What if America and Britain Went to War in 1933?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 26 ก.ย. 2024
- #possiblehistory #ph
If you like the content please like, comment and subscribe, it helps channels like mine to get noticed!
If you want to support the channel you can go to my Patreon or become a member! You will get early access to video's and will be allowed to suggest priority video subjects!
/ possiblehistory
Feel free to follow or join our social media platforms:
/ possiblehistory
/ possiblehistor1
/ possible_history0
In a similar vain, here's a thought, what if France and Britain refused to back down during the Suez crisis, and The US and The Soviet Union decided to collaborate militarily against them?
*vein. Interesting idea, though.
It sounds like the Biafra War during the Cold War.
I think it would just be nuclear war...
One of the big reasons for the USA standing on the side of Egypt was because the USSR was threatening NUCLEAR WAR.
It may well have been a bluff, but you can imagine the USA would rather risk losing its closest ally than letting said ally bring about the potential end of human civilisation.
With hindsight, it was a bit of a dick move by the US, but absolutely was the lesser of two evils.
As an interesting side note, another reason the US supported Egypt was the fact that they wanted to leave the door open for nurturing closer ties with the Middle East in future, to keep them away from the Soviets.
Of course, with hindsight we now know that such reasoning was pointless years later.
Sounds interesting I hope he sees that
i like this idea a lot
Imagine in this timeline Germany invites America to the axis due to their mutual enemies instead of Japan.
More likely the UK allied with Germany
And then Japan joins allies, China joins axis 😮. Wonder how this changes the Pacific and Soviet-German war
America under Roosevelt (or any of the candidates in 1932, 1936, or 1940) wouldn't cooperate with the Nazis, like, at all, ever. You would need a significantly earlier and major POD.
Average game of HOI4 with historical focuses turned off be like:
Its more likely germany would ally with britain. Nazi germany really disliked the US, because they wanted to remind the rising US that europe was still in control, there was actually a plan to get britain on their side and invade the US.
The UK: You underestimate my power!
The US: Don't try it
Britain never really had power after ww1, even in 1939, hence why France fell incredibly quickly during ww1. in realty, both nations lacked any real power on the world stage
@@balkanlivesmatter Britain did have power just not a lot due to the short time they had, They had a navy that could protect the isle and the RAF to stop the Germans in the battle of Britain i wouldn't say that they were very powerful but they where the 3rd most powerful on the allied side
@Noahshistoryandmapping you got that backwards. The US has to offer massive discounts to Britain before the US joined. The US is fabulously rich.
Can anyone please share me a link to possible history discord
@Noahshistoryandmapping its less of a "britain could have won the war alone" and more a "if any one of the major three allied power werent fighting, then the war would have been lost"
Please do a scenario where as part of the Russian sale of Alaska, the US and Russia sign a mutual defense pact against UK and Japan. People don't realize that Russia and US both had concerns about both, and that the UK and Japan where very close between the 1870s and 1920s
This would really go smooth until the Russo-Japan war; and the constant thread of the UK joining in.
Yeah, it’s kinda ironic looking back at the closeness of two natioms who today despise eachother
@@DynMorgannwg OP didn't say Russia and US were close. He said they had "mutual concerns" which means a hot load of nothing in reality.
@@DynMorgannwg Britain and Japan, Japan and China, USA and the Soviet Union. Etc.
@@DynMorgannwgthey only despise each other thanks to the USSR
Every Modern Empire isn't even on the list anymore 😭😭😭😭😭
Is there a timestamp?
7:36 it does say it’s still open to change
We need to make our petition
@@The_whales Thank you
And the danelaw
It's just too late for Britain. Sure, they were at their territorial peak, but the British Empire was already in decline for a long time before that, whilst the US was on the rise.
Check your spelling please 😂
That’s irrelevant the Americans are fighting against Britain and Japan combined in a two front naval war.
Navy’s number 1 and 3 would easily decimate number 2 before it ever could hope to reach number 1.
That’s not even taking into account the possibility of France’s entry.
@@MCLegend13And that gives them the opportunity to properly win the war in America how? That gives them the opportunity to retake Canada?
Despite the importance of Canada
America wasn’t completely an overseas America, even if the UK and Japan win the Naval war it overall would be an unnecessary war
@@kurocchi5190 they couldn’t retake Canada but what I’m saying is it’s impossible for America to take anything else. Britain would enforce a naval Blockade of the Atlantic and America couldn’t send its entire navy to break the blockade as Japan would be making repaid gains in the pacific.
And if France joins the war it seals the deal for America on the seas their global trade would be devastated.
In the end both sides would be to sick of the war and sue for a peace Britain would loose Canada in exchange Britain and France gain the American Caribbean and Japan gets the Philippines and splits the American pacific holdings with the dominions of Australia and Newzealand.
"This video explores a purely hypothetical scenario" yes,,, this is an alternate history video,,, this is what I am here for king
Wake up babe, new Possible History just dropped
Bro what are you talking about I'm your roommate
@@void_fruit212 talking about me dw
oke
Can anyone please share me link to possible history discord
Dude I love how the maps look I don’t even know how to explain it, they just tingle my brain so much
Real
Can anyone please share me link to possible history discord
Same brother
When there's a really unrealistic scenario I always imagine someone timetravelling specifically to change it.
This was for sure done by a bunch of drunk interns from America, England, Canada and one guy from Portugal who were arguing about who'd win and happened to be just lucky and persuasive enough to test it out.
The Queen: It was that damn intern! If not for him, we'd have won this bloody war!
@@hoi-polloi1863 Her exact words were a tad more explicit, but the general message is the same, yes.
US and UK: Went to War in 1933
Hitler who just came to power: bruh
Want a fun fact he actually thought this would actually happen but wanted Britain to win.
@@MCLegend13He also thought we would be allied with him.
@@randombritishperson. Had something happened to FDR, we just might have.
And a UK loss would mean Mosley would come to power and when World War 2 comes around ally the UK with the Nazis. So it would be the Berlin-London-Rome-Tokyo Axis vs. the Washington-Chongqing-Moscow-Tehran Alliance.
Edit: change out Peking for Chongqing
@@EdwardM-t8p the capital of China at the time was Nanking tho. Or Chongqing after the fall of Nanking.
I think you have fundamentally misunderstood naval warfare of this time period. The US in 1933 had no fast capital ships comparable to British and Japanese Battlecruisers. They also didn’t have any fast battleships under construction because everyone took a ten year break with the Washington naval treaty. American cruisers would be hard pressed to commerce raid when a battlecruiser could catch and eliminate a squadron with ease.
British + Japanese subs Vs American submarines. I think US submarines will thrive in US waters up to Atlantic and initially decent in pacific but would be forced to withdraw as the loss of US bases would leave them out of range. However US submarines would be hard pressed to hunt Britains home waters, the med, the North Sea or Indian Ocean areas as they have no bases here to project from and insufficient range for any meaningful operation here. Britains sub fleet would likely base itself in the Caribbean and be right in Americas territory from the get go. The Japanese would lock down the pacific. In terms of anti submarine warfare I think Britain had the most experience and innovation in this counter field so I think US Subs would also take decent losses. Whereas British subs would be less challenged by USN surface escorts.
