured a crap ton of resources into attacking Austria and there was no on on either side that you can realistically have them switch side on top of that the UK was still dominating with its blockade and resources and still had quite a bit of manpower to go and France was having moral issues yes but so was Germany and small victories would not be enough to change that people forget the Germans have already got the biggest victories they could get they won an entire front of the war and it did not fix there issues with morale amongst the soldiers
The 1918 Spring Offensive was the Battle Of The Bulge of WW1.
A desperate hail mary to try and end the fighting, only to burn through almost all of their precious few remaining resources, and their lines collapsed.
The German army wasn't known as the Wehrmacht until 1935 when the Nazis were already in power; In ww1 it was known as Deutsches Heer (German Army) or for short just Heer.
I don’t like being advertised to, but I like James way more than any company
Why thank you! ❤
They get to the negotiation table in 1918 and Germany acts like it has won. UK and France reject any deal, go on fighting for another two years, and win anyway.
They didn't have money. If they tried that, then no one would've won even harder as three global empires fully collapse into rubble.
Absolutely, there wouldn't be any binding treaty without a direct attack against the main strength of the entente, and by 1918 Germany just could not pull that off successfully, especially in this timeline where it's committing to more minor fronts than in history
The Entente would absolutely collapse. With America not joining the war their morale would already be really low and the defeats in Greece wouldnt help. On the other hand Germany's morale would improve because of the victories. The Americans, seeing the Entente lose on all fronts might force the Entente to sue for peace because they wanted their loans payed back and that is impossible if the Entente's economy completely collapses.
@@hellboyhero7819 but the entente wouldn't be losing on all fronts, because they wouldn't have lost on the one front that really matters: in the west. If Germany won in the west then a peace treaty would be likely. But Germany wasn't capable of that, and in this timeline their chances were even lower because they wouldn't be pulling men from every other front to give them the numbers. Even without the US, Germany is not winning on the western front in 1918. The entente just had too many advantages
@@hellboyhero7819 The central powers were cut off. Germany was crippled under blockade. The Austrians were on the brink of imploding and the ottomans had still lost the Middle East.
The western power had the only real tanks, oil supply supremacy and air power mounting. They still had access to their massive empires. Germany tried to yolo the western front before the Americans got there and while they had the troops from the eastern front. It backfired massively and they didn’t achieve anything.
If anyone’s breaking the western front it’s not going to the central powers who are on the brink.
Wilson absolutely did not wanna keep the US out of the conflict, publicly he did but in private he did all he could to get the US involved. You mentioned the Lusitania but failed to mention the massive amount of ammunition it was carrying therefore making it a legitimate target for Uboats.
Slightly unrelated to the video but I hope people are preserving the original versions of some of this historical footage and we don't lose it for the colourised stuff. I don't think the existence of the latter is bad and a fictionalised retelling of history is as good a place as any to feature it but it's always a shame when things that need to be archived are lost in a bid to make things palatable for a contemporary audience.
I feel you, more than half of the time the colorizations of black and white film aren't even correct, ESPECIALLY when if comes to colors that are supposed to be vibrant, they always get washed out as if to say something to the tone of "the past was miserable and dull", it just feels so disrespectful to those people's image since bad colorizations make it that much harder to understand and relate to the time period they were in
I know its fiction. I Know its not meant to really go into detail and I certainly know that this critic is just going much into detail but what most of the people talking about WW1 miss is the nordic sea blockade. I mean Germany had like a third of the production material avaiable in 1918. Germany back then was really dependent on the swedish ores and therefore a longer war would likely mean a defeat for Germany because of a munition shortage. Furthermore the german people were starving at home and the country was at the brink of a revolution (which in our timeline occured twice).
To conclude I would say that Germany and the middle powers would not have won WW1 simply because the USA did not join. However the war would take longer to end (maybe 1919) and millions more would die because of it and the spanish flu.
