It’s worth noting that in this hypothetical timeline, Hillary ALSO wouldn’t be part of the 2016 election, since a lot of her relevance came from being a former First Lady, which she wasn’t in this timeline.
If you watched closely, he said Clinton *was* President - after saying it would be likely he wouldn’t be. It was done to make projecting easier. Otherwise it would be different from current world it would be meaningless. In this scenario I got the US Presidencies as: 1989-1993: George H. Bush 1993-2001: Bill Clinton 2001-2009: Al Gore 2009-2017: John McCain (assuming he survives) 2017-present: Hillary Clinton (or another Democratic President)
@@rebeccawinter472 not gonna lie that seems kinda lazy and stupid to just say “Clinton was president” despite him having zero reason to be. If I had to pick candidates for the ‘16 election, it’d probably be Obama vs Ted Cruz, with Obama ultimately winning. Though even then that’s a loose guess, but still a better one than assuming Hillary SOMEHOW takes the election despite having literally zero reason to even be on the PRIMARY BALLOT, let alone the actual election
This scenario could've been titled "The Two Marios", as a man named Mario could've become POTUS if another man who looked like Super Mario won a war years earlier.
@@cloudyfromtpotrealI was only commenting on the fact that in this video's timeline, Mario Cuomo's odds of being elected president are better than in ours because Saddam Hussein, who looked very much like Nintendo's plumber in red, won the Iraqi-Iranian War.
Read Persepolis by Marjane Satrapi. It's a graphic novel about the Iranian Revolution and Iran-Iraq war from the perspective of a child. It talks about how the Ayatollah's regime used propaganda on kids, how regime change changes people and what life was like for communist revolutionaries. Even the ending would make Rick from Pawn Stars cry.
It's important to remember that Iraq was in NO position to invade Iran in 1979. It too was dealing with political turmoil as Saddam was consolidating his OWN regime - he would purge the Ba'ath party extensively in this year. In addition, the Iraqi military was barely armed and needed a year to modernize and even arm itself effectively. Saddam invaded ONLY as soon as he was ready. A much more realistic scenario of an Iraqi victory would be the Soviets also invading Iran from the north - after all, the USSR, NOT the USA, was Saddam's main ally and patron.
Though the several billion dollars worth of aid to Iraq from the US was a big help! The Soviets were stuck in Afghanistan, so aid was more limited as a result
From the rl Soviet leadership this is actually possible lol The Mujahideen is entering Afghanistan through both Pakistan and Iran, this is already an great issue with flooding of reinforcement drying the Soviet troops dry. The High Command in Moscow once largely think that atleast severing the border toward Afghanistan by invading Iran exposed Eastern flank, which in theory was much more efficient than just pumping billions toward Saddam pockets.@@AdityaRamachandranx
About Khuzestan looking "stupid on a map" if integrated into Iraq unless they were to annex more territory north of it, I don't think Iraq wanted to take Khuzestan in its entirety, but only the area with flatter terrain. It becomes very obvious how this would shape the two countries by looking at a topographic map of the region, and it looks a lot better without the mountainous part of the province. However, you are right that at least a small portion of Ilam would be needed to perfectly shape this. I don't know if there are any maps from the time period showcasing Ba'athist Iraq's exact claims.
I think the Ba'ath regime was at least officially pushing for an Independent "Arabistan", the dream of Arab nationalists in Khuzestan, and those guys are maximalists, often calling the Lurs who live in the north and west of the province "occupiers of rightful historic Arab lands"
There isn't because Iraq never claimed it nor did it want to annex any land. See the last operation in the war when Iraq recaptured Iranian land only to give it up for resumed diplomatic relations in 1990. It did however fund separatists but it wasn't exclusive to the Iranian Arabs, the same happened with Kurds and Baloch too.
If I'm not wrong, Khuzestan is the province with the largest oil reserves in Iran. There is also the only oil refinery in Iran, of course Iraq will occupy it.
@@treazy8600 It has the largest oil reserves but it is not the only place with oil refinery, there's even a refinery near Tehran, it has a subway station named after it. Yes Saddam would want to conquer all of Khuzestan, however the fact that half of Khuzestan is mountainous and its population not Arab, really makes it impossible to occupy even in a scenario where Iraq is much more successful.
“Iraq is the weakest out of these 3 nations” Didn’t they have like the top 5th largest military in the world? For a guy who spouts about population being a deciding factor, why do you gloss over the size of their modern military lmao
Iraq also had a larger population than Saudi Arabia, even back then, by a small margin. Both saudis and the Iranians also has their own ethic issues, though nowhere the level of Iraq.
@@Qwerka That's why our ground army got steam rolled, the coalition did basically a mass bombing on anything military related and severely weakened just basically everything
I think you are missing a few key points. One of the main reasons Bush lost the 1992 election was because he raise taxes. During his 1988 campaign, he promised he would never do this. And he stupidly did this in the middle of a recession. The main reason why he decided to raise taxes was his popularity was bolstered by his handling of the upcoming war. If Iraq had not invaded Kuwait, he more than likely would not have agreed to raise taxes. This would have shorten the recovery period of the recession, putting the economy in a growth pattern in 1992. In the modern era, presidents really only fail to win reelection if the economy is bad, and sometimes not even then, like Obama in 2012. So more than likely Bush would have won reelection in 1992.
What if Germany united (including Austria) following/opposing Napoleon? Specifically because it’s the only time I can think of where it wouldn’t directly lead to conflict of some kind
Germany was united including Austria prior to Napoleon as the Holy Roman Empire and immediately after both were members of the German Confederation, along with Luxembourg, before it was dissolved by Prussia.
so "what if Hardenberg's "41 Articles" or Metternich’s proposal, the “Twelve Articles”, succeeded in creating a Federal Germany at the Congress of Vienna instead of being derailed and abandoned" [unification into a stronger confederation that OTL at the congress of Vienna. Ie the confederation is a bundestaat as orginally proposed not a staatenbund as it eventually became] Or perhaps "What if Hardenberg's 1805 reformation of the HRE succeeded" ie the HRE survives and becomes more unified during the napoleonic wars.
