Join my Patreon to overthrow King Charles III: www.patreon.com/WhatWhyHow Join my Discord to vote into power the next Lord Protector: discord.gg/XB7MWEemeW
I may have missed something here... You discuss how soon after the war with Austria, Russia becomes socialist. Even assuming the possibility that the Russian Empire would follow a pretty close path to what it did in our time (by no means guaranteed), how does Russia adopt a socialist system? And would it have inevitably morphed into communism in Russia and (somehow) China? If there's something I missed along the way, please let me know...
I really enjoy your videos man - keep up the great work Just one thing tho, sometimes it is hard to see what the rest of the world looks like when you are explaining these what ifs and it would be cool to maybe have some maps included - dont get me wrong tho - the amount of knowledge mixed with realistic scenarios shows what a great youtuber you are!!!
Love the map design, but personally, I think the National lore could use some updates; -In the joint area comprising of Maryland, NJ, NY, Delaware and Pennsylvania, the official language is Dutch, while in the joint area of the New England states and Nova Scotia area, the official language is Portuguese. Other wise, the Commonwealth of America can speak English as a de facto language nationwide. -maybe instead of Cascadia, the white nationalist movements take place in Quebec -have Texas, California, Gila and only the southern half of Zion( the half comprising of Las Vegas listed in it) become the Republic of Texifornia circa October 31, 1992 -have Alaska be annexed by Cascadia on October 31, 1994 -have the Commonwealth of Atlantica become an overseas territory of the UK circa January 21st, 2002. What about having the Lakota Republic form around the 1800’s?
Eh. The scenario is not super realistic in one big thing: it follows the OT too closely. The should be some big butterfly effects to make this whole scenario more different. For example: The cotton machine (you know, Eli Whitney's invention of 1820) could be invented later, or by a British inventor and the empire decided to deploy this technique elsewhere, like in Egypt. Big Cotton never gets that big in the South, and the South doesn't rebel when the Empire abolishes slavery in the 1830s. Another example: The British are more likely to honor their agreements with the native Indian tribes. Instead of the "go west" doctrine, they continue to forbid settling in Indian Territories, and instead encourage to settle in French Louisiana (leaving the conquest of Louisiana to the Americans) in the 1800s and 1810s. This side conquest turns out to be a new save haven for American entrepreneurs (i.e. rebels), and Louisiana revolts against the Empire in the 1820s. The British blockade New Orleans, but half the Colonial Army sympathizes with the rebels: The British cannot conquer the whole Louisiana-Mississippi area. So what do they do? They arm up the Indian nations, who are indeed able to conquer a lot of the plains back from the settlers. This also helps to solidify a few Indian nations, and they create their own governments, or maybe a federation, while also incorporating the rest of the former rebels into their states. In the end, this results in the British holding Canada, the former 13 colonies, and Louisiana. Another example: THe British should not encourage foreign migration into the United States; instead I think they'd want to keep their colonies down. Not impoverished, of course, but also not industrious and booming. England and London are the centers of the Empire, after all. That means, that migrations from Europe either are forced to stay there (creating social unrest in Europe, and revolutions there) or the migrants go to... hm... Mexico instead. Or to the prospering Dutch-Australia and Dutch-Indonesia. Like in the Big Powerful Mexico scenario, just with the British Empire still remaining more powerful throughout the 19th century. It's the Mexicans who profit from the Gold Rush, who gobble up the Philippines (Britain gets Hawaii and most of the Caribbean). Alaska gets sold to... hm, good question. Russia wanted to not have Britain have it, and Mexico is stretching thin with California already. Maybe Alaska gets sold to a private company from Mexico, founded by Dutch/Irish/German migrants who set up shop in Alaska and found a new colony, and eventually a new country. I'm cutting off my ideas at the start of the 20th century, because the whole world is already unrecognizable from ours. Is there an Austro-German Empire willing to wage war against Russia, or has it collapsed due to social unrest? What is France doing? Has Russia encroached so deep into Europe that Britain begins to see it as a major threat? Is the Ottoman Empire collapsing or consolidating? Is Italy even reunited? Can the British Empire really hold everything together at the same time, or have they focused so much on the American colonies that _British-India_ *won* an Independence War in 1857? Are the Australindonesian colonies getting independent from the Dutch motherland? Who owns what in Africa (did Britain try to re-migrate the former American slaves?)?
