The essence of alternative history is that it doesn’t necessarily have to be realistic - it is precisely meant to imagine possible, but unrealized scenarios. For example, during World War II, many people believed the Germans had no chance against France, yet they defeated it in just a few weeks. This shows that history can sometimes take unexpected and unlikely turns, and that alternative scenarios allow us to explore what could have happened if events had unfolded differently. It's a creative exercise, not an exact reconstruction of history. Additionally, keep in mind that there could have been secret missions, such as an agreement between the U.S. and Spain for Spain to withdraw from the Axis alliance and allow U.S. ships to pass through and land troops in North Africa (Algeria). Alternative scenarios give us the chance to consider such possible events, which might not be fully addressed or explored in this video. So please refrain from commenting on the unrealistic aspects, as how do you know whether this could have happened or not? Thank you and enjoy the video!
Technically, almost everything in this video is unrealistic because it didn't happen, but it could have happened because we don't know what could have happened and what didn't.Thanks for the comment!
Could have never feasibly happened, but interesting to watch Adressing the comment by the author: Yes, the people of the time didn't expect France to lose, but looking at it retrospectively with the modern knowledge, it's obvious that their defeat was certain and predetermined. Britain on the other hand, again looking retrospectively, was nearly unconquerable (in short term at least, and the time to starve them down Hitler did not have)
I understand, but what if the Germans had devoted more resources and time to air and naval forces before the war? What if the entire British army had been destroyed at Dunkirk? There are various scenarios and possibilities that we don't know about, and maybe it would have worked out? But anyway, thanks for the comment and your opinion!
@@Worldball_mapping Yeah, I am open to historical discussions on these themes, and about how potentially realistic they are. About the Navy and Air: if they devoted more resources to Air and Navy (before WW2 began), they'd have to take them away from the land army, potentially (and likely) ruining Blitzkrieg (due to a lack of armored vehicles to carry out the Blitz operations.) If however they devoted more resources to it after France fell, well... They already did, and tried bombing Britain into the ground and tried to blockade them, however both failed because A) Britain was much more capable of replenishing their airforce B) Britain just had a better and bigger naval fleet, and it innovated on that fleet throughout the war, rendering the UBoats ineffective. About the fall of Dunkirk. Yes, it maybe could've happened, if Germans were more lucky. However the problem is not the event happening, but its consequences. Britain at the time of Dunkirk had its war cabinet composed of pro-war politicians. The only one standing out was Lord Halifax, and even he just wanted to see what Germans would offer in peace (and likely reject it)
@@qinjiwei5058 I have read many historical books about World War II and am very knowledgeable on this topic. While I agree that Churchill categoricaly rejected any negotiations with Germany, your claim that Britain still had "enough divisions" to defend itself even if the army at Dunkirk had been destroyed or captured is unfounded. Dunkirk was critically important not only for saving troops but also for maintaining Britain’s military capabilities. Around 338,000 British and Allied troops were evacuated from Dunkirk, forming the backbone of Britain’s most experienced and battle-hardened forces. If these forces had been lost, Britain would have been left almost entirely without a professional army, as the reserves consisted mostly of poorly trained and inexperienced divisions. At that time, Britain’s defensive structure was extremely weak. Most of the equipment left behind at Dunkirk (around 2,500 artillery, 84,000 vehicles, 20,000 motorcycles, and nearly all heavy weapons) was lost. This meant that even the remaining divisions were severely under-equipped for effective combat. Without the forces rescued at Dunkirk, Britain would have had to rely on just a few fully formed units, which would not have been sufficient for proper defense. It’s also important to mention that the German invasion plan (“Operation Sea Lion”) was a real threat. If the Germans had gained air superiority over the English Channel (which they aimed to achieve during the Battle of Britain), they could have prepared an invasion, as the Royal Navy would not have been able to operate effectively without air support. Without the troops rescued from Dunkirk, defending against such an invasion would have been nearly impossible. Therefore, to say that Britain could still defend itself even after losing the army at Dunkirk is incorrect. The destruction of the British Expeditionary Force would have left the country with unprepared and poorly equipped divisions, incapable of repelling a German invasion. Under such circumstances, Britain’s survival would have depended solely on German strategic mistakes or unexpected Allied intervention, rather than the strength of Britain’s remaining forces. Thanks