Im guessing most of the saharan states would be ruled by a network of jamahariya governments, which would probably be great for their economies and standards of living in the long term but tons of people would die at gaddafis hands trying to establish those governments?
@@DeanmC261993 As a libyan the problem with the gaddafi is that he ruined a lot of stuff like education and infrastructure because libya in the 50s and 60s was something like jordan today
Nice video, I’m currently working on a similar one to make next month. Here are some aspects to improve your scenario: One main condition for an Iraqi victory would be to have Saddam Hussein not take charge of military affairs as he had in our timeline as Saddam was a horrible military leader who executed his competent Generals for disagreeing with him or losing an engagement against overwhelming Iranian odds. Also something to improve Iraq’s chances against Iran would be to support Kurdish rebels in Iran even more than they did in our timeline. Although it’s not the most realistic part, if Iraq promised Kurdish independence, the Kurds in Iraq would definitely fight against Iran despite having two previous Iraqi-Kurdish Wars. Regarding the 1992 election, Al Gore had ruled out running because of an accident that involved a family death. Additionally Lloyd Bentsen was viewed as a potential democrat candidate, but chose not to run due to the Gulf War. I’d say Bentsen gets the nomination over Clinton as he was very popular during the 1988 election. Bentsen could chose Gore as VP and lead to the 2000 election that you have in your video. Great job, and I’m looking forward to future videos.
I think you somewhat overestimate Iran. After the revolution Iran purged numerous experienced military officers and installed incompetent loyalists. It isn’t a critical blow, but it could allow for some embarrassing shows of incompetence that could swing the war in Iraqs favor if things went a little worse.
@@FNA27601yeah the only time the arabs did good in a war in the yom kippur war both inital attacks were planned by soviet personnel when it was the arabs turn to make a move they decided to overrun there sam battrys agisnt the advice of the soviets and the the results can be predicted🤦♂️
@historyisawesome6399 actually it was mainly egyptian planning for Yom Kippu as Sadat had cut off relations with the soviet union and kicked their ambassador out when he took charge of egypt. As for the getting out of the SAMs umbrella it was due to the israeli forces overrunning the Syrian front so the Egyptian forced had to open another front even if it meant losing a favorable position.
@@FNA27601 a lot of these plans were in part drawn up during the war of attrition under the supervision of soviet advisors. Secondly egypt should have just dug in and use a defense in depth stradegy
@historyisawesome6399 Egypt was not fighting a defensive war, so why would they use a defense in depth. And no aside from the umbrella part the majority of the plan especially the using water to traverse the Sinai on their tanks was drawn up by Egypt there was very little soviet involvement in Egypt by the time Sadat thought to get the Sinai back.
I think it was a okay video to begin with but I think the latter half needs some more accuracy. Israel, the intelligent agencies, and Saudi Arabia has great influence over our foreign policy way more than any oil conglomerate. Islamic terrorism would still exist to some capacity. Many Sunni/wahabbyist militants were covertly supported by the Saudis and Israel to justify US intervention. Just look into the 9/11 attacks and Al-Qaeda
Your analysis of the 1992 US presidential election at 13:19 has one important flaw - while HW Bush's popularity wasn't great, it was primarily damaged by the economic downturn of the early 90s, rather than any inherent unlikeability. This was an election defined more than most are by "It's the economy, stupid!" voting patterns. Americans voted against the incumbent primarily as a referendum against economic conditions of that particular era, and Bush Prime's electability was not defined by the modern-day Culture War, but by relatively straightforward "pocketbook politics". Why is this flaw important? Because we don't know that the recession that began in early 1990 and OFFICIALLY lasted until October of 1991, but realistically lasted well into 1993, would hit in quite the same way in this scenario. With Iraq seizing Iran's oil supply and dumping it onto the market without OPEC limitations in order to maximize their share of the revenue in order to fund their war, energy prices may have remained steadily much lower in this timeline, therefore propping up economic conditions and either delaying or greatly ameliorating the recession - potentially alternatively leading to a swift recovery, well before the November 1992 election. I'm sure that the responsibility for a swift recovery would not have been due to any particular actions Bush the Elder took, but voters would see it quite as just that.
Video Idea: What if Francis of France never got his ear infection that killed him, preserving France's marriage with Mary Queen of Scots, making some sort of Franco-Scottish Union? And would they still inherit England and Ireland?
Great video, but a nitpick: no matter how popular Perot got, Minnesota would never be won by the Republicans in 1992; it has the strongest union culture of any state and was (once upon a time) the only state not to vote for Reagan, so it's unrealistic that it would vote in significant numbers for either of the anti-union candidates (Perot, Bush)
I’d actually disagree on the trump point. Trump flipped flopped his political opinions based on whoever was in power and could’ve been called a liberal in the 90’s and early 2000’s. He only became a hyper conservative because it was popular to hate on Obama in the run up to the 2008 election and during his presidency. That kept trump relevant during a period where he was no longer as present in mass media, so if McCain is in power trump would likely become a staunch liberal to maintain popularity and eventually rerun for president, which would repeat his 2000 run only this time he’s more organized and knows what he’s doing like in 2016. We could have an incredibly cursed timeline with trump fighting for universal healthcare, progressive taxation, and climate change rather than extreme neoliberalism and conservatism.
