Please do what if indonesia turned communist! Ma and many other of your viewers are indonesian and we would like to see what this alternate timeline would look like
i wonder if poland would never be invaded by germany, because theres no big commie bookieman, maybe hitler does his stunt on france instead. no war declared, then they just him poland afterwards.
And worst of all, we’d be robbed of one of the greatest TH-cam videos of all time: “Complete History Of The Soviet Union, Arranged To The Melody of Tetris”
What if you kicked a rock in different direction in your childhood, would you've still watched him since '15, find out in next episode of Alternate history
Back in 2017 I got divorced, and in the time following I had problems falling a sleep. Too much noise in my head. So I begun listening to history-youtube-content at bedtime. Just to think at something ells than my own thoughts. I came across your channel, but your videos did not make me fall a sleep faster, but I was entertained ... and I have been here since. Thanks Cody
Nb: "Something *else* than my own thoughts..." Also (this is a minor point) "begun" is the past participle, whereas "began" is the past tense. That sentence should read: "So I began listening to history..." edit - You're doing VERY well. Your English is already better than many people for whom English is their native tongue. Don't be discouraged.
Here's a scenario: What if Alexander III got his head out of his ass and actually trained Nicholas II to be Tsar? That's something that often gets overlooked. Alexander III hated his son, and never trained Nicholas to rule Russia.
Alexander III said he would train Nicholas to be Tsar after his turned thirty...then went and died when Nicky was still in his twenties. But to be fair no-one expected the 6'3 giant who could tie silverware into knots and hold up a train carriage roof on his own to die at 49
I usually wonder what would've happened if Russia actually kept up with the rest of Europe and modernised itself. What if there were more Tsars like Katherine the great and Alexander the second? Just imagine what an actually competent Russian parliament would be like? A constitutional monarchy early on?
The world would be an unaparallel utopia with equality for all and the establishment of the united galaxies of zambia who would rule over our lands for an eternity
It wasn't even an order, it was a drunken squad of Red Army soldiers that were scared as White Army forces were approaching, and potentially going to capture the royal family.
The killing of the Romanovs was a result of their insufferable rule over the Russian people. They would have been killed in any timeline. It's a canon event.
Nicholas was not uncaring for the Russians who died in the stampede, he literally planned on canceling it to pray but was pressured to do it anyway by his advisers.
They always condemn the Tsar Martyr, no matter what he did in real life. Meanwhile, they praise Ulyanov, Bronstein, Sverdlov and Djugashvili who murdered millions for no apparent reason.
Idk kinda hard to see. Trotsky was in our timeline responsible for organizing the Red Army into the force that won the war. Even without Lenin, it’d be hard to argue the Red Army would have truly been substantially weaker than in our timeline.
I’d be highly inclined to agree. Trotsky was a military genius who build the Red Army. Him losing the war despite having the industrial advantage doesn’t seem likely.
But could Trotsky have kept the Soviet Union together politically? The Party mostly didn't like him and the Cheka certainly didn't. Perhaps the only way he could have done it would have been y becoming a Soviet Bonaparte. Exactly what Stalin was accusing him of
Realistically nothing as Kazakhstan was the last state to leave meaning it's not much of a union with one state just what if Kazakhstan stayed communist
It was actually the last member, Russia had already left and it actually took the Soviet of Nationalities to dissolve for them to finally not be in it "On 16 December 1991, the Kazakh SSR became the last republic to formally secede from the Soviet Union, causing the Soviet Union to neither control any territory nor claim to control any territory (although Soviet embassies still existed)."
@@smalltime0 I wonder why the communists who failed to prevent Russia from leaving the Soviet Union didn't just seize power in a different soviet republic?
If the Soviet Union never formed, we wouldn't have the amazing Command & Conquer: Red Alert series, and Cody wouldn't have made his Red Alert video. We would never have Tim Curry in a career defining role.
@9:00 Kornilov never launched a coup. It was a miscommunication where one of Kerensky's secretaries deliberately misinterpreted one of Kornilov's communications as an attempt to get rid of him since he was a political rival. Instead of waiting for Kornilov to clarify what he mean, as his entire cabinet except for the deliverer of the letter recommended, Kerensky ordered Kornilov's arrest. Of course no one wanted to arrest Kornilov for a treason he never committed and so Kerensky, instead of backing down, decided to ally with the Soviets to get rid of him. It was not Kerensky choosing a lesser evil, it was him being a stubborn idiot.
Do you have a source of that? I read a bit about the times between the February and October revolutions but never encountered that theory. From what I know he wanted to be made dictator (at least temporary, i.E. in the Roman sense) and then decided to march to the capital without the orders of the government, which must be treated as a coup-attempt, regardless of his real motives, which might never be known, as he was stopped before he could do much. Also from what I know he was clearly marching against the government after Kerensky officially removed him from his office as commander-in-chief. At that time it was objectively a coup, regardless of his original motives.
This is not quite right either, a right wing faction was coalescing around Kornilov and probably would’ve pushed for a coup eventually. Kerensky exacerbated the situation by giving the most insane mixed signals in history, then his aide went to meet with kornilov and mistakenly gave him the impression kerensky was planning to let him be dictator, they discuss this possibility on the aide’s own initiative. Then as the aide is leaving one of Kornilov’s own aides makes a throwing away comment about getting rid of kerensky (thinking the aide was on board because everyone in this story is misunderstanding everyone else) which freaks out kerensky’s aide so badly he tells kerensky but mistakenly gives his boss the impression that the discussion the aide had initiated about a theoretical kornilov dictatorship (which the aide mistakenly gave kornilov the impression *Kerensky* approved of) represented kornilovs own demands. This scared the shit out of Kerensky, and there was a communication between the K’s via telegraph. This was another misunderstanding filled mess that caused the situation to spiral further out of control.
Based on my limited knowledge, I believe Kolchak winning the civil war is totally unrealistic. Even if he was militarily succesful, wich was already unlikely, he would have been quickly overthrown anyway, for his political supppot was meagre and his enemies too many. I believe it would have been much more likely that both Kolckak and Trotsky were eventually overthorwn and that Russia ended it's civil war being ruled by the Mensheviks and the moderate socialists with a compromise between the red and the white armies.
I was kind of thinking the same, but the Whites winning is a much more dramatic departure. That said, the Whites did a pretty thorough job of alienating everyone who wasn't a diehard monarchist. Also, without the Bolsheviks in power, the Czechoslovak Legion might not have gotten involved in the civil war.
Without Lenin, the bolsheviks would most likely have collaborated with the left SRs and menshevik internationalists. Trotsky was good friends with Martov, and had initially been a menshevik, he only joined the bolsheviks after Lenin returned to Russia. So Russia being ruled by a revolutionary coalition seems likely
the biggest change in this timeline is that without stalin there are possibly as much as 150 million more russians and ukrainians on the planet not only did stalin preside over multuple devastating famines after the civil war, but his government also nuked russian fertility because of his hardcore antireligion policies and distribution of both contraceptives and abortion there were tens of millions of abortions under stalin that probably wouldn't happen with a moderate or conservative government so whatever direction russia goes, as long as the russian civil war is the worst of it, they are probably a superpower today with 300+ million ethnic russians/ukrainians
Great video! However, I have a few counterpoints to this scenario: First, its unlikely that the Bolsheviks in particular would have come to power instead of some other socialist group in the absence of the October Revolution. The Bolsheviks were always a minority, even within the socialist movement. When elections for the Constituent Assembly were held, the Bolsheviks only won a quarter of the seats. The absence of strong Bolshevik leadership would have likely only empowered other socialist factions like the SRs and Mensheviks. Second, even if the Bolsheviks had taken power, I doubt Trotsky would have ever become the leader of the provisional government. Most of the Bolshevik leadership deeply distrusted Trotsky. This was mainly because he did not become a Bolshevik until August 1917, while the rest of the leadership had been Bolsheviks for years. Without Lenin, its unlikely Trotsky would have even become a Bolshevik in the first place. Third, Kerensky is unlikely to have been removed as the head of the provisional government without armed force. After the Kornilov affair, Kerensky essentially made himself dictator of the provisional government. It’s not like he could have just been voted out. Fourth, I’m not clear on how the Bolsheviks taking control of the provisional government instead of overthrowing it would have made the Reds perform worse in the Civil War. If anything, coming to power through legitimate means instead of an armed coup would have given the Reds more legitimacy in the eyes of the Russian people. This would have given the Reds more support during the civil war from SRs, Mensheviks, and maybe even Kadets. The Whites were deeply unpopular during the civil war, even among critics of the Bolsheviks. Anything that would have given the Bolsheviks more legitimacy would have helped them.
Your last point is really poignant. The bolsheviks drove tons of more moderate socialists to the Whites with their relentless power grabbing. If the SRs and Mensheviks stayed with the Reds, then taking control of the productive countryside would be that much easier.
Inclined to agree. The Reds would have been much less well organised without Lenin, but they would also have had many fewer enemies. So it balances out.
The point of his videos isn’t entirely realism, which he’s mentioned before, it’s simply an interesting exercise in alternative history. That’s not to say he isn’t trying to be realistic where he can, it’s just some scenarios are interesting. It’s similar to “what if the nazis won WW2” or “what if the confederacy won the civil war (or simply survived it)”.
The strength of the Bolsheviks was their connection with the Soviets, which were independent councils of workers that acted as the de facto government in many parts of Russia by the outbreak of the Civil War. That is a major reason why they launched the revolution in the first place.
"The Whites were deeply unpopular " The Whites weren't a unified front at all but consisted of disunified factions of Reformists, Absolute Monarchists, and Anti-communists who fought each other as much as the Reds.
