Comander Gree Maybe Like this Britain:Do Not Attack Belgium Also Britain:Gets Distracted Germany: Hits Belgium Russia Luxembourg Neatherlands all in the head with a bat
@@aaryadevanapalli1373 because as you know Hitler was a soldier in WWI, and when he was fighting a loosing battle one time an allied soldier has his gun aimed at Hitler, but decided not to pull the trigger.
It was called that so the west let its military's rot with under funding and no new tech, its why the WW2 Germany steamrolled Erurope, even the U.S took years to build up it's military by selling shit to both sides before it was ready to enter the war.
This. Invading neutral countries is just a single excuse among dozens of potential ones. Britain was terrified of Germany being the next superpower and especially their rising navy that is about to challenge Britain's dominance made them frightened.
@@eges72 Exactly. People don't understand that WW1 and the Invasion of Belgium was just a quicker reason to jump and get rid of the German Empire. France was still bitter about their loss to the Prussians Years earlier, and the British did NOT want Germany as a Colonial or Superpower. While the French and British didn't like each other, they hated Prussian Dominance more. If the Invasion of Belgium didn't happen, Britain would've found another excuse to jump in on the French side.
UK was paying 12,3% of EU budget, just before Spain (9%). France, Germany & Italy (16.7% , 19.5% & 13.8% ) are far over. The thing is, proportionnally, UK has underfunded the EU since 1986.
@@minjajovanovic6501 You just made a mistake. You questioned something that has a simple answer but must never be answered. Basically you insulted the baseless nationalism of Serbians, Croatians, and Bosnians. Glory to Yugoslavia! The only real difference is that Serbs are majority Orthodox, Croats are Catholic, and Bosnians are Muslim.
So this whole alternate timeline starts with Germany choosing the strategy of Crown Prince Wilhelm instead of the Schlieffen Plan. The Crown Prince felt that victory involved keeping Britain out of the war and not invade Belgium and focus on taking Russia out first then take France out.
Overall, this is great food for thought and your presentation style is great. But I think we can poke two or three holes into this scenario. 1. Train infrastructure: The Schlieffen-Plan was also built out of the necessity that the train infrastructure in the East was not sufficient enough to mobilise the same amount of troops as in the West. And you can already see in the failure of the Schlieffen-Plan how important train infrastructure was. So, if France would have been able to mass all their troops at the German-French border, they might have just pushed into German territory and the Germans would have had no chance to send reinforcements if they gambled too high. Furthermore, the British send "just" 300,000 men in 1914, so the French definitely had the numbers to keep Germany at bay. Don't underestimate them. 2. Naval Blockade: Like in actual WW1, the British could have still used their naval power to great effect even if they wouldn't have send their 300.000 men to Belgium. A Naval Blockade would have still been possible. Sure, Germany could have expanded submarine warfare, but it would have been a race against the clock between the two powers. Looking forward to the next parts of this series. Keep up the good work!
I think it's more likely that Germany would have taken French Colonies rather than demanding monetary reparations. Kaiser Wilhelm II had always dreamed of having a colonial empire, and would have seized this chance. I am surprised that you overlooked this fact.
Mostly it was treaty of versailles, which destroyed German economy and left people absolutely hating other European countries, which was the perfect condition for a man with funny mustache to rise.
Stfu you germanophob dick. EU is not ruled alone by Germany. I hate this brexit idiots who cant tell the truth from bullshit. Now you can try to be an empire again, while the future will be dominated by big alliances or countries. Good luck.
@@imspring6516 No, he's right. Those who want brexit are brainwash by russia financed propaganda to make them believe the EU is controlling them. Combine it with the disturbing nostalgia some british people have for the empire, and there you have it.
Man from Nantucket It really wasn’t Germany’s fault, everyone else was against them. The Austro-Hungarian Empire was falling apart ( so were the Ottomans)
Well tbh, Ottoman Empire entry in the war threatened The Suez and have Middle East oil, It also actually invoked Ha’ill and gave morale boost to the Senussi fighter, Darfur and some free city while Austria Hungary although had a bad incompetent Command had at least a massive manpower
These get better and better with every video. The 80s feel of the 'Cold War goes Hot' video, and the early 20th century movietone feel of this, I really do think it's a great move and hope he carries on with it. Thematic music and visuals would improve any video on an alternate period of history.
Well yeah thats the Basic German Idea, the idea on how Germany even became a thing. Unite eveyone, under one Nation. And this was Possible, until well ... America wanted to play police (And the Other Nations won), now we got this kind of Germany, completely divided and Broken Apart.
