Remember to check out the big deal on AtlasVPN: get.atlasvpn.com/PossibleHistory Thank you for watching, and consider leaving a like and a comment to help the video against the algorithm, and subscribe for at least one (alternate) history video ever single week!
Hey your WWII video was awesome I just would have liked it if it was based on your opinion and what you felt would happen but nevertheless it wasn’t a bad video in that scenario I don’t agree that the NONO Germans would colonize Africa they would colonize Eastern Europe and do a holocaust which would 100X bigger than the other one since the NONO Germans were messed up people I only see them doing a colonization of Africa after they finished their colonization and Germanification of Eastern Europe and Russia which would start at 2045 if they last that they long but that would have been my take in that alternate history topic. Some alternate history subjects I would like to see you do is what if the ottomans won the siege of Vienna 1529,Napoleon invasion of Russia is successful,If the French won the Spanish war of succession, If the ottomans managed to conquer all of continental Europe stretching from Russia in the east to Portugal to the west having direct contour over Europe, or the Safavids never existed or the Mughals never fell or the Roman’s conquered all of Germania, Or Alexander the Great managed to live till 98 years old, or what if the reqonquistia failed, or if America became an empire or if America annexed all of Mexico and the Caribbean islands like Cuba Puerto Rico and Haiti etc or if the Muslims conquered south and central Africa or if the scramble for Africa never happened or if china was colonized or the Russian revolution never happens please make videos on these alternate history subjects have amazing awesome day peace.
I really like the mod for Hoi4: Age of Imperialism that is just like this. A world where ww1 never happened but it was located into smaller theatrical wars like 2nd Franco-German war, Austria-Russo War, Colonization of China, etc.
One of the craziest stories I've heard of how WW1 could've been avoided was from the death of a Russian ambassador; after the Serbia crisis there was a period where it looked like the senior diplomats from Russia and Austria in Serbia would hash out an agreement, especially since the two were friends. Unfortunately the Russian ambassador would die of a heart attack in the home of his Austrian counterpart during what was supposed to be said peace meeting.
There were so many moments before the war that could’ve stopped it: The death of the Russian ambassador, Kaiser Wilhelm 2nd’s vacation trip, tsar Nicholas the 2nd being so bullheaded in a moment in which he finally should’ve been more mellow and peaceful, etc
This moment bugs me the most. Why did God say "This mf dies today." At the most crucial point of July 1914. This hit the hardest when I watched All Quiet on the Western Front, so many French & German lives that could've been saved.
A former friend of mine literally thinks that if WW1 didn't happen, then the Nazis would have come to power earlier, ignoring how the effects of WW1 caused this. He also thought that it was beneficial for the world for it to happen, so that we can "learn" from it and WW2 💀💀💀
"so that we can "learn" from it and WW2" I heard people say this. Namely those who support ideologies that rose in Italy, Germany and Russia. I'll just say to those people: If your ideology requires continent-wide bloodshed and deaths of millions to be able to take power, it's a shit ideology.
The problem with this is that WW1 would have been pretty easy to avoid but the outcomes are very difficult to predict - throughout this, you've kept a focus on Europe, but it's perfectly possible that the European powers would have clashed over imperial possessions, which makes an UK-French or UK-Russian war more likely. It's always amazed me that the European Powers were obsessed with the superior power of Russia, having just watched them lose to Japan and then the government collapse into revolution.
they knew that at the moment they werent strong and them losing to japan was an emmbarassment but with their huge population and huge resources they we eventually going to become number one so they had to stop russia while they could russia jsut needed time
probably a remnant from the napoleonic wars. napoleon lost half a million men in russia after 2 decades of appearing invincible. russia is impossible to conquer or invade in a conventional way. all of europe knew it was a feudalistic, underdeveloped backwater. but they are massive and had a large population and a long history of imperialism and violent territorial expansion.
Russia lost to Japan because of corruption. The money that Nicholas allocated for the war was simply stolen by military officials. Russia was prosperous in 1910. In st. Petersburg and moscow many factories had 8/5 hours work plan(but in many factories was horrifying labor conditions). Russia is a country where the most advanced cities are in the next century, and the rest of the parts are in the previous one.
You completely discount the fact that the Austro-Hungarian economy was also growing and would likely in case of peace become the second largest industrial power on the continent behind Germany.
Yeah, they always underestimate the industrial potential of Austria-Hungary because of their bad military performance. As a Hungarian I learned about this topic more in depth and the economic growth of the empire was massive in the late 1800's.
