@@Tahirid_18Nah, probably not. The only reason why "France surrenders" is a meme is because of the Napoleonic wars and WW2 (and arguably the Franco-Prussian war). Since WW2 would've seen France flee to Algeria but continue fighting, while the Napoleonic wars would've just been France surrendering, there wouldn't be enough similarity between those 2 situations for people to make fun of France. Like at that point, it'd be like joking about Poland surrendering during WW2 or something. I doubt people would joke about Paris in this scenario.
Ironically enough, in this timeline De Gaulle could be a likely successor to Petain. In this scenario with allied France led by Petain, De Gaulle would have still served under him. De Gaulle's views weren't that far different from Petain's actually, with some speculting he even wanted a restoration of the monarchy. In a timeline where Petain's successor is De Gaulle we might see the regime slightly more liberal but still in the shape of an authoritarian amd conservative one. De Gaulle's France would be even more independent from the west than in our timeline and with such prominent state on the continent even the politics of other western countries such as Italy could be shifted to the right (of course not as far as f ascism) Maybe France, while still opposing the Soviets would endorse some non communist rivals to the west, such as Argentina during the falkland wars, but that's very far in the timeline
well, the us endorsed literal "bad party germans" to fight communism in germany in our timeline, it would make sense that if france was more right wing, that would make that fact more prominent and a bit more overt
I mean, portugal moved it's government to Brazil during the napoleonic wars so it's not unheard of. And Britain planned to move to Canada in case of an invasion
@@thatoneduck3875 I mean… losing your monarch to a colony they genuinely prefer over their home country is pretty embarrassing. Or would be, if you didn’t just have a revolution.
You've got it completely backwards. Surrendering in WW2 has turned France into the butt of jokes worldwide. When people now think about France militarily, this one capitulation ranks higher than France's many military victories. By comparison, continuing to fight from the colonies would today be regarded as one of France's defining and most courageous moments in its long history.
@@gengarzilla1685 lol, definitly not, mostly because they might get double handed by the algerians who hate them a lot, and it would still be remembered as a humiliating defeat because the anglo sphere still dislikes france(although more ironically that the places conquered by france)
The role of Fleet Admiral Darlan could also be mentionned. The French Navy was his personal fiefdom at the time, and so with the destruction of the Army, he led the only capable fighting force left. In their memoirs, Churchill and De Gaulle agree on just one thing : that if Darlan had declared himself for continuing the fight overseas he would have immediately enjoyed international recognition. In an alternate scenario, there is room for serious political infighting between Petain and Darlan, since despite his prestige the old marshall would always be vulnerable to a coup.
For an in-depth and carefully researched exploration of this scenario (France continuing the war from North Africa), see 1940: Et si la France avait continué la guerre?
Everything perfect for Italy is literally just the Everything perfect for Roman Empire video. If Everything went perfect for Italy, Rome wouldn't have fallen.
The siege of toulon would have been epic. I live there and there are fortification everywhere. The port is surrounded by mountain and all the enter point are blocked by fortified artillery position, underground tunnel, pill box etc... It's a multi layer defence and there is no other option that to face it frontally.
Everything perfect for Italy is literally just the Everything perfect for Roman Empire video. If Everything went perfect for Italy, Rome wouldn't have fallen.
23:48 "hatred of germany" what? did de Gaulle love germany so much more than Petain and that is why he supported the EU or something? Petain be just as likely to support the EU as de Gaulle. Maybe even more since Petain dislike the UK even more, and the in the begining the EU was, at least in from the French perspective, seen as a way to increase their power compaired to the UK. Also why whould the Russians get so much land in Europe if they made way less progress when the germans surrendered. The equivalent Yalta conference would be extremely different.
There was also a proposal that was made just before the government left Paris, when key ministers proposed moving the government to Bordeaux (a city located on very undefensible terrain). To counter this proposal, Charles de Gaulle proposed to move the government to Quimper, and to defend only Brittany (the Breton precarré), which is a much more defensible territory than the south of France (It is a narrow peninsula, with many rivers and some mountains). Paul Reynaud historically chose a compromise, moving the government to Tours (halfway between Bordeaux and Quimper), but subsequently gave in to pressure from the majority of ministers and moved the government to Bordeaux. Not sure that De Gaulle's proposal is realistic, but it is an interesting fact.
I can’t tell you how much I’ve thought about this scenario. One random day I open YoTube and boom, new Possible History video that answers my question.
00:23 isn't Zaolzie supposed to be part of Poland by the moment you shown? Sorry, for some nerd like stuff, maybe I sniffed too much glue this time. Btw like your videos, u always try to stick with realism and I can only watch you as possible alternative videos. Didn't watched till the end yet, but I'm sure this video would be as great as others.
the Saarland being french was actually pretty likely even in our timeline - the only thing that prevented it, is that France wanted to be on good terms with Germany after the war, and due to the creation of the European Coal and Steel community (which later became the EU) the Saarland stopped being so critically important - its not as important to control the steel production in the Saarland, if you can just buy that steel from Germany.