I think you've poorly researched Russia's 19th century and early 20th century political and radical terrorists/revolutionary scene. Bolsheviks were largely held together by Lenin without him they'd be a lot less organised or able to co-opt the spontaneous worker-soldier bodies (soviets), if anything other socialist factions like the mensheviks and SRs would be in a far better position, because in our tl it was not that the bolsheviks were the most popular (the SRs were because Russia was an agrarian peasant state and the SRs and their progenitors, the norodniks, spent their entire existence building a socialist base among the peasants) but that they became the most organised and able to adapt quickly to the changed situation, considering a frequent criticism of the bolsheviks by mensheviks was that they were a Lenin cult, without him I don't see that happening. In our tl Lenin did hold elections but then dissolved the constituent assembly in less than a day because the bolsheviks did not get a majority nor were they the largest party. So even if the provisional government collapses in this tl (maybe but I think it's more likely that it'd dissolve itself and hold elections) power would go to the new constituent assembly, sure it wouldn't be stable but I doubt a civil war of the kind we had irl would happen, even the tsar's execution seems unlikely. People tend to forget that a lot of the menshevik and the SR leaders were talented politicians, Martov (a menshevik) even managed to win against Stalin in a revolutionary court case against him started by Stalin (stacked against him) and even humiliated the bolsheviks in the congress of soviets (they controlled) by playing to the gallery. Nations declaring independence would still happen and there might've been fighting to take them back and/or a lot of political back and forth, but in the absence of complete power being wrested by a group like the bolsheviks trying to build a vanguardist state, I doubt the whites would've been able to rise up or do so to a limited degree, considering a lot of their legitimacy and justification otl came from the loose big tent grouping of moderate leftists, liberals, monarchists/reactionaries and ultranationalists anti-semitic organisations working with them to bring the bolsheviks down, plus without measures like war communism peasants are not gonna rise up either (irl "green armies"). Instead of civil war it'd likely be terrorist activities, small scale uprisings and the like trying to destabilise the new state (minus nationalist movements and new states formed which could cause a full scale war after Germans are forced to leave, but if that happens there'd be even less justification for white generals to rise up), now whether this social democratic state would survive the 20s or 30s, I dunno, could very well end up like Weimar Germany.
Yes, without Lenin, there would have been no October revolution, and with the Bolsheviks disunited, no Russian Civil War. The 15 years from 1917 to 1923 might have seen Russia stablize and independent Ukraine, Belarus, Baltic States, and Caucasus States. Different 20th century.
line breaks are your friend and will help you out considerably if you want people to actually read what you have to say. "Walls of text" are difficult to go through and take all the information in. That's why paragraphs exist, to break ideas up into smaller bite size components that are then made up of sentences. "Walls of text" are notorious for their ability to repel readers, acting as impenetrable barriers to the comprehension and retention of information. They are akin to facing an imposing fortress with no clear path to navigate, leaving the reader feeling overwhelmed and disoriented. The inherent problem lies in their dense and uninterrupted nature, lacking the crucial breaks and divisions necessary for facilitating understanding and engagement. A continuous stream of text offers no respite for the reader's eyes or mind, leading to cognitive fatigue and a diminished willingness to engage with the content. At its core, effective communication relies on the ability to convey ideas and arguments clearly and concisely. Line breaks and paragraphs serve as the scaffolding upon which this clarity is built, offering structure and organization to the text. They act as signposts, guiding the reader through the narrative or argument in a logical and digestible manner. By breaking the text into manageable chunks, paragraphs provide natural pauses that allow the reader to process information and reflect on its significance. This rhythmic cadence not only enhances comprehension but also fosters a sense of flow and momentum, keeping the reader actively engaged from start to finish. Furthermore, the strategic use of line breaks and paragraphs facilitates the effective presentation of complex ideas and arguments. By dividing the text into distinct sections, each with its own focus or subtopic, the writer can provide clarity and coherence to their narrative or argument. This segmentation allows for the gradual development and exploration of ideas, building upon each other in a structured and systematic fashion. Moreover, paragraphs offer the opportunity to introduce transitions and connective devices, seamlessly guiding the reader from one point to the next. This cohesive progression not only enhances understanding but also reinforces the overall coherence and persuasiveness of the text. In addition to aiding comprehension and organization, line breaks and paragraphs play a crucial role in enhancing readability and accessibility. In an age characterized by information overload and constant distractions, readers have increasingly limited attention spans and patience for dense and cumbersome text. Walls of text are a significant deterrent to engagement, causing readers to quickly lose interest and abandon the text altogether. In contrast, the judicious use of line breaks and paragraphs allows for the creation of visually appealing and reader-friendly content. By incorporating white space and visual breaks, the writer can alleviate the cognitive burden on the reader and create a more inviting and approachable reading experience. This not only encourages prolonged engagement but also ensures that the message reaches a wider audience, including those with varying levels of literacy and attention. Moreover, the strategic use of line breaks and paragraphs can have a profound impact on the overall effectiveness and persuasiveness of the text. By leveraging the visual elements of typography and layout, the writer can emphasize key points and create emphasis where needed. For example, the use of short paragraphs or bullet points can draw attention to important information, making it more memorable and impactful. Similarly, the strategic placement of line breaks can create dramatic pauses or moments of reflection, allowing the reader to fully absorb the significance of a particular statement or argument. These stylistic devices not only enhance the aesthetic appeal of the text but also reinforce its rhetorical power and persuasive intent. In conclusion, the detrimental effects of "walls of text" on effective communication cannot be overstated. They hinder comprehension, impede engagement, and detract from the overall readability and accessibility of the text. In contrast, the judicious use of line breaks and paragraphs offers a solution to these challenges, providing structure, organization, and coherence to the narrative or argument. By incorporating these visual elements into their writing, writers can create content that is not only more engaging and accessible but also more persuasive and impactful. As such, line breaks and paragraphs are indispensable tools in the arsenal of effective communication, serving to bridge the gap between writer and reader and facilitate the successful exchange of ideas and arguments.
Loved this video, but I did have a hard time following what was our timeline and what was alt history. I'm not well versed on early 1900s Russia and it's midnight, but I still suggest thinking about how to make them more distinct to passive viewers like me
So... Uhm... Why the sudden jump from Trostky defending to White victory? I know that you fixed some stuff with the reupload, but I still find some thkngs strange... Anyway, thanks for going into more details this time!
This entire video felt oddly structured; the introduction to the divergence went for far too long and did not offer any new information if you (like me) know the very basics of the late Tsardom. Cody only glanced over the Kadets, Mensheviks, and SRs (who would probably be even more divided in this timeline), who were all important factions. He gave details of how early campaigns played out but then just said, "and the Whites reconquered Belarus and, like, 40% of Ukraine". This is at the same time he said the Entente just gave up on the Whites. I love Cody, but this was a very underwhelming video and did not bother with the actual interesting case of what a right-wing Russia would look like in the 20th century.
Alright video, but given the litany of internal strife and conflicts within the white movement (including peasant revolts behind their lines, anarchist/socialist insurgencies and defections); I highly doubt the whites would win, let alone under Kolchak. Its also worth mentioning that even without Lenin and with so many socialist parties and factions, they and the Russian populace were able to self organize autonomous soviets and armies. I wouldn't put it past other socialists to take in the reigns and win against the whites.
My thoughts, too. The Russian Whites lacked any kind of unifying vision other than bring back the old days, which a majority of people did not want. Also allied support was bound to dwindle after WW1 ended and their war-weary economies began rebuilding.
@@Oxtocoatl13 I was genuinely surprised to hear that right after Cody talk about just that... the whites just won unceremoniously. Like.... what? Why???? The aid was just cut off! Also the idea that without Lenin there isn't enough of a red scare or that communists aren't as big of a factor is horse shit great man theory.
@@Oxtocoatl13 I think some sort of Red victory was always the likely outcome, because the peasants were never gonna support The Whites. But the idea of Kolchak renewing the war against Turkey was quite amusing.
The point of his videos isn’t entirely realism, which he’s mentioned before, it’s simply an interesting exercise in alternative history. That’s not to say he isn’t trying to be realistic where he can, it’s just some scenarios are interesting. It’s similar to “what if the nazis won WW2” or “what if the confederacy won the civil war (or simply survived it)”.
I'm not sure about Russia recapturing entire Belarus. Poland controlled Minsk in 1919 and they'd probably push even further because they wanted to keep Russia as far away from the polish heartland as possible. Additionally Belarusian national movement and militias would probably work with Poles provided that their statehood would be secured. Ukraine would also be rather willing to align with Poland provided they'd settle their border issues. Whether they'd backstab each other later is a different question
>Ukraine would also be rather willing to align with Poland provided they'd settle their border issues. Which they wouldn't. It's not a few km here and there it's area somewhere between current day Przemyśl and current day Ternopil -- around 90 000km^2
@@Poctyk Ukraine wasn't one state though. At this point, they were Ukraine (Kiev) and West Ukraine (Galicia). OTL, Kiev was willing to abandon West Ukraine (Which was invaded by Poland), in order to provide a united front against Russia with the Poles. So it's not unrealistic that they would work together in this scenario.
To be honest, this scenario seemed kinda lackluster to me. So far, the history turned out to be pretty much the same, even without Lenin at the helm. However, Trotsky was still ruling the RSFSR, and he was the guy credited with basically founding and organizing the red army at the time. And it gradually became more organized than their white counterparts. I can't see the way that the whites will win in this scenario, especially with the smaller help from the west. I think that you could've done a better job at this, exploring the other parties besides the bolsheviks and their potential impact on the politics of the future russia. But still, you are making content, and that's what matters. Keep up the great work!
Hold up, what about Nestor Makhino? There was a massive anarchist revolution in Ukraine around the same time. And wouldn't the lack of Lenin's blundering the Western leftist tactics mean that the German communist revolution at the end of WWI would go differently? At least, failing in a different, interesting way without being able to rely on support from Russia.