@@norbertkrafcsik3628They were literally taking off, especially the Hungarian part of the empire was seeing rapid development. Just when Belle Époque was getting to Eastern Europe the war broke out and smashed everything up.
Bro, the countries would be better than today, but it is impossible to think that the Empire would hold together, there is not a single ethnic group that accounts for the majority of the people, their culture and language are different, you can’t keep that people together. Even today they still fight for independence…
Yeah, Hungary had one of the largest railways networks in the world at the time to rapidly develop the heavy industry in the country. After than they planned to expand the light industry and motorize the agriculture. The AH should be a beast of economy. People copeing about the ethnicities in the empire, they should learn more history where prosperity can nullify the nationalism. I think in 50 years without war, nationalities like slovaks would disappear or just closely integrate to the hungarian society, something with czechs and slovenes in austria. Today this country should look like england or france where breton, occitan, welsh or irish just exists as a nationality but they are primary english or french speakers but in this case they are speaking german or hungarian.
@@DrFrizo Possible! :) But you would need a lot of stability and economic progress. You never know what another future would have looked like. I would still bet on AH disbanding.
Idk about that. If you look at the way humans have waged war, mobile warfare was rather rare in comparison to static/siege warfare. In that regard, trench warfare was the final evolution of our idea of static defense. Trenches with machine guns backed by artillery still sees use on today's battlefields when one side can't make good use of combined warfare. In that regard WW1 taught us the necessity of combined arms lest we slug it out in the trenches forever. Without that war many could argue that tanks would have never been more than idea until they were needed. I'd argue that if WW1 was pushed back another decade it would simply be deadlier. Advances in fragmentation patterns, better rifling, and potentially more horrendous chemicals would make artillery just that much more deadlier. Yet, the result would probably still be the same: lots of lives traded for little gain in land. Ergo, attrition warfare notched up a level or two.
It's essentially because of war that there is a feeling to need to advance technology so the belligerents can be a step ahead of their enemy. Pretty depressing really.
@@sik3xploit I've invented over a dozen items, and received many patents. I've filed over 500 patents for inventors in my career, also. None of them had to do with war. The desire to make something better/easier .... the feeling that "I wish I had this thing that does xyz" ... and maybe I can profit from it, is by far the greater motivator. Sure some technologies accelerate development during wartime, while other developments suffer. Overall, "war as economics" was exposed as a fraud long ago by John Adam's "Broken Window Fallacy" in The Wealth of Nations.
@@ThrashLawPatentsAndTMs Well very interesting. Still it would be nice if we didn't have to suffer under the heel of politicians putting such importance on arms development and it having such an influence in the world.
Saying that the Germans greatly overestimated Russia, that they would not be able to defeat it after 1917, in fact, the author himself greatly underestimates Russia. The fears of the Germans were not at all in vain, since in the video he is mistaken about the slow economic growth in Russia. Russian industry at that time was the fastest growing in the world (about 8% per year), and backwardness in agriculture and management was quickly eliminated after the start of reforms in 1906 by Prime Minister Pyotr Stolypin. It is also wrong to call the traditional Russian political regime feudal or in any way backward. For example, Russian education developed rapidly and was the most egalitarian in Europe. The percentage of students from the lower classes in Russia was higher than in any other European country (for example, in the UK and Germany, higher education was practically not available to everyone except the elite). Also, Russia overtook Germany (Germany at that time had the best higher education in Europe) in terms of the number of students and quickly increased their number. Russian labor legislation was one of the best. This is how US President William Howard Taft spoke on this subject: "Your Emperor created such perfect working legislation that no democratic state can boast of." The list of advantages of the then Russian regime is almost endless. Regarding the economy, I will cite a study by four American-French-Russian economists "Was Stalin necessary for the Russian economic growth?". It explores the main problems that slowed down the economic growth of Russia and made a model of its growth, taking into account the ongoing reforms of Stolypin. So, by the 1940s, the Russian economy would be about one and a half times larger than the USSR per capita and 2.5-3 times larger in total (so the population of Russia would be about 100 million more than the population of the USSR - according to the calculations of D. Mendeleev and with taking into account the absence of repressions, famine, collectivization and other crimes of the Soviet regime). Such a size of the Russian economy would make it not only the first economy in Europe, but also the absolute hegemon of Europe and a competitor to the United States for world championship. In the conditions of such a preponderance of forces and the absence of political isolation (as was the case with the USSR), no war larger than a local conflict in Europe becomes impossible in principle (just as there were no wars on the American continent thanks to the power of the United States).