The irony in here is that its petain the main reason for the capitualtion as the plan to continue in the colonies was the main one, and petain ditched it and imprisonned the politician who mooved to algeria to create a government in the colonies, he was pretty much an anti war figure, he not only capitulated to germany but also didnt went to war with britain after they attcked the french fleet (despite the will of the french admiralty) and gave up indochina to japan even after the local forces beat them back at first
Hey, the intro was well done! It's pretty rare to hear people acknowledge that there truly was nothing to do, and that Pétain didn't work with the nazis by choice, but to preserve France as much as possible.
@@minestar2247et nous avons aussi l'obligation morale de rappeler aux Anglais que c'est plus facile pour eux de rembarquer, ce qu'ils avaient déjà commencé à faire en septembre 1914, lors de la première bataille de la Marne. Car lors de cette bataille, les Allemands avaient presque réussi à être aussi rapide qu'en 1940.
Minor detail, Austria might be given South Tyrol after the war as the main power which opposed this was the Soviet Union. Without their occupation (like potentially in the scenario) the could get it
5:10 Ah yes, relocating to otherseas territories, a "grave humiliation", as opposed to capitulating, letting Germany plunder the country to its heart’s content and becoming its willful, enthusiastic slave and collaborator. France might have had good reasons for surrenduring, but avoiding humiliation was by far the stupidest.
I have contemplated this for a long time. Listened to a great book on the fall of France and I was wondering if a lack of surrender by France would have any long term effects. Happy to see someone make a scenario.
I really doubt Italy would have invaded Greece in this scenario. With the loss of Libya and Ethiopia, the prestige of the "undefeated" Italy would have been harmed. And in this ATL, Italy would have had to commit much more military for the occupation of France, as well have to deal with the defence of their own shores from both a French and a British fleet. At least, even if the story of Greece and the Balkans unfolds the same way, I really doubt the Fall of Crete would have happened, with two major fleets defending it around it, the French and the British...
France keeping the Saarland has a bigger effect on the timeline than you may have explained. I don't think it really matters who leads France in the postwar world or what type of regime they establish, a France that has this key source of coal would always feel a lessened incentive to establish the European Coal and Steel Community with the West German, Italian, and Benelux nations. As we all should know, that community was the direct precursor of the European Union, for better or worse. Even if France remains a democracy, removing the EU's crucial predecessor would still gut the idea of general economic co-operation in Europe.The Say what you will about the European Union, but we'd be worse off for having the European Coal and Steel Community butterflied away.
You missed the importance of the french navy. The British navy was streched close to breaking point in 1941. All available ships were needed to escort vital supplies to places like Malta, the USSR and Britain itself or to keep the german and itallian surface fleet in check. This left them with very few ships to spare to do less important things like guarding the far eastern part of their empire. If the french and british fleet were able to combine forces they would probably be able to quickly eliminate the italian navy as a major threat, or at least cut off their forces in africa. And with the french fleet helping with escort duties the allies have the spare ships to maintain a powerful fleet in the far east. A fleet powerful to trow a big wrench in Japans plans.
8:44 Franco was personal friends with Petain in real life. The Spanish dictator was a student under Petain and, before the war, the Marshall of the Republic was assigned to be the consul to Spain, given his affinity for Franco. Even de Gaulle wasn’t that far off them, ideologically. The main conflict between de Gaulle and Petain was which side would be the most beneficial for France.
I think a few things would've gone differently. The US, as MAGA as they already were back at those days, wanted to avoid involvement of WWII at all costs. With Japan having that Vietnam moment they might want to listen to the Nazis to invade Soviet Russia instead, meaning the Soviets would lose on two fronts. Petain would force the Nazis out of France, but maybe he would've signed then a deal with Nazi Germany in which each other's territorial integrities are respected after which the Brits are violently kicked out of France. I've no clue what this means for the Benelux. The Dutch Indies would remain under control of the exiled government just like Suriname. Maybe territorial concessions will be made over Benelux, maybe war over Belgium. I think the Nazis would've had a tighter grip on the Netherlands.
Shortening the war makes USSR stronger as they simply lose less young working age people, less immediate influence might not be a bad thing in the long term
Not necessarily. A big part of treaty negotiations is the clout so to speak. The fact that the Soviets liberated much of Eastern Europe as well as Berlin gave them a massive card to play in negotiations, and was part of the reason that the region fell under Soviet Influence. If the Western Powers were able to turn around their side of the war faster and beat the Soviets to those points, then they'd have more influence and could prevent the Soviets from establishing that zone of influence.
Petain was no hero of WW1. He was a clown who's only accomplishment was killing hundreds of thousand of his own men, and the men of other commander, by clowning around like an idiot.
in my opinion, an Intresting point here would be post-war Italy: since western bloc misses France and Western Germany, the greater Western-alligned democracy would be Italy, and it could very well be supported by especially the USA to rebuild a sort of limited sphere of influence in the Mediterranean, and in the Balkans. Italy could be supported in mantaining not only South Tyrol since Austria is possibly neutral, but even many lands in Istria, to support the growth of Anglo-American sphere of Influence, as well as Tripolitania which the USA initially still supported to mantain in Italian lands, and here it would probably have become an Italian Mandate. Definitely Italy could have more possibilities to become an independent small power in the Mediterranean thanks to France and Germany not part in NATO.