Yeah strictly speaking IRL it didn't included, but there was a lot of chances, maybe they or others are used here. In 1917 there were talks between Ukraine and Crimea, though main Ukrainian policy was respecting Crimean Tatars self-determination. In 1918 Ukrainian govermnent could have pushed claims more actively after Crimean Operation and Bolbochan's work in it. Also later Skoropadskyi's government had talks with Crimean Regional Government that didn't quite reached the finish, probably nothing come here because of the Germans postponing the fate of Crimea
There was an idea to create a federative state from Ukrainian People's Republic, West Ukrainian People's Republic, Crimean People's Republic, and Kuban People's Republic but official talks concerning this never happened
I don't see how Kolchak could manage to pull off a naval invasion, if not even tsarist Russia was able to do that. Turkey still had the ex SMS Goeben and no enemys to the north while the russian black sea fleet was already in 1918 a shadow of it's former self.
That is not correct. The Greeks, French and Italians have already taken most of turkey's coast and Constantinople was promised to Russia after WW1 by the peace treaty and turkey would have lost if the reds didn't supply them let alone a new front + no supplies
why do you say "tsarist russia" like there was any other russia? And why "tsarist" and not how it really was, just russia? Or at least "emperor's russia"? An emperor ruled russia, not a "tsar". You are mistaken by several hundred years
@@bongodongo9229 1 - imperial russia, not "tsarist" do not marginalize russia by ascribing exotic 500 years old words to it. 2 - russia has never been comunist. There is literally no such thing as "comunist russia". The ussr isn't russia. Nor officially nor in fact. Comunists hate russia and russians and it was official that the ussr has absolutely *no* relations to russia. Don't use this illiterate stereotype. It's as ridiculous, even more ridiculous really, as when you call the great britain england
This video sounds like it wasn’t you who wrote it. It just sounds as if some random alt historian wrote it with his own ideals rather than based on history. Your other videos included in depth analysis with uncertainties while this is just a fanfic
9:32 the coup didn't just dissipate. It was stopped by Russian workers, for example by railway workers blocking railroads. No railway works without railway workers. This actions of the workers wouldn't have happened if Kerensky didn't go into a tactical alliance with the Bolsheviks.
To be fair, everything about the Whites was disorganized and conditions varied wildly between different fronts. One thing that seriously reduced terror victims was that the Whites were continously short of manpower, and tended to forcibly conscript captured reds instead of herding them to a firing squad.
Im not convinced that the non-bolshevik reds would necessarily loose in this timeline. They‘d be much more divided, of course, and lack as clear a vision. However, they also would not alienate important allies, like the Social Revolutinary Party with its appeal to the peasents or the many left wing movements among the secessionists. Also, they would have more sympathy from socialists and social democrats in Britan, France and Germany, making allied interventions more politically difficult than in our timeline.
Not needed. The invasion would have gone poorly, their troops would have been cut off and destroyed, and in anything it might have ended the war in the pacific sooner (but even then that’s somewhat unlikely)
So basiclly by the end in this timeline Russia and Germany swap places with Russia becoming fascist and Germany potentially becoming communist.... as well as the detail that Russa takes Istanbul which kinda adds an extremely wacky angle to this since certain people would see this as a major reason to support a fascist Russia.
Actually, Germany would be even less likely turning communists as everyone would see Soviet Russia not being victories but the war either being a crawl or the Reds slowly loosing, so not SPD would still backstab KPD and as the first socialist state fails, KPD would receive less support from German workers who now would rather vote for SPD who would still want to achieve workers right but now without a civil war which is likely to turn into a dictatorship. Speaking of a turning into a dictatorship - since there wouldn't be a good boogeyman that was USSR, NSDAP would too receive less votes that would instead go to just nationalist parties like DNVP, DVP, etc, meaning that whilst Weimar Republic has a higher chance of retaining its democracy due to a bigger SPD and maybe other moderate parties, conservative parties would become bigger too which means Schleicher's plot of turning Germany into a dictatorship is more likely to succeed. But don't forget that mister H is still there, so overall Weimar republic would still have a lot of radicalism And don't forget that SRs in Russia weren't vanquished, meaning that due to their popular support it is still possible for the Russian State to become a democracy, as keep in mind that Mensheviks for a long time had a majority support. Or a moustache man would gain power - Boris Savinkov.
Ideologies are often just vehicles for power. At the point this video ends on, while a reactionary regime, Russia would not necessarily be self described as "fascist", a name that more relates to Italy, which would likely still take place. Now, in practice, Russia would behave in a rather fascist way, but I think might be more likely governed by the army. It would be brutal, messy, and it would still alienate just as many as the Soviets. The only difference being, that by making Sevres take place, you now have an equally revanchist Turkey. The web of alliances are hard to predict, but Sevres makes the entry of Turkey into any future WW2 far more likely. But for reality in Russia, not much changes, whether by Junta or Soviet, it will be ruled by a strongman autocrat, who might try to industrialize to prepare for the coming conflict (Russia would be farely fascist in it's goals to reform the empire), and the most significant internal change is a far more militarized society... So yeah, I guess you're right, it would be fascist as we see it, but it's also possible that fascism in Italy refuses to cooperate with Russia, or maybe it does. hard to say, as Mussolini would just be coming into power as this video ends, and how he chooses to move forward might very well define future conflicts. Given the socialists succeeding in Germany, as Cody describes, it's equally likely they succeed in Turkey, and the 20's and 30's would essentially be a 3 way battle for influence between the new socialists (Germany and Turkey), the reactionaries (Italy and Russia), and the entente, along with other countries shifting their interests to the sway of the others. The balkans and central europe would be hotly contested, and you might have some revolutions succeed where others failed in our timeline, although German/Turkish support would be limited. But, there are a lot of variables, and the great depression would likely be the trigger behind a wave of changes. The Istanbul part is an interesting mention though, as in Sevres, Turkey was planned to have zones of influence, with Istanbul being an international zone, and making a push for it might cause massive consequences. Although, a weakened Turkey would also be in little room to fight back, and if the allies fall back, yeah, they might just snatch it free by the 30s. Still, I doubt they'd be able to industrialize as fast as the Germans, so you might see them make pushes on some neighbors but hold off until the 40's on Poland. Who knows, many possibilities.
Greece becomes the Fascist Italy of this timeline, Yeah its Communist Germany, Italy vs Fascist Russia and Greece Who the Allies with support is up for grabs.
Hi Cody. While I love the content, I do have one concern. I sometimes find it difficult to understand what is happening in your alternate timeline vs. what happened in our actual timeline. I think you may have used the word "would" to describe alternate events in past videos, and "did" or "was" in our prime timeline. But now, "did" or "was" seems to be the tense you're using interchangeably now. I'm sure some of it is me; I'm listening to your videos as part of my workday rather than actively watching, but I still get lost even then. I don't know what you should do with your scripts to make it clearer,, but maybe me saying something will flip a switch? Thanks for hearing me out; love your work.
Having just gotten to this and the Chernobyl video, I agree completely. The Chernobyl video was even harder than this one for me to categorize events, but I kinda thought it was just me.
Exept the Battletech one was much more competent. There is also a Japanese WW2 officer with a surename Kurita and Steiner after whom was named a failed counteroffensive during the Battle of Berlin.
I think this timeline is interesting, but some of it is also hard to forecast. I think we still get a Pacific War brought about by Japanese expansion. Mussolini still becomes fascist dictator of Italy. But we're in a timeline with no Red Scare (which affects the political spectrum in the USA), Nazis being weak or nonexistent in Germany, and Russia being another generic authoritarian regime.` Without the Nazis and commies screwing them over from both sides, Weimar Germany probably limps along through the Great Depression and maybe eventually becomes stable and prosperous under Social Democrat leadership. (Not only did the communist threat give the Nazis a threat to counter, but the German communists hated the German socialists so they teamed up with the Nazis in the Reichstag to sabotage everything they could because the one thing they had in common was the goal of bringing down Weimar.) Russia is eventually headed toward revolution unless Kolchak's successor in the 1930s or 1940s implements reforms. Would Kolchak's Russia have joined the League of Nations? If so, without the Nazis or the Soviets is the League (or at least Europe on behalf of the League) willing to stand up to Mussolini when he starts getting expansionist? What does the Spanish Civil War look like without the Soviets or Nazis?
(I haven't finished yet and might edit later) Trotsky likely wouldn't take power, he wasn't as big of a figure as he is often made out to be at this point, it wasn't until after the revolution in the Bolshevik government that he began becoming really important, this was because before this he wasn't even really a Bolshevik and frequently had falling outs with the party (as he wasn't a member yet). Overall there were significantly more important people than Trotsky who would take power long before he would at this point.
18:43 Not sure why you didn't mention Lithuania here considering the Polish-Lithuanian war over Vilnius was a notable event in the region and heavily tarnished Poland's reputation on the world stage This would highly bolster Lithuanian nationalism as it would later launch a blitz into French occupied Klaipeda (Memel) in 1923
This video was harder to follow than most of your other videos. I think it's a combination of me not knowing the details of Russian history and Cody using the past tense for both real history and alternate history, instead of the conditional tense for the alternate timeline.
ive heard/read stories from the german side during that final russian offensive about how the germans would hear fighting from the russian trenches, they werent shooting at the germans, but fighting each other, and russian solders would come to the german side to surrender to them because of the fighting in the russian trenches, thats wild if you ask me
everything would be the same because stalin just continued everything lenin did. Lenin = stalin. They had the same policy. Lenin was a bloody murderer.
I was in the USSR a little before its collapse. I had to stay on a plane as we made a connecting flight in Moscow. We had to take an alternate flight from Japan to Germany after an earthquake damaged the runway. The adult I wax with was a government employee, not a spy just an accountant, so they made us stay on the plane. It was scary at the time but the staff was so nice. We got escorted to a staircase to the plane from Moscow to Bonn our destination. The coup was only a few months later.