This video was supposed to be out a few days ago but family stuff happened. Check out my Twitter to stay up to date and see my general oddness. twitter.com/AltHistoryHub
Germanys invation of Belgium was not the single reason to why GB declared war. It was an good exuse though. GB went in to the war mostly to protect its empire. They could not acept germany becomming so strong.
DarkZtorm parliament was split, with conservatives wanting to keep the Royal Navy as supreme. The violation of Belgium’s Neutrality forced liberals into the war.
Mr. Kaiser I’m talking about political platforms in parliament in 1914. The liberals were opposed to war until the violation of Belgian neutrality, which wasn’t a morals desicion but a strategic one. I think that you have misunderstood my language.
A) to protect its empire from the Russians (who threatened to march south) and from the German (the British regarded the Berlin to Bagdad railway - which wasn't completed - to be a gun pointed at India). B) to protect the balance of power in Europe - an English foreign policy from before the British Empire existed and from before the UK existed.
Wait a minute after 100 years has the kaisers plan finally come true the economic union that revolves around Germany sound s like the modern day EU to me
+Nisco The German political mindset will always aim to be on top, weather by force, diplomacy or ingenuity. This isn't necessarily bad, it's just German politics. Not necessarily the people either.
No, because there was no sinister ideology behind this war - it was purely economical war so it does not matter much if economy is dominated by one or the other monarchy. And it would actually be better as things like National Socialism would not rise. Maybe Italian fascism but it would never be as imperialistic as it was in our timeline - a thing possible only because of the overall situation in Europe. So German victory would actually be somewhat better. UK would lose some of its colonies so it would be a bit more even distribution of land. In Europe they were the most advanced technologically and would most likely continue to be so. Now, who wouldn't have it quite so nice? Slavs. Me being one of them. They would be second rate citizens in new Europe as Germany would use the same colonization policy everyone else used in their colonies. Africa would still have it rough, but being roughed up by Brits, French or Germans, does not make much difference - the bat is the bat. But that practice would not be administered in parts of Europe as well. Not an all out ethnic cleansing most likely but politics that would slowly diminish the Slavs in the east. And Austria-Hungary actually was doing the ethnic cleansing in Serbia during the war (killed 25% of the population overall) so Serbia would most likely be wiped from the map and if something remained of the people, they would be assimilated. But other than subjugation of millions of Slavs, yeah, not bad. Well, maybe it is better to say not that much different.
EpilepticSquid It is always someone oppressed, no matter the timeline :) That is how the world works. Technological advancements and economical integration would be faster, but African colonialism would be imported to eastern Europe. Always, no matter what happens, there is something good and something bad. So in the grand scheme of things - it is always a zero sum game. Now, in alternative history - always. It only depends on its impact on individual - we Slavs would not like it one bit, but Germans and western Europe would have actually a good time, relatively speaking.
WW1 Germany was not inherently twisted with a racist ideology the way WW2 Germany was. The rise of the Nazis was only possible because of the aftermath of WW1.
Beth Gibson That’s true but America did play a huge role. I think if America didn’t join the war or provide anything for Britain or the other allied forces then it would have been bad for all countries cause they went through their own economic crisis at the time Edit: Before anymore people say it, I don’t think America was the sole reason as to why they won the war. I’m just saying it might have been harder for the Allies to have ended defeating Germany and the others. I can tell it was probably more needed in WW2 but WW1 also benefited with the help of America
@@valkyrieagainsttheworld People think that America are the reason we won the war even though all they did was supply the UK and join in last minute to get a bit of recognition in the war.
No, they didn't. Get your facts right. Nevertheless as you want to compare the EU to an imperialistic regime. Why can Britain leave without consequences? Why is Poland on the rise? Why is France pushing pro EU politics and not Germany? Plz plz plz use your brain next time. It is Not the same. Stop spreading your countries nationalistic bs.
@@thewatchman2515 Jesus, spot the eurofanatic, im a right? You got triggered really hard Britain leaving without consequences? HAHAHA right, its not like the EU tried their best to prevent it. Luckly for UK, the EU doesn't yet have an army
“An economic union of all European peoples under Germany” Well, it took 2 World Wars and a lot of economic mismanagement, but they got what they wanted.
That's a bit simplistic. Even without religion (if such a world could exist), there would be those who opposed new technologies on moral grounds. If you eliminated religion AND morality, technology would probably advance astronomically, but it's not a world you'd want to live in.