Algerias importance in being the home of the free French Regime would absolutely be prioritised and the French efforts to ensure it maintained would be much larger. Britain too would hold onto their empire for far longer as to make sure their colonies don’t fall to French hands Despite America and The Soviets pressuring them Britain wouldn’t want to leave their colonies out of fear of French annexation. Possibly tho unlikely Britain and France could put aside their differences in the 1956 suez crisis perhaps France even tries to pull Britain away from the US because of annoyance at the US demands for Britain and France to abandon suez. After which Britain and France could remain as Empires far longer perhaps even to the 80s. And Britain would have more influence in Africa in the modern day and have their own equivalent to French puppet regimes in their former colonies.
There's an IMMENSE alternate history work on that (in French, but by now translated into English on AH forum), but it's quite an embarrassing Allied-wank, for all its impressive detail.
There will be one crutial place on the Easstern front that willbe altered without the Rommel African corps. A bit to the east of Leningrad there is a small town Tikhvin. It was a key point to create "the road of life" to supply Leningrad. And the Wehrmacht launched a small operation to capture the town and to unite with the Finnish army in Karelia. The operation was partialy successfull but the Germans didn't have reserves to improve their first success - so the Soviet counter offensive reasteblished "the road of life". The African corps is a significant force to this time of operations - so if it participated in a battle of Tikhvin, Leningrad will be completely surrounded. And the seizure of Leningrad could altered the whole 1942 - the strong German forces kept the blockade of the city could be used elsewhere.
That would certainly slow the soviet recapture but I'm not sure just how much it would alter the wars course as a whole. Like losing Leningrad would be a huge loss in terms of morale for the Soviets but the problem still exists in Stalingrad that the Germans know nothing of Urban warfare as they had only previously encircled and crushed cities
@Finn_the_Cat Leningrad was defended by a huge Soviet group of armies. Leningrad was one of the most important Soviet cities, and it provided a huge amount of weapons to the Red Army (never ask a tanckie why the city cannot be supplied by food cause of the siege, but at the same time this siege didn't stop importing warfare goods from within). And if Germany took Leningrad, the Wehrmacht forces sieging it could be used elsewhere - f.e., to fortify the Wehrmacht sides during the Stalingrad battle.
there are a lot of mistakes when it come the european union in this video. Pétain was much more anti english than anti german and the idea of an european union was originally a nazi idea. It was actually an important talking point to the vichy regime and laval regularly spoke of ''making Europe''. The european union might be sped up in this timeline. Thank god it didnt happen.
I don’t think France would lose Algeria, militarily in our timeline they had won but the end of it. They gave up for similar reasons America did in Vietnam. They were militarily winning but public opinion was so unstable they couldn’t keep going. France was never outed from Algeria and didn’t get pushed out, they willingly but begrudgingly left. If we’re assuming a military dictatorship who would never give up Algeria ever I don’t see how they would lose it. Given the fact France would probably be militarily stronger in our timeline given the fact they would invest an unhealthy amount into the military albeit with a weaker economy they would have a stronger military. I don’t see how France would preform significantly worse in Algeria then in our timeline, they would probably preform slightly better as they would have a bigger army and be more willing to use indiscriminate tactics. Given the fact by the end of the war IRL France had pushed Algeria back on all fronts and secured the entire coastline but gave up due to cost and public opinion. In this timeline France could press further into Algeria cost be damned. While costly and unpopular it would almost certainly succeed in conquering the entire colony. I still think that the dictatorship would fall to democracy due to similar reasons that you stated, as well a the loss of other colonies. An interesting fart of this to me is that France would continue to hold onto Algeria even after they become democratic. Given the fact due to settlement programs the nationalist government would have implemented Algeria who in our timeline had a French population of 1.2 million would probably have a French population of 3 million by 1960. Meaning they could justify their contained occupation as 25% of the population would be French and the Algerians probably wouldn’t launch a 2nd rebellion so soon especially after being so brutally crushed. I could maybe see Algeria eventually getting independence but France would probably hold onto it until the late 90s or early 2000s, potentially holding onto strips of coastline with majority French populations would have interesting implications.
That's pretty opptimistic for Algeria. Of ALgeria's 8-10 million inhabitants at the time, up to 2 million were French. That's far from a majority, but way more than most colonial adminstrations. That's percentage wise more than South Africa had in a white population. And that's without concerted settlement efforts of a hardliner government. Realistically, France could keep the occupation up forever. It would be costly and unpopular, but I don't see them ever collapsing due to this war. They have too much at stake, while fighting too weak an enemy. And the longer they stay, the more normal them staying would become. Just because Portugal lost its colonies doesn't mean France would. Portugal is far smaller and weaker, their colonies were much further away and their actual demographic presence in them was a lot smaller.
but wouldn't that just make them even more of a target for socialists and religious extremists trying to force them out? at some point they would get thrown out, that's a law of history
@@hafor2846 i have a lot of historical examples, the best way it's demonstrated is for example afghanstan, "the graveyard of empires", there is also the places that rome conquered that then conquered rome back, or how no empire managed to conquer morroco for an extended amount of time. which is also bad new for this version of france, which would probably try to keep all of their colonies, which is impossible with their uncooperation with america leading to them being poorer on the long run
@@minestar2247 And what about the Sorbs? We call that place East Germany now. What about the Magyars? They are still exactly where they settled? What about Israel? There are as many places that just were settled as there are places that remained independent. Is it impossible that France loses Algeria? No. But it's far from certain, just because it happened to someone else, somewhere else.