Most of the world’s shipping at this time was through the British merchant fleet also. Americas merchant fleet and global trade would’ve been utterly cut off. America could cut Britains trade to North America maybe contest South America. But with Japan as well, Americas merchant fleet would have no trading partners outside of North America. A huge blow to the economy along with the now to be unpaid British loans. Meanwhile Britain is free to trade with the rest of the world far safer bar North America.
American Industry in WW2 had allied demands and orders warming it up for full swing when they did commit to war. This wouldn’t be the case in this time line. Also how do you build ships when Dockyard has 15” shells flying into the drydock? Major coastal cities such as New York and San Francisco may well find them selves levelled.
Japan alone in WW2 was an incredibly difficult target for the USN especially initially. In this scenario in 1933 radar isn’t as established and Britain leads the way in its eventual making of the cavity magnetron. In the mean time the IJN and RN night fighting training was unparalleled.
The USN would be forced to commit 1/3 of its fleet to the pacific and 2/3 to the Atlantic. It can risk a 1 v 1 with the RN on the Atlantic but this would have to be early war, as fast as possible and still likely been an American defeat. Concentrating all your naval assets on one power at a time leaves the other power with complete domination of that theatre and the coast vulnerable, it’s a big dilemma really.
In terms of naval aviation both Britain and the IJN mastered port strike surprise attacks see raid on Taranto and Pearl harbour. The USN Lexingtons are good carriers but there’s only two of them so committing both to one theatre leaves a theatre without adequate air protection. Another consideration is Panama Canal. It’s well within striking range and we be a devastating strategic loss to the USN. Meanwhile Britains Jugular of Suez is completely off limits to the USN.
The US would eventually take Canada. But its economy through the shock of its biggest debt not being repaid to it plus its merchant fleet -> global trade being destroyed would be devastating. The USN navy would be outnumbered heavily initially and wouldn’t be able to build vessels quick enough to negate this.
Even at Americas WW2 peak capital ships still take a minimum of 1 year to build. That’s with the US coastline unthreatened. If these naval yards get bombarded or carrier striked then they can’t produce anything that quick properly. Meaning US ships can’t be replaced on a rate at which they are sinking that also can over take Britain and Japans building rate.
The US will have Canada but it losses Panama, the Philippines, and its pacific territories. Its war and merchant fleets and subsequent economy is in absolute ruins. Some major ports and cities on the Coastline have also been levelled by naval artillery, New York skyscrapers and Norfolks dock yards are big targets. US Air power is helping negate the allied dominance of the seas, along with American submarines. However the giant is more economically hurt and damaged than its rivals. A peace treaty would likely be signed.
not to mention: aircraft carriers. With the British support the Kido butai could easily launch strikes at the US mainland. Hell, 6 years should arguably be more then enough time for the British Empire to make it's various oversea holdings capable of housing RAF bomber fleets (if not outright developing a viable intercontinental bomber that can fly all the way from England. So the US will also be dealing with the RAF playing it's favourite game: remove the city!
I agree with you, he sevearly miscalculated.
As far as submarine warfare is concerned let's not forget that Britain was the only country at the time that had experience with what we now call ''Hunter Killer'' submarines, having built and operated, admittedly with no real success, the R class submarines, the first designed specifically to kill other submarines, it wouldn't take much for the design to be put back into production.
@@mrjockt hell, this early American war would also give the X-1 an opportunity to be deployed in an operation where it will actually get to flex it's merchant killing muscles.
UK: Is seen as the bad guy for invading Ireland
Canada getting invaded by the US at the start of the war for no reason: Am I a joke to you?
Possible Histroy threw logic and common sense out of the window for this one.
Canada was a dominion of the UK, and would base British troops and fleets, as well as fight on their behalf. At the very least they would be considered a military ally of the British. Ireland, in contrast, was not a dominion of the US, nor a military ally in this scenario. But a British invasion would be very likely anyway.
And it's not like it's the first time the British would attack a neutral power, ask the Danes.
@@shorewall irrelevant because America still invaded first and the dominions had significant autonomy so nope your point is noted but still very contradictory.
@@shorewallStill, Canada in theory could declare neutrality since they were pretty much independent. So America invading them after that still wouldn't help their case of not being the bad guy in this war
The UK did'nt invade Ireland. Ireland was a part of the UK. That's what the UK was. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.
So basically, Asia gets the good ending and Europe gets the bad ending
I think Europe was always going to get a bad ending.
Asia and America tbh
If you understand naval history and infrastructure you’d understand that America didn’t start their huge build up thill the early 40s this is still the early 30s so it’s hardly accurate plus Britain and Japan combined easily would out match the American navy of the 30s.
@@ayeeeeeeee6240 nah at least Trudeau wouldn't become president, would take Biden over him any day.
@@MCLegend13 Lime detected
this 100% needs a continuation, what a dope scenario
What really needs a continuation is the WW2 three way war video
More like what a sad scenario
@@savedata1threesome*
It’s very inaccurate if you understand basic naval history and military logistics.
Also America after taking Canada and causing the Indian to revolt for independence they would eventually just wait till Britain exhausts itself and just force them to sign a peace Britain would be.
Il give you my continuation.
Britain after loosing Canada and India would fall to Facsim under King Edward The 8th and Oswald Mosley.
The British Empire would ally with the Third Reich and Italian state in order for them to maintain their still massive African, Middle Eastern and Far Eastern empire.
The dominions of Australia and Newzealand have similar government changes as does South Africa. The 3 remaining dominions form their own alliance with Britain and the weakened but still not quite out Japan who now are just as extremist as Europe.
France would fall under civil war shortly after Spains one finished but the Facist would win easily thanks to being militarily aided by Spain, Italy, Germany and Britain. All 4 European Facists along side Spain, Greece, Portugal Hungary, and Bulgaria, all form the Axis. And begin planning their expansion goals.
They would adjust borders of Europe with
French expansion into Belgium which the and Luxembourg, and small parts of the Netherlands
German Expansion into Austria, Czechoslovakia, Denmark and Poland and the rest of the Netherlands.
Italian Expansion into Yugoslavia and most of Albania.
British Expansion into Ireland, Iceland and Norway, which Sweden too would take some of and Greenland to have a staging ground to fight the US.
Bulgarian expansion into Macedonia and parts of Romania.
And Greek expansion into parts of Yugoslavia and the rest of Albania.
And Hungarian expansion into the rest of Yugoslavia and Transylvania.
And Spain and Portugal Merging to form Iberia.
WW2 would officially begin as the Euro Soviet War With Japan siding with Europe against the Soviets. And America would remain neutral but possibly eventually join after British and Japanese do an attack on the pacific fleet at Pearl Harbour and the Atlantic fleet in US Occupied former British colony of Bermuda.
Americas Navy on both coasts is completely knocked out of the war for atleast half a year allowing for Britain and Japan to go rampant in the Atlantic and pacific.
Not sure how to go from there give me some ideas?
If the americans avoid a naval battle wouldn't britian just raid the coast so if they protect the coast a naval battle would happen , I believe that the USA wouldn't have a wipeout win especially if japan is helping. I believe that at least, this would be a 1816 scenario
I would surely see the UK try a Pearl harbour style attack
you mean 1812?
@@sovietdominion Which, is what they did against Italy OTL at Taranto before Pearl Harbour.
@@somerandompersonidk2272 exactly
The reason that wouldn't happen is the British Fleet was too Heavy, they'd doctrinally married themselves to the Idea of a Decisive battle.
