What If France Won WW2? | Alternate History

What If France, Rather Than Surrender So Quickly Under The German Invasion, Had Turned The Tables And Defeated Germany There And Then? What Would Become Of The Other Players In The Conflict? We'll Be Exploring Why France Lost WWII, How France Could Have Defeated Germany, And How This Would Impact Britain, The Soviet Union, China, And The Japanese Empire.
#AlternateHistory #MonsieurZ #France
New Videos Every Wednesday At 2:30 PM EST
__
Join Our Discord Server- / discord
__
Website: thezetaworkstu...
__
Patreon: / monsieurz
__
Merchandise: teespring.com/...
__
Music Used: Open Sesame Synthwave
__
Guest Stars:

[@SpoodDadoo]

Dangit ADL... depriving us of our history memes. Great job on the video, you should review more medieval or ancient world topics though. like: what if Cao Cao won the battle at Red Cliffs and Reestablished the Han Dynasty or what if the Reconquista never happened?

[@MonsieurDean]

I just need some good recommendations, the ancient world isn't my strongest area, so those types of scenarios don't occur to me as much.

[@SpoodDadoo]

if you need any info on some of this, I would be happy to provide you some info.

[@AnimatedStoriesWorldwide]

I was so surprised to see a translated chinese battle name, I thought you were making a joke about Cao Cao moving to the western american coast and fighting Native Americans in the BC's. "Cao Cao and the Battle of Fort RedCliff"

[@SpoodDadoo]

boi

[@SpoodDadoo]

maybe, but they were basically a mess when America took their land, so it would be hard to really do something like that, in my opinion at least.

[@darthnerd4432]

Everyone talking about France's 6 week defeat to Germany, but no one talks about Germany's 6 day defeat to Napoleon

[@connorsproles9239]

I feel like lots of people talk about the napoleonic wars….

[@dave_williams_official_2024]

You mean Prussia? Germany did not exist at the time lol

[@kurochigo]

​@@dave_williams_official_2024 same

[@xoxoxoxo570]

It was prussia Not Germany and half of Germany Allied with france in this war

[@zenitheleum]

6 days? When tho? They fought for years and with the help of an entire continental coalition.

[@petartoshkov2076]

This sounds like a hearts of iron iv alternative history mod tittle

[@kornsuwin]

True

[@officialkirbyfan6899]

Damm I need to get that game...

[@711jastin]

communist Japan, democratic Mainland China, modern superpower Qing Dynasty, oh boy.

[@1mol831]

New Justice Frankish Reich

[@dismantledhenry5006]

@@officialkirbyfan6899 and I am poor to get it 😢

[@ironraccoon3536]

What if France intervened when Germany remilitarized the Rhineland?

[@TrusteeNail]

The Germans would make a defensive line in the Rhine if they did first of all

[@timvanrijn8239]

They be seen as the agressor and eventualy lose due to laking war support. With it only starting to rise if the nazies push into french lands lorain a bid. Beyoned there going total war. If the nazi push the taking back ONLY german territory and keep that promise. They take alsass lorian before the line is completed and have no western ambitions. So the whole eastern europian hegemon anti sovjet thing might sell to the western Europians

[@fristnamelastname5549]

Well, no one ever told, Germany they can't remiliarized around the Rhineland.

[@teletek1776]

The Germans were given the order to retreat if the allies showed up.

[@bigmac1516]

Iron Raccoon They were under orders to pull out if they met any resistance. Germany’s rearmament would be delayed. Likely soviets are the great threat of the age, as the UK and France wouldn’t fight Germany, so they could send aid to Finland when the soviets invade. So on and so on.

[@vincentwitt1810]

i don’t understand what’s with people calling the french cowards. In ww2 they fought decisively at battles like Dunkirk, Hannut, Lille, Operation Dragoon, Syria, lebanon, Recapturing of the maginot line, The french resistance and especially Bir Hakeim. Not to mention that vichy french troops were the last soldiers to defend berlin. The french just had pathetic leaders in ww2 except for charles de gaulle and jean de lattre de tassigny

[@pierren___]

On both side, its true. Did Vichy won any battles ? Including colonies

[@fountainchristain]

@@pierren___ they won a few and were important to Germany in major battles. The French were in the same position I say with the Italians good soldiers bad leaders.