I guess this is gonna blow your mind, but Trump is still a 90s Democrat even today. Still part of the more economic nationalist faction that got sidelined. To this day he doesn't have a strong opinion on health care or guns, he's fine with same-sex "marriage," he believes in sports just for the correct biological sexes, he still holds the view that abortion is bad but that there should be some early access, he's pro-tariffs, anti-illegal immigration, and pro strong national defense. This same Trump, mixed with Populism and adapted for the present time while still absolutely being himself as he pleases, became viewed as "Ultra Conservative" because the Democrats increasingly ran more and more of the radical cliff, and the Republican Neoconservatives just kept occasionally using social issues to win elections while never seriously trying or really caring to conserve anything beyond GDP, sustained uniparty global intervention initiatives, and the support of their donors.
2:37 Your map here was wrong in placing the Sunni lands as larger than the Shiite ones, and you even made some of the large Shiite cities Sunni with this wrong description. Also, the Shiites constitute 65% of the population of Iraq, while the Sunnis make up 30%.
I would imagine it'll escalate Article 5 into a complete and total occupation of the middle east and a deep investigation into finding where the nuclear material was found
Could you do a video on if the Aztecs, Maya, Iroquois, Incas, etc… from an alliance to beat the European powers out of the Americas? Or alternatively, if Christopher Columbus never landed in the Americas at all?
Could you possibly do a “what if history went perfect for Luxembourg?” Sources may be a little difficult but i feel like it could be an interesting scenario!
Interesting video but I kind of wish Mossad and the CIA's influence was more discussed. The Arab spring was largely brought about by the CIA and Mossad as a way to consolidate power. Speak of Israel Iraq might be an issue because well Zionism and Baathism (basically Middle Eastern versions of strasserism) have a lot in common, The fact that they're two different ethnic groups trying to maintain dominance over the Middle East will cause conflict.
What if Iran and Iraq had adopted the cult of Makima, Revy, Cutie Honey, Marin Kitagawa, Trixie Tang, Judy Neutron, Marge Simpson, Wendy Corduroy, Lois Griffin, Sailor Moon and Maddie Fenton instead of Abrahamic shit?
There were no WMDs in Iraq when USA invaded when the earlier pressure mounted the Iraqis did destroy it. (I am not defending Sadam it's just a fact that there were no WMD's in Iraq.)
@@ash_11117 yes they did But I mentioned who they destroyed their WMD's when US pressure mounted. You don't believe me, you can go and take the word of Scott Ritter a Retired US weapons inspector who himself was on the team that had gone to inspect the supposed WMDs of Iraq.
Iraq didn't invade Kuwait because it was broke, but because Kuwait was using Iraq's oil fields, which Sadams warned them about multiplr times before invading them. Source: my Iraqi parents who hate sadam
Iran without oil is not necessarily weaker. It still has enough oil for domestic consumption and a healthy industrial economy to fall back on. Only a yhird of the budget comes from oil so the country would get over it
If, like u said, "if Iraq won," then Iraq would be far stronger than Iraq was ranked 4th powerful militarily in the present timeline for two reasons, western Iran has more population than the eastern, and the other reason is that the growth of Iraq after the end of Iran-Iraq war and before Iraq was imposed with sanctions, which led Iraq to top 10 in the world, strongest region in the Middle East, militarily and economically, thus with the new beneficial lands, Iraq would be even more formidable and stronger than any European country
@salazar778 either way, look at current Egypt, Iraq was the strongest region in the Middle East after Iraq JUST started to recover after the end of Iran-Iraq war and before Iraq was imposed with sanctions by betrayals and the western governments, which was around 2 years. So, by logic, Iraq would easily surpass any country in the Middle East in terms of economy, and with that economic strength, Iraq would easily able to have very powerful militant equipments and technology along with the nuclear weapons they successfully achieved. So Iraq, with the new beneficial land like in the video, would easily be ranked 3rd in the world militarily and economically
More tension in the cold war, slightly better sino-soviet relations, no anti-soviet uprisings in early to mid 50s(would probably happen later though, when stalin finally dies), gulag system goes on for longer, Lavrenti beria would likely get executed even earlier(stalin hated beria in his last years). Overall more political repression in the USSR, more tension in the cold war, and a more united communist block
I doubt the Arab Spring alone would've overthrown Saddam had he not been overthrown in 2003. Instead we would see a similar situation to either Syria where there's a perpetual civil war but with the dictator still in power or Libya where there's a perpetual civil war but NATO intervened and overthrew the dictator
Arab spring wouldn't have happened in Iraq. Arab spring was about democracy and liberation of the Arab public from dictatorship. Iraqis who opposed saddam would fall into two maybe 3 categories 1 a tiny minority without military means that wanted full democracy, 2 a small minority with armed forces representing ethnoreligious enclaves(likekurds) that want autonomy/sepratism and 3 a well armed externally supported Shia majority that want to replace saddams military dictatorship with a totalitarian theocracy hostile to neighbouring Sunni monarchies. The Iraqi population would not bet on the first group because a previously demonised Shia majority would be the bulk of any armed resistance against the army and be the most to suffer so if successful in toppling Saddam why would they then not feel entitled to rule unilaterally especially if Iranian support is used which is ideologically conditional. The Sunni would not bet on first because a significant portion believe that engaging in civil warfare is forbidden even if the sitting leader is despotic, tyrannical or unislamic as long as they can provide law and order... these would likely support Saddam for this reason as well as out of fear of a Shia theocracy or enforced anti islamic western secularism by way of minorities being put in charge by western nations. The other portion of sunnis would fall prey to the romanticism of islamism and since Saddam thoroughly crushed and persecuted political islamic intellectualism meaning no moderates like the muslim brotherhood there would be an opening for Al qaeda aligned to rally people against firstly a despotic pharaonic like tyrant who called himself a Babylonian King, secondly a secularist western backed Kurdish/minority anti islamic state and lastly a fanatical and heretical twelver Shia totalitarian theocracy. This is how an ultra extremist group like ISIS or a sunni theocratic armed movements that are not tempered by any sane sunni islamist can take advantage. No one apart from kurds would back Kurdish sovereignty and the kurds themselves would actually want to take land and displace Arab tribes not to mention would cut off everyone from the oil. So the last option is the ONLY way saddam would lose power. It wouldn't be another Syria... Syria became Syria because Iran and Russia put boots on the ground gained air superiority and Assad handed over all power to Moscow and Tehran to do as they wished with the country as long as he stayed in power. Saddam doesn't have those friends he has no nuclear ally and no regional state that would support him he'd just be engulfed on every side by Sunni extremists that view him as satan incarnate, Shia majority that want to exact revenge for decades of persecution and Kurdish separatists that won't forget that he used chemical weapons on them.