3:24 No idea what Polish Sybiracy have to do with Russian industrialization? That painting entitled “Farewell to Europe” by Aleksander Sochaczewski in 1894 depicts the aftermath of the Polish January Uprising of 1863 where participant of said uprising are being sent to Katorga, or penal colonies in Siberia.
why did you say "katorga" the word that doesn't exist instead of a normal "prison"? Stop using new words just to make an impression of something terrible and scary because people are naturally afraid of things they don't know
@@asbest2092 Katorga was a type of punishment in the Russian Empire. It was neither a location nor a prison, it was basically being forced into slavery in Syberia. Arguably worse than a prison.
@@mastercalabaster9824 Imagine you live in new york, then you commited a crime, you *killed* some government official and for that you were just sent to live in a small town in texas for several years. That's all, that is your punishment for killing a government official. And you DARE to call it slavery? While there is even no slavery in the whole country? You clearly *mistake russia for the ussr.* There was slavery in the ussr, there were labor camps where prisoners were literally forced to work really hard for food. And those weren't villages but confined areas with barbe wire walls and machine gun towers. You have a picture of it in your head, you probably heard about it somewhere, but you don't know the history and you simply don't even know when in time it was and you assume it was somewhere in the times of the russian empire. No, it was in the ussr soon after the comunists seized power. It wasn't there in the russian empire.
1:01 I wouldn't use the word "manipulation" for Lenin. Lenin was a brilliant speaker and writer and sometimes polemic, but he was always open about what he thought and wanted to be done.
I’ve been watching you since I was 9 and I’m 19 in January and I’ve loved your content ever since!!! Best alternate history channel I’ve ever come across!!! :)
I feel like he's missing some contexts for this video, like Trotsky being a Menshevik before switching to the B wing, or that Central Asia had its own independence movements
@@ayyyyph2797 There's also the question of what The Germans would have been doing. Does this alt. Red government sign something like Brest Litovsk, or does it try to continue the war?
Hey so this is an inaccurate picture of the Kornilov affair. Kornilov did not coup the Kerensky government, he believed the Kerensky government had been overthrown in a communist plot so and sent aid to help Kerensky, but Kerensky thought he was being couped so released the communists, inadvertely creating the takeover Kornilov wrongfully believed happened.
Glad to see the video reuploaded - the audio sounds better already, and I'm less than five minutes in. Again, interesting video at a great time in my personal research phase
Why is it each of these alternate history scenarios are something I really want to play a HOI4 game of. I mean if they can do a Germany WW1 victory mod, why not a dead in 1917 Lenin mod, or a dead in 1918 Hitler mod, actually yeah: what if Hitler was killed in WW1, I'd love to see that.
I think that Russia will eventually reform and industrialize whether it will be under the banner of the Soviet Union or another faction, because the people of Russia were simply fed up with the country not being reformed.
I'd make a case for the Haitan revolution being as radical or moreso than the Bolshevik Revolution. It transformed from a conflict over Emancipation to a literal race war, where White and Black men killed each other in the score. Now, it was not as impactful as the October Revolution, but to say it wasn't as radical...I'd disagree.
A idea related to this video: "What if the Soviet Union successfully transitioned into a Federation in 1991?" I personally see two plausible divergence points. The first would be having the coup in Moscow at the time, not happen. Gorbachev's party reforms could have involved having the foresight to replace the future coup leaders. Then, while admittedly unsteady, the people's faith in Moscow could have been maintained long enough for the USS to become a reality. The second divergence point could be having the USSR better prepared to handle transitioning their economy into a mixed one. The USSR was already dying a slow economic death, and reform would have been required to save it anyway. The main problem with the transition was that the USSR was woefully underprepared. Their self-assessments were highly divorced from reality due to flagrant corruption, and they didn't even have an idea about what the new economy would look like and no idea what guidance to give to the businesses undergoing this transition. Correcting either of those mistakes would have lessened the economic turmoil that would happen, maybe even giving the Soviet economy a fighting chance. What would that look like, and how long would it last? (Edited for grammar)
Go to groundnews.com/alternate to see how history influences politics and stay better informed. Get 40% off their unlimited access Vantage plan.
Yk what? Fuck this *unalternates your history hub*
❤
Please do what if indonesia turned communist! Ma and many other of your viewers are indonesian and we would like to see what this alternate timeline would look like
Part 2 please 🙏 love your videos
i wonder if poland would never be invaded by germany, because theres no big commie bookieman, maybe hitler does his stunt on france instead. no war declared, then they just him poland afterwards.
And worst of all, we’d be robbed of one of the greatest TH-cam videos of all time: “Complete History Of The Soviet Union, Arranged To The Melody of Tetris”
I am the man who arranges the blocks
That continue to fall from up above.
They come two weeks late…
@@gzer0xand they don’t tesselate
@@solgerWhyIsThereAnAtItLooksBadbut we're working to Stalin's 5 year plan
The three musketeers of AH:
What if X nation never formed?
What if X nation never collapsed?
What if X person never existed?
Ah yes, the three nevers of alternate history
@@arthurgabriel2625exactly
Don't forget
"What if X nation won Y war?""
or
"What If Aliens existed during X time and were invading Earth?"
And the lesser known, but no less important, Alien Space Bats.
@@Robbie-pc1dlnot the second one
I’ve watched you since 2015 man, it’s 2024 and I’m still watching you
been here the whole time too, what a journey.
It's good for business
- By your friendly neighbour CIA agent
We all appreciate Jimmy
What if you kicked a rock in different direction in your childhood, would you've still watched him since '15, find out in next episode of Alternate history
Back in 2017 I got divorced, and in the time following I had problems falling a sleep. Too much noise in my head. So I begun listening to history-youtube-content at bedtime. Just to think at something ells than my own thoughts. I came across your channel, but your videos did not make me fall a sleep faster, but I was entertained ... and I have been here since. Thanks Cody
WHAT IF THOMASARNT2933 NEVER GOT DIVORCED???????????????????? WOULD HE STILL KEEP THE KIDS?????????????
Nb:
"Something *else* than my own thoughts..."
Also (this is a minor point) "begun" is the past participle, whereas "began" is the past tense. That sentence should read: "So I began listening to history..."
edit - You're doing VERY well. Your English is already better than many people for whom English is their native tongue. Don't be discouraged.
LOL LOSER GET DIVORCED LMAO 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Wow bro... @@Raz.C
Among us
Here's a scenario:
What if Alexander III got his head out of his ass and actually trained Nicholas II to be Tsar? That's something that often gets overlooked. Alexander III hated his son, and never trained Nicholas to rule Russia.
I'd like that What If. I find it funny that his dad hated him but Nicholas was a HUGE family man. Loved his wife and kids
@@privateeyety5735 Because you never want what happened to yourself happen to your own children
Alexander III said he would train Nicholas to be Tsar after his turned thirty...then went and died when Nicky was still in his twenties. But to be fair no-one expected the 6'3 giant who could tie silverware into knots and hold up a train carriage roof on his own to die at 49
I usually wonder what would've happened if Russia actually kept up with the rest of Europe and modernised itself. What if there were more Tsars like Katherine the great and Alexander the second? Just imagine what an actually competent Russian parliament would be like? A constitutional monarchy early on?
@@The-Vappy The USSR is an example of what a modern, industrialized Russian Empire would have been like
its horrifying to imagine that, in this timeline, tim curry never escapes to the one place not corrupted by capitalism
SSSSPACE
😂
Sadly thats being corrupted by capitalism as well...
@@AvelierPlays 🥳
Boohoo@@AvelierPlays
What if Zambia won the space race?
The world would be an unaparallel utopia with equality for all and the establishment of the united galaxies of zambia who would rule over our lands for an eternity
YES YES YES PLEASE PLEASE Alternate History lords send me to that timeline!!!!
@@morbiusenjoyer2847cap
@@FriedrichWerner-so7rb Double cap
We’d be on mars by 1980 and colonies in 1983
"Lenin didn't take power."
Nicholas II: So I and my family will be spared right?
......
Nicholas II: We'll be spared, right?
Depends if you have a secret escape zeppelin in the garage.
@@Edax_RoyeauxWhat garage?
It wasn't even an order, it was a drunken squad of Red Army soldiers that were scared as White Army forces were approaching, and potentially going to capture the royal family.
The killing of the Romanovs was a result of their insufferable rule over the Russian people. They would have been killed in any timeline. It's a canon event.
@@igrex. They live if they only had the foresight to escape.
Nicholas was not uncaring for the Russians who died in the stampede, he literally planned on canceling it to pray but was pressured to do it anyway by his advisers.
They always condemn the Tsar Martyr, no matter what he did in real life. Meanwhile, they praise Ulyanov, Bronstein, Sverdlov and Djugashvili who murdered millions for no apparent reason.
His ministers were the problem, Czar Nicholas even mentioned it to Kaiser Wilhelm.
Idk kinda hard to see. Trotsky was in our timeline responsible for organizing the Red Army into the force that won the war. Even without Lenin, it’d be hard to argue the Red Army would have truly been substantially weaker than in our timeline.
I’d be highly inclined to agree. Trotsky was a military genius who build the Red Army. Him losing the war despite having the industrial advantage doesn’t seem likely.
But could Trotsky have kept the Soviet Union together politically? The Party mostly didn't like him and the Cheka certainly didn't. Perhaps the only way he could have done it would have been y becoming a Soviet Bonaparte. Exactly what Stalin was accusing him of
What if the real revolutionary change was the friends we made along the way.
😊
Lazy 🥱
@@balabanasiretihow sad is your life that you have to just shit on someone making a harmless joke in the Internet, touch fucking grass dude.