[@pierren___]

@@fountainchristain yeah... Vichy should have go To war against England, with axis

[@fountainchristain]

@@pierren___ would have been interesting honestly don't think it would change much expect the Italian navy living a bit longer which thinking about it could make things better for them overall.

[@pierren___]

@@fountainchristain think axis would win tbh

[@darthguilder1923]

Escargotreich: What if France won WWII?

[@gorge2786]

Oui, j’aime l’escargots

[@Vesporeon]

Anglo-Reich: What if Britain won WWII?

[@Vesporeon]

@althist commune Big Bite: What if Big Bite bit the War of Big Bite Succession

[@Derkosson]

Well technically, they couldn't lose. With De Gaull and Pétain, they were essentially in both sides of the war.

[@darnit1944]

What if Greece invades Italy?

[@confusedgentleman]

Maxime Weygand was for French rearmament way before WW2. He was completely against the Anglo-French policy of appeasement and recognized the importance of combined arms military operations and concentrated tank attacks, as far back as WW1 when he aided Foch and the Entente achieve victory over Germany. He was not at all responsible for the defeat of France in 1940, as he only took command of the Army after it was too late for France. Maurice Gamelin is responsible, and he should be the one shown in the beginning, not Weygand. Other than that small detail, great video, keep up the good work. -Chris

[@davidlacoste]

Gamelin was not the sole responsible, but certainly the main one.

[@amerigo88]

Weygand did what he could, but those "French metronomes that ran slower than the German metronomes" inexcusably entailed essentially no one in charge of the French Armee while Weygand was returning from Syria to Metropolitan France. While one could say that WWI moved slowly, the opening weeks of both the German invasions (August 1914 and May 1940) were moving at a frantic pace. There wasn't enough time to bring in Weygand. Someone already at GHQ should have gotten the job from Gamelin instead.

[@benoitbvg2888]

Weygand also wanted to counter-attack at Dunkirk, it was Roosevelt who said "no".

[@afisto6647]

@@benoitbvg2888 Wtf Roosevelt doing here ? First America wasn't in the war yet. Second if this is true he clearly have no right to take decisions here.

[@benoitbvg2888]

@@afisto6647 Was I drunk? I clearly meant to say Churchill. Thx.

[@NoFlu]

Small idea for improvement: The map key is really hard to read on mobile, IDK how many of your viewers use mobile devices to watch your vids, but you could try to increase the font size or put the Map key below Africa and between South America and Australia, which would give you a larger key, as I don't think a "What if the Penguins in Antartica attacked" scenario would need the room down there.....

[@joshualontoc4465]

Also change the colours a tad, The yellow is really hard to read

[@OTGT26]

What if Monsieur Z beat the EU

[@MonsieurDean]

We might just!

[@DakuHonoo]

just sow dissent in the V4, some germans already want us out

[@roskcity]

EU good.

[@joshuaramirez5399]

What if France and Britain went to war in 1895 during the Fashoda Incident

[@_-.-_-_.._--.-_-_----_-.--_._-]

How about the Morrocan Crisis? The Casablanca Incident?

[@jamestodd1104]

The brits would’ve won. As usual.

[@oam6626]

James Todd yeah but WW1 etc.

[@jamestodd1104]

Auto only joking

[@andybrooks3155]

French have been militarily bad for nearly 2 centuries go figure 😂 Wouldn't play with them currently though, respect for the country for turning around!

[@theresarapistinmyboot1081]

Hey on a a technical note: France technically won Ww2. Charles de gual actually forced the British to view the French as still combatants in the war. But still again the Vichy government were puppets in the war.

[@druisteen]

French resitance ? anyone ?? @Miguel Lopes

[@druisteen]

return to real life ! Bliztkrieg , 6 week of heavy fighting , 100 K cassualty @Miguel Lopes

[@account-ll8ou]

@Miguel Lopes treaty of VERSAILLES

[@sdagoth3037]

No they didn't. The French Third Republic was destroyed at the onset of the war, and France was only freed when the other allies pushed out the Nazis. It's just not accurate to say they won the war.