A timeline I would be interested in, is if the Schlieffen plan went even more awry then in our timeline. Suppose if the Belgians had performed it's military reorganization earlier in the century, and mobilized during the July Crisis. The Germans would have lost earlier, the implications this could have would not be massive, but they could be quite notable, and I have not noticed anybody else making a scenario about it.
Saying that the Germans greatly overestimated Russia, that they would not be able to defeat it after 1917, in fact, the author himself greatly underestimates Russia. The fears of the Germans were not at all in vain, since in the video he is mistaken about the slow economic growth in Russia. Russian industry at that time was the fastest growing in the world (about 8% per year), and backwardness in agriculture and management was quickly eliminated after the start of reforms in 1906 by Prime Minister Pyotr Stolypin. It is also wrong to call the traditional Russian political regime feudal or in any way backward. For example, Russian education developed rapidly and was the most egalitarian in Europe. The percentage of students from the lower classes in Russia was higher than in any other European country (for example, in the UK and Germany, higher education was practically not available to everyone except the elite). Also, Russia overtook Germany (Germany at that time had the best higher education in Europe) in terms of the number of students and quickly increased their number. Russian labor legislation was one of the best. This is how US President William Howard Taft spoke on this subject: "Your Emperor created such perfect working legislation that no democratic state can boast of." The list of advantages of the then Russian regime is almost endless. Regarding the economy, I will cite a study by four American-French-Russian economists "Was Stalin necessary for the Russian economic growth?". It explores the main problems that slowed down the economic growth of Russia and made a model of its growth, taking into account the ongoing reforms of Stolypin. So, by the 1940s, the Russian economy would be about one and a half times larger than the USSR per capita and 2.5-3 times larger in total (so the population of Russia would be about 100 million more than the population of the USSR - according to the calculations of D. Mendeleev and with taking into account the absence of repressions, famine, collectivization and other crimes of the Soviet regime). Such a size of the Russian economy would make it not only the first economy in Europe, but also the absolute hegemon of Europe and a competitor to the United States for world championship. In the conditions of such a preponderance of forces and the absence of political isolation (as was the case with the USSR), no war larger than a local conflict in Europe becomes impossible in principle (just as there were no wars on the American continent thanks to the power of the United States).
@@АнтонЯговитин-с1х If I go out on a limb here, could there be a Russo-American economic alliance by the 50s without communism taking hold in Russia. If that is so, assuming Europe is dominated by Russia as North America is dominated by the US, could the 2 world superpowers be allies. The implications would be enormous, by the turn of the millennium a strong US and Russia military and economic coordination, in that world where they have similar populations and economies (~300 Million and $18 Trillion each), with Russia transforming into a constitutional monarchy, would they send the world into an era of peace and prosperity? With no world wars there is no UN, but with the two allied superpowers they could make some puppet organization that would be like a combination of the EU and NATO but worldwide, assuming that any nation with a rational government joins, once a critical majority of the world is in it, would it be possible, sometime around the 2020s for the US-Russia world order to end all the wars just with their sheer might and create world peace, that would be an interesting alt history. “WWI never happens and the US and Russia make world peace”
"What if The league of the three emperors wasn't disbanded and continued until WW1 ?" I think that the conflict would be France, Britain, Italy, and the Ottomans against Germany, Austria-Hungary, Russia, and some nations in the Balkans but I'm very curious about how you would handle this scenario.
@@clydrexezekielalzate9707 I'm not sure but considering that the nations such as Serbia and Romania would side with Russia (a member of the league) I think they would side with the Entente (because they have more to gain). A scenario where they side with Russia for the city of Constantinople is possible too but considering that they had a simillar choice to make OTL and that they choosed the side where they could gain more land I think that the 1st option is more likely.
@@Rayitolaser569 I think it would depend if the US play an active role in the conflict or not. If they don't join or join very late, I think the league might win. If they intervene sooner and becomes a vital member of the Entente (like the US were with the Allies in WW2) then the League would certainly loose.
Great video… almost 20,000 subscribers! The rise of this channel cannot be stopped… I view this channel the same way the German high command viewed the rise of the Russian empire, If it hasn’t stopped in three years, it will be unstoppable
What about ethnic unrest? Polish uprising, Independent Finland? Armenian genocide? What about slavs inside Austria- Hungary? Also Italy could be a game changer, if UK stays away from Entente. Why there's no landgrab against Austria- Hungary if it is isolated? Like the war of Austrian succession. I feel this scenario heavily underworked.
06:25 I like how the graph refers to "...the Great Powers and Spain". It's like when the foreman comes up and says "Hey, look, it's all my favourite workers. And Dave."
