My favorite part of German history is the WHAT IFS  

Tip: link works if you translate the comment. You only need to make RU-vid think it can be translated

Where in Germany would the trip be?

"Visit German Christmas Markets with me!" he says... pointing at a photo of the largest Christmas market in VIENNA 😂

Interesting question for you. Napoleon Had a kid Charles Leon he was a failure but before Napoleon III was often seen as a potential successor to Napoleon. Out of curiosity if we went by the male-preference primogeniture Napoleon Claimed for his empire. Who would be the ruler of France today if Charles Leon took power?

​@@KathrinThalhammer you can make the argument that its an ethnic german christmas market, but i get your point

Heck if you go far enough back a good chunk of Italy might have ended up Germanized.

@@robertedwards2959 South Tyrol for sure, but at most some neighboring areas to it. Italian as a language is just far too different, where Dutch is close enough linguistically that 400 years ago it could’ve been changed just slightly into a different dialect

​@@TherealMatthias1998400 years ago there wasnt widespread standardised Dutch or German. All regions for the most part spoke regional dialects which fits together like a puzzle meaning that for example people from gelre would be just as different from westphalians as for example Bavarians would be in a lot of ways.

@@Blackdeathgaming-yv1kk that’s what I meant. If they centralized and federalized sooner, Dutch might just be considered a very distinct dialect. As a native German speaker, Swiss German barely sounded like the same language to me in the first few months

Or what if HRE centralised as any other nation in Europe instead of becoming disfunctional mess like OTL?

Surprisingly almost no WW2 what ifs yet.

America not joining the war would have definitely been pivotal.

​@@cattysplatWithout Russia they would lose

@@cattysplatRussia defeated them. U.S. picked up the ruins

@@cattysplatBritain couldve fallen, but the Nazis still likely would’ve lost as long as Lend-Lease was still in effect due to the eastern front. Stalingrad was a pivotal moment

Most realistic scenario is Austria dissolving the dual monarchy to form the Germán empire and turning most of it's former empire into either very authonomous provinces or just puppet states. But yes the hungarian nobility would be hard to convince

Why? What was going on then

​@petergeramin7195 basically they were the 2nd largest population demographic in the empire (hence why the Austrian Empire became Austria-Hungary later, it was a compromise between the ruling classes to share power) and if the Austrian Empire was to unite the remaining Germans then the Hungarians loses their relevance. And by Hungarians I generally mean the Ruling aristocratic class. There's an excellent video by 'Historica Civillis' called the "The Congress of Vienna" that goes into detail about this which I highly recommend just for the sheer Entertainment factor alone ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-QtOXq9SwarQ.htmlsi=HLfoh9vybuhOYj35

That's basically what lead to the final downfall of the Empire. Many skilled and smart politician especially from Cisleithania (so the Austrian half of the empire, Bohemia, Austria and Illyria) pushed for reforms that could have saved Austria Hungary but the Hungarian nobility kept refusing everything, even such trivial things as incorprating Slovakia.

Even if they did want to unite the German speaking world, they'd still thrown a hissy fit, simply because they wouldn't want to agree with the Austrians

What if the Republic collapsed and the Communists took over while the Remnants of the Republic either fled to France or Prussia forming a Goverment in Exile.

Well that’s kind of what happens when the Allies starve your country for years, have a humiliating peace treaty imposed upon you after fighting half the world to a standstill literally single-handed, and to top all it off the single most important figure that could keep most if not all the chaos at bay through respect of his mere presence was betrayed by his own military and government , deposed illegally, then exiled from the country of his birth, never to return, thus collapsing the very foundation upon which the stability of the country was built. Wild doesn’t even come close to describing, let alone illustrating, the chaos that was the German Revolution after the armistice of 1918.

To be frank, by the point of Franz Ferdinand, Austria-Hungary was too far gone to feasibly modernize and fix the issues that plagued the Dual Monarchy. As nationalism rose, the ethnics within increasingly wished to not be a part of the Austrian empire, and even at that point the Hungarians wanted out. The ethnic and cultural issues were likely too much to handle, and even if not for WW1 the internal struggles would have caused collapse

@@Dedelblute3I've always wanted an alt-histroy HOI4 mod, called "Osterreich: What if Franz Ferdinand's Driver Didn't F*ck Up?", where a huge part of A-H would be about reforming an empire that REALLY wants to die.