[@Victor17Flash]

@theresarpistinmyboot1081 I also share your opinion

[@melfice999]

Well. Considering this is pre-war era stuff more than anything... But what if Poland lost the Polish Soviet war?

[@TheWeedIsland]

@@10hawell Uhh no, this would not be the same. The USSR would use Poland as a bridge into Germany and the Balkans. Germany would fall due to instability at that time and Europe's only saving grace would be the Entente, but I doubt they would be able to retake too much territory at the time. (they would definitely intervene because of the UK's obsession with the balance of power, and France not wanting to have a hostile neighbour) A peace would be signed possibly dividing Germany into east and west (only this time the Eastern part is greater) and an early cold war era would begin.

[@alecshockowitz8385]

If that occurred it is fairly likely that Lenin would have pushed further west. Sparking an early WW2 which would really just being Germany with further western support dragging everyone else into the war with the Soviets. The Soviets didn't have the ability to wage such a large scale war at the time. It would likely devolve into some sort of trench warfare, until American, French and British forces break the gridlock with more modernized militaries.

[@maxmuller8633]

@@alecshockowitz8385 Lenin died before WW2 even started

[@lachlanknell743]

@@maxmuller8633He is talking about the polish-soviet war which occured in 1919, then saying that if they beat the poles it would spark an extremely early ww2 merely a few years after the previous one.

[@maxmuller8633]

@@lachlanknell743 k

[@kissingerfanpage]

What if the ADL did not censor Monsieur Z's videos?

[@sigward9543]

oy vey

[@rabbitransgenderbergracemi2062]

@@sigward9543 shut it down

[@disparatebroom7705]

whats ADL?

[@man-uk8cz]

what is adl

[@roskcity]

@@rabbitransgenderbergracemi2062 shut up

[@itwouldbesoawesomeitwouldb6280]

What if Japan conquered Asia but never invaded the United States?

[@EvilParagon4]

There's an old joke. The year is 1945, in China. Two men, a British General and a Chinese one have tea everyday while they get their battlefield reports. Report: Chinese casualties - 15,000 Japanese casualties - 15,000 British General: Oh my. Chinese General: Alright. The next day, Report: Chinese casualties - 20,000 Japanese casualties - 10,000 BG: This is not good. CG: War is never good. The next day, Report: Chinese casualties - 50,000 Japanese casualties - 5,000 BG: Holy shit! CG: _Sips tea._ BG: Dear god man, how can you not be in utter panic right now? CG: Because _(Sips tea)..._ they are running out of men. --- Japan did not have the resources or manpower to take over Asia. They were hoping to take resources from the Philippines (an American possession), but that would bring America in. So the Japanese figured they'd bomb America's navy and knock them out of the war before they are even able to join it. They were wrong, but that was the idea, that they could safely invade the Philippines and secure more resources if America couldn't respond immediately. Japan was never going to win. Their best bet would have been taking Siberia (and only Siberia) from the Soviet Union, then invading the rest of Asia later. But as soon as they involved themselves with a war against China, they were screwed. Japan by all means was the stronger force than China, and Japan was winning for a long time. But China just had too many people. China could just outlast you, then their millions of kids will slaughter your hundreds of kids.

[@alphagamer9505]

@@EvilParagon4 also didnt help that Japan seem to forget to bomb the repairment area of Pearl Harbor,if they did,they could have had more time

[@SpaceMonkeyBoi]

Japan invading China would have ended like Germany invading the USSR

[@thatvexiol]

@@SpaceMonkeyBoi only 10x worse for japan

[@yesyesyesyes1600]

@@alphagamer9505 plus the oil tanks.

[@alexblevins5142]

I thought the point of departure would be the French successfully defending the Arden's and halting the German blitz krieg making a senario where the Germans where forced to halt there advance and due to not being able to pierce the French lines there would be mass unrest in Germany due to it seeming like a repeat of the great war not being able to advance.