i saw the original title when i got the notification “iraq wins” lmao 😭
Nuts
I saw it too lol.
They stay winning 😤
I saw what if Iran won the Iran-Iran war lol
Same
why was the notifications title: “Iraq wins”
Unsure
Because that’s the video title.
Probably to grab attention.
I was like “man’s really just phoning it in on the titles, respect”lmao.
he probably accidentally uploaded it with just the file name instead of updating it
It’s worth noting that in this hypothetical timeline, Hillary ALSO wouldn’t be part of the 2016 election, since a lot of her relevance came from being a former First Lady, which she wasn’t in this timeline.
If you watched closely, he said Clinton *was* President - after saying it would be likely he wouldn’t be.
It was done to make projecting easier. Otherwise it would be different from current world it would be meaningless.
In this scenario I got the US Presidencies as:
1989-1993: George H. Bush
1993-2001: Bill Clinton
2001-2009: Al Gore
2009-2017: John McCain (assuming he survives)
2017-present: Hillary Clinton (or another Democratic President)
@@rebeccawinter472 not gonna lie that seems kinda lazy and stupid to just say “Clinton was president” despite him having zero reason to be. If I had to pick candidates for the ‘16 election, it’d probably be Obama vs Ted Cruz, with Obama ultimately winning. Though even then that’s a loose guess, but still a better one than assuming Hillary SOMEHOW takes the election despite having literally zero reason to even be on the PRIMARY BALLOT, let alone the actual election
She was First Lady in this scenario lol
@@drdiabeetus4419 who's Ted Cruz?
@ The Zodiac Killer was active between ‘68 and ‘69 so his timeline is the same
"Advanced deep into Iranian territory"
-Barely moved away from the border
Well technically yes
When your entire border consists of mountains and deserts, barely moving away from the border IS advancing deep.
Considering this is in a post WWII environment, any recognized border change caused by war is an outright miracle.
it is alot
mountains
“oNlY oGs rEmeMbEr wHeN tHIs wAs cAlLed “iRaQ wInS””
はい
Yea
Lmao
จริง
yes.
This scenario could've been titled "The Two Marios", as a man named Mario could've become POTUS if another man who looked like Super Mario won a war years earlier.
Idk what you are trying to say but this makes me think of "Mario the idea vs Mario the man"
@@cloudyfromtpotrealI was only commenting on the fact that in this video's timeline, Mario Cuomo's odds of being elected president are better than in ours because Saddam Hussein, who looked very much like Nintendo's plumber in red, won the Iraqi-Iranian War.
Read Persepolis by Marjane Satrapi. It's a graphic novel about the Iranian Revolution and Iran-Iraq war from the perspective of a child. It talks about how the Ayatollah's regime used propaganda on kids, how regime change changes people and what life was like for communist revolutionaries. Even the ending would make Rick from Pawn Stars cry.
That is a great book
one of my favourite books of all time
100% recomended
Good book
Impossible that man wouldn't cry if his firstborn child was sacrificed to Baal.
It's important to remember that Iraq was in NO position to invade Iran in 1979. It too was dealing with political turmoil as Saddam was consolidating his OWN regime - he would purge the Ba'ath party extensively in this year. In addition, the Iraqi military was barely armed and needed a year to modernize and even arm itself effectively. Saddam invaded ONLY as soon as he was ready.
A much more realistic scenario of an Iraqi victory would be the Soviets also invading Iran from the north - after all, the USSR, NOT the USA, was Saddam's main ally and patron.
Though the several billion dollars worth of aid to Iraq from the US was a big help! The Soviets were stuck in Afghanistan, so aid was more limited as a result
Lmao ! Saddam had NO patron for your information.
The soviets entered Afghanistan in December of 1979, they are unlikely to fight another war.
From the rl Soviet leadership this is actually possible lol
The Mujahideen is entering Afghanistan through both Pakistan and Iran, this is already an great issue with flooding of reinforcement drying the Soviet troops dry.
The High Command in Moscow once largely think that atleast severing the border toward Afghanistan by invading Iran exposed Eastern flank, which in theory was much more efficient than just pumping billions toward Saddam pockets.@@AdityaRamachandranx
Both superpowers were huge patrons to the Saddam regime in its war against the Islamic Republic.
'they take this so it doesn't look stupid on a map' 💀
We are talking about a megalomaniac on one side so I could see this being a reason for Hussein that he doesn’t admit too lol
Apparently Nazi Germany never got the memo on that.
Based
Some might complain that it's unrealistic, but at that point, why not make it look pretty
Just like the player of every Paradox game 😂😂
About Khuzestan looking "stupid on a map" if integrated into Iraq unless they were to annex more territory north of it, I don't think Iraq wanted to take Khuzestan in its entirety, but only the area with flatter terrain. It becomes very obvious how this would shape the two countries by looking at a topographic map of the region, and it looks a lot better without the mountainous part of the province. However, you are right that at least a small portion of Ilam would be needed to perfectly shape this. I don't know if there are any maps from the time period showcasing Ba'athist Iraq's exact claims.