And bringing their Heavy ships that close to the East Coast which was already dotted with Air Bases would just be suicide.
And because they'd focused so much effort on the Heavy ships. They didn't have enough Crusiers and down (which was a MASSIVE part of lend lease that gets overlooked) meaning detaching enough of those ships for that kind of raid would leave them in the same scenario. Their Heavyweights completely exposed to American retaliation.
It's the same reason they got mauled by the IJN in WWII the British hyperfocus on large Decisive Battles left their fleet without the ability to actually adapt and dangerously vulnerable to anyone who didn't want to play that game.
Which being fair to the British here, was the right choice, as their navy at the time was mostly focused on Countering the German Navy who were equally obsessed over Decisive Battles. The Royal Navy as policy had a "Do Not get into that fight" stance on the IJN and USN.
As for the Japanese here, it's basically just the Pacific Front half a decade earlier. The IJN of 1936 had the exact same issues as the IJN WWII, they've just got more logistical wiggle room here. War Plan Orange, already called for just cutting off the IJA and IJN and letting them wither on the Vine, except here there's not really a massive Logistical Wack a Mole for the USN to deal with in the Atlantic.
In fact Potential History is being VERY Generous with the British here, because their IRL plan wasn't just "Don't reinforce Canada" it was "Bribe the US with Canada so we don't have to fight them." THAT'S how poorly British High Command actually rated their chances of winning a Prolonged War with the US at the time.
What if Alaska was sold to Lichtenstein. Russia originally offeres Alaska to the landlocked(at the time, it is now double landlocked meaning it only borders landlocked nations) micro nation of Lichenstein, and they understandably declined.
i feel like during this timeline, Britain and Germany could consider becoming allies? Since having mutual enemies and their interests might've aligned a little better
100%, and the USSR would then ally with USA.
Hitler hated American and loved Britain and wanted to ally with them but as a democracy Britain didn’t like Germany forcing them to ally with Italy which Hitler thought was a lesser country due to racial theories.
@@shorewallGermany and Britain on a team is a scary thing for the world if they add more allies like Japan Italy and maybe a Facist France after a civil war and regime change they would likely be unstoppable. As you have the Naval Power houses of Britain and Japan and the land power houses of France and Germany all on one side plus the Italians who have a decent sized army and navy too.
I’m not sure who would win that alternate WW2. I’d say Possibly the Axis tho With Britain and its African, Middle Eastern and Far Eastern Empire plus the remaining 3 Dominions is still a big power house. Adding that and all those resources to the industrial power house of Germany is certainly a force to be reckoned with. Not to mention the empires of France Italy and Japan.
USA and USSR are separated and it could very easily become a divide and conquer scenario for the axis powers.
@@MCLegend13The video says Australia, India, and New Zealand broke off btw
Possible history has just posted another video (my day has been made)
Man this format worked.
You should have considered an alternative Axis with Brtiain.
Then simple American and Russian gone.
@@aquagaming3480 yep it would become essentially man in the high castle but with the addition of Britain and France.
My continuation is that Britain and Germany distance themselves from the very catholic Italian led Latin block.
And form their own block with the Protestant Germanic countries, Netherlands, Sweden Denmark and Norway.
The world would be divided up between 3 blocks the Anglo German Axis, The Latin Block and the Asian Co Prosperity Sphere. A Cold War would soon break out between them.
But Italy want Mediterranean Sea, Egypt and middle East..
What if France held on to it's Colonial empire
it has
Even harder?
@@Tommuli_HaudankaivajaIm hard
@@savedata1why are you and eddie white
A best case scenario might start with a big colonial reform right after WW1. It could be motivated by realpolitk and recognition of colonial troops achievements in the war.
Avoiding the humiliation of capitulation in WW2 is a must have. Temporarily moving the capital in Alger would mitigate this issue and justify further reforms for the French colonial Empire.
By playing its cards right, France could end up with some sort of loose commonwealth of Nations in Africa / Asia.
Keeping Algeria as proper France would be hard, but possible IMO. Especially if France is ready to only keep parts of it. It would involve recognising and dividing the local Arabs/Berbers, increasing european settlement and maybe giving up chunks of the country preventively : idealy by keeping the coastline and adding Arab / Kabyles / Minor Berber states to the aforementioned commonwealth.
I believe that some of the naval aspects of this sanario are inaccurate. One of these is the absence of the Panama canal, which would have been needed to transfer the US naval units from each seabord. The other is that the shipbuilding graph ignores the difference in size of drydocks which limits what can be built. This means that in terms of capital ships it is likely that the uk and Japan can keep up which with their fleet dispersed means an atlantic campaign by the Americans l would be less decisive than indicated by this video.
The US still controlled the Panama Canal
@@stargazer-eliteBut the british could seize the Panama canal early on.
@@mihel1640 this would be on Americas side of the pond they would already have it fortified
@@stargazer-eliteIf Britain invades the Panama Canal very early in the war, it’ll cause 1 of 2 scenarios to happen:
1. The US Fleet sails out to meet the British Fleet, successfully creating the conditions for the decisive naval battle Britain was looking for.
2. The US doesn’t attempt to contest the British fleet, resulting in the canal falling and the US fleet being effectively split in half.
Neither scenario is good for the US
@@Phrogoid well said sir well said. Yeah if this war happened a decade later I 100% agree with all the points Possible history said but this is the early 1930s not the 1940s.
as an AUstralian I can confidently say we would **not** drift to the USA
Bulshit😅
@@DonCleveland-ix8ov how so?
@@DonCleveland-ix8ovthe Aussies sound more cockney than American so no they would stay in the British sphere of influence plus they are not geographically connected with USA like Canada is. So possible history is wrong on that point.
@@MCLegend13Well cultural similarities aren’t enough to stay with a bankrupt, internationally disgraced nation and plus drifting closer to the US sphere of influence would help their economies. And even if you want cultural similarities they’re there, like the fact that they are both former British colonies. And Australia is not geographically connected to GB AT ALL. They are so much farther away from GB than they are to the USA, not even counting US pacific holdings.
@@RaecidsYaMan Just like how Cuba drifted to America as the soviets were much further away from Cuba than America? 😹
This would lead to a very different and interesting world perhaps a part 2 to explore this idea?
He mentioned at the end that that he will continue the scenario with the focus being a nazi vs soviet war without us intervention
@@lordInquisitorBritain would be Facist as they would be vengeful at America for the loss of Canada and India.
under pro German king Edward the 8th and pro German and Italian prime minister Oswald Mosley. They would want to maintain their still vast African + Middle and Far Eastern Empire.
Also forget the part where he said America would strip Australia and New Zealand away from the empire they would realistically just give up the war after Taking Canada and causing India’s independence and just fight till Britain eventually exhausts itself and backs off.
France would become facist too as they are surrounded by Fascists in Germany, Italy, Spain and now Britain too.
The French would likely fall under a civil war similar to Spain as they were pretty unstable at the time. But because they are surrounded the Facist would win in France.
Europe would be a completely facist or nationalist continent apart from Ireland, Poland, the Baltics, Benelux, and Scandinavia. As the only surviving democracy’s left.
1:08 Is it known why there is a blur bar between 'the' and 'company'?
Oh boy. Britain is in for a ROUGH time
On land yes but on sea ask the Germans French, or Spanish what happens
@@MCLegend13
Plus how much of America's industry and population centers were in battleship shelling range at the time pre 1940's America still needs time to ramp up its capabilities that will be seriously hampered if they get shelled.