[@mysterythekitsune2988]

I thought the same where the Germans are bogged down in another similar entrenchment at the Maginot Line.

[@ommsterlitz1805]

@@mysterythekitsune2988 The Maginot line still held one month after France 3rd republic government capitulate

[@GreatPolishWingedHussars]

As I said above it was also part of the betrayal that the Poles were actually hindered by the British and French in the preparations for war! Our good French "allies" refused to deliver the SOMUA S35 tanks to Poland, which was superior to the German main battle tank Panzer III. In 1936 Poland laid out an ambitious program to expand the army. The Poles greatly admired and wanted to acquire France's best tank S35. With good armor protection, speed and a 47mm gun, the S35 was probably the world's best tank at the time. Additionally Poles would have improved this tank with the revolutionary Polish gundlach periscope G wz. 34. It was the first device to allow the tank commander to have a 360-degree view from his turret with a single periscope. The tank commander no longer had to stick its head out of the tank turret to get a panoramic view. In addition, the Poles could have equipped the tank with the superior Polish radio. This would have made this tank, which was anyway superior to the German tanks , unbeatable. These S35 tank would have been a significant boost to the Polish armed forces. The Polish military commission asked France for 100 of this tanks, plus machine tools and a license in order to produce even more in Poland. The French were not ready to deliver this superior S35 tanks to the Poles and they also refused to license the S35. Instead of that they delivered only ridiculous 50 smaller and less capable Renault R35 infantry support light tank. This tanks were not suitable for fighting the German main tanks III and IV. Poland actually didn't want the R35 tank, because the engine was overheating, the suspension was tough, and armament insufficient. In 1939 it was finally decided to buy R35 tanks as an emergency measure. Also because of resistance by the British, the weapons that the Poles most wanted, about 150 technically advanced fighters, were not supplied This still showed also how unwilling the British and French were to support the Polish "ally" with the necessary military armament. By th way, also the total amount of the loan from British government was also much smaller than asked for. Britain eventually agreed to lend just 8 million pounds instead of the 60 million that Poland needed. By the way, Poland proposed to the British and French as early as 1933 an invarson in Germany to disempower the German Nazi regime. The British and French have refused. The description of the economic situation of the Germans in 1939 is also interesting because there is also the myth that the Germans were economically superior in 1939. Because the Germans funded their military superiority to Poland with completely indebtedness of Germany! The Germans financed their rearmament program above all on debt. The Germans could not afford that rearmament program and were therefore bankrupt in 1939. Just incidentally, Poland was not bankrupt in 1939 like Germany it was. The war should finance the war for the Germans! Information from this Wikipedia link! "Economy of Nazi Germany" "The enormous military buildup was financed to a large extent through deficit spending, including Mefo bills. Between 1933 and 1939, up to 60% of government spending was rearmament costs. The Germans expected that the upcoming territorial expansion would provide the means of repaying the soaring national debt, by exploiting the wealth and manpower of conquered nations." The German Nazi government has since the inception of power, from 1933, the public treasury overused (spent too much money, too little taken) and was therefore constantly on the brink of bankruptcy. The Germans attempted this bankruptcy by means of raids, first to escape minorities in their own population (Gypsies, Poles and Jews), later abroad, through the occupation and plundering of foreign countries. Furthermore, the Poles would have been able to repel the Germans alone in 1939 for that the Poles would have armed like the Germans but for that the Poles would have had to go into debt like the Germans up to bankruptcy! Poland had not to do this because Poland had strong allies with France and Great Britain! The Poles actually had enough planes, tanks like other weapons in 1939 to resist the Germans until the French and British attack in the West. As I mentioned before if the French and British had attacked massively in the West in 1939, as contractually agreed, the Germans would have quickly lost the war. Germany was not sufficiently prepared for a two-front war. As I mentioned before, Germany was actually bankrupt in 1939 and Poland was not broke in 1939. Poles have not armed excessively because the Poles have relied on the treacherous allies!

[@BonaparteRestorationist3231]

What about what if operation unthinkable happened

[@MonsieurDean]

Will need to cover this soon!