I think the Ba'ath regime was at least officially pushing for an Independent "Arabistan", the dream of Arab nationalists in Khuzestan, and those guys are maximalists, often calling the Lurs who live in the north and west of the province "occupiers of rightful historic Arab lands"
Iraq's basic strategy was "Annex everything down to the Strait of Hormuz."
...Yeah, they weren't very smart.
There isn't because Iraq never claimed it nor did it want to annex any land.
See the last operation in the war when Iraq recaptured Iranian land only to give it up for resumed diplomatic relations in 1990.
It did however fund separatists but it wasn't exclusive to the Iranian Arabs, the same happened with Kurds and Baloch too.
If I'm not wrong, Khuzestan is the province with the largest oil reserves in Iran. There is also the only oil refinery in Iran, of course Iraq will occupy it.
@@treazy8600 It has the largest oil reserves but it is not the only place with oil refinery, there's even a refinery near Tehran, it has a subway station named after it.
Yes Saddam would want to conquer all of Khuzestan, however the fact that half of Khuzestan is mountainous and its population not Arab, really makes it impossible to occupy even in a scenario where Iraq is much more successful.
Title is straight to the point i see
Really love seeing you go more into internal politics instead of just spheres of influence and lines on maps!
Good now make a video where Iraq lost Iraq-Iran War.
Man kissing.
Video is basically done already!
@@possiblehistorycan't wait 🎉🎉🎉🎉❤❤❤
@@possiblehistory What if Everything went Perfect for Libya
@@zhcultivator They'd reform the Ottoman empire basically, have the Ottoman prince accepted the throne of Libya. It'd be a funny scenario
@@zhcultivatorThats a good idea
“Iraq is the weakest out of these 3 nations”
Didn’t they have like the top 5th largest military in the world? For a guy who spouts about population being a deciding factor, why do you gloss over the size of their modern military lmao
Simple, in a war the country with a larger population has a larger army
Iraq also had a larger population than Saudi Arabia, even back then, by a small margin.
Both saudis and the Iranians also has their own ethic issues, though nowhere the level of Iraq.
What about the kurds in Iraq?@@AdityaRamachandranx
If I remember correctly, their air force was lacking veryily behind.
@@Qwerka That's why our ground army got steam rolled, the coalition did basically a mass bombing on anything military related and severely weakened just basically everything
I think you are missing a few key points. One of the main reasons Bush lost the 1992 election was because he raise taxes. During his 1988 campaign, he promised he would never do this. And he stupidly did this in the middle of a recession. The main reason why he decided to raise taxes was his popularity was bolstered by his handling of the upcoming war. If Iraq had not invaded Kuwait, he more than likely would not have agreed to raise taxes. This would have shorten the recovery period of the recession, putting the economy in a growth pattern in 1992. In the modern era, presidents really only fail to win reelection if the economy is bad, and sometimes not even then, like Obama in 2012. So more than likely Bush would have won reelection in 1992.
that's not even counting the 8 TRILLION dollars that aren't burned in the War on Terror and what that money can be used for instead.
Great video
It's incredible how a war between two countries could change the fate of the entire world.
What if Germany united (including Austria) following/opposing Napoleon? Specifically because it’s the only time I can think of where it wouldn’t directly lead to conflict of some kind
Germany was united including Austria prior to Napoleon as the Holy Roman Empire and immediately after both were members of the German Confederation, along with Luxembourg, before it was dissolved by Prussia.
@@spower69Presumably this is as a unitary state.
@@whitehawk4099 thank you for getting what I meant
so "what if Hardenberg's "41 Articles" or Metternich’s proposal, the “Twelve Articles”, succeeded in creating a Federal Germany at the Congress of Vienna instead of being derailed and abandoned" [unification into a stronger confederation that OTL at the congress of Vienna. Ie the confederation is a bundestaat as orginally proposed not a staatenbund as it eventually became]
Or perhaps "What if Hardenberg's 1805 reformation of the HRE succeeded" ie the HRE survives and becomes more unified during the napoleonic wars.
Its weird how much people forget we were in a war only 20 years ago
The us won’t ever allow the oil to be held by one state
I thought my screen had a speck of dust on Afghanistan. Sat there the entire video trying to remove it.
Honestly very well done! Enjoyable and interesting to watch and think about as well.
Please do a what if everything went perfect for libya (on my knees rn)
Name checks out
@@allelss-oh8sj 💀
Im guessing most of the saharan states would be ruled by a network of jamahariya governments, which would probably be great for their economies and standards of living in the long term but tons of people would die at gaddafis hands trying to establish those governments?
It's easy just take half of our history and make it the exact Opposite
@@DeanmC261993
As a libyan the problem with the gaddafi is that he ruined a lot of stuff like education and infrastructure because libya in the 50s and 60s was something like jordan today
This was a great one
Love your content! Keep up the good work 😊😊😊❤❤
Worst Timeline (Donald Trump doesn't get the chance to moan sensually on stage in this timeline)
My headcannon for this timeline is trump becoming an Arab femboy instead of a dictator fr
@@Ghosty.maria7 He should become a Pro-Interventionist Communist and win the Democratic Nomination in 2016
@@Ghosty.maria7Wait... He isn't an Arab Femboy???
Trump family becomes hereditary monarchs of USA 😂
@@Snp2024Biden*
What if the Dutch got African colonies during the scramble of Africa?