That and the resources in the wider British Empire were still available. While the threat of US troops arriving spurred the Germans into making hasty attacks, the tide of the war was already set by the time the US managed to get troops in theater in Spring 1918. The US just accelerated the war and reduced the overall dammage.
Maybe there still would have been a pandemic in 1918, but it almost certainly wouldn't have been the misnamed Spanish Influenza. It got the name because Spain was the first place it arrived that news of it wasn't suppressed because of wartime censorship. The available evidence indicates it began in US training camps and was brought to Europe by the AEF. Without the US in the Great War, Spanish Influenza doesn't happen.
Was gonna skip the ad but that’s kinda cool
Thank you! 💜
I mean, I don't see a scenario that isn't "the Allies win anyway, but it takes until 1919. 1920 at worst"
Fair enough, Germany really weren't prepared for war, they could handle France on her own cuz well France was weaker but taking on both European superpowers and Uncle sam? It's almost as if they were asking for defeat
@@aarthirajaraman7453 "they could handle France on her own cuz well France was weaker"
Uuh, no... I think you're transposing WW2's situation with WW1's situation... France was definitively not weaker than Germany. In fact, even when WW2 started France was much more a threat than Germany. Strategy and ballsy tactics (blitzkrieg) + France's generals of the time's stupidity (and terrible lack of insight) is what made France taking a quick and harsh loss, not the fact France was weaker.
Their entire arsenal was bigger than Germany's.
I mean, all the US did in WWI was scare Germany into surrendering after ALL THEIR ALLIES WERE OUT, so... yeah the allies still win
@@LeKain08 The french efforts in world war 1 were commendable but France was clearly weaker in terms of it's military, economic and demographic capabilities. That's just the nature of Germany being a larger and more populous country. I think it's fair to say that on paper France should have been much more formidable in world war 2, but too blame a few generals for the fall of france is just silly. France could have recovered from the breach in the ardennes, but it did not. The key reason is that the french people did not have the will to fight. France was clearly scarred from the last war and despite having conscripted millions of men, almost all simply surrendered. Clearly indicated by the french death toll in world war 2, being extremely low. If that does not make France weaker, I don't see what would.
Someone overestimates the military impact of the US in the war.
Props for promoting your friend.
I’ll give it a shot.
😊
Hey, here's one for you, Cody.
What if Brazil had kept its monarchy?
Brazil Empire forever❤
Gundams. Lots and LOTS of big stompy silliness.
(For legal reasons, this is a joke.)
More political stability and no coups after coups dictatorships and revolts after revolts. Wouldn't be a superpower, but certainly a richer and nicer country to live in.
It would be a bit tougher and might last a bit longer but the result would be same.
I disagree
@JacobFraps the germans last offensive stalled out. Their supply lines were overextended and the entente showed that they could gain ground just as fast as the germans.
@@juliandacosta6841 the offensive was rushed due to the fear of the Americans, had they not joined the war the Germans could have been more strategic with higher morale and their enemy more willing to negotiate
@omarmg2458 this is world war 1 we are talking about, the Germans can't be much more strategic than throwing themselves at the enemy. That failed even with all the reinforcements from the russian front, Germany was never going to win, with or without the USA joining the war, not to mention that germany was on the brink of starvation and economic collapse due to the British blockade, time was running out for germany, they couldn't have waited much longer
@@omarmg2458 Let's not forget about the hundreds of tanks the British and the French had ready to go by that point, best case scenario would be less humilliating peace conditions for Germany, but that's it.
Don't confuse Wilson's campaign BS for his actual intentions.
For the 1st time ever I didn't skip an embedded ad but wanted to hear it.
Thank you! 💜
Not gonna lie, that sponsorship is pretty darn interesting.