Also, not that I believe there wouldn't be another war or something else terrible but I firmly believe had the Treaty of Versailles been slightly less aggressive on war reparations no one would have ever heard of Hitler.
William Perez no because the only reasons the Jews were being so heavily punished was because of Hitler not the German empire so you've got the wars mixed up
Its not very accurate.Ukraine must have been bigger and ruled by Skoropadsky.That whole transamur thing also wouldnt have happened.American civil war is unlikely.And the world is more peaceful
Chs Grate I mean.... depends. Keep in mind that in Kaiserreich the Allied powers basically all adopt a form of Marxism (I dislike saying communism) called Syndicalism. This is probably done in the effort to keep peace after the Germans win WW1. So, essentially, we have nations whose economies and militaires are in turmoil (I know this from the gameplay) and a nearby power that the populace blames their hardship on (sound familiar?). As for it being more peaceful, overall throughout the 20th century the scale of the wars might be less, but the number would be way more. In the Middle East you can be sure the conflict would be terrible. Germany and Austria-Hungary didn’t really like the Ottomans, and basically had an alliance of convenience with them. After the war, I couldn’t see this alliance continue so the same problems that the ottomans had since 1500 would still be there, meaning sooner or later they would have been wracked by internal conflict from groups trying to secede. This would probably happen by the late 60s or maybe 70s, idrk. As for America, it splitting into civil war is something that could happen. After all, they’re the last democratic nation on earth, and there capitalistic ways would isolate them from their old trading partners the British and French. There economy would definitely go into recession even if it doesn’t collapse, but such a situation, especially when the American public sees that Syndicalism is creating better living standards (relative to them, still worse than Germany’s), more could turn to syndicalism. In response a group of hardcore traditionalists could form another party to ‘uphold the American values of freedom and liberty’. And as for the Pacific states.... yeah, idk. You got me there. Also, when a country wins a war, especially a monarchy, the rulers become decadent and uncaring (this is actually something in kaiserreich, where you start with the modifier winners of the weltkrieg, which is awful). This provides an opportunity for governments in Britain and France to attack, meaning WW2 probably still would have happened, just maybe a bit later. It would just look very different. And that’s not even mentioning the Chinese states.
@@einhorntaschentuch9404 Hey we saved the Uk by supplying them if we didn't they'll collapse or die very slowly,don't forget the Japanese Theater along with other Allies and the USSR I dunno.
5:01 it's Brest Litovsk, not "Brest Livostk", modern day Brest in Belarus, with Litovsk being roughly translated as 'Lithuanian' (although that goes back to the Polish- Lithuanian commonwealth, making it slightly more complicated than just being equivalent to modern day term 'Lithuanian')
@@sherrigofdenmark2823 But without Germany's desperation and treatment in the interwar period, there wouldn't have been a second world war. One of Hitler's biggest reasons for rising to power was how much of a shitshow Germany was after WW1. No ending of the German Empire and then economic collapse or having to pay insanely high payments to the Allies (mainly France and England) then no Hitler. No Hitler, then no fascism and hyper aggressive military expansion into nations they viewed as theirs or revenge schemes against France, England, the Jews, and Slavs. There may have been more war with Italy, Russia, and Japan being aggressive but the Nazi's wouldn't have been such a key player because they wouldn't have been invading lost territory or killing off entire ethnic groups.
Fun fact, France and the British Empire along with Russia did the hard work. The Americans got rich off the war then joined late to claim it was won by America alone..... pretty much like WW2
@@MacCoalieCoalson The German Spring Offensive broke the back of the German Army during WW1. As far as I'm aware the US only really took part at the very end of this offensive, the Second Battle of the Marne, by which point the Germany army was already grinding to a halt. It was over-extended, running out of supplies and massively out matched by the British and French forces. At the Marne only 8, out of 56 divisions, were American troops, inexperienced and far less valuable or effective than the battle trained divisions of the other Entente powers. The simple truth is that the Germans lost the War in the Spring Offensive before the arrival of most of the recently expanded US army. Realistically the US had relatively little impact on the outcome of the war. The Germans had lost at Marne and that was before the US could truly contribute militarily. None can deny however that the US troops certainly played a role in the following months, which saw the Germans pushed back and eventually defeated. However by then the Germans had already lost. It was simply a matter of time.
@@MacCoalieCoalson bs Germany was on the verge of collapse from the blockades their last offensive was desperate The US didn't change the course of the war
The German General Staff was so fixated on the Schlieffen Plan that they failed to plan for any other contingency. The Kaiser even reproached the younger von Moltke over that very point.
