It seems that Cody never finished his sentence. Allow me to pick up the pieces. "This background is as dull as the darkest thought withing the realm of our minds, which we ignore on a constant basis, but can never rid ourselves of. It's also the color of my dinner!"
During the part about 'barrels', I found myself thinking: Huh, I guess we've never had actual tank combat on American soil. Sometimes I think I take it for granted that I get to live feeling pretty safe from armed conflict.
So basically, The CSA is the American version of Germany in our timeline? I mean think about it. Our Timeline: Germany Destroyed their rivals twice (France) Got humiliated by their rivals (France and Britain) Got taken over by a madman This timeline: CSA Destroyed their rivals twice (USA) Got humiliated by their rivals (USA and Germany) Got taken over by a madman
Also Our Timeline: Germany Faced significant but ultimately unsuccessful Communist uprising (The Spartacists) This Timeline: CSA Faced significant but ultimately unsuccessful Communist uprisings (slave rebellions)
Well Germany didn't destroy France twice in our timeline. Just once in 1870-71. Before there are the Napoleonic wars, with a defeat in the end for France, after long victories, and against a huge coalition, it's not as if Germany 'destroyed' France. And after that there's WW1, where nobody was destroyed, even though Germany was a bit superior than France and Britain.
I like the whole WW1 arc. It's basically the equivalent of 2 enemies from one timeline (US and Germany), not knowing their past fights in some other universe, team up and understand each other (eventually leading to them beating their rivals). I don't know, maybe it's because I see Germany get beaten so many times, that it's kinda nice to see them meet an ally whom they could understand. And nothing gives me more joy than to imagine these two celebrating over making it to the top when no one wanted them to be there. Just plucks my heart strings man.
1:01 Differences: Brazilian Empire, Paraguay, and Chile are Central Powers United States is split (of course) and the North is in the Central Powers Bulgaria signed on to the Central Powers early A lot of China is in the Entente (damn civil wars dividing China so many times) Mexico is in the Entente These are the differences I can spot, do I get bonus points?
I just read the series. Custer did not develop the barrel; he just developed the first successful manner of employing them in battle. (This has already been mentioned by others in the comment, I suspect.)
The conclusion I’ve come down to is that the Confederacy reasoning for seceding would’ve been the cause for them not to last long. Their love for slavery or hatred towards blacks would’ve eventually backfired, crucially. There would’ve been uprisings and rebellions all across the country. That alone would’ve weakened the economy. Since there was a strong case for states rights, other states would’ve eventually seceded for their beliefs or just for survival due to a decline in economy, in which would’ve led to small independent countries (possibly 3rd world) and/or they would’ve rejoined USA. Due to a weakened nation, they would’ve been seen as prey for stronger nations across the world including the US. USA would’ve eventually taken back over because 1) Some CSA states already rejoining. 2) They were still upset about the secession in the first place and would’ve went as far to have Britain as allies to win the 2nd War. Bottom line conclusion is that slavery, pure hatred, and racism will not get you far. History itself proved that to be factual.
Custer actually didn't have any involvement in the development of barrels, but he was the first one to devise and implement the plan to concentrate them which caused the breakthrough
I would prefer somethings change like for starters, no nukes, have the Second Great War's alignments be more organically developed rather than tacking on the previous Great War's alignments, and make Irving Morell president after the Second Great War.
Differences between real World War One and alternate ww1: -US is split obviously -South America has some freaky shit going on down there -Italy doesn't feel like joining the allies -neither does Romania or Portugal -Mexico joins allies -kinda hard to see but I think Haiti joined the central powers, that might be confederate controlled Puerto Rico though -Ottoman Empire is about smaller I think and so are the British gulf states colonies That's about it, do I get bonus points? Or did I miss something
Pretty much correct. Yes, Haiti joined the Central Powers, but it was taken by Confederate and British troops early and jointly occupied by them for the rest of the war. Paraguay also joined the Central Powers and so did Liberia.
I've read the entire series and it's been very interesting. I've always loved alternative history and Turtledove does a great job with his version of the North America in the late 19th and 20th centuries. Looking forward to the remaining two parts. -Jen
I appreciate this video series more than anything else I've watched on RU-vid, ever. Ya'll are gonna make me dig out my book bin from the back of my garrage this weekend and start re-reading 191...