Revolution, but with Friends theme song
Friends that were sent to gulag along the way? 🥲
What if Kazakhstan never left the Soviet Union?
Realistically nothing as Kazakhstan was the last state to leave meaning it's not much of a union with one state just what if Kazakhstan stayed communist
It was actually the last member, Russia had already left and it actually took the Soviet of Nationalities to dissolve for them to finally not be in it "On 16 December 1991, the Kazakh SSR became the last republic to formally secede from the Soviet Union, causing the Soviet Union to neither control any territory nor claim to control any territory (although Soviet embassies still existed)."
Kazakhstan and Transnistria; some of the last holdouts of command economy in the old world.
@@smalltime0 I wonder why the communists who failed to prevent Russia from leaving the Soviet Union didn't just seize power in a different soviet republic?
@@smalltime0They already knew that 🤯🤯🤯
If the Soviet Union never formed, we wouldn't have the amazing Command & Conquer: Red Alert series, and Cody wouldn't have made his Red Alert video. We would never have Tim Curry in a career defining role.
And Tom Clancy wouldn't have written some of his works
And btw C&C ZH was better imo
I'm escaping to the ONE PLACE that HASN'T been CORRUPTED BY CAPITALISM!
SPACE!
No North Korea no China Xi ping no dominance communist no Cold War
@@jepbarhalmyradov9135 Actually the Tom Clancy would still write his works its just that the actors would be different
"Peace, Land and Bread!"
"Peace, Land and Bread!!"
Stalin: How about none of the above, vodka and you get gulag if you dont like it?
"okay....."
@9:00 Kornilov never launched a coup. It was a miscommunication where one of Kerensky's secretaries deliberately misinterpreted one of Kornilov's communications as an attempt to get rid of him since he was a political rival. Instead of waiting for Kornilov to clarify what he mean, as his entire cabinet except for the deliverer of the letter recommended, Kerensky ordered Kornilov's arrest. Of course no one wanted to arrest Kornilov for a treason he never committed and so Kerensky, instead of backing down, decided to ally with the Soviets to get rid of him. It was not Kerensky choosing a lesser evil, it was him being a stubborn idiot.
Do you have a source of that? I read a bit about the times between the February and October revolutions but never encountered that theory.
From what I know he wanted to be made dictator (at least temporary, i.E. in the Roman sense) and then decided to march to the capital without the orders of the government, which must be treated as a coup-attempt, regardless of his real motives, which might never be known, as he was stopped before he could do much. Also from what I know he was clearly marching against the government after Kerensky officially removed him from his office as commander-in-chief. At that time it was objectively a coup, regardless of his original motives.
This is not quite right either, a right wing faction was coalescing around Kornilov and probably would’ve pushed for a coup eventually. Kerensky exacerbated the situation by giving the most insane mixed signals in history, then his aide went to meet with kornilov and mistakenly gave him the impression kerensky was planning to let him be dictator, they discuss this possibility on the aide’s own initiative. Then as the aide is leaving one of Kornilov’s own aides makes a throwing away comment about getting rid of kerensky (thinking the aide was on board because everyone in this story is misunderstanding everyone else) which freaks out kerensky’s aide so badly he tells kerensky but mistakenly gives his boss the impression that the discussion the aide had initiated about a theoretical kornilov dictatorship (which the aide mistakenly gave kornilov the impression *Kerensky* approved of) represented kornilovs own demands. This scared the shit out of Kerensky, and there was a communication between the K’s via telegraph. This was another misunderstanding filled mess that caused the situation to spiral further out of control.
Based on my limited knowledge, I believe Kolchak winning the civil war is totally unrealistic. Even if he was militarily succesful, wich was already unlikely, he would have been quickly overthrown anyway, for his political supppot was meagre and his enemies too many. I believe it would have been much more likely that both Kolckak and Trotsky were eventually overthorwn and that Russia ended it's civil war being ruled by the Mensheviks and the moderate socialists with a compromise between the red and the white armies.
SRs not menshiviks*
I was kind of thinking the same, but the Whites winning is a much more dramatic departure. That said, the Whites did a pretty thorough job of alienating everyone who wasn't a diehard monarchist. Also, without the Bolsheviks in power, the Czechoslovak Legion might not have gotten involved in the civil war.
Without Lenin, the bolsheviks would most likely have collaborated with the left SRs and menshevik internationalists. Trotsky was good friends with Martov, and had initially been a menshevik, he only joined the bolsheviks after Lenin returned to Russia. So Russia being ruled by a revolutionary coalition seems likely
This is an interesting contention
the biggest change in this timeline is that without stalin there are possibly as much as 150 million more russians and ukrainians on the planet
not only did stalin preside over multuple devastating famines after the civil war, but his government also nuked russian fertility because of his hardcore antireligion policies and distribution of both contraceptives and abortion
there were tens of millions of abortions under stalin that probably wouldn't happen with a moderate or conservative government
so whatever direction russia goes, as long as the russian civil war is the worst of it, they are probably a superpower today with 300+ million ethnic russians/ukrainians
Happy for reupload
E
I was wondering about that
thanks i thought i deja vued an entire video
What changed?
@@АнтонПирожков-б8гhe just re voiced it cuz the old one sounded like he was very tired
A timeline so inconceivable it required a second upload!
E
what if- this video successfully uploaded the first time?
I don't think that word means what you think it means 😂
@@jper4911there would be no second upload jokes
Petition for a sequel for this video
I really love how Cody's art really improved over the years, especially the character designs look so good
Lenin: "the ends will justify the means.."
The ends: *shoes made in Vietnam*
Great video! However, I have a few counterpoints to this scenario:
First, its unlikely that the Bolsheviks in particular would have come to power instead of some other socialist group in the absence of the October Revolution. The Bolsheviks were always a minority, even within the socialist movement. When elections for the Constituent Assembly were held, the Bolsheviks only won a quarter of the seats. The absence of strong Bolshevik leadership would have likely only empowered other socialist factions like the SRs and Mensheviks.
Second, even if the Bolsheviks had taken power, I doubt Trotsky would have ever become the leader of the provisional government. Most of the Bolshevik leadership deeply distrusted Trotsky. This was mainly because he did not become a Bolshevik until August 1917, while the rest of the leadership had been Bolsheviks for years. Without Lenin, its unlikely Trotsky would have even become a Bolshevik in the first place.
Third, Kerensky is unlikely to have been removed as the head of the provisional government without armed force. After the Kornilov affair, Kerensky essentially made himself dictator of the provisional government. It’s not like he could have just been voted out.
Fourth, I’m not clear on how the Bolsheviks taking control of the provisional government instead of overthrowing it would have made the Reds perform worse in the Civil War. If anything, coming to power through legitimate means instead of an armed coup would have given the Reds more legitimacy in the eyes of the Russian people. This would have given the Reds more support during the civil war from SRs, Mensheviks, and maybe even Kadets. The Whites were deeply unpopular during the civil war, even among critics of the Bolsheviks. Anything that would have given the Bolsheviks more legitimacy would have helped them.
Your last point is really poignant. The bolsheviks drove tons of more moderate socialists to the Whites with their relentless power grabbing. If the SRs and Mensheviks stayed with the Reds, then taking control of the productive countryside would be that much easier.
Inclined to agree.
The Reds would have been much less well organised without Lenin, but they would also have had many fewer enemies.
So it balances out.
The point of his videos isn’t entirely realism, which he’s mentioned before, it’s simply an interesting exercise in alternative history. That’s not to say he isn’t trying to be realistic where he can, it’s just some scenarios are interesting. It’s similar to “what if the nazis won WW2” or “what if the confederacy won the civil war (or simply survived it)”.
The strength of the Bolsheviks was their connection with the Soviets, which were independent councils of workers that acted as the de facto government in many parts of Russia by the outbreak of the Civil War. That is a major reason why they launched the revolution in the first place.
"The Whites were deeply unpopular "
The Whites weren't a unified front at all but consisted of disunified factions of Reformists, Absolute Monarchists, and Anti-communists who fought each other as much as the Reds.
Scenario Idea: What if the Swiss expansion never stopped and Switzerland subsequently became a major power?
Sir, you might be a genius.
@@Donerci_Pikacu_Usta
Might? Tis a certainty
HoI4 Alpine Confederation moment
this is an awesome idea
the swiss unexpectedly gets bavaria, half of austria and tyrol.