The Austrian empire fracturing in any way always makes for an interesting scenario. It would interesting to see what would happen if either the empire just falls apart to a state reminiscent of post-WW1 but before WW1 due to nationalist fever and the Austrian and Hungarian armies not being able to stop them all. This might strengthen Germany’s position as the main power of Central Europe (the reason why it wasn’t completely dissolved after WW1 in our timeline). Alternatively a civil war between the Austrian and Hungarian parts of the empire over the reforms of the Karl would be interesting. Would the other powers just let the war play out like they did the Americans, or would they support certain sides. Would they all support the same side for the sake of getting the war over with, or opposing sides. Very interesting stuff
I don't think that empire could ever have survived, not even the authoritarian, equal and culturally compatible yugoslavia survived, what makes people believe that the kuks will survive?
Don’t think that the civil war would be left alone as one for the European powers was a ocean and this one you’re theorising is in the middle of the continent
@Karl Von Lytovski Yugoslavia was fully south Slav, Austria Hungary was south, west and east Slav, Romanian, Hungarian and German, there was no way that shit was going to survive
In fact, the Kaiser did try to stop Austria from declaring war, and try to work out a compromise, but it was a little too late. His proposal to Austria was delayed and Austrian emperor was pressured into signing the declaration of war already.
If either of these timelines happened, world demographics would be much different than in our world. Russia would have population of like 400 milions and they would probably become majority in central asia and baltics (that almost happened even in our timeline during soviet union), and Siberia and Far East would be much more densley populated. French would become majority in Algeria and significant minority in Morocco and Tunisa. Italians would settle Libya in huge numbers (especially after discovering of oil), we would also have majority white South Africa and significant white minority in Zimbabwe. Even with many europeans settling in colonies, europe would have more than one bilion people now, and Balkans and Eastern Europe would have similar population density like Western Europe.
Thank you all for watching! Don't forget to check out AtlasVPN's big deal with the following link: get.atlasvpn.com/PossibleHistory As always, to support the content, consider leaving a like and a comment to help against the algorithm, and subscribe for at least 1 more (alternate) history video every single week.
One element which I think would've been worth covering was that there were increasing tensions and posturing between Italy and the Ottoman Empire in mid-1914, and it was widely predicted in European diplomatic and banking circles that a sort of Second Italo-Turkish war was likely to break out before year's end over tensions in the Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean. If the Austro-Serbian conflict had been successfully de-escalated, then that Second Italo-Turkish war becomes very likely. I don't think that this would've escalated into a wider conflict, but I do think that it would have the consequences of intensifying Italo-Turkish antipathy. This incentivizes each of them to prioritize formalizing alliances with other powers against each other. Granted, they DID end up going to war with each other on opposite sides of WW1, but this was largely incidental in our timeline to their own tensions between each other as individual powers, and more to do with other national prerogatives. More importantly, it was at least somewhat surprising to some of the other powers. A more formalized set of alliances including those powers could be formed prior to any major multi-party conflict, allowing strategic planners to assume a firmer German-Austrian-Ottoman alliance against a French-Russian-Italian alliance from the start. They would also act more cohesively in foreign policy in peacetime, giving them greater diplomatic leverage without the war factor. I also wish that you would've covered the subject of oil discoveries in Ottoman territory, in your "peace into the thirties" scenario, since that would've led to a seismic shift in the strategic resource power balance between the two alliances.
This would be a nice idea. Maybe we on Balkans would also forget my country's stupid start of 2nd Balkan war and join in. Greece and Bulgaria should be most interested in joining Italy. Through obviously it be too early. Greece may want to join that early.
I think the schliffen plan would actually work in a timeline where ww1 happens in the 1920s. What I think Possible History didn't take into account was that while the Russians would indeed be slightly more competent from what they we're in our timeline, so would Germany. During the mid 1910s technology would still progress despite no war happening to boost it. This would entail that the Germans would also be able to possibly make new tactics due to their innovation during this time, great examples of this would be Erwin Rommel and Heinz Guderian. With the war not happening in the 1910s, the Germans would have time to innovate around the new invention the Tank.
I know that you don’t really make that many older history videos, but I think something about the Soissons winning against the franks could be interesting
That would be massive. Even if it doesn't expand after that, they are prey to Visigothia and Alemannia. Imagine a Visigothia from Gibraltar to the Somme or an Alemannia from the upper Main to Biscay. Alfmannia probably wouldn't survive in that form, but Visigothia could form the Holy Roman Empire at that point really.