Actually the book's version of the war did go slightly differently before 1917. It's briefly mentioned that Germany won the Battle of Verdun and were more successful at the Battle of the Somme than in reality. There isn't much detail, my theory is that it's because a bunch of British and Canadian troops were tied up in North America and led to a butterfly effect.
It also makes an interesting alternate history inside an alternate history xD The Japanese plans for a world domination and making the East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere and all. Would have been a great alternate history if only they did not join allies. Still, how would things play out?
@@a.morphous66 In this timeline the US never fought the Spanish American War, so the Philippines was instead seized by Japan before WWI from Spain. Since Japan avoided major wars, it's stays part of the Japanese Empire through WWII.
One mistake in the scenario. The October(communist) Revolution in Russia happened because after the United States entered the war, Germany was so desperate to get Russia out and close the eastern front that they sent in Vladimir Lenin on a train through Finland and into Petrograd(now St. Petersburg). With the US on Germany's side in this alternate scenario, they never send Lenin in and the Bolshevik Revolution never happens(at least not in the same way).
Danj Fulk They would probably send Lenin to go and force Russia out of the war, but this time sense they win they would probably not like the idea of a communist country right next to them so they would most likely support the White Russians and Tsar Nicolas II (that's if they're just in time before the communists kill him and his family).
the front in the US would be even larger than on the eastern front, so I would expect some more movement, there might be some local trench warfare, but trenches around the entire front would be nearly impossible. Even when just talking about men power to man those trenches.
He works at the Sloss steel mill, discusses workers rights with his black co-worker Pericles, and goes to sleep thinking "Maybe we need another revolution after all"
Ronald Reagan you say that like you can't support both the United States of America and Confederate States of America I say god Bless both and the South did sorta rise again with the last election even though it isn't under the stars and bars
These are really really interesting. In reality though, due to worlds changing, the way people moved about, deaths, and birth dates would be altered significantly meaning we may not have even had some of the famous names mentioned and would have had a significantly different population of people instead of the ones born and raised in the circumstances in our timeline. Based on that I think the world and the people in it would be so altered it would be hard to even predict who would rise or the circumstances that would arise.
2:49 "In Europe the War goes the exact same, because we didn't into the War until 1917 in our one timeline" In my opinion the war in Europe is drasticly changed. 1. The US siding with Germany means that the British aren't supplied with credits, weapons and food from America, thus making the Sub-Blockade much more effective and possibly starving the British by Fall 1916 or in 1917 2. Because of this the Germans can perform much better in the West and perhaps go on the offensive more often and such plans of atrision like Verdun are very unlikely to be made. 3. The Italians are more likely to join the central powers, because as the Italians joined the Entente in our Timeline the Austrians seemed to be on they're last legs, but the Gorlice-Tarnow offensive and the "Great Reatreat" made things much better, coupled with the the equality in the West and the possible element of surprise the central powers would seem the better choice 4. The opening of a second Western front coupled with the now effective submarine blockade and the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917 would mean -long story short- a CP victory In the end the peace treaty in my opinion would let the map look different in the colonial aspects than shown in Tigerstars map series part after ww1 but I guess the rest would be the same
I gotta be that one guy who brings in corrections, sorry. Actually the War in Europe is pretty different since the British Navy is spread beyond thin in the Atlantic and Pacific ocean, also that means no Canadians are going in to reinforce the western front. This is a really minor spoiler but the French lose the Battle of Verdun and the Irish Easter Rising was a success But I just want to say, I'm so glad these videos where made since they got me into the book series.
I knew this collab was gonna be great because the map simulations would put it in perspective. Maybe if you wanna do your own alternate history simulations, you could do one on The Man in the High Castle? (Book canon, not TV show canon because honestly they screwed it up from all directions)
The worst thing about these videos is that the same people end up getting born. You dont think different people would be born depending on who won which war?
I don't really see Karl Marx getting popular in the African-American community at that time. They were Christians to a high degree then, especially they had a huge respect for Moses story and so on.
Many of them hated their status as second-class citizens. Marx and many others, Lincoln included, were alternatives for the black Confederates. You are about them being Christian, which is why so many have classical names like Spartacus.
@@judexsanctorum8951 I would've said it would be same as the Castle in the Sky(real film) but that seems far fetched in hindsight. Maybe a search for long lost ruins of Lemuria that are rumored to hold artifacts that grant godly power?
Sam Houston was vehemently opposed to joining the CSA when he was president of Texas, so it made sense that union-held Texas would become Houston in order to honor his loyalty. History is full of so-called misnomers and Harry Turtledove understands this.