Don’t see a reason why in this timeline Britain didn’t federalize with the Anglo states America Britain Ireland And Oceania to replace its burden of the African colonies and India. Seeing as this timeline has no USA to force decolonization imperial federation would have been top priority after the swift wars against Austria
I don’t know why you two are throwing an fit in the comments about this. This scenario is more realistic because this is exactly what happened in real life. The UK never federalized with Canada, Australia or New Zealand, but they still recognize the monarch as their head of state while functioning as their own independent entities. I also doubt people of India would even want to under the administrative control of Britain, they did not just be some Independent for no reason. Not to mention Britain federalizing it colonies is such an overdone trope in alt history, it’s refreshing to see he went an different route this time.
America didn't force Britain not to make an imperial federation in real life. The Commonwealth of America in this timeline didn't want an imperial federation, just like Canada and Australia didn't federalize with Britain in real life. Maybe I'll make a video where they do, though.
You forgot the most important factor in this scenario that you didn't mention is the process of "industrialisation".if the colonists lost the war of independence, the British would have enacted national security laws that we did not see in our timeline and industrialisation would have grown in Britain and nowhere else for many decades later than it did in our timeline.the Brits would have been significantly more powerful in the 19th century and probably for the foreseeable future after that If you do research you will find out that US, German French and Austro-Hungarian entrepreneurs and skilled craftsmen not only went to consultations in London, but had British engineers teaching them industrial processes in the early 19th century in return for capital investment and payment direct. It's mentioned several times in Thomas Sowells videos also, the couple with references.This free capitalist enterprise by Britain only happened because it was decades after the US had won the war of independence and the war of 1812 forever showed that US was a free nation. If the US lost the war of independence
Interesting video very well made. It would be interesting to see an alternate ending where Britain forms a more powerful version of the Imperial Federation with the Dominion of America, Dominion of Australia and New Zealand, and the Dominion of South Africa. This would allow for the Empire to reform and remain a global player in order to counter Russia and China and I see them having a good relationship with the European Federation because if the EEC sees the success in the Imperial Federation maybe they too would federalise.
I'll be brutally honest, this makes no scene at all. Like why would britain take India and most of Africa and not federalize? The literal reason, why britain colonized places like Africa and India was to replace their most valuable colony AKA the now USA. I might be able to see them colonizing certain parts of Africa and integrating them into their soon-to-be imperial federation like South Africa, Kenya, Uganda, British Malaya, and maybe certain parts of India like Bengali if not all of India and their small island colonies in Oceania if all went that well for them. On that note, the imperial federation was the last ditch effort to maintain and strengthen their empire and without the USA, forcing decolonization or their dominions wanting independence. Why would they not start building their imperial federation after the swift lighting wars against Austria? Also, why won't they turn the thirteen colonies along with the rest of their North American holdings into the first dominion that they would ever have like Canada in our timeline? Also enforcing more military rule over their already angered colonists and the fact, that britain is still buried in debt, just to pay all those soldiers. But one thing, you did get right is the fact that they will split the colonies into a smaller numbers, to prevent inspiration for more insurgents in America. And also Britain is a democracy, it is a constitutional monarchy but since King George III managed to crush this rebellion that doesn't mean the country would just disregard their far away subjects like Spain did instead they would probably just set up a dominion just like what I said earlier in this comment.
I’ll put this reply under yours as well I don’t know why you two are throwing an fit in the comments about this. This scenario is more realistic because this is exactly what happened in real life. The UK never federalized with Canada, Australia or New Zealand, but they still recognize the monarch as their head of state while functioning as their own independent entities. I also doubt people of India would even want to under the administrative control of Britain, they did not just be some Independent for no reason. Not to mention Britain federalizing it colonies is such an overdone trope in alt history, it’s refreshing to see he went an different route this time.
Not sure why you think Britain would be able to federalize when, like in real life, nobody wants to federalize with Britain. The Commonwealth of America didn't even manage to stay a federation itself in this timeline. I say in the video why Britain colonized other parts of the world even when they keep America: America serves as a stepping stone to other parts of the world. With American resources, Britain would probably colonize MORE land abroad, not less. Plus in real life Britain was already getting involved with India when America secured independence. Also, they DO turn America into a Dominion, that's in the video.
you are telling me britain colonised places in africa 100 years after losing the US to replace the US? the loss of the 13 colonies was not on the mind of the british administration at the time. you can make that argument for parts of india but even then historians don’t agree on it
