What if America And The Soviet Union Invaded China Together? 

I very much enjoyed it friend, great video, as always

16:42 insert rammstein song here

Where exactly did that video go to? I can't find it anymore for some reason...

@@y.r._same

Don’t worry it’s just a little bit of trolling right? :) -usa towards the ussr

China: NOOOOOOOOO

@@Ivan-pw3sn USSR after 1day: failed

China: we do a little trolling

@@moedictatornoriega8475 never

I see two elements which really got in the way of a unifying push, at least one of which would need to be adjusted, but probably both: 1. Schwarzenburg's leadership of Austria during this crisis was masterful. His adept pragmatism, ruthless prioritization of resource expenditure, and his decision to indebt the empire to Russia for its intervention to assist with the Hungarian breakaway were all proven to be ultimately wise decisions for the Austrian state. They were not always popular decisions in the Austrian political establishment, so it is easy to imagine very different decisions being made at multiple points in the process, and the crisis having a far greater negative effect on Austria than it had in our timeline. Austria also got a bit lucky with having the right military commanders in the right places to be able to fight Piedmont-Savoy to a standstill and then later to a victory, therefore retaining the wealthiest parts of their empire for another decade and a half. Austria prioritized holding their wealthy Italian lands in a huge, stubborn gamble, and it paid off. In a scenario in which the Austrian empire collapses more aggressively, thus leaving a more substantial power vacuum in central Europe, Prussia may have given far greater priority to stepping in and taking a leading role in guiding the pan-Germanic elements of the revolution, as the risk vs reward equation would've been greatly shifted in the event of an Austrian collapse. 2. Friedrich William was too much of a romanticist and a legitimist to accede to his otherwise-strong pan-Germanic sympathies. His later attempts to create a united Germany in 1849 and 1850 were characterized by very limited concessions to liberals and to the non-landed classes, especially the latter Erfurt Union effort in 1850. The Erfurt Union MIGHT have gone through effectively if Austria had collapsed completely, as hinted at in point 1. But I don't think that it would've been any sort of liberal dream in the spirit of 1848. Instead, I think that we need to assume both an Austrian collapse AND another party to take the offered crown of the Frankfurt Parliament. The obvious choice would be Friedrich William's younger brother Wilhelm, the later eventual Prussian king and German emperor. How do we do this? We make Friedrich William suffer that same debilitating stroke which he suffered in 1857 in our timeline just over 8 years earlier, in early-to-mid 1849, while the Prussian king was still being offered the crown of Emperor of the Germans. A collapsed Austria can do nothing to oppose an 1849 coronation of Emperor Wilhelm, leaving just Russia and the significantly-less-invested and just-as-distracted France to offer and serious opposition. I don't see any Russian or French threats of war being actually carried out, without the legitimization of a consenting and participating Austrian state to lead the legitimizing resistance to German unification. Venetia-Lombardy is taken by Italy, who obviously doesn't oppose the German unification, Galicia is likely ceded to Russia to mollify them, claims to Hungarian lands declaring independence are sworn off, and this leaves a Prussian-led Germany with possibly a hybrid political arrangement, in which German, Czech, and Slovenian lands outside of Prussia are organized in a manner reminiscent of a constitutional monarchy with a parliamentary system, and directly-controlled Prussian lands remain largely unchanged, with the same highly conservative, aristocratic social and political order in the larger East, and lands in the West chafing under the repressive Prussian system, and wanting to join their neighboring German regions in operating under a more liberal, representative system.

No real way of happening, it would have got every single country in europe in a panick of another Napoleonic wars and Russia, UK and France (once this one calms down) would had interfered to return to the status quo, the king didn’t rejected it for being a romantic, he rejected it because he knew what would happen if he accepted

​@@Leo-ok3ujif Russia,France and UK stepped in Germany is screwed

@@JDDC-tq7qm Exactly, if 3 great powers fight all at once against 1 great power they will win

This needs to be a Call of Duty storyline

Technically ww2 was soviet-american collaboration

Taiwan would be considered the Republic of China then. And ironically the people in Taiwan who support formally changing the name from ROC to The Republic of Taiwan right now would be considered leftwing sympathizers by the KMT in the 50s.