They would probably have Small colonies like Spain because of being late
If only this was our flag :(
Should get the Congo instead of Belgium.
my dream
Nothing because all you would get is the scraps
Nice video, I’m currently working on a similar one to make next month. Here are some aspects to improve your scenario: One main condition for an Iraqi victory would be to have Saddam Hussein not take charge of military affairs as he had in our timeline as Saddam was a horrible military leader who executed his competent Generals for disagreeing with him or losing an engagement against overwhelming Iranian odds. Also something to improve Iraq’s chances against Iran would be to support Kurdish rebels in Iran even more than they did in our timeline. Although it’s not the most realistic part, if Iraq promised Kurdish independence, the Kurds in Iraq would definitely fight against Iran despite having two previous Iraqi-Kurdish Wars.
Regarding the 1992 election, Al Gore had ruled out running because of an accident that involved a family death. Additionally Lloyd Bentsen was viewed as a potential democrat candidate, but chose not to run due to the Gulf War. I’d say Bentsen gets the nomination over Clinton as he was very popular during the 1988 election. Bentsen could chose Gore as VP and lead to the 2000 election that you have in your video.
Great job, and I’m looking forward to future videos.
Assyrians are underrated in modern Iraqi history imo 🇮🇶
it isnt they arent common and used mostly for propaganda
@@erth-d3s how so??
h
That notification did a really good job attracting me to the video. Ngl, good grabbing of attention.
Awesome video! I’ve rarely seen anyone go into this scenario and i think you nailed it
Keep up the good work Mr History
That false dead pixel on Afghanistan got me seriously worried at the beginning of the video!
love the movie recap background music
This will be interesting
I think you somewhat overestimate Iran. After the revolution Iran purged numerous experienced military officers and installed incompetent loyalists. It isn’t a critical blow, but it could allow for some embarrassing shows of incompetence that could swing the war in Iraqs favor if things went a little worse.
They both got rid of competent generals that's why it's a balanced field of play.
@@FNA27601yeah the only time the arabs did good in a war in the yom kippur war both inital attacks were planned by soviet personnel when it was the arabs turn to make a move they decided to overrun there sam battrys agisnt the advice of the soviets and the the results can be predicted🤦♂️
@historyisawesome6399 actually it was mainly egyptian planning for Yom Kippu as Sadat had cut off relations with the soviet union and kicked their ambassador out when he took charge of egypt. As for the getting out of the SAMs umbrella it was due to the israeli forces overrunning the Syrian front so the Egyptian forced had to open another front even if it meant losing a favorable position.
@@FNA27601 a lot of these plans were in part drawn up during the war of attrition under the supervision of soviet advisors. Secondly egypt should have just dug in and use a defense in depth stradegy
@historyisawesome6399 Egypt was not fighting a defensive war, so why would they use a defense in depth. And no aside from the umbrella part the majority of the plan especially the using water to traverse the Sinai on their tanks was drawn up by Egypt there was very little soviet involvement in Egypt by the time Sadat thought to get the Sinai back.
Can you make a what if ww1 was re-enacted in the modern world video please
This video somehow made me sad. Good video 😁
hormones
@@barsukascool what kind?
@@MacAnters idk maybe serotonin
Definitely a good video!
I think it was a okay video to begin with but I think the latter half needs some more accuracy. Israel, the intelligent agencies, and Saudi Arabia has great influence over our foreign policy way more than any oil conglomerate. Islamic terrorism would still exist to some capacity. Many Sunni/wahabbyist militants were covertly supported by the Saudis and Israel to justify US intervention. Just look into the 9/11 attacks and Al-Qaeda
Your analysis of the 1992 US presidential election at 13:19 has one important flaw - while HW Bush's popularity wasn't great, it was primarily damaged by the economic downturn of the early 90s, rather than any inherent unlikeability. This was an election defined more than most are by "It's the economy, stupid!" voting patterns. Americans voted against the incumbent primarily as a referendum against economic conditions of that particular era, and Bush Prime's electability was not defined by the modern-day Culture War, but by relatively straightforward "pocketbook politics".
Why is this flaw important? Because we don't know that the recession that began in early 1990 and OFFICIALLY lasted until October of 1991, but realistically lasted well into 1993, would hit in quite the same way in this scenario. With Iraq seizing Iran's oil supply and dumping it onto the market without OPEC limitations in order to maximize their share of the revenue in order to fund their war, energy prices may have remained steadily much lower in this timeline, therefore propping up economic conditions and either delaying or greatly ameliorating the recession - potentially alternatively leading to a swift recovery, well before the November 1992 election. I'm sure that the responsibility for a swift recovery would not have been due to any particular actions Bush the Elder took, but voters would see it quite as just that.
Dang, we both commented the same thing 5 minutes apart. Ya go more into depth though, didn’t know it lasted longer than 1991.
What if Norway Won the Iran-Iraq War?
(Please do a what if everything went perfect for Norway scenario)
ur channel is awesome
Video idea: What if New England had revolted in 1812
Id rather live in this timeline...
You should do a video "what if the cold war was a 3 way war" and the 3rd pillar is an united UK and France after the 1956 Suez Crisis
Watching these videos with no sound is really weird.
Good video
Next do What if everything went perfect for modern Iran.
Day 5 of asking if you can make "what if everything went perfectly for italy?"
Video Idea: What if Francis of France never got his ear infection that killed him, preserving France's marriage with Mary Queen of Scots, making some sort of Franco-Scottish Union? And would they still inherit England and Ireland?
Great video, but a nitpick: no matter how popular Perot got, Minnesota would never be won by the Republicans in 1992; it has the strongest union culture of any state and was (once upon a time) the only state not to vote for Reagan, so it's unrealistic that it would vote in significant numbers for either of the anti-union candidates (Perot, Bush)
Not giving up
what if spain conquered China
Spanish inquisition in China
"The Spanish Empire is finished.."
"Nuh uh!"