@@hafor2846 israel is doomed to fail, especially with their new alt right tendencies east germany was assimilated, not conquered, which is slightly different and the hungarians didn't really "conquer" the place, they just moved in there
No French surrender equals no jokes about France surrendering and only being remembered for that and not their huge string of military victories throughout history
I think in this scenario, its even less likely for Germany to become neutral than in our own Timeline. historically, stalin proposed a democratic unified neutral german state, but his idea was declined because the allies feared stalins definition of "democratic", and because they fought that west germany was more useful to them than east germany was to the soviets. With east Germany being even weaker here, I dont think the Allies would ever accept Stalins proposal.
What if everything went perfect for Ireland? I think it would be really interesting to see how they could push back the British or English occupation or maybe even succeed in their raids on the coast and recelticize England.
Guess what, we are getting a "What if everything went perfect for Australia" before Italy
Fr
I'll try to remember this to see if it comes true
"what if everything went perfect for a random ass tribe in 56 B.C."
What if everything went perfect for Brainrot
What if everything went perfect for black people
That would mean no France surrendering jokes.
Maybe they could still make fun of France in some way...
THERE HAS TO BE A WAY!
Yet still "who was in Paris" jokes
That would be cool, because these jokes are stupid. You can make fun of the french in funnier and less annoying way
there would be jokes about france being easy to conquer
@@Tahirid_18Nah, probably not. The only reason why "France surrenders" is a meme is because of the Napoleonic wars and WW2 (and arguably the Franco-Prussian war).
Since WW2 would've seen France flee to Algeria but continue fighting, while the Napoleonic wars would've just been France surrendering, there wouldn't be enough similarity between those 2 situations for people to make fun of France.
Like at that point, it'd be like joking about Poland surrendering during WW2 or something. I doubt people would joke about Paris in this scenario.
25:15 Bro thought he could hide it from us 💀
XD, he HAD to sneak Joseph Biden there...
Bro that's hilarious😂 had to sneak him in
I DIDNT EVEN NOTICE WHEN I WAS WATCHING THE VIDEO!
He really is our oldest president.
@@SinoLegionaireso far 😅
Ironically enough, in this timeline De Gaulle could be a likely successor to Petain. In this scenario with allied France led by Petain, De Gaulle would have still served under him. De Gaulle's views weren't that far different from Petain's actually, with some speculting he even wanted a restoration of the monarchy. In a timeline where Petain's successor is De Gaulle we might see the regime slightly more liberal but still in the shape of an authoritarian amd conservative one. De Gaulle's France would be even more independent from the west than in our timeline and with such prominent state on the continent even the politics of other western countries such as Italy could be shifted to the right (of course not as far as f ascism)
Maybe France, while still opposing the Soviets would endorse some non communist rivals to the west, such as Argentina during the falkland wars, but that's very far in the timeline
Sei ancora vivo, wow
well, the us endorsed literal "bad party germans" to fight communism in germany in our timeline,
it would make sense that if france was more right wing, that would make that fact more prominent and a bit more overt
I could see them being similar to Franco’s Spain in this case, probably eventually still joins NATO controversially
@minestar2247 Source?
@@TeSu-fs7mp watch the "why germany never ne na si fied" by bes d marx
Moving the french government to Africa is to humiliating, instead we should surrender completely and aid our age old enemies.
I mean, portugal moved it's government to Brazil during the napoleonic wars so it's not unheard of. And Britain planned to move to Canada in case of an invasion
@@thatoneduck3875 I mean… losing your monarch to a colony they genuinely prefer over their home country is pretty embarrassing. Or would be, if you didn’t just have a revolution.
You've got it completely backwards. Surrendering in WW2 has turned France into the butt of jokes worldwide. When people now think about France militarily, this one capitulation ranks higher than France's many military victories. By comparison, continuing to fight from the colonies would today be regarded as one of France's defining and most courageous moments in its long history.
@@gengarzilla1685 lol, definitly not, mostly because they might get double handed by the algerians who hate them a lot, and it would still be remembered as a humiliating defeat because the anglo sphere still dislikes france(although more ironically that the places conquered by france)
@gengarzilla1685 it's a joke, the original comment was being sarcastic
My therapist: French Taiwan isn't real, it can't hurt you!
French Taiwan:
The role of Fleet Admiral Darlan could also be mentionned. The French Navy was his personal fiefdom at the time, and so with the destruction of the Army, he led the only capable fighting force left. In their memoirs, Churchill and De Gaulle agree on just one thing : that if Darlan had declared himself for continuing the fight overseas he would have immediately enjoyed international recognition. In an alternate scenario, there is room for serious political infighting between Petain and Darlan, since despite his prestige the old marshall would always be vulnerable to a coup.