Why thank you! 💜
The first ad I haven’t skipped in a long time. Might have to check it out
Why thank you! 💜
It's important to remember why Germany launched unrestricted submarine warfare - they focused on the western front in 1916, and failed to make a breakthrough, while the Brussilov offensive in the east destroyed much of the Austrian army. This panicked Germany into resorting to unrestricted submarine warfare. Had Germany focused on the East in 1916, they could have outflanked Brussilov and destroyed the Russian army 18 months or so earlier than in our timeline. This would leave the central powers in a much stronger position, including the Ottomans
today is such a great day. i finally got a job after 7 months of searching, i got some money i was owed so i have cash in my pocket, and now my favourite youtube channel has published a video about my favourite era in history. things are really looking up 🙂
'Germany threw everything in the kitchen sink'....
Is that a Herbert Kitchener reference?
For those who dont know: Herbert Kitchener was a British ww1 Field Marshal that was sent to Russia and his ship got sunk by a German sea mine killing him. aka Kitchener sank
I love it when Cody said its alternate history time and alternate histories all over world war one and then everyone clapped
I had a stroke reading this
@@maryhough8041didn’t you love the part where Cody said “it’s alternate history time” and alternate histories all over the place, which then caused the world to clap?
like game of thrones?
6:31 I’m sold gimme
Why thank you 💜
Yeah, this sounds amazing
Same
My thoughts exactly lol, he didn’t he finish the ad before i was sold
@@illumaQ Why thank you! 💜
Awesome video as always. I continue to be amazed by your knowledge of Balkan history, it's very impressive, even in comparison to other historians and/or RUclips history channels.
Europe: *Has a war*
US: “Hey, leave me out of this”
U.S.: still smuggles weapons to the UK
✡️: “Shut up and fight goy”
But also US: "Let me just slightly dip my toe into that sweet war of yours...cos democracy (cough WW2, cough Yugoslavia, cough Ukraine)"
18:52 I wonder what happens to all of the loans that the US is owed? That’s gonna make the explosion in the twenties is impossible
I wish you made 40 minute videos where it feels like it’s really completed, I feel that every video needs a sequel
I feel like a lot of people underscore how pivotal the First World War was… Being overshadowed by the much larger second world war, but in reality, the first world war was far more consequential
How many countries were destroyed at the end of World War II? Basically Germany was split in half and a couple borders were shifted in Europe while in Asia colonies broke free from their Imperial rule.
At the end of the first world war, we saw the demise of four great ancient empires, we saw the rising Italian empire stunted in its tracks, and the path of colonization begin. The rise of the United States as the Premier global power, the rise of liberalism over monarchy… The great socialist experiment in the Soviet union. The creation of 14 new nations in Europe. The league of nations as well as some type of international global standard of trade and conflict mediation (it failed, but was a steppingstone)
It’s also arguable that the technological advancement of the First World War was greater than that at the second. Sure nuclear power is pretty impressive, but World War I brought us the airplane, tank, creeping artillery garage, and the submarine all on large scales.
It truly is a conflict that boggles the imagination… It was different than all conflicts that came before it and we relegate it to a minor historical event when it was the defining moment of the 20th century
3:10 Zimmerman telegram proposed a defensive alliance "Please attack thr US *IF* they declare war on us." Which is still really dumb
It seems silly in hindsight, but at the time the U.S. had recently invaded Mexico trying - and failing - to hunt down Pancho Villa after he led a raid into Texas. So US-Mexico relations were already at a low-point. I figure all the Germans were really hoping for was to keep the US distracted with Mexico long enough to end the war without their intervention.
Fun fact: the American officer who led the invasion of Mexico was "Blackjack" Pershing himself, future leader of the AEF.
It seems silly in hindsight, but at the time the U.S. had recently invaded Mexico trying - and failing - to hunt down Pancho Villa after he led a raid into Texas. So US-Mexico relations were already at a low-point. I figure all the Germans were really hoping for was to keep the US distracted with Mexico long enough to end the war without their intervention.
Fun fact: the American officer who led the invasion of Mexico was "Blackjack" Pershing himself, future leader of the AEF.