@@genovayork2468 I think that with some reforms or the like they could take down the Burgundians and some other minor domains around them, securing a sphere of influence of theirs
There wasn't any Burgundian sense of identity though ? At the very least, no more than a Breton, Norman, Alsacian, Basque or Corsican identity, so that choice is very odd. Also, Talleyrand (who helped the allies win) wouldn't have let that pass. France was occupied but still a threat, with the ability to rise up with the support of the people in case of an unacceptable break up.
Are you shure that Germany still tries to execute the Schliefenplan though, if everyone has additional years to realise that war will be trench war by learning from some minor conflicts? I think that because trench warfare benefits the defender Germany should knock out Russia first and if they had a few more years to fear Russia more while the memory of the French-Prussian War fades in Germany and France even more I think they may have been able to realise this. Also even in our timeline the French revanchism wasnt that important anymore in 1914, couldn't it be possible that France and Germany just come to terms? I once read parts of the French right which always was a little obsessed with the autocratic German Empire had actually thought about a colonial European Entente against the US and Japan.
I personally think the war scenario is more likely than the peace scenario. The great powers of Europe were too eager to show off their own military might and expand the influence of their empires that a war would be inevitable no matter how or when it breaks out
Is it possible you could do a video on if Russia had succeeded in winning against Germany during WW1, as this would be drastically different to other timelines.
You mean just if they had held on until the end ? Because even in the best scenario, I don't ever see Russia having the upper hand militarily against Germany in 1914. Russia's army was very poorly equiped (though way better than in 1905), even if it was the largest. The only way to beat Germany was a war of attrition (which also didn't benefit Russia because of the political situation). So I assume you just mean if they held on until Germany suffocated by lack of ressources and the naval blockade.
@@SirBoggins Russia had indeed numerous victories against Austria-Hungary and are the main responsible for the demise of that empire. But Germany was really another beast imho, despite never having so much troops stationed in the eastern front compared with the western one. Actually, I revise my opinion, I still think it would have to be a "common" push against Germany, but maybe it wouldn't have to be exclusively an attrition victory: I forgot the British took years to fully mobilize in terms of lands forces. So, with the full french, british and russian armies standing at the same time after let's say 3 years, a frontal assault may be in the realm of possibilities. Even if it would be easier to just let Germany starve.
I don't see that how Russia on its own could defeat Germany in a long major war. If you read about the russian revolution and the massive internal issues the Russians faced. It seems very unlikely the Tsar's government would last that long.
I think you covered most of the realistic options here. But you missed the option where Russia suffered its occasional problem of a major internal revolt. It's conceivable that some of the other powers in such a case might decide that breaking a piece off of Russia to weaken its developing power so it doesn't eclipse the other powers and so maintain the balance of power in Europe. A Poland as a buffer between Russia and Germany comes to mind as an option for this and was something Austria-Hungary had proposed after the Napoleonic wars as well. Of course Russia wouldn't easily agree to such, so such a situation as well could lead to the spark of a major war, but one where the exact players and circumstances would be a bit different.
Russia was actually starting to experience a wave of unrest and agitation in the run up to WW1 with the post 1905 revolutionaries starting to come out of the woodwork, to the extent that I believe some Soviet historians argued that the outbreak of WW1 actually delayed the Russian Revolution. Whilst it probably won't play out anything like the historical Russian Revolutions there is definitley a lot of potential for some shit to go down, especially over Poland. Another thing to consider is that the Second International remains stronger and more unified without the splits caused by the war.
1. Both the British and Russian Empire still exist into the modern era 2. Ottoman Empire is carved up in the 1920's and split between Britain Germany and Russia 3. The U.S isn't the world hegemon but one of 4 major powers the others being The British German and Russian Empires 4. France is relegated to the status of a secondary power due to the rise of Germany in Europe 5. Japan rises as the dominant power in East Asia 6. China is conquered in the 20's and split between Britain Japan and Russia 7. France loses most of it territory in Africa to Germany over time
@@sebe2255 I'm heterosexual and Alexi was too young for me even if I was gay. Olga, Maria, Anastasia and especially Tatiana were among the prettiest girls in history
Some people: "WW1 was a tragedy for everyone" Romania and Serbia: "Hold my *FAT* territory gains." Poland, Czechoslovakia and the Baltics: "Hold my existence."