Now the question is what if Darlan couped and took power for himself.
Wasn’t Darian far right tho?
22:54 no Godzilla!!! Worse alternate timeline now
He is doing everything before perfect Italy 😭
For an in-depth and carefully researched exploration of this scenario (France continuing the war from North Africa), see 1940: Et si la France avait continué la guerre?
De Alterhis?
I don’t think bro is making an “Everything Goes Perfect for Italy” video at this point 💀
fr I think it just shows how much he hates italy xD
So uninterested in that video. They were doomed. Going perfect = no Mussolini + join allies asap.
Italy is already very lucky to even exist considering how fragile they are
Everything perfect for Italy is literally just the Everything perfect for Roman Empire video.
If Everything went perfect for Italy, Rome wouldn't have fallen.
@@nathanfallin2750 there isn't only ww2, and mussolini was actually a very liked leader until the war
I've been waiting for that scenario for years, it's finally here and it's a great video
You should do i video that looks into a more harsh treaty of versailles and a less harsh treaty of versailles
He did? It is a viewers voted video.
He did that like a year ago
He did. Also it’s difficult to make a less harsh treaty than our timeline
@@KyloHen4162 Tell that to Austria-Hungary and the Ottomans, Germany is the mem of the due complaining about his migraine to Jesus
@@scorpixel1866Versailles was only for Germany
The siege of toulon would have been epic.
I live there and there are fortification everywhere. The port is surrounded by mountain and all the enter point are blocked by fortified artillery position, underground tunnel, pill box etc...
It's a multi layer defence and there is no other option that to face it frontally.
Wow. I have been wanting to see a scenario like this for so long. I love the concept
Here before italy guy. This feels wrong
Everything perfect for Italy is literally just the Everything perfect for Roman Empire video.
If Everything went perfect for Italy, Rome wouldn't have fallen.
People mean modern Italy, usually WW1 or WW2 Italy.
23:48 "hatred of germany" what? did de Gaulle love germany so much more than Petain and that is why he supported the EU or something? Petain be just as likely to support the EU as de Gaulle. Maybe even more since Petain dislike the UK even more, and the in the begining the EU was, at least in from the French perspective, seen as a way to increase their power compaired to the UK. Also why whould the Russians get so much land in Europe if they made way less progress when the germans surrendered. The equivalent Yalta conference would be extremely different.
What if everything went perfect for Italy
I think it was done before
Yes, and the Kingdom of Greece.
@@unfunny4346 Nope
@Oppenheimer.J.Robert must've been the wind then
@@Oppenheimer.J.Robert actually there was what if everything went perfect for rome, ig it could count as italy?
There was also a proposal that was made just before the government left Paris, when key ministers proposed moving the government to Bordeaux (a city located on very undefensible terrain). To counter this proposal, Charles de Gaulle proposed to move the government to Quimper, and to defend only Brittany (the Breton precarré), which is a much more defensible territory than the south of France (It is a narrow peninsula, with many rivers and some mountains). Paul Reynaud historically chose a compromise, moving the government to Tours (halfway between Bordeaux and Quimper), but subsequently gave in to pressure from the majority of ministers and moved the government to Bordeaux.
Not sure that De Gaulle's proposal is realistic, but it is an interesting fact.
Idea: on April folks make a vid called: What if Earth never existed? (Maybe go on a tangent about the upcoming alien invasion or something)
I can’t tell you how much I’ve thought about this scenario. One random day I open YoTube and boom, new Possible History video that answers my question.
00:23 isn't Zaolzie supposed to be part of Poland by the moment you shown? Sorry, for some nerd like stuff, maybe I sniffed too much glue this time. Btw like your videos, u always try to stick with realism and I can only watch you as possible alternative videos. Didn't watched till the end yet, but I'm sure this video would be as great as others.
And yeah, next second it depicts already partitioned Poland, I'm speaking 'bout the map after Czechoslovakian partition.
Zaolzie is shown as a part of Poland, the area actually isn’t as big as one might think
@@Diam0nD_007 oh, sorry then
What’s so important about this region again?
Please do a “what if everything went perfect for Italy”
25:15 is crazy 💀
Ahhhh Dementia Jumpscare !!
25:14 bro thought he was slick 💀
THANK YOU PH! I'm so happy
Do what’s if everything went perfect for Iran or armenia
Awesome video,Keep it up!
Do what if the Franco British union happened (and succeeded)
4 comments on one video is crazy
I love the new format where you look pretty far out in to the future!
the Saarland being french was actually pretty likely even in our timeline - the only thing that prevented it, is that France wanted to be on good terms with Germany after the war, and due to the creation of the European Coal and Steel community (which later became the EU) the Saarland stopped being so critically important - its not as important to control the steel production in the Saarland, if you can just buy that steel from Germany.
Keep up the great content!
This was a really interesting scenario, really a fantastic exploration of the "butterfly effect". Thanks, PH!
Will we ever get a what if history went perfect for Italy?