Very good video my friend! It was some time since we talked. You're an awesome mapper just like me. Mappers like us shape the community and I am glad that we still know each other! Greetings from Romania my friend! 🇷🇴🔥🇱🇹
Yes, but all sides decided not to fight after Hitler's death because there were no more resources, money, human resources, morale, the countries were all completely exhausted. But thanks for the comment
@@qinjiwei5058 The reasonn the Soviets would agree to this lies in the alternate history context. In this timeline, the Soviets initially lost the first war against the Axis powers. Following this defeat, there was a major upheaval within the Soviet Union, leading to internal restructuring and the outbreak of a Second Soviet-German War. The prolonged conflict devastated the economies of all major powers involved. After years of fighting, a peace treaty was negotiated between the Axis, the Soviet Union, and the Allies. The treaty allowed the Soviets to reclaim most of their lost territories, but they had to concede certain areas, like Odessa, which remained under Romanian control due to Axis demands. Similarly, Germany, having avoided outright defeat, retained control over Poland. This fragile peace led to a Cold War dynamic, with three major blocs-Axis, Soviets, and Allies-vying for influence in a divided world. The Soviets agreed to the terms largely because their economy and military were too strained to continue fighting, and the risk of further destabilization outweighed the loss of specific territories like Odessa.. In this alternate world, compromises like this were inevitable due to the prolonged war and its catastrophic impact on all involvd powers.
This video: Germany conquers Britain. Royal Navy: clearly someone forgot i existed The Germans could absolutely under no circumstances invade Britain the Kreigsmarine was an absolute joke way too small.
Reasons for the successful offensive: 1. Small concentration of German forces in North Africa (mostly Italian) 2. Spanish-US joint agreement on Spain's withdrawal from the Axis, and later joining the Allies, the passage of US and Allied ships through the Strait of Gibraltar. This agreement recognized the territories occupied by Spain and promised economic aid. 3. The US war machine was focused on the European war and had been preparing for war since 1939, because the Japanese had not declared war on the US (I did not show this in this video because it is a European video) 4. And finally, resources, the US has a lot of them, especially with help from India, Australia, Brazil, Indonesia and more, they had a lot of resources for the war. But thank you for watching.
@@Worldball_mapping Reichskommissariat Belgien-Nordfrankreich, Reichskommissariat, bulgarian borders, the division of yugoslavia,Bezirk Bialystok, Romanian Transnistria, the ethnic division of borders between switzerland and italy, hungarian carpathia ruthenia, italy wouldve annexed Corsica, puppet algeria, egypt, greece
The US has enormous resources, especially with the help of the Allies, they have been preparing for war since 1939, they did not go to war with the Japanese
The essence of alternative history is that it doesn’t necessarily have to be realistic - it is precisely meant to imagine possible, but unrealized scenarios. For example, during World War II, many people believed the Germans had no chance against France, yet they defeated it in just a few weeks. This shows that history can sometimes take unexpected and unlikely turns, and that alternative scenarios allow us to explore what could have happened if events had unfolded differently. It's a creative exercise, not an exact reconstruction of history. Additionally, keep in mind that there could have been secret missions, such as an agreement between the U.S. and Spain for Spain to withdraw from the Axis alliance and allow U.S. ships to pass through and land troops in North Africa (Algeria). Alternative scenarios give us the chance to consider such possible events, which might not be fully addressed or explored in this video.
So please refrain from commenting on the unrealistic aspects, as how do you know whether this could have happened or not? Thank you and enjoy the video!
Unrealistic but still interesting
We share the same opinion it seems.
I mean it's a alternative history 🧠
Technically, almost everything in this video is unrealistic because it didn't happen, but it could have happened because we don't know what could have happened and what didn't.Thanks for the comment!
None of this could've happened 😂 laughable you would say it could @@Worldball_mapping
@@edseifert4610 called alternative history for a reason
Italy in final: My colonies!