A world where World War I never happened because Kaiser Wilhelm II and Tsar Nicholas II were able talks things out peacefully with the result of both countries going a rough path. But I do have a question, Mr. PH: why would both Britian and France fear having Russian as an industrial and economic power? Is it because of their vast population and the landmass? Do they want Russia to be a third-world country for their own benefit? Also, should Russia have been a constitutional monarchy with Tsar Nicholas II as a figurehead with many people demanding reforms, and no Bolshevik Revolution, would Russia becomes a significant power with wealth, and who would have been the current Tsar or Tsarina of Russia? I do like the scenario where Austria-Hungary is reformed since it does have meant ethnic minorities and many nationalities along with the Ottoman Empire improving its own government and becoming wealthier by the discovery of oil and actually having a multi-democratic system due to having a representative of those ethnic minorities to appease the people and the Sultuan being the figurehead. Germany was the one to prevent WW1, would have given Germany the respect and recognition of other European powers, and we could see a modern German Empire with the Hohnzollerns being the ruling dynasty of Germany; the question is, who would be the current Kaiser of Germany and would Germany would become a constitutional monarchy like the United Kingdom? This is a great scenario, my friend; please keep up the fantastic work, and may your channel bring you good fortune and luck in the future! Also, I have some scenarios that are interesting for alternate history scenarios. If you're interested in hearing them and do you know the scenario you like about What if the death and exile of Catherine of Aragon sparked aggressive tensions between the Kingdom of England and the Holy Roman Empire?
I think that very possibly it would end up being revolted in Spain and therefore it would end up in Mexican hands, but the United States would continue to be stronger, right? ???
The year is 2089: Video title reads "What if WW3 was avoided in 2023?" Everyone is super reflective about each country's x-tristic perspective and how the smallest self-reflection could have prevented this catastrophe. At the same time they all agree that the ongoing world war 4 escalation is totally justified.
My great grandfather was 21 in 1914 and was later apart of the American Expeditionary Force he wrote in his journal: We are fighting a war on ego's and murder. France wanting to get back at German for it's defeat 40 years earlier and Austria failure to act sooner
i could imagine that, if ww1 wouldn't happen and neither would the conflict of your scenario, that Austria-Hungary would still break apart at one point and the neighbours of Austria-Hungary would come together to split the territory up between eachother, i could imagine that this would also inspire the minorities in the ottoman empire to rise up, just that their the break up would be bloodier, forcing foreign powers to intervene.
This focuses entirely on Europe, but if there wasn't a WW1 or WW2, the effects would be all over the world. The British and French empires would probably still be around today, in some form. And it's possible that China would be colonised. Advancement in technology would also have been a lot slower. We might not be here talking about it on RU-vid...
Wars on Balkan have been impossible to avoid. But It have been possible to onle get wars on Balkan and perhaps have a solution there Austra- Hungary have been indepentant national states after a time. Yes perhaps it have been possible to avoid WW1 and WW2. And Europe would probably have been the worlds power center even today. But advancement in technology would of course have been a lot slower. Perhaps we have lived like in 1974 in 2024?And perhaps there still have been colonies in parts of Africa even today.
I think in the scenario where war is avoided we would see many pan germans in Austria move to unify their failing empire with Germany hoping that the might of Germany might keep Hungery and the rest of their empire in line. Especially after the more reformist minded emperor comes to power. Best vase scenario here is the Austrian emperor is demoted to King of Austria while also retaining the crowns of Illyria amd Hungery while having gritter autonomy than the other German kings. Though Berlin may allow the polish parts of the empire to be given to Russia so they don't challenge this union.
The title of Archking might be invented here, like the Archduke title centuries earlier. That title might form the legal basis for Austrian autonomy, and for its rule over its other territories within Germany. Otherwise you get a weird personal union situation where Hungary is an independent country that shares a monarch with a portion of Germany - which in the era of nation states would cause havoc
Germany who was blamed for this war only mobilized AFTER Russia mobilized and moved against them . The Germans neither wanted war nor started this war and on the contrary, desperately tried to stop the Russians from mobilizing. They knew they had little chance of winning a 2 front war and anticipated the French entering the war against them. The French joined the war against Germany because of the humiliating loss they suffered in the Franco-Prussian war. France could have easily stayed out of the war as could have Great Britain. The big lie that the Germans were to blame and the subsequent humiliation in the treaties and war reparations ensured that the Second War would happen. History is usually written by the victors and rarely reflect the truth.