@@timesnewlogan2032 Really that all depends on three-ish factors: How hard Franz Ferdinand tries to fix the Dual Monarchy, how much resistance he gets from the minorities and the elites (neither of whom particularly wanted to reform it), and WW1, which would have likely still happened - the geopolitical situation in multiple areas was nearly at a breaking point, and if the war starts Austria-Hungary would probably collapse by the end of it, as it did in our timeline.

@@Dedelblute3 The vast majority of Slavs remained loyal to the emperor until the year 1917, especially us Croats. "After the declaration of war on the 28th of July, new manifestations of support for the war took place. The arrival of recruited soldiers at the Zagreb barracks was greeted with shouts of "Long live the Croatian army!", to which the recruits replied "Long live Croatia, long live the Croatian king!"".

@@Pajdas610 I think my point is laid out more properly in my second reply; I will admit that I am unsure as to the exact situation regarding the dual monarchy around ww1, so again it really just matters on those three factors I mentioned before. If resistance was low and the reform had high support l amongst the powerful in the empire then yes, Austria Hungary probably could’ve remained in power for a lot longer.

And then their king went “hold my beer” and bankrupted the state building megacastles

@@flyingsquirrell6953 the real problem with hereditary monarchy, Crazy can gain power by being born from the right people and nobody can stop it

@@flyingsquirrell6953 Actually he only bankrupted his personal finances. He was very careful to never use state funds for it (though he was frequently accused of it even when he was still alive).

@@dashsocur interesting

What time is this taking place? I‘m assuming you mean the third reich/drittes Reich which was the name of the nazis for Germany back then. However I don’t get why Bavaria is being considered as their own empire in your telling? Bavaria was always part of the third reich since Bavaria was also part of the Weimarer Republik which was the democratic Germany before the system collapsed…

That's a big one. I'd argue Otto II living to ripe old age and the continuation of the Ottonian dynasty being the biggest one.

​@@robertedwards2959 Oto III surviving to old age would have literally have avoided the Great Schism and the Sack of Constantinople. Had he survived he would have married the firstborn daughter and heir of Constantine VIII. But probably her younger sister Theodora would have become Empress instead, still the future Emperors of the HRE and ERE would have been cousins. And the survival of the Ottonian dynasty would probably mean that just like France, the HRE would eventually become an officially hereditary monarchy. Needless to say centralization would have happened sooner. It would also mean a Papacy more dependant on the Emperor

​@igorlopes7589 If we think about it, avoiding the Great Schism could lead to the reintegration of East and West, given a shared interest to resolve differences between each other religiously, this in turn could lead to a Papacy much more independent from HRE by playing each other off one another

@@Sam-bp2st As long as ERE keeps southern Italy the Pope would be verty much able to play with both Emperors and maintain his autonomy

@@igorlopes7589 Yea, I was keeping to the idea of ERE keeping southern Italy

Or a whole Germany with all of its regions

@@m.s.8927can’t have that. The Brit’s and the French would drag Germany into wars until they split up again. There is no timeline in which a United Germany can exist.

@@imGeistevereint Aus 1848 heraus durchaus möglich. Kurze Zeit danach befänden sich die Briten und Russen im „great game“ und da die Briten selbst nicht bereit wären, absurde Mengen an Soldaten zu opfern und die Franzosen allein dafür nicht ausreichen (und zu dem Zeitpunkt den deutschen Ländern auch nicht allzu feindlich gesinnt waren), würde es diesem hypothetischen deutschen Staat genug Zeit geben sich zu festigen. Ohne dass Österreich-Ungarn Stunk mit Russland macht, würde da auch keine Feindschaft entstehen, bis die von Russland beherrschten Völker zum Nationalismus finden und den Laden in der Form zum Einsturz bringen. Und wie gesagt, ohne dass die Russen Millionen ihrer Leute auf die Schlachtbank führen=kein Krieg.

Be still my heart.

@@imGeistevereintunited states of germany :D

but you prodably wouldnt do it by yourself.

@@dave2.077 yeah, depends I could visit at the same time stak is in town lol

Another Nazi Germany sympathizer. Nope, get over it, you guys have lost, no more German imperialistlm, thank you.

ehhhm.... Protestantism didn't exist during 100 years war?