@@Kakarot64. exactly pre 1940s America needs at least half a decade or more to fully ramp up. And let’s not even begin to talk about American logistics at this period.
@@MCLegend13 Still, Britain can basically only win the naval war, and the RAF can't bomb much of the U.S. Industry. Also, even if Britain destroyed the navy, the U.S. would just rebuild the navy, and as said, makes it a more and more unwinnable war for the British.
@@mrsillytacos I mean most of the american build up didnt happen untill the early 40s.
and if Japans on Britains side that equalises the gap even if America builds up massivley.
not to mention britain has the most advanced and Experienced Naval Infrastucture in the world. they too could easily respond to any american build up in the same way they did with Germany.
and thats before you even take into account the japanese 8 8 program.
Britain alone sure they may loose but the Anglo Japanese Alliance easliy could win you will never be able to convince me other wise.
What if the uk built an indestructible bridge to france in 1935?
Whatcha mean
With land
@@_Zofwell……
Wouldn’t it be invaded before the world wars and not exist?
@@DinoRickychanged it
I don't think that's... y'know, Possible History..?
The problem i see with this scenario is that yes, the Americans have a better industry, but since it was mainly on the coast or directly bordering Canada, it could have been crippled at the beginning of the conflict. And if the US were the one attacking, the probability for Britain getting support from other countries would be greater.
Tbh even if the Canadians started conflict the Americans genuinely planned to use chemical weapons against the civilian targets so Britain would at least get France on its side maybe if promised some of the American Caribbean holdings.
And potentially Italy if promised that Britain and France wouldn’t oppose any Italian expansion into Yugoslavia, or Albania or Abyssinia.
Japan is for sure joining to get the Philippines and as much of the American Pacific as possible.
And as for Germany the Austrian painter saw war between Britain and America as inevitable but wanted Britain to win. So yeah Britains fine.
4 of the big 5 of the Washington naval treaty even if America has its huge naval build up to eclipse Britain. But Britain and Japan together easily stand a chance and adding in France and Italy would easily tip the balance.
Thats not even taking into account that the 🇬🇧 Royal Navy, 🇯🇵 Imperial Navy, 🇮🇹 Regia Marina and 🇫🇷 Marine National would all be responding with ships of their own.
not to mention with everyone distracted with America Germany would be quietly building away and making the 🇩🇪 Kreigsmarine larger too tho probably not by much as their infrastructure couldn’t support much.
And who knows maybe even they join just to show good will to Britain and in order to distract them from their own plans.
It wouldn’t be a fun war for America even if it’s just Britain and Japan alone if just one other European country allies with Britain it becomes a nightmare Let alone multiple European countries.
@@MCLegend13is it possible for the Soviet union to join on America's side in this war?
@@MCLegend13and I think it would be more like china, us, Soviet union vs Britain, Canada, France, Italy and Germany.
@@JahkiCaryand Japan
@@JahkiCarytbh if that happened the war would be such a stalemate that in the end everyone would get so exhausted everyone would just call for a cease fire because. Yes The USA, USSR, China and possibly the recently a rebelling India are huge in population and land area but the other side inn doubtably has the larger navy and adding all of Europes factory’s they are probably the bigger industry too. So it would just end up being a huge stalemate with millions upon millions dead.
Bottom line: Britain should have stayed out of WW1, and maintained their alliance with Japan
If britain did that, it is hard telling how powerful they would be in the modern day
What if you continued this alternate universe and explore a different world war 2 and cold war
7:34 what if estonia had captured st.petersburg thank you for putting that on the planning board ive personally wanted a video about that for a while
I'd liked to see that scenario. It wouldn't make the whites win the civic war so easy, since most of the red moved to Moscow, and most of industrial capacity were in central Russia, but it will cripple their morale and naval force, whom played first role in revolution, and not last in fight in the Baltic
@@tenshihinanawi4546 When Estonia was nearing St. Petersburg, the civil war had already ended. The soviets had won and wanted to retake Estonia, but many White Russians defected to Estonia, which helped them push close to the city. It may have restarted the civil war however.
We need “If history Went perfect for Mexico”!
It would be annexed into America. Lol
@@demarcomixon with the crazy amount of Mexicans in the US, I think that will not be possible
@@demarcomixon cuz we are proud cartellians
@@demarcomixon 🇲🇽🇲🇽🇲🇽🇲🇽🇲🇽🇲🇽
@@SerdarBerdiproud cartels more like 😂
13:42 how about Britain aligns itself with Germany?
America didn’t have a ship building overmight above Britain did you see how quickly Britain churned out the grand fleet. Less than a decade they were able to churn out 34 Dreadnaughts, and dozens of cruiser plus swarms of destroyers.
Remember your talking about the country that still had a we want eight and we won’t wait campaign which actually resulted in the Revenge class super Dreadnaughts and Renown class Battlecruisers.
Plus they also have Nelson Rodney and Hood the 3 biggest and most powerful capital ships of the 1930s not to mention Hoods sheer speed.
Adding in their a much larger renewed building program with modernised G3 Battlecruisers and N3 Battleships plus maybe a better and maybe a modern and more viable 20 inch gun armed HMS Incomparable.
America wins on land just to become the next victim of the greatest navy in history.
“RULE BRITAINNIA BRITAINNIA RULE THE WAVES BRITONS NEVER NEVER EVER SHALL BE SLAVES” 🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧
On a more serious note I Personally think it’s delusional to think America can win a 2 front war against Britain and Japan look what happened to every other power in history fighting a 2 front war. There is absolutely no way America can hope to simultaneously beat the British Royal Navy and Imperial Japanese navy.
The more realistic and accurate scenario is Britain boxes America in on the Atlantic coast by basing its Fleet off Bermuda. And harassing US Shipping.
Meanwhile Japan simultaneously occupies the Philippines and Invades Hawaii. Allowing for a blockade of the American West coast completely cutting America off from global trade. Eventually causing the Americans to sue for peace.
The British Navy is not beating an American Navy that after Canada falls has no more real need to build up the army so will put basically all resources into the navy.
@@littleabigail4328look what happened to Germany after they tried to compete.
Same with France Spain and the Dutch. Britain never allows any power to beat them in a naval build up.
The same country that has a we want eight and we won’t wait campaign against the biggest industrial power house in Europe Germany would still be around plus the Japanese 8 BB 8 BC building program it just results in America beating the British out of of Canada but loosing all their Caribbean to Britain and their Pacific to Japan.
@@littleabigail4328also are you so full of yourself that I need to do the most simple task of explaining how horrible two front wars go.
Battling in two oceans is not a two front war like has happened historically and you may have man in the high castle syndrome if you think they’re gonna launch simultaneous land invasions.
You also just have general stupidity with the idea britains gonna exhaust it’s entire colonial and imperial resource so it can get a phyricc victory against America in a colonial war
It’s gonna destroy America to be if it Japan and hold onto the Caribbean for 6 extra years. Do you think before you type
@@MCLegend13 Lol, your Scenario is a win for the US. US cares way more for Canada than its meager island possessions. They might even consider a straight swap.
And I want you to compare the US and Germany. The US is like if you combined USSR and Germany, and gave them huge coastlines, and distance from any enemies.
Aspects that PH deliberately forgot to make a total BS conclusion because "Muh murica better, no.1 choeseborgar in tha wurld".