You've got peaceful Russia completely wrong here, the Russian economy was the fastest growing economy in the world between 1900 and 1914, growing between 8 and 10% per year (depending on source) whilst without the crushing effect the Soviets had on the Russian demographics using western Europe Birth and Death decay curves they'd be a population of 450-500m right now and they'd easily be as strong as Germany by 1930 without the way and subsequent upheaval of the revolutions. This is why the German elite were so worried about Russia's rise before WWI (they thought they had 10 years) which they later found out to be true in WWII despite the disastrous policies of the Soviets which massively held the country back
Love your videos possible history I have few suggestions for what if videos 1) what if ww1 ended in 1915 when Kaiser realise that war on two fronts is not good for Germany 2) What if Julius Caesar was not assassinated 3) what if yougoslav wars never happened 4) what if Bulgaria won 2nd Balkan war 5) what if Mexico won Mexican American war 6) what if ottoman empire joined entente in ww1 7) what if Iraq won 1st gulf war 8) what if Poland accept Hitler's demand 9) what if Germany has Italy like incompetence during WW2 10) what if Japan lost Russo Japanese war
For me, once the blank check had been given, there was no way war with Russia could be avoided. Forcing Austria to actually negociate with Serbia would just be too hard of a U-turn. For me, the solution would have been to not kill Franz Ferdinand. In fact, in my opinion, it made no sense for the Serbians to kill him as a person, as he was quite sympathetic towards Slavs (his wife Sophie was Czech) and was also keen to create a Yugoslav pole in the empire.
It is fact that the Kaiser demanded the German Army only go East and the General Staff “over ruled” him. Another fact is that 1914 weather was unusually fine, I’ve wondered what would have happened if 1914 Spring, Summer and Fall were wet, deterring the mobilisations of European armies.
What I dislike somewhat in these 19th century and early 20th century alternate histories is the vast exaggeration of ethnic turmoil and tension, especially in Austria-Hungary. This is a leftover of Entente propaganda which has somehow lingered even 100 years later. Historians of the successor states in the empire have for many decades now pretty much agreed that the breakup was unlikely in the absence of WW1. How else do you explain the overarching loyalty of the many peoples to fight on for the empire until the very end of the war. If the empire was so divided, as is so often claimed how did it fight on just as long as Germany? The tensions were about internal representation in the empire not secession, the groups that wanted formation of independent nation states was a tiny minority. On top of that, the Empire was economically booming, a fact often ignored when talking about these tension. Between 1898 and 1913 A-H economy was rapidly catching up with Germany, France and Britain, almost doubling GDP in that period. So without the war, Austro-Hungarian economic position would have only been strengthened in relative terms to the other Great Powers, since it was growing faster than the others by significant margins.
This seems very reasonable, but I feel like it overlooks East Asia as a potential flash point. Russia and Japan were still competing after the Russo-Japanese War, and additionally, Japan was still in a position where they would feel they needed to achieve hegemony over China before it recovered from the chaos of the Xinhai Revolution andmanaged to centralize and industrialize, similar to German fears about Russia. It seems very likely that a war would break out in East Asia that could draw in the European powers even if the balance of power in Europe itself was maintained.
WW1 was a fire looking for a spark. Earlier incidents in Samoa and Morocco between the great powers were diffused through shear luck, bad weather, and a willingness for cool heads to prevail. Yes, Sarajevo could have been diffused as well but there would always be a next crisis looming. Nothing short of drastic arms control by both sides would have reduced the potential for war and that was not likely given the geopolitical climate in Europe.
Another angle to prevent the war is to say that after the first assassination attempt, either Franz's security personnel are more persuasive, or Franz is more receptive to advise, but either way he DOESN'T GO BACK OUT! If he just stays in whatever safe house they had him in and doesn't insist on visiting wounded soldiers in hospital thereby giving the assassins a second chance, war would be much easier to avoid.
I love the story very much and I congratulate you for the realism, maybe you could include the role of the minor powers of Europe in the conflict in a next video?
I think only way to keep peace someone has to get short stick. Austria and Ottomans basically fulfilling expansionist desires on both sides while also distracted them long enough until war becomes too costly for both ends.
I think Conrad's vast overestimation of his (Austro-Hungary) army was a significant factor in pushing Austria to war. The fact that the start of the war had to be delayed so soldiers could get the harvest in, is a fact that shows just how much of a paper tiger Austria was. I read somewhere that one has to take Soviet claims of success at industrialisation with a massive pinch of salt. They lied about both the baseline achieved under the Tsar and more so about the actual output they achieved with the five year plans. Propaganda wins are so much easier than actually doing it. Nonetheless very interesting
I really like your videos but one thing you didn’t bring up in any video of you I watched was the Eastern European people of Russia. I think it’s a real option that there would be another polish/eastern European revolt wich results in an weaker Russia, or an world war if Germany guarantees Poland.