@@jacknero9937 sorry, I get all the "X years war"s mixed up

Almost like Christianity was more of an excuse than anything else.

@@robertedwards2959 No, it shows that despite the Roman Empire fell, it's cultural influence remained. Regions that used to be part of Rome stayed Catholic, while the "barbaric" part of the HRE turned protestant.

Wow....I have never thought about that one. Bismarck and Frederich might have had a very different working relationship. Or maybe no Bismarck at all? A less agressive Prussia would have meant a very different Europe by 1900.

Go even further back. What if Otto II hadn't died suddenly and the Ottonian dynasty had been able to maintain itself?

Are you saying the Kaiser was responsible for WW1? 😂

@@imGeistevereint I'd assume OP is referring to Frederick's vehement opposition to Bismark's unification through force, his plan to rebuild the German government to resemble the British parliamentary system, his extremely close ties to the British Empire through Princess Victoria, and his general liberalism.

@@imGeistevereint I would say more that Wilhelm II let things spin out of control by giving Austria-Hungary a blank chek of support in their dealins with Seria

@@Deltaflot1701 there is no question the Kaiser was incompetent without Bismarck as guide by his side but WW1 was a major conspiracy that came to fruition and minor events like the assassination of Franz Ferdinand was just another piece of the puzzle, although the final one.

Instead of an army with a state we'd have a Post Office with a state?

Oh shut it

Yo we got WW1 veterans beefing in the comments 😭😂

I don't know. Things were worse when they were a sore winner.

ww1 would still happen as the Germans declared on them

No ww2

What if Romania was actually Hungary?

What if Rome was actually Klingons?

That's just Neukölln, Berlin

What if Hungary was actually Estonia?

I'm not sure I'd entirely agree. Unless Germany united around the time France did, Germans are going to be highly supportive of aggressively asserting their power on the global stage.

It wouldn't have. It didn't matter to the other European powers at all WHICH Germany united. Just the fact that Germany was united. Germany became very powerful, very quickly. The other European empires were used to having a bunch of small, poor German states that could easily be kicked around, and made to fight each other. France in particular became incredibly paranoid that a united German state would seek revenge for Napolean murdering 40% of the German population when he invaded and fought the Rhine Confederation. England knew that Germany would quickly out develop England and become the premier industrial power in Europe. Fearing the loss of power and prestige to a younger more vigorous empire. No matter who united Germany, it would have turned out the same. Because Germany really had nothing to do with starting the wars. The other European powers had decided that Germany had to die, in 1871, when they unified.

@@robertedwards2959aggressively asserting dominance? Do we forget that 40% of Germans died during the 30year war and the only reason for reunification was being able to defend against its peace-loving neighbors?

@@imGeistevereint thank you for emphasizing my point.

@@robertedwards2959 establishing defensive = aggressively asserting dominance gotcha dmbass

It’s not about the who, it’s purely about Germany being too powerful for some other nations when unified.

´radical nationalizationˋ wtf is that supposed to mean? Your comment doesn’t make much sense.

@@Ultima-Signa nazis. It was supposed to mean nazis you master of context clues

@@vik318 Maybe I didn’t get it because there’s absolutely no correlation between the two + you didn’t even use the correct word. It makes absolutely no sense to create a connection to na zis in this context or to even bring them up at all - given the historical period that this video is speaking about (which was quite some time long before any na zis ever existed with some pretty big events happening in between which you could much better attribute the rise of the na zis to). Are you saying that na zis rose to power because Germans are German, or what? What kind of ridiculous assessment is that. Not to mention that having lots of minorities or one single but big minority within the country can actually be a trigger for extreme (inwarded) nationalism. You should actually know that very well, as a Hungarian yourself and all… The main triggers for the na zis rise to power were the Treaty of Versailles and the subsequent general turmoil in Germany after ww1 and economic ruin because of it. And you could argue that the reason for that very harsh (and actually really unfair) treaty actually kind of was extreme French nationalism which lead to a huge wave of anti-German sentiment after they had lost the war in 1871. Thus the French wanted to severely punish Germany and had waited for a chance to avenge themselves on their own terms - for decades. So, why even go that far back into history to try to create a link to the na zis? That makes zero sense. Especially when we consider that the na zi ideology was born in multinational Austria to begin with, with even their leader being an Austrian. So maybe keep your pettiness to yourself, when you’re making dumb statements… instead of acting like a complete jerk. And don’t forget that ˋradical nationalization‘ isn’t even a word that could be used for na zis. It’s not the same, at all. So that makes response sound even dumber.