1. America's underdeveloped and untrained army facing professional Canadians on their soil and possible commonwealth landings on famously unprotected coastlines.
2. Most of America's fleet was in the Pacific (Facing superior Anglo, Japanese and Commonwealth fleets), with the East Coast being held by the more undesirable warships, which have to face against main bulk of Britain's veteran fleets (not counting other commonwealth fleets).
3. The American merchant fleet would mostly cease outside of small River/Costal runs, meaning imports would dry up for the American industry.
4. American industry after 4 years since the great depression was certainly not 3 times the size of the British commonwealth, this is not 1945, this is 1933.
5. Britain doesn't even need to blockade the whole US east coat, Belize is right beside the Panama canal.
6. America, attacking its old ally would essentially be isolating itself diplomatically even more than FDR and Woodrow Wilson could dream of.
I can't think of anything else, if any of you people can conjure up more reasons why this 2020's Hollywood levels of plot armour is complete bs, please let me know.
PH didn’t make up this scenario from scratch-he’s using this video to explore an American war game. We don’t lose at our war games-we just change the rules until the side representing the U. S. wins. Is this dumb? Yes, very. Do we do it anyway? Yes we do. Your arguments are valid, but PH is working off of someone else’s flawed scenario. He’s not entirely to blame here.
Of course, there's lots of reasons to plan wars against your friends. It makes you examine all kinds of potentially useful possibilities that you might not consider when studying your enemies. It can be useful in aiding your if your ally if it is attacked since you had to really examine their strengths and weaknesses. Military staffs need to stay in practice. You may find weaknesses in your military, or your allies, that might have been overlooked. And so on...
if japan alone was able to fight the usa one on one in our timeline. before the naval expansion in the late 1930s, the UK and Japan would obliterate any pacific naval forces very quickly, it would be more likely for panama to fall and from there a anglo-japanese fleet would be a match for any american one, also the usa would most likely underestimate submarine capabilities as they did in real life and lose many ships.
Saying that the US fleet would be obliterated isn't accurate, for one, Japan would enter later in the war, long enough for the US fleet to expand further, second, the Panama canal falling isn't likely, the US would've known the importance of the Panama Canal and would've reinforced it heavily, not to mention the extreme distant naval invasion required to invade it, and third, it is highly unlikely that an anglo-japanese fleet would form, one: both would be far away from each other. Two: There is a massive language barrier between the two fleets. And three: the navy of the British empire is spreadout across the empire, and would rather protect shipping by this point rather than do any offensive operation.
Actually no, the Japanese managed a surprise attack on the US that crippled their navy, that's why it sucked so much. However ever since 1942 when the US Navy recovered, Japan was doomed to fail. The only way the British could win is by acting a surprise attack, but given the Industrial capabilities shown by the US, this would just delay the inevitable.
Also, the american military was pathetic at the time. Britain was a global empire and Japan was a determined militaristic nation, together they would crush the USA easily.
@@footisman2059 yeah no, this isn't 1812 anymore.
Japan really weren't able to fight the US 1v1.
they had the element of surprise and enough speed at the start to get the advantage, and once that ended they could only fiercely defend what they captured, add the fact that pearl harbor would never happen and Japan would have an even harder time defending the gains.
and as he said, once the UK is out or if China joins the war on the US side the Japan is done for
One thing to consider though is that Canada also has a standing military, and while there would be zero chance in defeating the US, being right on the border, attacks on US home soil including larger cities on the Great Lakes could be enough to render invading Canada to not be worth it.
Also, Canada could easily entice Mexico to attack from the opposite side given that at the time there was no doubt still a considerable amount of Mexican resentment over the US-Mexico war
That didn't even work for Zimmerman and the large sums of money promised then. The Mexican government wanted nothing to do with US troops potentially swarming there again.😊
I have to disagree with this thinking here. Japan would almost certainly join the war, and the UK would immediately hit Panama from British Honduras or the West Indies. This would essentially cut the US fleet in half, and with most of their shipbuilding concentrated on the pacific side, the UK could easily reinforce Canada via the Atlantic. Even on the Pacific side, Japan could fairly quickly hit Alaska, and Hawaii would fall quickly. Throw imperial troops and Japanese troops into Canada, and the fact that the UK and Japanese would almost certainly have air dominance with their more advanced air forces, I don't see any way the US could realistically win this scenario. If the war was postponed for 3-4 more years, then I don't see any way the US could lose, but from 33 its a sure-fire UK-Japanese win.
Doesn’t really change the outcome there’s no way that the us surrenders early
One thing you missed Canada whould have been knocked out and an proper invasion will mean bankrupting the empire
Mainland USA has a larger population than UK, Japan, and Canada put together. Even if all of your points came true, and they poured troops in, the US would mass Mobilize like the Soviets did to defend their homeland.
I do think that the US is weaker in the Naval power, but fighting a land war in North America would be worse than fighting a land war in China at the time. Like the Japanese said about a potential invasion of Mainland USA, there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.
And it wouldn't be like fighting 3rd worlders over a far flung colony. It would be fighting a peer opponent, with a lot of land barrier, in their home turf. And every troop you send has to cross an ocean. And China and USSR are just as likely to want to fight the Japanese.
@@shorewallThis was 1933, so the US was still struggling from the Great Depression. Their economy would not be doing great either. Not to mention at the time, British forces had much better training than Americans at the time
@@shorewallBut the entire US doesn't need to be invaded. Realistically the whole blade of grass thing isnt relevant. The US capital is pretty close to canada , the British Empire and Japan really don't need to take that much of the US and in terms of population the british empire had a way larger population than the US did and if push came to shove could easily mobalise practically innumerable amounts of men to fight
I'm not sure the British would have surrendered, it would have been a negotiated cessation of hostilities between the two nations (probably with Canada in US hands) rather than Britain defeated. US would probably also want to limit British influence in the Caribbean which would make a number of colonies being handed over to the US in exchange for reductions in WWI repayments.
America in this timeline would be 2-1 agaisnt the British. Depending on if you consider the war of 1812 a victory for Britain or not
It’s also a 2v1 so it wouldn’t be an American victory at all people who say that don’t understand naval warfare and don’t understand how advanced British naval ship building infrastructure truly was back then.
Just look into any historical case of a 2 front war it really doesn’t go well for anyone who is on the receiving end of having to fight one.
It would be 3-0
I mean the US would most likely literally never win a war vs the UK in this scenario anyway especially since its practically a 2v1. 1933 US was no where near as strong as the british empire was let alone the british empire and Japan. The US wasn't even a superpower till practically a decade later
@@Mark-nx5pk you're delusional if you think the USA won 1812
The guy totally forgets that Mexico exists. The UK would have also teamed up with Mexico as Mexico would like to take back lost land.
I think Japanese involvement could lead to a Soviet intervention in Manchuria, especially if the war goes on for too long.
100%.
There is no mention of the Panama Canal here, but surely the most obvious thing to do for the British and Japanese is to capture or at least blockade the canal to isolate the US Pacific and Atlantic fleets.
For Canada not being that important it was sure called upon heavily during both the world wars and after to support the "mother country".
One sided relationship. UK always saw its colonies as servants.
@@shorewallIt's why the USA revolted, after all. We wanted representation in Parliament. Britain instead treated us like servants.