The irony in here is that its petain the main reason for the capitualtion as the plan to continue in the colonies was the main one, and petain ditched it and imprisonned the politician who mooved to algeria to create a government in the colonies, he was pretty much an anti war figure, he not only capitulated to germany but also didnt went to war with britain after they attcked the french fleet (despite the will of the french admiralty) and gave up indochina to japan even after the local forces beat them back at first
I love your videos and i am a huge fan of you and alternate history
What if everything went perfect for Finland would go so hard
Bro, I thought I helucinated Biden in 25:15. I don't even have scisophrinia
What if The Allies Didn't Flee Norway in WW2?
(Do something with Norway please)
Hey, the intro was well done! It's pretty rare to hear people acknowledge that there truly was nothing to do, and that Pétain didn't work with the nazis by choice, but to preserve France as much as possible.
it's still a humiliating defeat that we have the moral obligation to remind them at every opportunity
Most people interested in history already recognize that Pete wasn't the moustache-twirling villain he was painted as.
@@minestar2247et nous avons aussi l'obligation morale de rappeler aux Anglais que c'est plus facile pour eux de rembarquer, ce qu'ils avaient déjà commencé à faire en septembre 1914, lors de la première bataille de la Marne. Car lors de cette bataille, les Allemands avaient presque réussi à être aussi rapide qu'en 1940.
@@MyVanirVery true, but I'm tired of hearing the same bullshit all the time
What if Portugal won the war of Spanish succession
I love your vids
I read I love your kids
@@EduardoDistassi same 💀
Minor detail, Austria might be given South Tyrol after the war as the main power which opposed this was the Soviet Union. Without their occupation (like potentially in the scenario) the could get it
Wonderful! I was waiting for this video, to see what else could be imagined from Alterhis.
5:10 Ah yes, relocating to otherseas territories, a "grave humiliation", as opposed to capitulating, letting Germany plunder the country to its heart’s content and becoming its willful, enthusiastic slave and collaborator.
France might have had good reasons for surrenduring, but avoiding humiliation was by far the stupidest.
France did not, French politicians did, are you agreeing everything your govt do ?
I have contemplated this for a long time. Listened to a great book on the fall of France and I was wondering if a lack of surrender by France would have any long term effects. Happy to see someone make a scenario.
Possible History Never Fails To Deliver Despite His Pregnancy!
Video idea: What if the Jacobite rising of 1745 was successful?
Video 15 of asking the best history youtuber to do "what if everything went perfect for britan"
Next video: What if nothing changed for Italy
I really doubt Italy would have invaded Greece in this scenario. With the loss of Libya and Ethiopia, the prestige of the "undefeated" Italy would have been harmed. And in this ATL, Italy would have had to commit much more military for the occupation of France, as well have to deal with the defence of their own shores from both a French and a British fleet. At least, even if the story of Greece and the Balkans unfolds the same way, I really doubt the Fall of Crete would have happened, with two major fleets defending it around it, the French and the British...
Great video
Possible history,I found that in your history reenacting scenarios,China always plays Germany's role,and India always plays Russia's role.
So France not surrendering means no Godzilla?
Do what if Burgundy formed the Netherlands
France keeping the Saarland has a bigger effect on the timeline than you may have explained. I don't think it really matters who leads France in the postwar world or what type of regime they establish, a France that has this key source of coal would always feel a lessened incentive to establish the European Coal and Steel Community with the West German, Italian, and Benelux nations. As we all should know, that community was the direct precursor of the European Union, for better or worse. Even if France remains a democracy, removing the EU's crucial predecessor would still gut the idea of general economic co-operation in Europe.The
Say what you will about the European Union, but we'd be worse off for having the European Coal and Steel Community butterflied away.
I love this timeline, because Czechia is not suffering under communism
Video 18 of asking for what if sun yat sen’s china survived
What if the big bang never happend
Its strange that Petain thought it was more humilating to relocate the government somewhere temporarily then losing a war.
because despite being part of france, algeria was seen as less important than the mainland, especially the natives(current algerians).
You should do "What If Everything Went terrible for Italy"
What if i you ate Italy.
nice video man I'm not usually this early, could you do a video on if China takes Taivvan?
Will you do another voting live stream like the ones with Germany and the US?
Do what if the Soviet Union annexed Eastern Europe and all its satellites
hoi4 ahhh suggestion
A far, FAR earlier collapse of the Soviet Union.
Hoi4 ahhh suggestion
Gorilla warfare time.
Yeah that's highly unlikely.
What if everything went perfect for Romania? (Request #7)
You missed the importance of the french navy. The British navy was streched close to breaking point in 1941. All available ships were needed to escort vital supplies to places like Malta, the USSR and Britain itself or to keep the german and itallian surface fleet in check. This left them with very few ships to spare to do less important things like guarding the far eastern part of their empire.
If the french and british fleet were able to combine forces they would probably be able to quickly eliminate the italian navy as a major threat, or at least cut off their forces in africa. And with the french fleet helping with escort duties the allies have the spare ships to maintain a powerful fleet in the far east. A fleet powerful to trow a big wrench in Japans plans.