Funny enough that is actually a problem that keeps happening in war. Apparently the old career generals would either be stuck behind the times or be too focused on the job game then actually making correct moves. Its a contributing reason why the battle for may island was a disaster and why before ww2 many old generals were phased out in America as preparation. Id give the generals some slack as two front wars are resource nightmares. Many probably believed it was do or die, rather they knock france out as quickly as possible or germany falls to attrition.
@@ethanmathers8914 That sweep through the Ardennes also included Belgian territory, if I remember right. Going JUST through Luxembourg would have still been too small to have your forces ready to capture Paris in only a few weeks.
Alexander Krestan 'With us'?!! Without Germany it'd have been a little war. The Germans were of course so much superior ^^ They had the best technology by far!! Austria. What a joke ;p But yeah you caused the death of all those people, be proud!
One side effect that would be less than obvious: The Middle East probably wouldn't be quite so turbulent into the 21st century. The Ottoman Empire had long been known as the "sick man of Europe"; even if the Central Powers won, it probably wouldn't last. But by falling apart on its own, rather than being divided up by the Allies, the new states would probably have a better chance of having more ethnic and religious unity than the ones the Allies created. Thus, less internal conflict. Thus, more stability. Thus, lower chance for Al Queda and friends.
Actually, even though they were hobbling along, the Ottomans were on their way to some stability-inducing changes. If they modernised and industrialised with German help (Which was happening before the war happened), in twenty years they would be the owner of half of the world's oil supply and basically the sole supplier of oil to most of the world, on top of having a giant population. This would, along with the political landscape shifting towards a constitutional monarchy, most likely be enough to firmly establish them as an really strong nation, atleast on par with the Russia of today.
Damminh Khoi They only got sick because the British made them a better deal. You need to understand that there really weren't any nation of an "Arabic" nation state before the British control of the area. Basically Arabs did not consider themselves one cultural entity, and still don't, really (That's why the countries there are in such chaos). Their loyalty was first to their family, second to Islam, and third to their nation. This is because the Middle East has always been ruled by Empires, and was never divided into multiple nations the way European countries did. Before Islam, they didn't have any nations like in Europe. Basically, there were city states and tribes, and people were only loyal to them until the Caliphate. Without the UK and with a strong Ottoman State that still has a firm grip as the leader of the Islamic world, Arabs would never see the need to revolt.
Paradoxical Outcome From what I've read, the Empire was suffering some pretty severe problems through the beginning of the 20th century. It's possible that they would have gotten their feet and strengthened themselves for long enough to deal with them, if Germany and company helped...but it seems likelier that the Ottoman Empire would fall sooner or later. After all, modernization doesn't do much to fend off threats when you're modernizing the threats as well.
BatEzioMan No, it was obviously George Washington, since he helped found the nation that lead to Reagan's presidency. No, wait it was actually Washington's mother who gave birth to him, allowing him to help found America....Well, maybe his great grandmother is to blame...but maybe....
yeah, i wasn't gunna write out a whole paragraph because then people start arguments, but lets be honest, why would a national syllabus have students learn about a whole subject through one video about hypothesized alternate history? sorry about all the big words but c'mon
***** True, we were only part of the war for a relatively short time and lost relatively few people. However us being there tipped the scales and the Germans lost.
It’s kind of fascinating how the German plan to win both WW1 and WW2 were so similar, yet their drastically different execution presented so drastically different results...
The sad thing about WW1 is it did not end up being "The war that ends all wars" it ended up taking us all down a bloody and dark path filled with nothing but famine and more wars.
I really like your animation style. It's simplistic, yet it's clear who everyone is, and what's going on in your videos. The simplistic style, as well as throwing a few words in, allows for some comedic relief as well.
Germany (on a bit of a tangent): Of course your a fucking joke! If Austria is able to do more shit then you you need to fucking get your act together with all your bullshit nationalism! I’d understand someone who wants to go to Vienna or Constantinople, but not fucking Sofia! Who gives a flying shit about Sofia?! So yeah, you ARE a fucking joke to me!
I just quickly want to point out the Italy was with the Central Powers until Britain entered the war and Italy switch sides. And if Britain was neutral Canada India Australia and the other colonies would also remain neutral. Mussolini and Hitler and Stalin would've never happen a lot of scientism film directors would've never left Europe to America the British Empire would've still been here since both world wars we can do it. Europe would just be more stronger place and North America not as powerful.