@@shorewall Hell no,,, Britain always protected its colonies eg in 1812
One thing that gets overlooked in this video is that MOST LIKELY hitler would have had sympathies for the british side had this war been going on regardless of the results
It wouldn't be a Possible History video if it didn't get half the things wrong :x
Whats wrong with
@@SquidMonke4He never mentioned the Panama canal, and blocking it would cut the US Navy in half and deprive the Atlantic fleet from a lot of reinforcements since most of the US's ship building are in the West coast.
@@imlivingunderyourbed7845 with Canada Invasion, surely they would plan to fortify Panama Canal and UK would have more on their hands than attempting a distant invasion under US Naval supremacy. So Panama Canal can be left out I guess
@@761sttankbattalion They don't need to land troops into Panama. Just blockading the canal even from one side is enough to freeze the flow of ships there.
theres literally no way he can 100% accurately predict what would have happened because it didn’t happen, THATS THE POINT
An intersting hypothesis. However, I'm sure that France would never countenance the US occupation of Quebec and remember that Hitler, given his warped view of the world, had warm feelings towards Great Britain. So, you may have had an alliance of unlikely allies against the US?
What if Norway and Denmark Went to War in 1933? (Not an impossible scenario for once)
(Please do a what if everything went perfect for Norway scenario)
6:23 : paradox deciding how big to make iwo jim’s in hoi4
What if everything went right for Iran/Persia??
Would be pretty cool considering how it could impact the Ottomans, Russians and British possessions 😊
Starting when ? Sassanid Persia could become a world superpower if you start early on enough
@@karlfranzemperorofmandefil5547 I feel like the most interesting scenario would be either during the Safavid; Iran overcoming the Ottomans (maybe taking their place) or during the Qajar period; with them evading the great game and resisting the russian and British invasions that took so much of their territory and reduced them to a backwater.
This was a very interesting scenario. It would be nice to see a continuation of this!
The US would be the graveyard of empires. After triggering Spain's collapse, and now Britain's, the US would be more feared.
3-1 USA-Britain
or 2-1 depending on being generous to Britian
It’s inaccurate Britain and Japan could hold their own they significantly out number the USN plus the Americans are fighting two fronts. Those who understand logistics would understand how bad two front wars go no matter who you are.
@@MCLegend13 How, the USA fleet is still massive with much more production than the Uk and Japan combined. The British and Japanese have no hope of beating the USA in a land war so Canada is dead. Then what. A two front wars is dead easy when you can out produce your enemies 3 fold and are under absolutely zero threat. There is nothing that the Uk and the later Japanese entrance can do to seriously threaten the American heartland. We can retreat from the pacific making Japan and the Asian colonial forces bleed while we focus on breaking Britain. Control the Atlantic and Britian would be a non threat. Then just push the Japanese who can’t replace losses and are 5-7 years short on their naval buildup. Britian is fighting an even harder 2 front war because our history shows Japan cannot hold the U.S. alone and not to mention history again. The USA was able to commit to Europe, the Atlantic, and Africa, while still fighting in the Pacific and assisting in Asia.
The industrial overmight the USA has is like saying Britian couldn’t win a war against Belgium and the Netherlands because it would be a multi front war for them. When all Britian needs to do is retreat where needed colonially and smash the homelands
@@kylezdancewicz7346 War of 1812 was a draw fyi
@@Mark-nx5pk that’s why it’s 3-1 or 2-1. I gave both a point for the draw
I think going for Hawaii is Britain's best route to forcing a decisive naval battle. The US President couldn't ignore the loss of Hawaii like he could the Philippines, he'd have to defend it, and way out in the open Pacific is the closest the UK could get to a level playing field. They could of course lose that battle with devastating consequences, but time is on the US's side so the Brits need to be the one to do something bold. Also, I think we underestimate the superiority of British intelligence gathering services in this era. If they could just lure the US out in the open, they'd probably know the US's movements better than the US knew the UK's. Throw in Japanese support, and this is really their best attack angle.
Yeah, but who cares? If the US could lose Hawaii, and gain Canada, I think the American People would see it as a win. And a reason to arm up for another round later to take back what was lost, with interest.
I dont know if this would be your style, but I'd like to hear you analyze some of the nations that could've (Brazil and India) been UNSC Permanent Members, and some others that have been working for it recently. I know Brazil, India, Japan and Germany have all been pushing for seats recently.
For the Brazil and India thing, VERY early on while the plans were being worked on, the USSR wanted a country that would also say no to the US along side it, because it was the USSR, USA, UK and the Republic of China at the time, and before France, america offered to appoint Brazil to the UNSC. For India, instead of the PRC taking Taiwans spot on the UNSC, America offered to instead change its spot for India, but India said no.
Plus the fact the UK was taking code breaking extremely seriously and US military codes were not any better than the Germans.... The assumption the US fleet would win against the RN is a handwave at best.... Plus radar guided navel gunnery, something that allowed the US to beat Japan... But was only possible due to Britains cavity magnetron....
This was very good here. It might be interesting to explore later some of the other colorful war plans of the United States, such as War Plan Orange against the Empire of Japan and War Plan Black against the German Empire. Or the war plans for the invasion of the United States and the United Kingdom by the German Empire.
USA: I lost the War of 1812 once, never again
I think the British high command would know the US plans to build up and so they would probably launch major offensives on every front to force the Americans to fight early on while they were still weak. the Anglo-Canadian forces along with troops from the other dominions would be able to hold back the Americans as they also occupy most of the pacific. with the British not in a bad position they might offer a mild peace to america. Britain would continue to repay their debt with some minor reduction in return the US would have to give up the Philippines, Puerto Rico, and their pacific holdings, they still keep Hawaii. The war would only last around a year and not much would change for the US or the UK until 1941. Japan and Britain might seprate themselves again and since America doesn't have anything in the Japanese interest America stays neutral but still supporting the allies or would be fully neutral. Japan would either drift away from Britain and attack them around 1941 or just seek good relations and trade with the brits for vital resources
Y’know, the U.K’s plan was similar to Japan’s
I will keep asking for this funny idea :)
Instead of “what if Germany kept trying” do “what if France kept trying”
1871 - France loses Franco Prussian war, cedes Alsace Laurene to Germany
1914-1919 - France’s loses the weltkreig, and cedes the border region of Alsace, cedes Nancy, dunkirk, and Lillie, while Germany annexes Luxembourg and the all the land up to the Meuse river, while making a puppet of Belgium. Also France ends up undergoing a far left revolution and the original government flees to Africa
1939-1945 - France loses the second weltkrieg, and cedes the area around Calais and up to Amiens, which is given to Germanys Belgian puppet. France’s original government is restored to power under restrictions
1948 - France loses 3rd weltkreig, forced to cede the Lorraine plateau behind the cities of Nancy and Metz, and also cedes all of the French alps to Italy, while Switzerland also gains land up to annecy, furthermore, britanny gains full independence while France itself becomes a complete puppet government of Germany, permanently.
This sounds so much like the war between Japan and the USA. Britain knows that they need to win fast, so the try for a big knock-out blow at the start of the war.
What if The Paris Commune Suceeded?
Part 2 NEEDS to happen! Favorite scenario so far
19 views in 2 minutes? Bro is famous.
Can you make a sort of part 2 basically continuing WW2 after these events
I honestly doubt the British would ever surrender
And there’s no way America is winning a two front naval war where it’s outnumbered out gunned and completely stretching its logistics train.