Two things. One World War 1 in Europe was drastically changed in this timeline even before 1917, because the British couldn't use any of the troops from Canada. In our timeline the Canadians helped fight in Europe and served as a very significant chunk of the British Commonwealth / Imperial forces. In this alternate timeline since the Canadians were busy fighting in their own Homeland they couldn't send anyone to Europe. Also, although I'm not quite sure it's been years since I read the books, I think there was also an issue with getting Australian and New Zealander troops to Europe due to a US blockade in the Pacific. Secondly the reason they named the state after Houston wasn't because they named it after the city but they named it after the man, Sam Houston. Sam Houston, who was a Texas revolutionary and president of Texas when it was an independent republic, lived long enough to see the Civil War and was in fact the governor of Texas when they seceded from the Union. However he actually was a unionist who refused to sign the law in enacting succession passed by the Texas state legislature and was forced to resign by both the legislature and popular demand. He died before the war concluded but up until his death supported the Union even if he himself was a slave owner. It's actually quite brilliant in the fictional timeline to name the new state after him. it hearkens back to Texas's proud history and honor someone who is identifiable as an integral part of Texan history and a loyal unionist American.
These videos are probably responsible for getting me into "what if" scenarios. I ended up reading the whole section on tvtropes. So apparently this turtledove guy wrote 3 or 4 books on this topic, but only the first one is actually plausible. I saw Emperortigerstar's older videos on this and *spoiler alert* I could see how the nuke-fest seemed a bit unrealistic. I'd like to know how the hard AH version would play out. :)
spoiler the empire of mexico doesn't have much involvement in the war except for sending troops to help the CSA in WW2 and also to dump their unemployed into the CSA to take jobs that needed filling after the original workers got drafted. The ww2 on here started when the CSA blitzed ohio in 1939
Bro an An tv series like this about not only an alternate reality of the civil war but also affects World War I?!?! And possibly ll!!!! Now that is what need in Hollywood!
While trench warfare was definitely everywhere in WW1, I don't think it would actually lead to the stagnate frontlines in the North America front as in the case of the western front in our timeline, but rather it would be more similar to the eastern front in WW1, where the length of the frontline and the lower density of soldiers simply made it impossible for either side to man the entire front, creating chances for both sides to launch mobile offensives. Considering that the described front is actually way longer than the eastern front and mostly consist of plains and small hills, a much more mobile form of war is actually more likely
8:20 Sam Houston was against secession and was overthrown from the governorship of Texas and run out of the state on a rail in 1861. So actually yes, good job with the naming. :P
So, since his caption said bonus points for all the differences in the map of 1914 from our timeline.... 1) the obvious one, northern USA and southern CSA 2) part of Mexico and Cuba part of CSA 3) Haiti is colored orange, meaning it is a Central Power (colony still maybe), but not of the French. Maybe USA intervention or something. 4) Various South American countries are colored as belonging to factions when they were not in history, Brazil especially being colored a Central Power 5) The Congo (Belgian colony at the time) and Belgium are already in the Allies but were neutral in 1914 until being invaded by Germany, this causing the UK to jump in 6) The Philippines are colored green like an Allied power (no spanish american war then), but Spain is grey (neutral), so someone took it from them 7) hawaii being British but he mentioned that last video 8) The top part of Maine in the northern USA is missing; guessing the alternate timeline had Britain and America come to a different decision regarding that border then in our own timeline probably owing to animosity and what not That's the ones I could notice, curious to see if I got them all. Edit: btw, since I've read some of Turtledove's older works (not this series; he had a good book about a Byzatine Empire that survived due to changes with the history of Islam, out of print now, but good; another one about how would we treat neanderthals if they still lived (spoiler, they didn't receive good treatment). So. The naming you joke about a couple of times. The author was a former history professor; I think he is actually trying to emulate how names were done back then; West Texas being named Houston maybe an attempt by the North to appeal to an older time for those Texans, Sam Houston leading a rebellion against Mexico and then later joining the USA, sort of a "hey, remember how your Texas George Washington wanted to join us? we are gonna name this state after him cause cool")
Hi, sorry, this was probably brought up before, but the Union state of Houston was probably called that because Sam Houston opposed Texan involvement in the Civil War and was kicked out of office because of that.
They should do a video of guns of the south, Turtledoves first confederate victory book. By the way I am a huge TUrtledove fan have read many st of his books and eagerly waited for years for each of these books.