Italy had signed treaties with both sides and would have joined the war as soon as it was clear which side was winning, just as they actually did in WW1, just that they thought that the fall of Premszyl was it. They were wrong. Vultures, all else is bs.
trauko1388 but they start up a trade Germany when Britain join if Britain was neutral Italy would've stayed with the Central Powers and they could've took French down together and at that point it would've been too late to switch sides
trauko1388 if Britain remain neutral so with the colonies Canada Australia New Zealand India South Africa under allies like Japan. Italy would've helped him take down the French and go after Russia The U.K joined then at that point it would've been too little too late. The Italians would've helped Germany
Rio truths Italy decided on neutrality well before the war started, then it would be a matter of who looked as likely losers, then Italy would pile on them since they had signed treaties with both sides. Pure opportunism, nothing more.
French combat deaths - 1,150,000 British combat deaths - 744,000 Russian combat deaths - 1,700,000 Canadian combat deaths - 56,638 American combat deaths - 53,402 This is only combat deaths if you want to include all deaths america is at 116,708 deaths total.
I'm not American, but looking at the situation in 1918, without them the Allies might not have won. The sheer number of them and their willingness to fight easily won the war. Again, the allies could have pushed through but it would have been very unlikely and would have taken many more years.
no. the allies were easily winning. you really need to learn your stuff. the small number of combat deaths proves how the million or so (compared to 5 million Brits) Americans saw little action. things like tanks were becoming viable and highly successful, meaning that Germany still would have been easily beaten, perhaps even earlier, since Petain wouldn't attack before lots of US soldiers came to do, because Petain.
For some reason I can't stop imagining the first piece of music being played during a GTA mission, or in the background of a heist or chase in a movie with Pacino in it.
He said they would probably intervene to keep Germany from dominating Europe, but that they wouldn't fight immediately, as the Germans don't invade Belgium
Scottx125Productions - Spiffingly Serious British Gaming! "What makes you think UK would let France fall before getting involved..." The 100 years war, the iberian peninsular war, Trafalgar, American war of independence etc... "We always have been, we are, and I hope that we always shall be detested in France."- Duke of Wellington And the German Kaiser was related to the British Monarchy But apart from that , nothing :)
They need a reason to intervene. Belgium was that reason. Without it, it would've been France who intervened in the Austro-German sphere in the Balkans/Russia
As a French i only can tell you're right ! The UK only cared about insuring its domination over europe but wasn't really interested in helping France if it was not necessar for them (i can't blame you for that BTW). And evenf or a time the UK thought about making an alliance with germans (before WWI and also WWII), the only problem was that Germany was threatening anglo-saxon hegemony. France and the UK will never be friends just on the same side at certain occasions. :)
SuperMidget he forgot to mention Canada in the winners and he said that America helped win the war Canada and Bulgaria had a bigger impact his bias overpowered research
"Before, you know... America." While I may be a very patriotic man, I will say this; American troops were just fresh cannon fodder while the British and French troops planned and attempt at pushing into Germany with the aid of the Italians who had recently switched sides.
Italy was originally on the side of the German Empire and the Empire of Austria-Hungary. However, in secret, the Allies promised to give them land that had been taken from them by other nations in past wars. The Italians, enticed by this idea, decided to betray the Germans and Austrians in 1915, and joined the Entente forces. Of course, they never received the land they were promised, and naturally this is why they became an Axis power in the buildup to WWII. I mean, you anger an entire nation and someone's bound to declare war.
Yes, "fresh cannon fodder" that won the war both on the battlefield and economically, and pushed back Germans several tens of miles during their offensives, and with the marines bottlenecking the Germans at Meuse-Argonne and the Army pushing them back into Germany itself. No matter how you put it, American entry was like, a crucial reason why the Central powers didn't win.
@@thomasj.8081 It wasn't. Not even in WW2 (at least in the European war). You Americans still believe old propaganda which makes me fucking nervous for what new bullshit you're most likely going to believe next
I think a German victory would be really good for scientific development. I mean many scientists wouldn't flee to the UK and the US and would stay in Germany. Think about it, Albert Einstein, Arthur Rudolph, Robert Oppenheimer, Otto Hahn, Werner Heisenberg and Wernher Von Braun working together. Germany would be the number one in Psychology, Nuclear physics, Sociology, Space technology and the list goes on.
AlternateHistoryHub yeah, their 67 million is much more suited right? Oh and Russia with 166 million, its a wonder how they lost the war. If Germany would've won the war based off their population, like you claim, the British Empire would've won alone too, due to the fact that they had 88 million in 1914