Depends on the prime minister
@@MCLegend13lol yeah we would
@@americanmapping832wrong check your history on every nation who fought two front wars, France , Germany, The Romans, and so so many more.
2 front wars absolutely devastate logistics and Britain and Japans naval might combined would be far too much for the US navy in the 30s.
this is before the bill for the Two Ocean naval act even existed because that happened in the escalator cause after Japan left the treaty system.
So don’t even try to argue there’s no point.
@@MCLegend13 Lol, I know you got your fingers in your ears, so there is no point in arguing. USA was not like the UK. UK needed its colonies to survive. USA got its colonies by accident, as a lark, by kicking Spain's ass. USA has everything it needs in house, and more up north if it can take Canada, none of which requires a Navy. Hell, if the US could trade the Philippines for Canada, they would do it in an instant.
The main thing the US cares about is Manifest Destiny. And the more the UK or anyone else does to try and win the war, the more USA will remember it. An angry USA will build up their military. They will not aid the British, and would probably look for any opportunity to aid UK's enemies, stir up unrest in their colonies, and hit them when they are weak and not looking.
USA knew it could take Canada, and so did the UK. That would be enough for the first war. And there might only be one war, unless the UK tried too hard in a lost cause, and broke the relationship irreparably. USA was not gonna surrender against Japan after Pearl Harbor, so be careful how you think you're winning.
Maybe UK allies with Nazi Germany or USSR. Then the US picks the other one. UK allies with Japan, then the US allies with China. Does France ally with UK or USA? What about Italy? It could be a whole different WW2, with the same ending. USA wins.
I have some interesting scenario. It is a story about " what if Siam (Thailand) didn't dispel the Russo-Siamese crown prince from royal family during end of Rama-5 and become Tsar of southeast Asian. Also, mother of crown prince name " Екатерина Иванова Десницыки " and father is name "Chakrabon". Disclaimer This act of comment didn't meant to " Overthrow the current monarchy, just introduce for educational and entertainment purpose "
as a Canadian i am a bit frustrated that there have now been 2 where we get annexed by the US but there hasn't been even one where we annex the US. Please make what if everything went perfect for canada
You did kinda get that with PH’s video on if the American Revolution failed but I’d also like to see a perfect Canada.
Yal even today with migration allowed are 40m people roughly. Back then the Americans wouldn't have to worry about yal with 40m people. France with a bit more and a land army that could smoke USA peacetime army due to it's laughable size is another story.
@@CAProductions051 he said that with that there wouldent be any idea of an america and a canada, i still want canada just a bigger canada: like maybe canada wins the war of 1812 and gains some land from the US and russia decides to sell alaska to us instead of america and canada gets way more of the oregon territory
@@pdp117O That makes sense, maybe Canada could get Greenland and the British Caribbean territories as well.
@@pdp117O That would be worse for Canada. It just gives the US a casus Belli to attack for their land back, as well as the rest.
There is no realistic way that Canada, as a nation and not as a puppet of some other stronger power, survives the US as anything other than friendly neighbor.
Somehow I don't see the population of Canada just sitting on their collective hands whilst the U.S. invades, and subjugating a hostile civilian populace tends to get expensive in both money and manpower, something that wouldn't go down well with voters.
I will keep asking for this
Instead of “what if Germany kept trying” do “what if France kept trying”
1871 - France loses Franco Prussian war, cedes Alsace Laurene to Germany
1914-1919 - France’s loses the weltkreig, and cedes the border region of Alsace, cedes Nancy, dunkirk, and Lillie, while Germany annexes Luxembourg and the all the land up to the Meuse river, while making a puppet of Belgium. Also France ends up undergoing a far left revolution and the original government flees to Africa
1939-1945 - France loses the second weltkrieg, and cedes the area around Calais and up to Amiens, which is given to Germanys Belgian puppet. France’s original government is restored to power under restrictions
1948 - France loses 3rd weltkreig, forced to cede the Lorraine plateau behind the cities of Nancy and Metz, and also cedes all of the French alps to Italy, while Switzerland also gains land up to annecy, furthermore, britanny gains full independence while France itself becomes a complete puppet government of Germany, permanently.
Who else thinks that this scenario is leading into "what if 1984 actually happened" especially with PH mentioning a 'dystopian scenario' at the ens of the vid? 👀
i need a part 2 plz papa possible 🙏😭
A lot of parallels between Britain and Japan here. Both island nations with low resources, and decent industrial output, but lackluster compared to the U.S. Only way to win is strike hard and fast like the Japanese at Pearl Harbor.
What if Sweden became a superpower AFTER the napoleonic wars?
How would they do that?
@@the_roman_emperor_fisheatermaybe if they win the Finnish war of 1808
@@the_roman_emperor_fisheater well they were compensated after the war by acquiring Norway. The Bernadotte family still had their eyes set on recapturing Finland from Russia due to the historical territory and the Swedish population. If they play there cards right, they could get it back after the Crimean war. The great powers floated the idea of giving the Congo and Macau to Sweden in our timeline so who knows, maybe they could get that and more.
i personally think Stalin woudnt be that stupid to purge his generals as he know that Germany is coming for the USSR as Stalin wanted Germany to fight against UK as long as possible so the USSR would be safe and believed that Hitler wasnt stupid to fight two front war. Also USSR proposed an coalition with UK and France against Germany. In this timeline adter seeing UK's fall Stalin knows that after France it's the USSR so Stalin would have started Mobilization during 1939 meaning that purges would be very unlikely and Stalin would introduce policy that would benefit the USSR moving from limited free trade to pretty much war economy. This means so many experienced Field Marshalls like Tukechestky and Gernerals would be still alive and USSR being USA of Eurasia in long term its gonna be Soviet victory
I loved the part where you explained how the Americans magically took over the Atlantic… there’s no way the Americans would be able to attack British shipping from suez with no bases anywhere near Europe
He’s got no knowledge in naval history so don’t blame him
Anyone with even the small amount of naval history knowledge like me knows America wouldn’t be able to achieve that.
At least the way I saw the Americans attacking Mediterranean shipping was them spawn camping ships coming through the Strait of Gibraltar
my understanding was that the US seized the azores from portugal due to british use of them as a naval base.
@@cosmosyn2514 America would be blockaded and simultaneously fighting Japan aka not being able to deploy their whole navy to counter Britains blockade this video really makes no sense there are so many inaccuracy’s especially since the major American 2 ocean building program didn’t start til the early 40s and this is a decade before that.
@@MCLegend13 my comment was regards to the OPs naval base critique. everything you replied to me with is irrelevant to that and i dont care about it.
here's just a quick thought, if say france did get declared on by germany, the us may not send soldiers but they may send advisors as if saying "you should put better defenses here" as that would then be our only mainland ally in europe.
Make a video about What if bojinka plot succeeded
3:22 i'm the only ona that is upset that France is not called Indigo or other blue variants?
Now do what if Francisco Morazan's Centroamerica succeeded/what if everything went perfect for the United Provinces of Centroamerica
This would be more of a 1812 with pearl harbor i think, the American military was still largely a ww1 army at this point and while yes the UKs empire was in a rough shape it was still good. During ww1 the Canadians were some of the best fighters which would of quickly become aggressive gurila fighters, the UK also had millions of indians to throw at it if they wanted just like in both world wars
I mean the US army was also really small in 1933 it wad practically only 100,000 strong thats even smaller than the UKs standing army which would've immediately been sent to canada to defend it.