I disagree with the United States being discounted as isolationist. The US was building up its navy even if it wasn't building a standing army, and was interested in expanding its financial markets. The longer you go out, the more the United States and Japan have to be accounted for in the balance of power. Even without a German naval build up, Britain was no longer in a position to dominate all the World's oceans by the 1920s. Britain was a super power for two reasons: financial dominance and naval dominance. America was inevitably eclipsing them in both in the first half of the 20th Century. The reason the Washington Naval Treaty gave the US an equal share of ships as Britain, was not because Britain loved the idea but because they had no choice, and the US was isolationist then. At the start of World War II, while Britain was struggling to rearm, the US still very much in the Great Depression and somewhat isolationist passed a bill essentially doubling the size of the Navy. Part of British willingness to develop the special relationship, was that it didn't have the resources to compete globally with the United States economy, and needed American support to prevent the rise of a continental super power (Germany and later the Soviet Union). America was without a doubt the greatest threat to the British Empire. But it was also paradoxically the only power capable of guaranteeing the British Isles could remain protected from Germany and later the Soviet Union. British foreign policy was therefore divided between these two factors. Without outright war, I think it's possible there could be a lobby in Britain which would favor trying to counter balance the rise of American power rather than accommodate it. It's not often discussed but early 20th Century US foreign policy was in favor of dismantling the British Empire and its naval and financial dominance. We saw that pursued in everything from Wilson's Fourteen Points, Washington Naval Treaty, UN Charter, destroyers for bases, Bretton-Woods, and the Suez Crisis. Bankrupt and bled dry, Britain accepted it and got in exchange to be first among equals as far as American allies went. But if it was just slightly stronger would pride get in the way of accepting the inevitable? Japan would also inevitably push for greater power in the Far East, competing with Russia in Manchuria, and Britain and the United States at sea in the Indo-Pacific. I think without the Soviet Union and Germany being politically isolated from everyone else, what would happen is European multi-polarity would inevitably spread globally to include these two and it's an open question what would happen.
The British Empire should have no alliances, but have a policy of declaring war by way of naval blockade of the first country in Europe to declare war.
The Kaiser and Czar were not 1st cousins. The Czarina was a 1st cousin of the Kaiser. Britain's king George was a 1st cousin to both as his father and the Kaisers mother were siblings while his mother and the Czars mother were sisters being children of the danish king. A dismantled Hapsburg empire could have left it's Polish population with it own state. The Russians and Germans would have been concerned their Polish populations would want to join. This could have allied the two.
English medium mostly thought that the Russian empire and the British Empire were acting like big brothers and stopping that small brothers Germany and France respectively from getting into a huge scale war into their home Europe. How lovely ♥️♥️
as an idea for a senario what if the netherlands joined the prussians and germany in the merger of germany. this would expand germany and give germany colony's allowing germany to become THE world power
May I suggest you consider a scenario where the Roman Republic (the one founded by Giuseppe Mazzini in 1848) survived and was never invaded by France ? How would a state-less Pope coming earlier impact the catholic world ? Would this new pro-unification Italian republic try to unite Italy and overshadow Sardinia-Piedmont or would it join the aforementioned kingdom ? If the former happens, would a sour relation with French make Italy more keen to stay in the Triple Alliance or would a desire for the "terre irredente" still destroy any kind of loyalty to Germany and Austria-Hungary ? The possibilities are many so I recommend you consider this timeline for a future video.
The Serbian government was directly involved in supporting the Black Hand through monetary and equipment means. Officials in the Serbian government would have been directly implicated in the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife Sophie and those officials would have been found guilty by any unbiased court. That is why that condition in the Austrian ultimatum could not be agreed to. It is curious whether Tsar Nicholas was aware of how his little ally Serbia was directly involved in regicide. It would baffle me if any monarch would look the other way at such behavior considering the implications it would have for your own families' safety.
"Mass embarrassment to Serbia, leader has given up Bosnia and our people are no longer united" *aggression and humility stir up. Majority of population is angry but glad a war has been prevented.* *Ultranationalists are angry but have nothing to loose. Black hand gang gets re-founded, with more members than ever*
How to avoid? The British planned that war already for 1912. Only cuz of the weak french army it was postponned to 1914. It was a war against the german economy. So the war was not able to avoid because the britsih gov wanted it
If ww1 didn’t happen, France wouldn’t have taken back Alsace, my grandmother would not have learnt french at school and spoken exclusively alsacien, not met my grandfather, and not had my mum, ending me 😅