I think you've poorly researched Russia's 19th century and early 20th century political and radical terrorists/revolutionary scene. Bolsheviks were largely held together by Lenin without him they'd be a lot less organised or able to co-opt the spontaneous worker-soldier bodies (soviets), if anything other socialist factions like the mensheviks and SRs would be in a far better position, because in our tl it was not that the bolsheviks were the most popular (the SRs were because Russia was an agrarian peasant state and the SRs and their progenitors, the norodniks, spent their entire existence building a socialist base among the peasants) but that they became the most organised and able to adapt quickly to the changed situation, considering a frequent criticism of the bolsheviks by mensheviks was that they were a Lenin cult, without him I don't see that happening. In our tl Lenin did hold elections but then dissolved the constituent assembly in less than a day because the bolsheviks did not get a majority nor were they the largest party. So even if the provisional government collapses in this tl (maybe but I think it's more likely that it'd dissolve itself and hold elections) power would go to the new constituent assembly, sure it wouldn't be stable but I doubt a civil war of the kind we had irl would happen, even the tsar's execution seems unlikely. People tend to forget that a lot of the menshevik and the SR leaders were talented politicians, Martov (a menshevik) even managed to win against Stalin in a revolutionary court case against him started by Stalin (stacked against him) and even humiliated the bolsheviks in the congress of soviets (they controlled) by playing to the gallery. Nations declaring independence would still happen and there might've been fighting to take them back and/or a lot of political back and forth, but in the absence of complete power being wrested by a group like the bolsheviks trying to build a vanguardist state, I doubt the whites would've been able to rise up or do so to a limited degree, considering a lot of their legitimacy and justification otl came from the loose big tent grouping of moderate leftists, liberals, monarchists/reactionaries and ultranationalists anti-semitic organisations working with them to bring the bolsheviks down, plus without measures like war communism peasants are not gonna rise up either (irl "green armies"). Instead of civil war it'd likely be terrorist activities, small scale uprisings and the like trying to destabilise the new state (minus nationalist movements and new states formed which could cause a full scale war after Germans are forced to leave, but if that happens there'd be even less justification for white generals to rise up), now whether this social democratic state would survive the 20s or 30s, I dunno, could very well end up like Weimar Germany.
wow that’s a lot of words. Too bad I can’t read
Yes, without Lenin, there would have been no October revolution, and with the Bolsheviks disunited, no Russian Civil War. The 15 years from 1917 to 1923 might have seen Russia stablize and independent Ukraine, Belarus, Baltic States, and Caucasus States. Different 20th century.
line breaks are your friend and will help you out considerably if you want people to actually read what you have to say. "Walls of text" are difficult to go through and take all the information in. That's why paragraphs exist, to break ideas up into smaller bite size components that are then made up of sentences. "Walls of text" are notorious for their ability to repel readers, acting as impenetrable barriers to the comprehension and retention of information. They are akin to facing an imposing fortress with no clear path to navigate, leaving the reader feeling overwhelmed and disoriented. The inherent problem lies in their dense and uninterrupted nature, lacking the crucial breaks and divisions necessary for facilitating understanding and engagement. A continuous stream of text offers no respite for the reader's eyes or mind, leading to cognitive fatigue and a diminished willingness to engage with the content. At its core, effective communication relies on the ability to convey ideas and arguments clearly and concisely. Line breaks and paragraphs serve as the scaffolding upon which this clarity is built, offering structure and organization to the text. They act as signposts, guiding the reader through the narrative or argument in a logical and digestible manner. By breaking the text into manageable chunks, paragraphs provide natural pauses that allow the reader to process information and reflect on its significance. This rhythmic cadence not only enhances comprehension but also fosters a sense of flow and momentum, keeping the reader actively engaged from start to finish. Furthermore, the strategic use of line breaks and paragraphs facilitates the effective presentation of complex ideas and arguments. By dividing the text into distinct sections, each with its own focus or subtopic, the writer can provide clarity and coherence to their narrative or argument. This segmentation allows for the gradual development and exploration of ideas, building upon each other in a structured and systematic fashion. Moreover, paragraphs offer the opportunity to introduce transitions and connective devices, seamlessly guiding the reader from one point to the next. This cohesive progression not only enhances understanding but also reinforces the overall coherence and persuasiveness of the text. In addition to aiding comprehension and organization, line breaks and paragraphs play a crucial role in enhancing readability and accessibility. In an age characterized by information overload and constant distractions, readers have increasingly limited attention spans and patience for dense and cumbersome text. Walls of text are a significant deterrent to engagement, causing readers to quickly lose interest and abandon the text altogether. In contrast, the judicious use of line breaks and paragraphs allows for the creation of visually appealing and reader-friendly content. By incorporating white space and visual breaks, the writer can alleviate the cognitive burden on the reader and create a more inviting and approachable reading experience. This not only encourages prolonged engagement but also ensures that the message reaches a wider audience, including those with varying levels of literacy and attention. Moreover, the strategic use of line breaks and paragraphs can have a profound impact on the overall effectiveness and persuasiveness of the text. By leveraging the visual elements of typography and layout, the writer can emphasize key points and create emphasis where needed. For example, the use of short paragraphs or bullet points can draw attention to important information, making it more memorable and impactful. Similarly, the strategic placement of line breaks can create dramatic pauses or moments of reflection, allowing the reader to fully absorb the significance of a particular statement or argument. These stylistic devices not only enhance the aesthetic appeal of the text but also reinforce its rhetorical power and persuasive intent. In conclusion, the detrimental effects of "walls of text" on effective communication cannot be overstated. They hinder comprehension, impede engagement, and detract from the overall readability and accessibility of the text. In contrast, the judicious use of line breaks and paragraphs offers a solution to these challenges, providing structure, organization, and coherence to the narrative or argument. By incorporating these visual elements into their writing, writers can create content that is not only more engaging and accessible but also more persuasive and impactful. As such, line breaks and paragraphs are indispensable tools in the arsenal of effective communication, serving to bridge the gap between writer and reader and facilitate the successful exchange of ideas and arguments.
@@RomanPhilosopher Are you making a sarcastic point?
@@zack3851 Most definitely, it’s supposed to be ironic
Loved this video, but I did have a hard time following what was our timeline and what was alt history. I'm not well versed on early 1900s Russia and it's midnight, but I still suggest thinking about how to make them more distinct to passive viewers like me
Yeah, most of his recent videos have felt that way. Dunno why.
So... Uhm... Why the sudden jump from Trostky defending to White victory? I know that you fixed some stuff with the reupload, but I still find some thkngs strange...
Anyway, thanks for going into more details this time!
Yeah this one is really weak compared to his other work.
This entire video felt oddly structured; the introduction to the divergence went for far too long and did not offer any new information if you (like me) know the very basics of the late Tsardom.
Cody only glanced over the Kadets, Mensheviks, and SRs (who would probably be even more divided in this timeline), who were all important factions. He gave details of how early campaigns played out but then just said, "and the Whites reconquered Belarus and, like, 40% of Ukraine". This is at the same time he said the Entente just gave up on the Whites.
I love Cody, but this was a very underwhelming video and did not bother with the actual interesting case of what a right-wing Russia would look like in the 20th century.
Alright video, but given the litany of internal strife and conflicts within the white movement (including peasant revolts behind their lines, anarchist/socialist insurgencies and defections); I highly doubt the whites would win, let alone under Kolchak. Its also worth mentioning that even without Lenin and with so many socialist parties and factions, they and the Russian populace were able to self organize autonomous soviets and armies. I wouldn't put it past other socialists to take in the reigns and win against the whites.
My thoughts, too. The Russian Whites lacked any kind of unifying vision other than bring back the old days, which a majority of people did not want. Also allied support was bound to dwindle after WW1 ended and their war-weary economies began rebuilding.
@@Oxtocoatl13 I was genuinely surprised to hear that right after Cody talk about just that... the whites just won unceremoniously. Like.... what? Why???? The aid was just cut off! Also the idea that without Lenin there isn't enough of a red scare or that communists aren't as big of a factor is horse shit great man theory.
Exactly what I was thinking
@@Oxtocoatl13
I think some sort of Red victory was always the likely outcome, because the peasants were never gonna support The Whites.
But the idea of Kolchak renewing the war against Turkey was quite amusing.
The point of his videos isn’t entirely realism, which he’s mentioned before, it’s simply an interesting exercise in alternative history. That’s not to say he isn’t trying to be realistic where he can, it’s just some scenarios are interesting. It’s similar to “what if the nazis won WW2” or “what if the confederacy won the civil war (or simply survived it)”.
Kim jong un would be working in a McDonald's in Pyongyang.
And secretly steal all the fries 😂
or he could be a member of a big chaebol, who knows
Nah he would work on the family farm
Not necessarily...he isn't dumb..he did very well at university!
He wouldn't get to go to university in Switzerland
I'm not sure about Russia recapturing entire Belarus. Poland controlled Minsk in 1919 and they'd probably push even further because they wanted to keep Russia as far away from the polish heartland as possible. Additionally Belarusian national movement and militias would probably work with Poles provided that their statehood would be secured. Ukraine would also be rather willing to align with Poland provided they'd settle their border issues. Whether they'd backstab each other later is a different question
>Ukraine would also be rather willing to align with Poland provided they'd settle their border issues.
Which they wouldn't. It's not a few km here and there it's area somewhere between current day Przemyśl and current day Ternopil -- around 90 000km^2
lol Pilsudski allowing Belarusian statehood is delusional
@@Poctyk Ukraine wasn't one state though. At this point, they were Ukraine (Kiev) and West Ukraine (Galicia). OTL, Kiev was willing to abandon West Ukraine (Which was invaded by Poland), in order to provide a united front against Russia with the Poles. So it's not unrealistic that they would work together in this scenario.
@@yellowyellow7476 Because there was none.
@@solsunman383 They would because they did. Problem was that Ukrainian government at the time was incompetent and collapsed.
To be honest, this scenario seemed kinda lackluster to me. So far, the history turned out to be pretty much the same, even without Lenin at the helm. However, Trotsky was still ruling the RSFSR, and he was the guy credited with basically founding and organizing the red army at the time. And it gradually became more organized than their white counterparts. I can't see the way that the whites will win in this scenario, especially with the smaller help from the west. I think that you could've done a better job at this, exploring the other parties besides the bolsheviks and their potential impact on the politics of the future russia.
But still, you are making content, and that's what matters. Keep up the great work!
Hold up, what about Nestor Makhino? There was a massive anarchist revolution in Ukraine around the same time. And wouldn't the lack of Lenin's blundering the Western leftist tactics mean that the German communist revolution at the end of WWI would go differently? At least, failing in a different, interesting way without being able to rely on support from Russia.