[@gretelmkii5215]

Patton/Mcarthur **looks towards nukes** **Heavy Breathing**

[@aaaaaaa8058]

That would be ... unthinkable (I'll leave now)

[@SelfProclaimedEmperor]

@@gretelmkii5215 nukes would not change the fact that the red army would be beating the allies to death on the beaches of France before chasing them to England

[@thomaswatson1739]

What if a secession movement returned in the 1950s South????

[@timvanrijn8239]

Then the dixie flag whould be a symbole of the seccesionist and not the kkk. As it use in that context sterted durring the 1940s

[@thomaswatson1739]

It be interesting to see what would happen if the Dixiecrats of 1948 stayed together after the election. They would have had a key issue of segregation and states rights.

[@thomaswatson1739]

Perhaps make The National States Rights Party or have the South secede over Brown V Board.

[@traditionalfascists3303]

Eugene Talmadge Heil Yeah

[@timvanrijn8239]

@@thomaswatson1739 whouldnt the south be an south europian italy greece analoge

[@rutger5000]

France did not have the means to fight Germany in WW2. Yes they had the men, yes they had the technology, yes they had the training, but they did not have the moral for it. France never wanted to fight WW2, and so it didn't.

[@Canada1994]

YES!! Thank you for making this. There were other reasons like that France had a lot of Fascists and Communists in the army that didn't want to fight Hitler, preferring to collaborate with him (which a lot did under the Vichy regime) or viewed him as a friend of the worker because of his non aggression pact with the Soviet Union. The German Blitzkrieg was inspired by De Gaulle's version of mobile warfare that called for tanks to be used like the cavalry in Napoleon's time to break the enemy lines and have infantry flood through the holes. Also the Germans were stuck in gridlock for the first three days of the Battle of France in a line of trucks and tanks from the German border to the Rhine. If France and Britain knew that they would've bombed them like sitting ducks stopping the Blitz before it even began. Also German troops were using crystal meth tablets to stay awake for several days to overrun the allied defences in the beginning of the Battle for France Also France almost had a Communist revolution in 1936 and 1968? Please do one of what if one or both succeeded. Or do one where the Algerian coup of 1961 succeeded or if the Paris Commune in 1871 succeeded or if Napoleon won at Waterloo

[@JustinianG]

I think you'd like this timeline I made. it's basically the Greek equivalent of this one. but France still does better because they'd need to have done better to weaken Germany enough for Greece to escape WW2 without being plundered by the nazis. kzbin.info/www/bejne/sKalYYmPdt6sp8k

[@GreatPolishWingedHussars]