Tiwan would have to use there full might and even then I might not be possible with out us help

Taiwan wouldn't be able to get American support, as china signed a treaty stating they would cease fire on Taiwan, but America would have to stop supplying Taiwan or supporting it's deas of reclaiming the mainland

the kuomitang would be smash again

@@sgtreznov9869 smashed HARD

- Kennedy and Khrushchev, probably

And if the Russian Ukrainian War still happens and I'm confident it will the Russian Federation May surrender considering his main Ally as China and live out a Chinese Ally and was trying to being weak sanctions will be a lot more effective so

China would actually benefit. It’s demographics would be much more healthy. USA is going to turn into a normal country because there’s now no enemy to rally against. Everyone benefits it seems, but the Chinese now hate the Russians and might attack Russia as revenge eventually when Russia becomes weak.

How would the Russian population be smaller?

@@thermslusitania1151 I doubt that a full invasion of Ukraine is possible in this scenario. If a political crisis still happens in Ukraine then Crimea could be annexed by Russia and there's maybe a local conflict in Donbass but a full scale invasion is less likely because without strong China the US would be an uncontested world hegemon both militarilly and economically. For Russia to invade in this timeline there needs to be some third power that could tip the balance in Kremlins favour by just being an adversary for Americans. So unless, in this timeline, somehow India is both more capable and more hostile to the US than IRL then Russia wouldn't dare to invade.

​@@mastersafari5349lol Russia would still have nukes which automatically puts USA on a tight spot regardless Russia would still invade but I think they would settle for Crimea and the areas in Lugansk and Donestk

It depends on how the actual invasion would go on. After all Khruschev's USSR was a far less inhumane system than Maoist PRC. I doubt that Chinese people had that good of an opinion of Mao in 1960s. Especially since 1963 was just 2 years after "the Great leap" and consequent famine. If Soviets play their cards right and and make some allies in Chinese Communist party that are in favour of "a Soviet style of socialism" they might actually gain support from local population and play the whole thing not as blatant invasion but as a struggle against Mao's tyranical regime.

So why didn't you team up with the Soviets if they were better for you?

@@tritium1998 i didnt say they were "better" for me. all i was commenting on was that two superpowers teaming up together is just monstrous. Whether you think the US or Soviets were stronger than the other, they were at least on similar grounds in terms of power.

@@tritium1998 2 differing ideologies isnt a good mixture for a alliance

@@idiot-yw5oq It works in the short term when both powers fear a small power becoming another rival who is unaligned with either. In the long term they'd be at each other's throats waiting for the right moment to strike, which has happened all throughout history.

@@tritium1998 they did team up in ww2 lmao. what on earth are you talking about? "but theyre not allies after that!!!" exactly. ask yourself why that happened..

(Late) Happy Birthday!

@@possiblehistory thanks

... Argentina?

Fake as hell, lmao, nice alternate-reality Moonshine...

Uh, no, cope harder

@@mrjaman3752 I’ll take any South American nation becoming a dominant power. Although, Colombia is overdone so I’m going for the next best thing…

I agree its interesting but I think the reason people are negating is because you slightly screwed up the facts, their economy was bigger than italy’s and they had a higher gdp per capita than America, but their economy was never bigger than the American one unless we go back to colonial days.

What happened in SA?

SA developed nukes

@@GMDGeojumper2011-bl8sx And how did the US and USSR intervene?

​@@goodpol5022I think Soviets warned the US about possible preparations for a nuclear test by South Africa, and the US had a spy plane that confirmed the existence of the place

@@goodpol5022 they told them to please stop

Big Afghanistan go boom. Assuming US spends 70x 4 trillion to control China, that would be 280 trillion dollars. US dollar is going to crash.

The US is having visions of the future!!!

@@DinoRicky Indeed

That is actually pretty cool and interesting to think about

huh? Sino-Soviet Split????

W comment

Why would Tibet become independent out of all those other regions? Manchuria and Xinjiang have even more Chinese people.

USSR might just end up collapsing early… India would get its claims back, Tibet is released. China and India become natural economic partners, with similar economic sizes and demographics or maybe even political system. Meanwhile Russia due to collapsing early and USA being more distant to Europe might end up joining the EU. Now USA has to compete with an EU which contains literally all of Europe and now larger that of USA in terms of economic size and is much more self sufficient. The Euro becomes the alternate global currency, US dollar is weakened. Meanwhile China and India basically just grows slowly like current timeline while ASEAN is slightly richer. Now Europe(led by France, germany and UK) and USA compete in influence in Africa while Asian alliance between India China and ASEAN emerge as the third block gradually. Conclusion: Europe benefits in economy and stability, Asia benefits in terms of stability but not economy, Africa gets to play both sides (Europe and North America), and gains economically, Latin America continues being Latin America, North America loses economically due to USD sharing global currency status with the Euro.