I always thought it was an interesting but stupid gamble on Germany’s part: Germany didn’t like that we were acting as an arms dealer, they knew they’d had success getting Mexico and the US to fight for the last five-ish years, and they didn’t think the telegram would explode in their face. Guess Germany forgot how serious the US was about the Monroe Doctrine and Roosevelt Corollary.
bro i have been binging your videos for a while and i am surprised that you still haven't done a video on Egypt even tho it's very large and interesting history so i have ideas for you.
(for me the most interesting are 1,2,3,6,9)
1-What if ancient Egypt was more imperialistic and focused more on expanding rather than securing borders.
2-What if rome became Egyptian with the whole thing with cleopatra and ceaser and stuff.
3-What if Cleopatra Aligned with Mark Antony Before Caesar?
4-What if Napoleon Bonaparte Established a Long-Term Egyptian Empire?
5-What if the Mamluks Had Allied with the Ottomans or hadn't had all their problems or if they were atleast so unstable.
6-What if Egypt Colonized the Mediterranean Instead of Rome?
7-What if Egypt Retained Control of Palestine and Syria after the Battle of Megiddo?
8-What if Egypt Won the Arab-Israeli Wars? (in either 1948 or 1967)
9-what if muhhamed ali pasha allied the british and French in the 2nd Egyptian ottoman war in 1839.
10- what if Egypt never got colonized by the british.
RIP Franz Ferdie I'm gonna cry
His song take me out was really on the nose tbh
And wife Sophie.
it always depresses me when I watch videos discussing either of the world wars and Canada is at no point ever mentioned. Maybe our infantry wasn't as influential as the US, but we still did a lot of work. From the good of the 100 Days Offensive to the bad of literally inventing war crimes, it always feels off to never hear us be mentioned.
Our infantry was much more influential than the US in the first world war. The US showed up in 1918 when the war was decided. Canada was there at the start and sent 1 million soldiers throughout the war.
@@juliandacosta6841 right, which is why our contributions often being ignored always hurts.
I think you’re usually put under the “British colonial troops” tab by default which is pretty unfair
@@themistva It makes some amount of sense for World War 1, but Canada declared on Germany independently of Britain for WW2, and that's talked about so little I learned about it years after high school by a friend I made who lives in Denmark.
Agreed. And another thing that seems to be unremembered is that Canada was in the process of training up an additional army. I believe it was 100k? Germans did not like facing Canadian troops. An influx of that many shouldn’t be overlooked by historians
Excellent idea, excellent execution, and even an excellent ad there. Thank you for the video.
Dang it alternate history hub; I was so distracted by buying that Deadlands Freedom book I forgot to finish the video. Darn you for finally getting a sponsor I’m interested in.
Thank you so much! ❤
@@KenXIndustries your welcome dude; I’m deployed in freakin boonies with limited internet and cell service. I seriously need a new book I just finished my other series.
@John-uy4jx I truely hope you enjoy it! And theres a little surprise at the back that might keep you busy!
A post from this channel is always a treat!
Genuinely cool to see an Ad like that wish more creators did that
that book looks really good I'll definitely check it out
Thank you 💜
This upload schedule is incredible, by far the best way to start college
I am starting to write even before the "predictions" part starts, because as soon as I hear an american accent, I know there will be huge blindspots in history.
Here the blindspot is that the few american troops which actually fought didn't do much, and that without them, nothing would have been different.
The ottoman empire fell appart, the austrian empire fell appart, even if Germany had held the line on the western front, which is seriously controversial considering how much devastated by years of economic blockade, they would have ended with a huge southern front for which they had no troops to man.
By 1918, France alone produced more airplanes than all the central powers combined, and thousands of F17 tanks were operational (against litterally nothing on the central side), and planning production for the Char C super heavy tanks.