Ukraine didn't include Crimea in 1917/18 but otherwise a better video than the original
To be fair some UPR politicians intended to have Crimea in Ukraine as some era relevant maps had it, as well as North Caucasus, displayed
Yeah strictly speaking IRL it didn't included, but there was a lot of chances, maybe they or others are used here. In 1917 there were talks between Ukraine and Crimea, though main Ukrainian policy was respecting Crimean Tatars self-determination. In 1918 Ukrainian govermnent could have pushed claims more actively after Crimean Operation and Bolbochan's work in it. Also later Skoropadskyi's government had talks with Crimean Regional Government that didn't quite reached the finish, probably nothing come here because of the Germans postponing the fate of Crimea
There was an idea to create a federative state from Ukrainian People's Republic, West Ukrainian People's Republic, Crimean People's Republic, and Kuban People's Republic but official talks concerning this never happened
I don't see how Kolchak could manage to pull off a naval invasion, if not even tsarist Russia was able to do that. Turkey still had the ex SMS Goeben and no enemys to the north while the russian black sea fleet was already in 1918 a shadow of it's former self.
That is not correct. The Greeks, French and Italians have already taken most of turkey's coast and Constantinople was promised to Russia after WW1 by the peace treaty and turkey would have lost if the reds didn't supply them let alone a new front + no supplies
why do you say "tsarist russia" like there was any other russia? And why "tsarist" and not how it really was, just russia? Or at least "emperor's russia"? An emperor ruled russia, not a "tsar". You are mistaken by several hundred years
Try take it back know istanbul litterally more people than greece 😂@@baseddepartment285
@@asbest2092Well, tsarist Russia and communist Russia
@@bongodongo9229 1 - imperial russia, not "tsarist" do not marginalize russia by ascribing exotic 500 years old words to it.
2 - russia has never been comunist. There is literally no such thing as "comunist russia". The ussr isn't russia. Nor officially nor in fact. Comunists hate russia and russians and it was official that the ussr has absolutely *no* relations to russia.
Don't use this illiterate stereotype. It's as ridiculous, even more ridiculous really, as when you call the great britain england
Was this taken down? I remember seeing this pop up in my feed days ago
Yeah, I got like 3 minutes into it before it was removed
Think Cody said there were some audio issues that he wasn’t happy with
He wanted to fix the audio balancing
That wasn't just it. He padded out a lot of the points made in the previous upload.
@@TheRealSU24I was able to watch the entire video, thankfully
This video sounds like it wasn’t you who wrote it. It just sounds as if some random alt historian wrote it with his own ideals rather than based on history. Your other videos included in depth analysis with uncertainties while this is just a fanfic
Yea it was mid ngl
Yeah, this isn't one of his better videos.
Could be AI
Yeah something about this video didn't feel right. Felt very half baked. Even the delivery. His heart wasn't in this one
9:32 the coup didn't just dissipate. It was stopped by Russian workers, for example by railway workers blocking railroads. No railway works without railway workers. This actions of the workers wouldn't have happened if Kerensky didn't go into a tactical alliance with the Bolsheviks.
Glad to see this reuploaded, i was in the dead middle of it when you removed it, and i couldnt finish loading it 😢 i NEEDED IT
Wacky scenario idea: what if a modern country was sent back in time to the early 20th century or some other time period.
super earth here we come
I think there's already an alt history book about that. Takes place in the US Civil War I think
@@spoonsareoccasionallymadeo5728 The Guns of the South by Harry Turtledove
Ah, Kalinka effect, where a fantasy world gets "And then the balkans appeared"
Nantucket Island? There was a book series about that, I think...
The white terror is not considered by historians to be a top down event. It was spontaneous and disorganized.
I guess that helps explain why Cody found that it targeted everyone indiscriminately.
For a spontaneous and disorganized event it sure did kill a bunch of people
@@dasmodem887 Rwanda exists
It was 20.000 to 100.000, it was very little and disorganised. Dont forget, this is an ahistorical video.@dasmodem887
To be fair, everything about the Whites was disorganized and conditions varied wildly between different fronts. One thing that seriously reduced terror victims was that the Whites were continously short of manpower, and tended to forcibly conscript captured reds instead of herding them to a firing squad.
Im not convinced that the non-bolshevik reds would necessarily loose in this timeline.
They‘d be much more divided, of course, and lack as clear a vision. However, they also would not alienate important allies, like the Social Revolutinary Party with its appeal to the peasents or the many left wing movements among the secessionists.
Also, they would have more sympathy from socialists and social democrats in Britan, France and Germany, making allied interventions more politically difficult than in our timeline.
Hands up who wants a "If Japan invaded Australia" Video ✋️
That would be interesting.
🤚
Not needed. The invasion would have gone poorly, their troops would have been cut off and destroyed, and in anything it might have ended the war in the pacific sooner (but even then that’s somewhat unlikely)
✋
As an Australian I almost wholeheartedly believe we would have been better off if we had one
So basiclly by the end in this timeline Russia and Germany swap places with Russia becoming fascist and Germany potentially becoming communist.... as well as the detail that Russa takes Istanbul which kinda adds an extremely wacky angle to this since certain people would see this as a major reason to support a fascist Russia.
Actually, Germany would be even less likely turning communists as everyone would see Soviet Russia not being victories but the war either being a crawl or the Reds slowly loosing, so not SPD would still backstab KPD and as the first socialist state fails, KPD would receive less support from German workers who now would rather vote for SPD who would still want to achieve workers right but now without a civil war which is likely to turn into a dictatorship. Speaking of a turning into a dictatorship - since there wouldn't be a good boogeyman that was USSR, NSDAP would too receive less votes that would instead go to just nationalist parties like DNVP, DVP, etc, meaning that whilst Weimar Republic has a higher chance of retaining its democracy due to a bigger SPD and maybe other moderate parties, conservative parties would become bigger too which means Schleicher's plot of turning Germany into a dictatorship is more likely to succeed. But don't forget that mister H is still there, so overall Weimar republic would still have a lot of radicalism
And don't forget that SRs in Russia weren't vanquished, meaning that due to their popular support it is still possible for the Russian State to become a democracy, as keep in mind that Mensheviks for a long time had a majority support. Or a moustache man would gain power - Boris Savinkov.
Ideologies are often just vehicles for power. At the point this video ends on, while a reactionary regime, Russia would not necessarily be self described as "fascist", a name that more relates to Italy, which would likely still take place. Now, in practice, Russia would behave in a rather fascist way, but I think might be more likely governed by the army. It would be brutal, messy, and it would still alienate just as many as the Soviets.
The only difference being, that by making Sevres take place, you now have an equally revanchist Turkey. The web of alliances are hard to predict, but Sevres makes the entry of Turkey into any future WW2 far more likely. But for reality in Russia, not much changes, whether by Junta or Soviet, it will be ruled by a strongman autocrat, who might try to industrialize to prepare for the coming conflict (Russia would be farely fascist in it's goals to reform the empire), and the most significant internal change is a far more militarized society...
So yeah, I guess you're right, it would be fascist as we see it, but it's also possible that fascism in Italy refuses to cooperate with Russia, or maybe it does. hard to say, as Mussolini would just be coming into power as this video ends, and how he chooses to move forward might very well define future conflicts.
Given the socialists succeeding in Germany, as Cody describes, it's equally likely they succeed in Turkey, and the 20's and 30's would essentially be a 3 way battle for influence between the new socialists (Germany and Turkey), the reactionaries (Italy and Russia), and the entente, along with other countries shifting their interests to the sway of the others. The balkans and central europe would be hotly contested, and you might have some revolutions succeed where others failed in our timeline, although German/Turkish support would be limited. But, there are a lot of variables, and the great depression would likely be the trigger behind a wave of changes.
The Istanbul part is an interesting mention though, as in Sevres, Turkey was planned to have zones of influence, with Istanbul being an international zone, and making a push for it might cause massive consequences. Although, a weakened Turkey would also be in little room to fight back, and if the allies fall back, yeah, they might just snatch it free by the 30s. Still, I doubt they'd be able to industrialize as fast as the Germans, so you might see them make pushes on some neighbors but hold off until the 40's on Poland. Who knows, many possibilities.
Kolchak takes Constantinople and changes his name to Constantine XII.
Greece becomes the Fascist Italy of this timeline,
Yeah its Communist Germany, Italy vs Fascist Russia and Greece
Who the Allies with support is up for grabs.
Hi Cody. While I love the content, I do have one concern. I sometimes find it difficult to understand what is happening in your alternate timeline vs. what happened in our actual timeline. I think you may have used the word "would" to describe alternate events in past videos, and "did" or "was" in our prime timeline. But now, "did" or "was" seems to be the tense you're using interchangeably now. I'm sure some of it is me; I'm listening to your videos as part of my workday rather than actively watching, but I still get lost even then. I don't know what you should do with your scripts to make it clearer,, but maybe me saying something will flip a switch? Thanks for hearing me out; love your work.
Having just gotten to this and the Chernobyl video, I agree completely. The Chernobyl video was even harder than this one for me to categorize events, but I kinda thought it was just me.
Good job much better delivery than the previous version
Lol
Dude I have been wondering about this forever! Amazing video! It’s been years since I started watching and your videos never fail to impress me.
"What if Lenin never made it back to Russia?"
[Makhno has entered the chat]
I've been wondering why Kerensky was used as a name for a general in the Inner Sphere. You learn something every day.
Yep, this was the inspiration for his name.
Exept the Battletech one was much more competent. There is also a Japanese WW2 officer with a surename Kurita and Steiner after whom was named a failed counteroffensive during the Battle of Berlin.
@@lukalovric2463i don't think steiner ever DID the counteroffensive
What's The Inner Sphere
@@enderkatze6129 it’s a location in a sci-fi universe called battletech.
Man, those Spartacists would have a field day. Maybe, I don't know.
Just a day
I saw this uploaded a few days ago and thought I was going insane when I couldnt find it
Yeah, a mistake on the version before caused him to reupload
Make a part two please I feel like you only scratched the surface of this alt hist time-line
I think this timeline is interesting, but some of it is also hard to forecast.
I think we still get a Pacific War brought about by Japanese expansion. Mussolini still becomes fascist dictator of Italy.