Would love to see that Anglo-Franco Union video
8:44 Franco was personal friends with Petain in real life. The Spanish dictator was a student under Petain and, before the war, the Marshall of the Republic was assigned to be the consul to Spain, given his affinity for Franco.
Even de Gaulle wasn’t that far off them, ideologically. The main conflict between de Gaulle and Petain was which side would be the most beneficial for France.
Yay, my suggestion/wish for this video came true
whats better than seeing every possible "ww2 but the axis wins"?
WW2 BUT THE AXIS LOSE EVEN HARDER
3:54 please, we want a video about it.
I think a few things would've gone differently. The US, as MAGA as they already were back at those days, wanted to avoid involvement of WWII at all costs. With Japan having that Vietnam moment they might want to listen to the Nazis to invade Soviet Russia instead, meaning the Soviets would lose on two fronts. Petain would force the Nazis out of France, but maybe he would've signed then a deal with Nazi Germany in which each other's territorial integrities are respected after which the Brits are violently kicked out of France. I've no clue what this means for the Benelux. The Dutch Indies would remain under control of the exiled government just like Suriname. Maybe territorial concessions will be made over Benelux, maybe war over Belgium. I think the Nazis would've had a tighter grip on the Netherlands.
10:05 what is the music used here called?
Please do «What if everything went PERFECT for the Kemalist Turkey?». Day 1
Shortening the war makes USSR stronger as they simply lose less young working age people, less immediate influence might not be a bad thing in the long term
Not necessarily.
A big part of treaty negotiations is the clout so to speak. The fact that the Soviets liberated much of Eastern Europe as well as Berlin gave them a massive card to play in negotiations, and was part of the reason that the region fell under Soviet Influence.
If the Western Powers were able to turn around their side of the war faster and beat the Soviets to those points, then they'd have more influence and could prevent the Soviets from establishing that zone of influence.
u could do a similar video for ww2 italy
2:57 when France is wrong he fights when France is right he gives up
This comment was made on my phone which is on 1%
Also do a what if everything went perfect for Italy
Petain was no hero of WW1. He was a clown who's only accomplishment was killing hundreds of thousand of his own men, and the men of other commander, by clowning around like an idiot.
in my opinion, an Intresting point here would be post-war Italy: since western bloc misses France and Western Germany, the greater Western-alligned democracy would be Italy, and it could very well be supported by especially the USA to rebuild a sort of limited sphere of influence in the Mediterranean, and in the Balkans. Italy could be supported in mantaining not only South Tyrol since Austria is possibly neutral, but even many lands in Istria, to support the growth of Anglo-American sphere of Influence, as well as Tripolitania which the USA initially still supported to mantain in Italian lands, and here it would probably have become an Italian Mandate. Definitely Italy could have more possibilities to become an independent small power in the Mediterranean thanks to France and Germany not part in NATO.
Algerias importance in being the home of the free French Regime would absolutely be prioritised and the French efforts to ensure it maintained would be much larger.
Britain too would hold onto their empire for far longer as to make sure their colonies don’t fall to French hands Despite America and The Soviets pressuring them Britain wouldn’t want to leave their colonies out of fear of French annexation.
Possibly tho unlikely Britain and France could put aside their differences in the 1956 suez crisis perhaps France even tries to pull Britain away from the US because of annoyance at the US demands for Britain and France to abandon suez.
After which Britain and France could remain as Empires far longer perhaps even to the 80s. And Britain would have more influence in Africa in the modern day and have their own equivalent to French puppet regimes in their former colonies.
The Title made me think “France’s Taiwan but instead of escaping Communism, they’re escaping NAZIsm”
De Gaulle and his rival Henri Giraud were at the Cadablanca Conference.
Video 38 of asking Possible History for a video about "If Valery Sablin was succesful"
Ngl, I would like to see the alt history of Cold War with Petain's France as the 3rd power.
What if everything went perfect for Romania?
There's an IMMENSE alternate history work on that (in French, but by now translated into English on AH forum), but it's quite an embarrassing Allied-wank, for all its impressive detail.
There will be one crutial place on the Easstern front that willbe altered without the Rommel African corps. A bit to the east of Leningrad there is a small town Tikhvin. It was a key point to create "the road of life" to supply Leningrad. And the Wehrmacht launched a small operation to capture the town and to unite with the Finnish army in Karelia. The operation was partialy successfull but the Germans didn't have reserves to improve their first success - so the Soviet counter offensive reasteblished "the road of life". The African corps is a significant force to this time of operations - so if it participated in a battle of Tikhvin, Leningrad will be completely surrounded.
And the seizure of Leningrad could altered the whole 1942 - the strong German forces kept the blockade of the city could be used elsewhere.
That would certainly slow the soviet recapture but I'm not sure just how much it would alter the wars course as a whole. Like losing Leningrad would be a huge loss in terms of morale for the Soviets but the problem still exists in Stalingrad that the Germans know nothing of Urban warfare as they had only previously encircled and crushed cities
@Finn_the_Cat Leningrad was defended by a huge Soviet group of armies. Leningrad was one of the most important Soviet cities, and it provided a huge amount of weapons to the Red Army (never ask a tanckie why the city cannot be supplied by food cause of the siege, but at the same time this siege didn't stop importing warfare goods from within).