Você aqui!
Could have never feasibly happened, but interesting to watch
Adressing the comment by the author: Yes, the people of the time didn't expect France to lose, but looking at it retrospectively with the modern knowledge, it's obvious that their defeat was certain and predetermined. Britain on the other hand, again looking retrospectively, was nearly unconquerable (in short term at least, and the time to starve them down Hitler did not have)
I understand, but what if the Germans had devoted more resources and time to air and naval forces before the war? What if the entire British army had been destroyed at Dunkirk? There are various scenarios and possibilities that we don't know about, and maybe it would have worked out? But anyway, thanks for the comment and your opinion!
Thank you for your support!
@@Worldball_mapping Yeah, I am open to historical discussions on these themes, and about how potentially realistic they are.
About the Navy and Air: if they devoted more resources to Air and Navy (before WW2 began), they'd have to take them away from the land army, potentially (and likely) ruining Blitzkrieg (due to a lack of armored vehicles to carry out the Blitz operations.)
If however they devoted more resources to it after France fell, well... They already did, and tried bombing Britain into the ground and tried to blockade them, however both failed because A) Britain was much more capable of replenishing their airforce B) Britain just had a better and bigger naval fleet, and it innovated on that fleet throughout the war, rendering the UBoats ineffective.
About the fall of Dunkirk. Yes, it maybe could've happened, if Germans were more lucky. However the problem is not the event happening, but its consequences. Britain at the time of Dunkirk had its war cabinet composed of pro-war politicians. The only one standing out was Lord Halifax, and even he just wanted to see what Germans would offer in peace (and likely reject it)
@@remixgameyt1172 I respect your opinion, thank you.
@@qinjiwei5058
I have read many historical books about World War II and am very knowledgeable on this topic. While I agree that Churchill categoricaly rejected any negotiations with Germany, your claim that Britain still had "enough divisions" to defend itself even if the army at Dunkirk had been destroyed or captured is unfounded.
Dunkirk was critically important not only for saving troops but also for maintaining Britain’s military capabilities. Around 338,000 British and Allied troops were evacuated from Dunkirk, forming the backbone of Britain’s most experienced and battle-hardened forces. If these forces had been lost, Britain would have been left almost entirely without a professional army, as the reserves consisted mostly of poorly trained and inexperienced divisions.
At that time, Britain’s defensive structure was extremely weak. Most of the equipment left behind at Dunkirk (around 2,500 artillery, 84,000 vehicles, 20,000 motorcycles, and nearly all heavy weapons) was lost. This meant that even the remaining divisions were severely under-equipped for effective combat. Without the forces rescued at Dunkirk, Britain would have had to rely on just a few fully formed units, which would not have been sufficient for proper defense.
It’s also important to mention that the German invasion plan (“Operation Sea Lion”) was a real threat. If the Germans had gained air superiority over the English Channel (which they aimed to achieve during the Battle of Britain), they could have prepared an invasion, as the Royal Navy would not have been able to operate effectively without air support. Without the troops rescued from Dunkirk, defending against such an invasion would have been nearly impossible.
Therefore, to say that Britain could still defend itself even after losing the army at Dunkirk is incorrect. The destruction of the British Expeditionary Force would have left the country with unprepared and poorly equipped divisions, incapable of repelling a German invasion. Under such circumstances, Britain’s survival would have depended solely on German strategic mistakes or unexpected Allied intervention, rather than the strength of Britain’s remaining forces.
Thanks
Very good video my friend! It was some time since we talked.
You're an awesome mapper just like me. Mappers like us shape the community and I am glad that we still know each other! Greetings from Romania my friend! 🇷🇴🔥🇱🇹
Thank you!
the peace is crazy, the germans were losing on all fronts and still got land
Yes, but all sides decided not to fight after Hitler's death because there were no more resources, money, human resources, morale, the countries were all completely exhausted. But thanks for the comment
There will be part 4?
@@RomeoGarboMC yes
awesome
Is that a TNO reference?