But we're in a timeline with no Red Scare (which affects the political spectrum in the USA), Nazis being weak or nonexistent in Germany, and Russia being another generic authoritarian regime.`
Without the Nazis and commies screwing them over from both sides, Weimar Germany probably limps along through the Great Depression and maybe eventually becomes stable and prosperous under Social Democrat leadership. (Not only did the communist threat give the Nazis a threat to counter, but the German communists hated the German socialists so they teamed up with the Nazis in the Reichstag to sabotage everything they could because the one thing they had in common was the goal of bringing down Weimar.)
Russia is eventually headed toward revolution unless Kolchak's successor in the 1930s or 1940s implements reforms.
Would Kolchak's Russia have joined the League of Nations? If so, without the Nazis or the Soviets is the League (or at least Europe on behalf of the League) willing to stand up to Mussolini when he starts getting expansionist?
What does the Spanish Civil War look like without the Soviets or Nazis?
(I haven't finished yet and might edit later) Trotsky likely wouldn't take power, he wasn't as big of a figure as he is often made out to be at this point, it wasn't until after the revolution in the Bolshevik government that he began becoming really important, this was because before this he wasn't even really a Bolshevik and frequently had falling outs with the party (as he wasn't a member yet). Overall there were significantly more important people than Trotsky who would take power long before he would at this point.
Hmm.
Dunno who that would be.
Sverdlov became important as Lenin's fixer but I don't think he'd have come to prominence without Lenin.
18:43 Not sure why you didn't mention Lithuania here considering the Polish-Lithuanian war over Vilnius was a notable event in the region and heavily tarnished Poland's reputation on the world stage
This would highly bolster Lithuanian nationalism as it would later launch a blitz into French occupied Klaipeda (Memel) in 1923
Vilnius Region was the most polish part of Kresy. Foch Line, just sayin'.
This video has escaped to the ONE place not corrupted by audio issues.... REUPLOAD!
Great video! I look forward to a sequel!
This video was harder to follow than most of your other videos. I think it's a combination of me not knowing the details of Russian history and Cody using the past tense for both real history and alternate history, instead of the conditional tense for the alternate timeline.
ive heard/read stories from the german side during that final russian offensive about how the germans would hear fighting from the russian trenches, they werent shooting at the germans, but fighting each other, and russian solders would come to the german side to surrender to them because of the fighting in the russian trenches, thats wild if you ask me
I'm surprised the Makhnovshchina isn't way more successful in this timeline.
On the somewhat inverse, I want to know what would happen if Lenin lived (In relatively good health) to 1953 (Same year Stalin died OTL).
Absolutely.
everything would be the same because stalin just continued everything lenin did. Lenin = stalin. They had the same policy. Lenin was a bloody murderer.
this video seems different somehow. i dont know how to explain it but something feels off
Very few Jokes
I was in the USSR a little before its collapse. I had to stay on a plane as we made a connecting flight in Moscow. We had to take an alternate flight from Japan to Germany after an earthquake damaged the runway.
The adult I wax with was a government employee, not a spy just an accountant, so they made us stay on the plane. It was scary at the time but the staff was so nice.
We got escorted to a staircase to the plane from Moscow to Bonn our destination. The coup was only a few months later.
I'd love a vid on if the Sino-Soviet split never happened or was patched up in the 70s so much
Who else watched the original uppload?
I did, and I gotta say I'm happier with the reupload then the original.
@@IanPendleton-gh6ox I agree
@@IanPendleton-gh6oxthan*
What were the differences?
@@michaelt5188 I think the original had some audio issues.
3:24 No idea what Polish Sybiracy have to do with Russian industrialization? That painting entitled “Farewell to Europe” by Aleksander Sochaczewski in 1894 depicts the aftermath of the Polish January Uprising of 1863 where participant of said uprising are being sent to Katorga, or penal colonies in Siberia.
why did you say "katorga" the word that doesn't exist instead of a normal "prison"? Stop using new words just to make an impression of something terrible and scary because people are naturally afraid of things they don't know
@@asbest2092 Katorga was a type of punishment in the Russian Empire. It was neither a location nor a prison, it was basically being forced into slavery in Syberia. Arguably worse than a prison.
@@mastercalabaster9824 Imagine you live in new york, then you commited a crime, you *killed* some government official and for that you were just sent to live in a small town in texas for several years. That's all, that is your punishment for killing a government official. And you DARE to call it slavery? While there is even no slavery in the whole country?
You clearly *mistake russia for the ussr.* There was slavery in the ussr, there were labor camps where prisoners were literally forced to work really hard for food. And those weren't villages but confined areas with barbe wire walls and machine gun towers. You have a picture of it in your head, you probably heard about it somewhere, but you don't know the history and you simply don't even know when in time it was and you assume it was somewhere in the times of the russian empire. No, it was in the ussr soon after the comunists seized power. It wasn't there in the russian empire.
1:01 I wouldn't use the word "manipulation" for Lenin. Lenin was a brilliant speaker and writer and sometimes polemic, but he was always open about what he thought and wanted to be done.
I’ve been watching you since I was 9 and I’m 19 in January and I’ve loved your content ever since!!! Best alternate history channel I’ve ever come across!!! :)
2:36 that voice change is weird lol
What a great video,
Something feels… off though.
Idk if it’s just me but something just felt weird.
Either way what a nice thought experiment
I feel like he's missing some contexts for this video, like Trotsky being a Menshevik before switching to the B wing, or that Central Asia had its own independence movements
@@ayyyyph2797
There's also the question of what The Germans would have been doing.
Does this alt. Red government sign something like Brest Litovsk, or does it try to continue the war?
Lotta players and history are missing too.
Honestly, I kind of expect this for any alt history involving the russian Civil War. It's so complicated with so many factors.
Man your channel is what got me into alt history thanks for the years of quality content
I’ve been subbed to this channel for years, only yesterday did I realize you’re the same person as Pointlesshub.
The focus of this channel is no longer "what if x happened, what are the effects on the larger world" and more, "what would it take for x to happen"
Um Cody, Why did the original video got privated?
The voice sound bored and stiff. Audio problem
Cody sounds like he’s being held at gunpoint
Rip the original top comment about how annoying choir kids would never recover
Hey so this is an inaccurate picture of the Kornilov affair. Kornilov did not coup the Kerensky government, he believed the Kerensky government had been overthrown in a communist plot so and sent aid to help Kerensky, but Kerensky thought he was being couped so released the communists, inadvertely creating the takeover Kornilov wrongfully believed happened.
I’ve been watching your stuff for almost ten years man.
Glad to see the video reuploaded - the audio sounds better already, and I'm less than five minutes in.
Again, interesting video at a great time in my personal research phase
Amazing videos 👍
Part 2 Please!
Your style of editing has changed so much its shocking. Also thanks for fixing the video so quickly so we can watch it!
Why is it each of these alternate history scenarios are something I really want to play a HOI4 game of.
I mean if they can do a Germany WW1 victory mod, why not a dead in 1917 Lenin mod, or a dead in 1918 Hitler mod, actually yeah: what if Hitler was killed in WW1, I'd love to see that.
I think that Russia will eventually reform and industrialize whether it will be under the banner of the Soviet Union or another faction, because the people of Russia were simply fed up with the country not being reformed.
I'd make a case for the Haitan revolution being as radical or moreso than the Bolshevik Revolution. It transformed from a conflict over Emancipation to a literal race war, where White and Black men killed each other in the score. Now, it was not as impactful as the October Revolution, but to say it wasn't as radical...I'd disagree.
This doesn't feel like one of Cody's strongest...
Still ceeping the video’s great and i used to hate history and you made me love it thank’s Cody
This was an amazing video Cody, I hope there will be a sequel.
We all know the only thing stopping the Soviet *Onion* from forming was because the Union got there first - we all know the answer to this
And thus, the Great Onion rolled over the world.
And we *all* started to cry.
of course the video abt the soviet union has band kid humor
Great video, man, and I'd LOVE to see a sequel on this! There's so much you could do here...
Do “what if Cascadia became its own country”!
*orange intensifies*
If they were given independence as a compromise to the Oregon territory, the US and UK would not almost go to war over a pig.
how?
I just discovered your second channel and it is very good 👍
Thankd for the vid!
What's the song name at 5:55? I know I've heard it, but where?
What if the Mexican revolution just kept on chugging
*Oh damn you said alternate*
Video idea: What if King Manuel of Portugal hadnt rejected Ferdinand Magellan? (Portuguese Philippines)
20:09 What's the background music?
The intro gave me chills 😅 Great work!
Video idea: what if the coalition kept Poland-Lithuania alive after the congress of Vienna?
So I'm actually from that timeline, could you do one where the train never derailed?
One thing that made Nicholas crazy was perhaps dealing with Rasputin...
There's a good reason this is my favorite TH-cam channel.
A idea related to this video: "What if the Soviet Union successfully transitioned into a Federation in 1991?"
I personally see two plausible divergence points. The first would be having the coup in Moscow at the time, not happen. Gorbachev's party reforms could have involved having the foresight to replace the future coup leaders. Then, while admittedly unsteady, the people's faith in Moscow could have been maintained long enough for the USS to become a reality.
The second divergence point could be having the USSR better prepared to handle transitioning their economy into a mixed one. The USSR was already dying a slow economic death, and reform would have been required to save it anyway. The main problem with the transition was that the USSR was woefully underprepared. Their self-assessments were highly divorced from reality due to flagrant corruption, and they didn't even have an idea about what the new economy would look like and no idea what guidance to give to the businesses undergoing this transition. Correcting either of those mistakes would have lessened the economic turmoil that would happen, maybe even giving the Soviet economy a fighting chance.
What would that look like, and how long would it last?
(Edited for grammar)