And if Germany took Leningrad, the Wehrmacht forces sieging it could be used elsewhere - f.e., to fortify the Wehrmacht sides during the Stalingrad battle.
@thomasschmidt1452 The German forces in leningrad would have probably been severely depleted from the urban warfare.
Napoleon: Russia, we have defeated you. Are you going to sign peace with us or escape
Russia: *NONE*
Damn we playing hoi4 up in here.
there are a lot of mistakes when it come the european union in this video. Pétain was much more anti english than anti german and the idea of an european union was originally a nazi idea. It was actually an important talking point to the vichy regime and laval regularly spoke of ''making Europe''. The european union might be sped up in this timeline. Thank god it didnt happen.
finally a video about algeria
I don’t think France would lose Algeria, militarily in our timeline they had won but the end of it. They gave up for similar reasons America did in Vietnam. They were militarily winning but public opinion was so unstable they couldn’t keep going. France was never outed from Algeria and didn’t get pushed out, they willingly but begrudgingly left. If we’re assuming a military dictatorship who would never give up Algeria ever I don’t see how they would lose it. Given the fact France would probably be militarily stronger in our timeline given the fact they would invest an unhealthy amount into the military albeit with a weaker economy they would have a stronger military. I don’t see how France would preform significantly worse in Algeria then in our timeline, they would probably preform slightly better as they would have a bigger army and be more willing to use indiscriminate tactics. Given the fact by the end of the war IRL France had pushed Algeria back on all fronts and secured the entire coastline but gave up due to cost and public opinion. In this timeline France could press further into Algeria cost be damned. While costly and unpopular it would almost certainly succeed in conquering the entire colony. I still think that the dictatorship would fall to democracy due to similar reasons that you stated, as well a the loss of other colonies. An interesting fart of this to me is that France would continue to hold onto Algeria even after they become democratic. Given the fact due to settlement programs the nationalist government would have implemented Algeria who in our timeline had a French population of 1.2 million would probably have a French population of 3 million by 1960. Meaning they could justify their contained occupation as 25% of the population would be French and the Algerians probably wouldn’t launch a 2nd rebellion so soon especially after being so brutally crushed. I could maybe see Algeria eventually getting independence but France would probably hold onto it until the late 90s or early 2000s, potentially holding onto strips of coastline with majority French populations would have interesting implications.
Interesting, and yes, I also think this, it's will be worse in this reality for Algeria.
Denmark: Ok Fritz, we surrender, but wouldn't it just be so much nicer for all if you just let us run things here anyway?
That's pretty opptimistic for Algeria. Of ALgeria's 8-10 million inhabitants at the time, up to 2 million were French. That's far from a majority, but way more than most colonial adminstrations. That's percentage wise more than South Africa had in a white population. And that's without concerted settlement efforts of a hardliner government.
Realistically, France could keep the occupation up forever. It would be costly and unpopular, but I don't see them ever collapsing due to this war. They have too much at stake, while fighting too weak an enemy. And the longer they stay, the more normal them staying would become.
Just because Portugal lost its colonies doesn't mean France would. Portugal is far smaller and weaker, their colonies were much further away and their actual demographic presence in them was a lot smaller.
but wouldn't that just make them even more of a target for socialists and religious extremists trying to force them out?
at some point they would get thrown out, that's a law of history
@@minestar2247
Show me where that law is written...
@@hafor2846 i have a lot of historical examples, the best way it's demonstrated is for example afghanstan, "the graveyard of empires", there is also the places that rome conquered that then conquered rome back, or how no empire managed to conquer morroco for an extended amount of time.
which is also bad new for this version of france, which would probably try to keep all of their colonies, which is impossible with their uncooperation with america leading to them being poorer on the long run
@@minestar2247
And what about the Sorbs? We call that place East Germany now. What about the Magyars? They are still exactly where they settled? What about Israel?
There are as many places that just were settled as there are places that remained independent.
Is it impossible that France loses Algeria? No. But it's far from certain, just because it happened to someone else, somewhere else.
@@hafor2846 israel is doomed to fail, especially with their new alt right tendencies
east germany was assimilated, not conquered, which is slightly different
and the hungarians didn't really "conquer" the place, they just moved in there
Oppenheimer in this timeline: “oh to woe we didn’t get to use my big bomb that blows up a lot of people” :(
"Now I have become no one, the destroyer of nothing."
Oppenheimer would probably be relieved that the Bombs weren't used.
No French surrender equals no jokes about France surrendering and only being remembered for that and not their huge string of military victories throughout history
25:15 I saw that
I think in this scenario, its even less likely for Germany to become neutral than in our own Timeline. historically, stalin proposed a democratic unified neutral german state, but his idea was declined because the allies feared stalins definition of "democratic", and because they fought that west germany was more useful to them than east germany was to the soviets. With east Germany being even weaker here, I dont think the Allies would ever accept Stalins proposal.
What if everything went perfect for Ireland? I think it would be really interesting to see how they could push back the British or English occupation or maybe even succeed in their raids on the coast and recelticize England.