I’d actually disagree on the trump point. Trump flipped flopped his political opinions based on whoever was in power and could’ve been called a liberal in the 90’s and early 2000’s. He only became a hyper conservative because it was popular to hate on Obama in the run up to the 2008 election and during his presidency. That kept trump relevant during a period where he was no longer as present in mass media, so if McCain is in power trump would likely become a staunch liberal to maintain popularity and eventually rerun for president, which would repeat his 2000 run only this time he’s more organized and knows what he’s doing like in 2016. We could have an incredibly cursed timeline with trump fighting for universal healthcare, progressive taxation, and climate change rather than extreme neoliberalism and conservatism.
I guess this is gonna blow your mind, but Trump is still a 90s Democrat even today. Still part of the more economic nationalist faction that got sidelined.
To this day he doesn't have a strong opinion on health care or guns, he's fine with same-sex "marriage," he believes in sports just for the correct biological sexes, he still holds the view that abortion is bad but that there should be some early access, he's pro-tariffs, anti-illegal immigration, and pro strong national defense.
This same Trump, mixed with Populism and adapted for the present time while still absolutely being himself as he pleases, became viewed as "Ultra Conservative" because the Democrats increasingly ran more and more of the radical cliff, and the Republican Neoconservatives just kept occasionally using social issues to win elections while never seriously trying or really caring to conserve anything beyond GDP, sustained uniparty global intervention initiatives, and the support of their donors.
can you do : what if egypt won egyptian ottoman war
Thanks for making this video and I’m Iraqi and I enjoy this video so keep up the good work❤ and thank you for making a video about my country ❤
What if european countries like russia or Austria became islamic?
Bosnia conquers entire Austro-Hungarian Empire
Cody from AlternateHistoryHub already did a video on this concerning Russia.
@@kylezdancewicz7346 Or The Ottomans won the siege of vienna
2:37 Your map here was wrong in placing the Sunni lands as larger than the Shiite ones, and you even made some of the large Shiite cities Sunni with this wrong description. Also, the Shiites constitute 65% of the population of Iraq, while the Sunnis make up 30%.
I think this happened after the civil war in 2007
But before the civil war they were only half
can you do a video what if the shah wasn't overthrown
What if everything went perfect for the Paris Commune?
What if 9/11 was a nuclear terror attack?
I would imagine it'll escalate Article 5 into a complete and total occupation of the middle east and a deep investigation into finding where the nuclear material was found
Probably actually prevented, since smuggling in or creating a nuclear device would be harder than hijacking planes, due to lax air travel security.
How would they get nukes lol Russia wanted good terms at the time and the Chinese need American buyers
Middle east probably ends fucked
Could you do a video on what if everything went perfect for Carthage? I’ll coin the term, “Pax Carthaginia.”
Could you do a video on if the Aztecs, Maya, Iroquois, Incas, etc… from an alliance to beat the European powers out of the Americas? Or alternatively, if Christopher Columbus never landed in the Americas at all?
Can you make a video about: What if Australia won the Emu War?
Do a what if everything gone perfect for Iraq video
you forget iran have gas in asalooye or oils in kharg
Can you do "what if everything went perfect for Serbia" love your videos ❤
Could you possibly do a “what if history went perfect for Luxembourg?” Sources may be a little difficult but i feel like it could be an interesting scenario!
When you propose an “alternate history” but your version was the version that happened…
I think this might be a better timeline in every single way.
Do a "what if India won the 1962 Sino-Indian war" video
Can you finally finish the empire series
Saddam: We eat lunch in Ahvaz and dinner in Tehran
Iran :🍌🍌👹👹
What if they invaded Kuwait instead of Iran. Would the US have still intervened in an earlier invasion with Iraq being less exhausted
They only invaded Kuwait because they were broke from the war so they'd have to randomly go broke first.
Interesting video but I kind of wish Mossad and the CIA's influence was more discussed. The Arab spring was largely brought about by the CIA and Mossad as a way to consolidate power. Speak of Israel Iraq might be an issue because well Zionism and Baathism (basically Middle Eastern versions of strasserism) have a lot in common, The fact that they're two different ethnic groups trying to maintain dominance over the Middle East will cause conflict.
Maybe he didn't mention the CIA and Mossad because he's not under the delusion that everything in the world revolves around the US.
Great. now please make a what if 1953 coup never happened.
Suggestion: What if Margaret the Maid of norway survived?
Now can you do a video on what If Shah(king of Iran) or masadiq weren't deposed?
What if the Fatamid Caliphate never collapsed?
1:35 can’t forget the bit about western intelligence agencies deposing their last secular prime minister and allowing the despotic shah to return
What if Everything Went Perfect For the Axis in World War 2?
In terms of winning, they can’t
@@The_whalesthey could win if literally EVERYTHING went perfect for them, but their chances were really bad
The best they could realistically get is a peace with Britain if Churchill was super drunk one day, if not that then they were 100% going to lose
@@mesuper455 what if churchill did not get into power?
Why would Iraq and Saudi Arabia be enemies? They were the best of friends until the gulf war
What if Iran and Iraq had adopted the cult of Makima, Revy, Cutie Honey, Marin Kitagawa, Trixie Tang, Judy Neutron, Marge Simpson, Wendy Corduroy, Lois Griffin, Sailor Moon and Maddie Fenton instead of Abrahamic shit?
This video completely rules out the fact that the US supported both iraq and iran during this war ( in secret in Iran's case).
buddy it wasnt a "Empire" ruled by a shah. it was a Monarchy.
Now that’s a long video!
Do all Italian wars in history
There were no WMDs in Iraq when USA invaded when the earlier pressure mounted the Iraqis did destroy it. (I am not defending Sadam it's just a fact that there were no WMD's in Iraq.)
That was the second war though. Not the first one.