Avarage hoi4 playthrough as usa:
Man, this new season of Red Vs Blue is wild.
This is what i do t like about your Vids anymore: They always ignore major aspects. Thats just no fun. Your quality control felt better on the older vids.
In this Vid: Aircraft. Why on earth should the US consider prolonging the war for years solely for shipbuilding reasons, fielding huge ships that have to compete against the most experienced navy on the planet when they could simply abuse their position as an enourmous aircraft carrier. Naval air defense back then was shit and the B10 Bomber already was in the air in 1932. Maybe at least aknowledge your considerations regarding this? I assume you put more thought into this, than i.
Its extremely weird, when i, a working man, come home from 12 hours of work and caring for my mother, just want to watch some stuff to dumb down and still have the mental capacity to spot this "detail" if you may call it this way.
EDIT: Please, this is tries to be constructive criticism.
I can see gun running around the world to India. Now if the British face a large uprising in India, what do they do? Do they consider Canada more important than India? Yes, I know, Canada is technically not a colony, though it is a constitutional monarchy is personal union with the United Kingdom.
Bro really thinks the US navy can outmatch the centuries old elite of Royal Navy gunnery and intense japanese obsession to destroy the US combined 😂😂
This
Them being on opposite sides of the planet and racism will keep them from ever joint up into one super fleet. Add on to Britain’s navy being spread all over the world protecting their colonies and trade routes then yes, they will lose eventually.
The British will keep protecting their colonies and trade route by the way because they need those resources to keep their economy running and build up their military. The US will have all of North Americas resources under their control after Canada falls and trading with Mexico overland will never cease. So that’s everything they need to keep going and continue building up for decades.
Because it ended well for Japan historically.
@@bigchungus1920
The Japan that was also fighting China, France and the British Empire as well? What a surprise.
@@ale-xsantos1078destroyed most of our navy and still got their ass served to them on a silver platter, lmao.
Love It!
More Of This Timeline Please! ^^
What If Russia 🇷🇺 never annexed or conquered Siberia and didn't expand East into Asia
Pre ww1 uk
Post ww1 usa
Simple
I am very skeptical about the notion that Canada would be able to hold the front for years, yes a few months of hard fighting, and then collapse. On another front, your scenario for some reason disregards the UK's ability to gain allies in Europe, I highly doubt that only Portugal would join the UK, I believe that the conditions that made the war between the UK and the USA possible will also bring France into the equation, not to mention that Hitler Germany would enthusiastically support the UK even without direct entry into the conflict, in any case, wars between great powers have the tendency to drag small neutrals, so it is inevitable that colonial positions of Holland and Denmark in the Americas and Asia will see combat too, ironically, this could end up becoming a war between the small imperialist powers of Europe and Japan against the continental giants of the USA, USSR and China!
That adds an anti-colonial motivation which the US, USSR, and China (who was currently being invaded by Japan) would love to push. Supporting nativist uprisings in the colonies to leave them free yet weak, ready to enter the US sphere of Influence as the new World Naval Power. (From an American POV. :D)
It would be interesting to see what strange bedfellows there would be. With Hitler in Germany, he would love to fight the USSR on the same page as UK and France. With the need to support USSR, but a hostile UK or Japan in between, I think the Pacific takes on greater importance, since all 3 powers can focus on solely Japan. On the other hand, China has less desires outside of the Pacific region, so maybe let them handle most of the fighting there, with support from US and USSR, while they pincer Europe from both sides.
I think getting support to China and USSR is essential, however, so it still comes down to winning the Naval war in the Pacific. If Japan is dealt with, and the war can shift its focus to Europe, maybe the Chinese can be transported via rail in USSR to help the European front, if the Soviets have enough trust. Depending on how the war is going might sway their minds.
India would be a wild card. A huge aspect of diplomacy would be getting India to not help, even if it be by rebellion or even civil war. It would be difficult for China and India to fight a direct land war, but Indian troops could bolster the Euro forces. If they sit out, it throws a huge wrench into their plans.
I think the US is vulnerable to the Naval war, at least in the course of a normal war. They could eventually build up their navy, but it would take a while. Once Canada was firmly in US hands, and could be had in the peace deal, calls for peace in the US would be strong. Ironically, the only thing that could change that is successful action on the UK's side. If they do too well, then the US might just get pissed off and decide to go for as long as it takes.
I doubt hitler would support the British he’d probably work with America in the case that France joins against them. This would give him the ally that Germany needed to win the war because he would gain the industry necessary for his conquests. In the real world Germany didn’t have the oil or the mechanized equipment to win but with American industry the German army would have most of the things it needs.
What if Iberia had not been reunified into large countries until the 19th century? (Like Italy and Germany)
We need continuation.
👇
What if Germany had more time in WW1? (What if WW1 dragged on) / What if tanks were more widespread in WW1? / What if the battle of Verdun was lost? / What if WW1 went TERRIBLE for Germany? / What if Hitler was assassinated in the July plot of 1944? / What if Germany invaded the Soviet Union earlier? / What if Mussolini never came to power? / What if Hitler never came to power? / What if Italy got a better WW1 peace deal? / What if the treaty of Versailles was less harsh? / What if the treaty of Versailles was harsher? / What if Napolean didn't invade Russia? / What if WW1 started during the first morrocon crisis of 1905?
How does one actually join the discord? I can’t find any links anywhere, and I couldn’t find it on Disboard.
Britain alone definitely wouldn't have the full naval edge, but if Japan joins there is no world where the USA has any sort of chance at sea. Britain and Japan would quickly capture all overseas US territory, most importantly Panama and hawaii then start raiding the US coast and destroying their shipbuilding capability and fleet. They almost definitely wouldn't be able to launch a full invasion, but there is just no chance the first and second strongest navys wouldn't beat the third, sure US production was strong but it wasnt supernatural, they only built around double or even less than large ships Britain built during ww2 and Britain was far less focused on its navy than the USA because it already had a better navy than Germany and italy combined. British and Japanese shipbuilding would keep up with and eventually overtake US shipbuilding and they already started at a stronger point
The Americans weren't focusing on the pacific as it didn't have much impact on the war
@@Mark-nx5pk they absolutely were focusing on the Pacific, they were building ships as fast as they possibly could and the vast majority of those ships went to the Pacific, because Britain already had the naval aspect of the European theatre covered. In a world where the US just didn't fight in Europe for one reason or another, the Pacific theatre would be almost the exact same with the USA having just a handful more ships that wouldn't speed things up anyway. The US army and aircraft used in Europe simply wouldn't be able to be used in the Pacific. The idea of "Germany first" doesn't really make any sense when you actually look at the war
@@Battyj I’m talking about this alternate timeline scenario
@Mark-nx5pk well then you are even more wrong, when Japan and Britain inevitably capture hawaii it gives Japan the ability to actually reach the US mainland, allowing Japan with British and Australian help to harass and even invade the USA if no ships show up. You can't just ignore a front, that isn't how that works, and when they do split their forces to defend both oceans, they'll lose.
Im glad you showed that a small part of India was occupied by the Uk, and not the whole entire India 👏
Canada:💀💀
Really interesting scenario that could be explored more if it wasn't so hard to predict what could happen next. Honestly still my favorite alt-history channel since I discovered you about a year ago.