Why do white people think diversity will solve everything

Operation Unthinkable was a possible operation to take back the rest of Germany and beat the USSR suggested by none other than Winston Churchill. So it would more than likely be British, Americans and very few Germans cos they got their army disbanded.

​@firesturmgaming don't forget France if things went south. And there are alot of other smaller guys round there. That would have e been ww3. If they did it in 1948 they might have been able do do it before the user had the bomb

​@@Aztesticalsthen there would be worker protest in France

THE HORROR

They had an uprising and were just supported by the other german regions. They would have got their independence from the danish king anyways. Furthermore they weren’t a part of Denmark before the war, but belonged to the danish king (not the same). The (second) uprising started because the danish parliament forced the danish king to implement Schleswig into Denmark and to give up Holstein because it was in the German Bund already.

@@Schlohmotion aren't funny that Holstein, created pig with the Danish flag on

How so? The Germans there (who have made up the great majority of the people) have instigated uprisings against danish rule on their own since many years already, prior to any danish falling out with Prussia and Austria. And Austria supported those uprisings as well, not only Prussia. Also Holstein has been a part of the German Federation since 1815 already.

Or Denmark could have become a part of Germany. Considering Danish isn't even that closely related (unlike Dutch), teaching all of those Danes High German would have been... funny.

Depending on when it happened and how long it stayed strong Germany may have ended up THE power of Europe.

@@robertedwards2959learn history, the Allie’s would have never allowed Germany to stay unified.

@@imGeistevereint you know European history started way back before the 20th century right?

Nhưng rất tiếc điều đó sẽ không bao giờ xảy ra và nước Đức đã trở thành 1 nước quân chủ lập hiến vào năm 1871 nhé

Viewing decentralisation as devolution is reductive. Centralisation and absolutism led to the fall of monarchies because it united 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺𝘰𝘯𝘦 against the King. One man can’t control everything, and in trying he ensures his downfall. It shouldn’t swing too far toward the nobles either, but a more feudal system was more sustainable. Balance of powers, as we love to insist upon in governance but hate to think of in geopolitics.

@codieomeallain6635 While you make a good point, I feel that calling the decentralization of the HRE at this juncture appropriate. Decentralization is great as long as everyone works together and collaborates, which the princes did not. I do think the proposed monarchy would still be a feudal system, which, while flexible, has its faults. The main fault of any monarchy is the potential for instability upon succession. Like you pointed out, having one guy who holds it all together can be quite flimsy. I don't know what kind of system could have been put in place given the traditions and laws of the time, but the main reason the pope was not a fan of Fredddy II was the potential for him to form a powerful and lasting state that basically surrounded Rome.

Or 1918 for that matter

Dann hätte die DNVP regiert und wir hätten eine parlamentarische Monarchie bekommen.

Honestly it probably would have lead to a German or Soviet victory in a WW2 later in the 20th century.

There was already a fascist movement in germany, someone else would have tried it if not him.

@@TheCommunistColinYeah but they wouldn't have been succesfull without Mustache man as their charismatic leader

@@jacknero9937 it doesn't take that much charisma to capitalize on existing hatred and prejudice.

Actually he didnt break it, he made HRE unite into germany

Depends on if Napoleon also didn't defeat the Prussians.

What If Liechtenstein formed the German Empire?

Victoria 2 moment but nothing beets Israel forming germany

What if Liechtenstein was actually Estonia?

Funny how he can say that about Austria-Hungary but when you mention the US or Britain everyone says you're racist.

Nobody simps for germany more than 3rd worlders

Based

@@генри1917 Tại sao hả.

@@huongphamthi4946 Ý tôi là tôi đồng ý với bạn.

Then the Germans would irrationally hate nuclear power.

​@@willjapheth23789but they already do lol Maybe you meant to say, they would like nuclear power more?

@@Bleilock1 ye I was making fun of them as they already are

​@@willjapheth23789as... You are correct They thought nuclear energy is "Jewish science"

@@willjapheth23789 oh i see