Definitely unique from other scenarios.
Thanks!
What is the song you used and 5:31 Since 8:00
all music and speeches are in the description
In The description only Appears hit man
@@lorenamedina2022 ЖЕСТЬ!!! САМАЯ МОЩНАЯ И ЖЕСТКАЯ ВОЕННАЯ МУЗЫКА!!! (song)
Thank you
Himmler and peace ?
Yes and what?
@@Worldball_mapping Well...
@@Gaffal-md5xs well...?
I know it takes a lot of time and effort to make mapping videos, especially ones this good so thank you for making this
11:55 makes no sense for USSR to give Odessa up. Would make sense to just restore the old border there
Yes, but after the peace treaty it was agreed that the Soviet Union would not receive Odessa
By the way it is an alternative world, so it could have happened a lot of things
@@qinjiwei5058
The reasonn the Soviets would agree to this lies in the alternate history context. In this timeline, the Soviets initially lost the first war against the Axis powers. Following this defeat, there was a major upheaval within the Soviet Union, leading to internal restructuring and the outbreak of a Second Soviet-German War.
The prolonged conflict devastated the economies of all major powers involved. After years of fighting, a peace treaty was negotiated between the Axis, the Soviet Union, and the Allies. The treaty allowed the Soviets to reclaim most of their lost territories, but they had to concede certain areas, like Odessa, which remained under Romanian control due to Axis demands. Similarly, Germany, having avoided outright defeat, retained control over Poland.
This fragile peace led to a Cold War dynamic, with three major blocs-Axis, Soviets, and Allies-vying for influence in a divided world. The Soviets agreed to the terms largely because their economy and military were too strained to continue fighting, and the risk of further destabilization outweighed the loss of specific territories like Odessa..
In this alternate world, compromises like this were inevitable due to the prolonged war and its catastrophic impact on all involvd powers.
Saudi Arabia did not even enter the WW2 and Cold War
Saudi Arabia will join in the next episode, thanks for the comment!
@@qinjiwei5058 the second world war is over
This is good. +1 subscriber now :D (that's all im saying so ye)
This video: Germany conquers Britain.
Royal Navy: clearly someone forgot i existed
The Germans could absolutely under no circumstances invade Britain the Kreigsmarine was an absolute joke way too small.
7:28 ngl the speech fits well with the music 🔥
italian mapper tutorials having a field day but very good video
Thanks, by the way, I didn't watch his tutorial, here is one of the most basic map styles without any details
@@Worldball_mapping oh lol i thought you did this is a very well put together video then
How did USA manage to invade North Africa ?
Because we had help form Britain and the USA has enough resources to support their tanks and their troops
one word "Oil"
Thats probably the most unrealistic part of the video tbh
Reasons for the successful offensive:
1. Small concentration of German forces in North Africa (mostly Italian)
2. Spanish-US joint agreement on Spain's withdrawal from the Axis, and later joining the Allies, the passage of US and Allied ships through the Strait of Gibraltar. This agreement recognized the territories occupied by Spain and promised economic aid.
3. The US war machine was focused on the European war and had been preparing for war since 1939, because the Japanese had not declared war on the US (I did not show this in this video because it is a European video)
4. And finally, resources, the US has a lot of them, especially with help from India, Australia, Brazil, Indonesia and more, they had a lot of resources for the war.
But thank you for watching.
Nice but the german reich borders not terrible in quality, but rather, terribly innacurate
Thanks. And in which year do the German borders seem inaccurate?
@@Worldball_mapping Reichskommissariat Belgien-Nordfrankreich, Reichskommissariat, bulgarian borders, the division of yugoslavia,Bezirk Bialystok, Romanian Transnistria, the ethnic division of borders between switzerland and italy, hungarian carpathia ruthenia, italy wouldve annexed Corsica, puppet algeria, egypt, greece
First like and comment❤
2nd*
W
Where is burgundy?
first
10th like 4th comment and 1 hour ago im late
Usa very Overethed
The US has enormous resources, especially with the help of the Allies, they have been preparing for war since 1939, they did not go to war with the Japanese