They had chemical weapons and were manufacturing smallpox
@@ash_11117 yes they did But I mentioned who they destroyed their WMD's when US pressure mounted. You don't believe me, you can go and take the word of Scott Ritter a Retired US weapons inspector who himself was on the team that had gone to inspect the supposed WMDs of Iraq.
yes there was no wmd (meanwhile 400 french sciencists were trying to build a nuclear weapon
What if Iran won the Iran-Iraq War?
(Go for a what if everything went perfect for Iran)
which Iran?
because there is at least 3 in the last decade
@@Adir-Yosef idk honestly, I guess just try to create the largest Iran/Persia
then probably a medivel Iran pre mongols
@@Danube-TV
@@Danube-TV iran against the west you mean? iran would wipe iraq off the map in 2 days without the west lol
Iraq didn't invade Kuwait because it was broke, but because Kuwait was using Iraq's oil fields, which Sadams warned them about multiplr times before invading them.
Source: my Iraqi parents who hate sadam
Also they where price cutting Iraq
Next: what if Iran won the Iran-Iraq war
6:55 gomberg map? Is that the one where California is an island?
Can you do what if everything went perfect for Britain?
2:49 What about the Turkmens?
Iran has oil in south, south east, and north beside the second natural gas reservoir in north
0:44 "big mistake, huge!" Is that a freaking pretty woman reference?? love it
Could you do a video on “what if the Spanish republicans won the Spanish civil war?”
Hey can you make a What if everithing went perfect for Albania pls?
Iran without oil is not necessarily weaker. It still has enough oil for domestic consumption and a healthy industrial economy to fall back on. Only a yhird of the budget comes from oil so the country would get over it
If, like u said, "if Iraq won," then Iraq would be far stronger than Iraq was ranked 4th powerful militarily in the present timeline for two reasons, western Iran has more population than the eastern, and the other reason is that the growth of Iraq after the end of Iran-Iraq war and before Iraq was imposed with sanctions, which led Iraq to top 10 in the world, strongest region in the Middle East, militarily and economically, thus with the new beneficial lands, Iraq would be even more formidable and stronger than any European country
Iraq never had the 4th most powerful army, it had the 4th largest army, it was badly equipped with bad airforce and no navy
@salazar778 either way, look at current Egypt, Iraq was the strongest region in the Middle East after Iraq JUST started to recover after the end of Iran-Iraq war and before Iraq was imposed with sanctions by betrayals and the western governments, which was around 2 years. So, by logic, Iraq would easily surpass any country in the Middle East in terms of economy, and with that economic strength, Iraq would easily able to have very powerful militant equipments and technology along with the nuclear weapons they successfully achieved. So Iraq, with the new beneficial land like in the video, would easily be ranked 3rd in the world militarily and economically
@salazar778 in the past, 1 Iraqi Dinar currency was equal to 3 USD, so it should be easy for Iraq to return to the powerful strength in the economy
@salazar778 don't underestimate the might of Mesopotamia along with around it, which is far superior to Arabia and Persia
Yo Possible History Please
do What Of Joseph Stalin Lived Longer!
More tension in the cold war, slightly better sino-soviet relations, no anti-soviet uprisings in early to mid 50s(would probably happen later though, when stalin finally dies), gulag system goes on for longer, Lavrenti beria would likely get executed even earlier(stalin hated beria in his last years). Overall more political repression in the USSR, more tension in the cold war, and a more united communist block
I doubt the Arab Spring alone would've overthrown Saddam had he not been overthrown in 2003. Instead we would see a similar situation to either Syria where there's a perpetual civil war but with the dictator still in power or Libya where there's a perpetual civil war but NATO intervened and overthrew the dictator
Arab spring wouldn't have happened in Iraq. Arab spring was about democracy and liberation of the Arab public from dictatorship. Iraqis who opposed saddam would fall into two maybe 3 categories 1 a tiny minority without military means that wanted full democracy, 2 a small minority with armed forces representing ethnoreligious enclaves(likekurds) that want autonomy/sepratism and 3 a well armed externally supported Shia majority that want to replace saddams military dictatorship with a totalitarian theocracy hostile to neighbouring Sunni monarchies.
The Iraqi population would not bet on the first group because a previously demonised Shia majority would be the bulk of any armed resistance against the army and be the most to suffer so if successful in toppling Saddam why would they then not feel entitled to rule unilaterally especially if Iranian support is used which is ideologically conditional. The Sunni would not bet on first because a significant portion believe that engaging in civil warfare is forbidden even if the sitting leader is despotic, tyrannical or unislamic as long as they can provide law and order... these would likely support Saddam for this reason as well as out of fear of a Shia theocracy or enforced anti islamic western secularism by way of minorities being put in charge by western nations. The other portion of sunnis would fall prey to the romanticism of islamism and since Saddam thoroughly crushed and persecuted political islamic intellectualism meaning no moderates like the muslim brotherhood there would be an opening for Al qaeda aligned to rally people against firstly a despotic pharaonic like tyrant who called himself a Babylonian King, secondly a secularist western backed Kurdish/minority anti islamic state and lastly a fanatical and heretical twelver Shia totalitarian theocracy. This is how an ultra extremist group like ISIS or a sunni theocratic armed movements that are not tempered by any sane sunni islamist can take advantage.
No one apart from kurds would back Kurdish sovereignty and the kurds themselves would actually want to take land and displace Arab tribes not to mention would cut off everyone from the oil.
So the last option is the ONLY way saddam would lose power.
It wouldn't be another Syria... Syria became Syria because Iran and Russia put boots on the ground gained air superiority and Assad handed over all power to Moscow and Tehran to do as they wished with the country as long as he stayed in power. Saddam doesn't have those friends he has no nuclear ally and no regional state that would support him he'd just be engulfed on every side by Sunni extremists that view him as satan incarnate, Shia majority that want to exact revenge for decades of persecution and Kurdish separatists that won't forget that he used chemical weapons on them.