And politically, Clemenceau is the original Churchill, Churchill who actually was present when Clemenceau made his speech "The germans can take Paris, it doesn't matter. We will fight behind the Seine, and if they pierce, we will fight behind the Loire. And if it comes to that, we will fight in the Pyreneans. And if the pyreneans fall, we will fight from the sea. But we will never surrender.
Dude starts new series without finishing his previous ones
Nah. This one is way off.
The British and French resisted Germany's last major roll of the dice in Operation Michael, and were on a counter offensive which would ultimately lead to victory well before the US reached anything like a meaningful contribution to the Entente ware effort either in terms of men or material.
That offensive would still have to had come even without the pressure of imminent American troop build ups on the Western Front. The only way Germany forces the Entente to the table in 1918, is to reach Paris. Britain and France are far too invested politically to drop the ball because Greece falls. No way.
Germany must use the troops freed up from the East and the Russian collapse offensively before their internal issues cause collapse anyway.
By early 1918 the British army was the world's most effective combined arms force. Bar none. It also had the ability to continue the fight far past Germany's end point.
Once Germany's last offensive fails . . . The roll up happens just the same.
Thank you op
It was more France that had the most modern army in 1918.
@@tibsky1396 hardly. There is more to an army's effectiveness than a few experimental tank models. The French army was in ruins post Verdun and rife with borderline rebellion. They were absolutely the junior partner after Verdun.
@@dryfesands1367 However, the German offensive of Spring 1918 seriously shook the British Army, then led by Douglas Haig. On March 21, more than 60,000 British soldiers were captured. The bleeding was only stopped by the sending of French Reserve troops.
Attacked in turn, the French hold up, and are able to lead a counterattack, developed by Foch.
This Second Battle of the Marne marks the return to war of Movement, where the French carry out operations almost alone. It was from this battle that the Germans lost the initiative of the offensive, because it was their last chance to breakthrough. After that, they only defended and suffered. All this thanks to the Mass motorization of the French Army, as well as its practical logistics turnover across the entire Western Front.
If you talk about he mutinies in 1917, they were quickly settled. The Soldiers just asked the Officers to be more strategic, and that is what happened.
In 1 month, calm returns with simple remedies:
- Improvements to the living conditions of soldiers in the trenches (notably Food).
- Strictly regulated shifts and permissions.
- Creation of training courses in new combat methods, in anticipation of now short and carefully planned maneuvers.
From June 1917, the Germans launched numerous assaults. The French soldiers stubbornly hold their positions and repel the enemy. Then, in October 1917, Pétain brilliantly won the Battle of Malmaison, inflicting heavy losses on the Germans with minimal damage.
At the end of 1917, the French soldier regained all his confidence in his command, and the Germans noticed nothing. At the beginning of 1918, on the Western Front, 105 French divisions, 56 British Divisions and 6 Belgian Divisions faced 197 German Divisions.
@@tibsky1396 What a shame your copy and pasting of Wiki articles didn't actually include what happened in 1918.
The 100 days Offensive spearheaded by the British 1st, 3rd and 4th Armies with the French only taking a supporting role.
You know, the actual business of winning the war? Offensives won by the use of primarily British divisions and using British approaches to combined armed offensives.
There was a reason the French army weren't deployed in this offensive capacity. Perhaps you can work it out from the articles you've evidently misunderstood.
Start with the battle of Amiens and work your way forward.
I’m so glad that you mentioned Bulgaria. Despite having one of the best defences of WW1, they sadly aren’t talked about as much as they should be, even if Britain itself congratulated them on repelling them over and over again and how they fought like gentlemen as well. "The Valley of Death" is an amazing song that goes over this aspect, and the history video that accompanies it goes into great detail about how crazy the Bulgarians were during the Battle of Doiran and how crazy Vladimir Vazov was, where he was greeted with honour when he visited Britain after WW1.
6:45 actually that book sounds fire
Promote some books way cooler then lame games
Thank you! ❤