Inner Mongolia is not Mongolian. Also that would then instantly alienate their puppet.

LOL. As if China allow the USSR enlarge Mongolia with Inner Mongolia 🤣🤣 China is not a puppet state like Eastern Europe so they won't tolarate the USSR rule over them.

​@@chickenperson7568 Yes it is its called inner Mongolia for a reason

Iraq: **happy Baghdad noises** 🥳

@@normanclatcher war voided hooray

Kinda had to, don't have anything else to use and am still at work

But also its kinda my usual style and its my usual format, so I love it

Not only that I doubt the Russian Ukrainian war would happen because Russia only allies right now is Belarus in China which is enough but with this China what have a hatred of Russia and be too weak to do anything worthwhile

That's why I just hope it never happens

@@vallikescrackers-28it didn’t happened because they couldn’t make it happen. So it won’t happen.

The soviet union was always reluctant when it came to exporting their industry to warsaw pact members while NATO was more than happy to do so. That is the biggest difference between the two and would eventually lead to China not being developed properly since the Warsaw pacts other members didn't have the capital and the soviets didn't want to invest. Additionally there's no way the Soviets would allow nato investment in China as they've also always blocked that when it came to other warsaw pact members so that's not possible either. In short, no, China would not have the same rise.

for several thousands years, China keeps rising again and again after each fall, when most other great empires fall definitely, of course it is not just because fo the demography, but China has a great strategy, so even when they are weak.and divided, they managed to return the situation in their favor, defeat their adversary by wisdom than by force,

@@Emilechen So their constant rise is not becasue they've always historically had the largest populations and along with india the largest economy?

@@shaaravguha3760 China has largest population because they are able to reunify the core province of China again and again, if theses province remain independant, these Chinese provinces are not much populated than the European with same size, many empire in History are big because they conquer outside territory, but unbale to unify the core lands of their civilizations, such as Russia has Siberia but unable to reunify East Slavic peoples, Russia can't even build a free trade zone in East Europe, Germany loses Prussia, Greece loses Constantinpole, Arba world remain divided, Indian situation is better, but it loses definitely Indus core land, thi region even become Muslim Pakistan, adversary of Hindu civilization, Inner Mongolia has much morr population than Mongolia Republic but theu lose it, Chinese core lands such as Shaanxi, Henan, Hebei, Jiangsu... even theu are political divided, they have never been culturally, ethnically or religiously divided, they can be conquered by force outside, but once these Chinese cores lands are free, they will be reunited again and again, but China strength comes from unification, not really from conquest,

@@Emilechen That's complete bs... China has the largest population because they have the most fertile farmland out of any civilisation. (even today they have the most while south asia has the richest farmland which you can see in their populations)

I think it has partially if not entirely to do with religion and patriotism. For religious types, look at places the middle east and how they still are very proud of their religion, and see it as something that ensures their victory.. And for patriotism/love of your empire, you have things like manifest destiny or mandate of heaven, where you tell enough people "this is ok bc it's our destiny" and they believe it. People nowadays imo are way smarter and can see through nonsense and aren't willing to throw their life away for some dying old man in a chair that wants to be immortalized in history books in the name of 'conquest' or 'destiny'

Better for who? The west? Not for the Chinese..so stop being selfish.

you dont need friendship when both sides have nukes

So he would have had to never had those strokes then

Suez, 1956

YOU NUKED MANCHURIA!?!?

​@@danieldubrovin8813Nuh uh

@@imjustbryce6235 TF YOU MEAN NUH UH?!

It would stay in British hands because China would be too weak to reinforce Britain Steel and it would be very likely that with China's position Great Britain with just make Hong Kong a part of the United Kingdom proper or making an overseas territory

@@thermslusitania1151 finally a good ending for Hong Kong

@@Hatsuzunot really? A thief trying to be a hero? Come on. Who taught you that kind of thing? Western education? lol