As I said above it was also part of the betrayal that the Poles were actually hindered by the British and French in the preparations for war! Our good French "allies" refused to deliver the SOMUA S35 tanks to Poland, which was superior to the German main battle tank Panzer III. In 1936 Poland laid out an ambitious program to expand the army. The Poles greatly admired and wanted to acquire France's best tank S35. With good armor protection, speed and a 47mm gun, the S35 was probably the world's best tank at the time. Additionally Poles would have improved this tank with the revolutionary Polish gundlach periscope G wz. 34. It was the first device to allow the tank commander to have a 360-degree view from his turret with a single periscope. The tank commander no longer had to stick its head out of the tank turret to get a panoramic view. In addition, the Poles could have equipped the tank with the superior Polish radio. This would have made this tank, which was anyway superior to the German tanks , unbeatable. These S35 tank would have been a significant boost to the Polish armed forces. The Polish military commission asked France for 100 of this tanks, plus machine tools and a license in order to produce even more in Poland. The French were not ready to deliver this superior S35 tanks to the Poles and they also refused to license the S35. Instead of that they delivered only ridiculous 50 smaller and less capable Renault R35 infantry support light tank. This tanks were not suitable for fighting the German main tanks III and IV. Poland actually didn't want the R35 tank, because the engine was overheating, the suspension was tough, and armament insufficient. In 1939 it was finally decided to buy R35 tanks as an emergency measure. Also because of resistance by the British, the weapons that the Poles most wanted, about 150 technically advanced fighters, were not supplied This still showed also how unwilling the British and French were to support the Polish "ally" with the necessary military armament. By th way, also the total amount of the loan from British government was also much smaller than asked for. Britain eventually agreed to lend just 8 million pounds instead of the 60 million that Poland needed. By the way, Poland proposed to the British and French as early as 1933 an invarson in Germany to disempower the German Nazi regime. The British and French have refused. The description of the economic situation of the Germans in 1939 is also interesting because there is also the myth that the Germans were economically superior in 1939. Because the Germans funded their military superiority to Poland with completely indebtedness of Germany! The Germans financed their rearmament program above all on debt. The Germans could not afford that rearmament program and were therefore bankrupt in 1939. Just incidentally, Poland was not bankrupt in 1939 like Germany it was. The war should finance the war for the Germans! Information from this Wikipedia link! "Economy of Nazi Germany" "The enormous military buildup was financed to a large extent through deficit spending, including Mefo bills. Between 1933 and 1939, up to 60% of government spending was rearmament costs. The Germans expected that the upcoming territorial expansion would provide the means of repaying the soaring national debt, by exploiting the wealth and manpower of conquered nations." The German Nazi government has since the inception of power, from 1933, the public treasury overused (spent too much money, too little taken) and was therefore constantly on the brink of bankruptcy. The Germans attempted this bankruptcy by means of raids, first to escape minorities in their own population (Gypsies, Poles and Jews), later abroad, through the occupation and plundering of foreign countries. Furthermore, the Poles would have been able to repel the Germans alone in 1939 for that the Poles would have armed like the Germans but for that the Poles would have had to go into debt like the Germans up to bankruptcy! Poland had not to do this because Poland had strong allies with France and Great Britain! The Poles actually had enough planes, tanks like other weapons in 1939 to resist the Germans until the French and British attack in the West. As I mentioned before if the French and British had attacked massively in the West in 1939, as contractually agreed, the Germans would have quickly lost the war. Germany was not sufficiently prepared for a two-front war. As I mentioned before, Germany was actually bankrupt in 1939 and Poland was not broke in 1939. Poles have not armed excessively because the Poles have relied on the treacherous allies!

[@Canada1994]

@@GreatPolishWingedHussars Why bring this up? I never mentioned Poland

[@GreatPolishWingedHussars]

@@Canada1994 Well your comment is pretty high on the list. I tried my best and posted a long comment on the topic. But my comment is probably far below. So I copied my comment and used it to comment on your comment. But my comment is not that wrong, because it is about the topic. I hope this doesn't bother you too much!

[@Canada1994]

@@GreatPolishWingedHussars It doesn't just curious. My hometown Owen Sound Canada was the site of a Polish Army camp to train Polish immigrants from the US and Canada to fight in the Polish exile army in Europe during WW2.

[@tharealverminsupreme135]

How to get upvotes on R/Historymemes Step 1:France bad Germany good Step 2: Profit

[@GlizzyGoblin757]

ur name is very reddit

[@icyguy2547]

What if WW1 bled over into South America, opening up a new front for both the Entente and Central Powers?

[@justinianmakesbyzantiumgre5716]

It technically did bleed into South America since Brazil joined the entente but there wasn’t a front since no South American country joined the central powers

[@JustinianG]

whatifalthist did a video n that. he named it ''What if Brazil was a super power''

[@gabethepro7113]

Justinian makes Byzantium Great Again Wasn’t Argentina good relations with Germany? What if they joined against the Brazilians?

[@Ethan_Willemse]

Whatifalthist did a video on "what if Brazil was a superpower" and in the video there is a South American front in ww1 and ww2

[@Ethan_Willemse]

@@JustinianG YES!!! I just said that. :)

[@RomanOf-lo7zn]

Amazing video. Monsieur Z has truly earned his name of “Monsieur” Z.

[@estabonrolon4851]

this is one of his weaker videos, nationalist china joining the co prosperity sphere and France joining with Italy right after beating Germany makes almost no sense. If Germany lost again Hitler would probably lose power and the remaining regime would turn to Britain, it wouldn't immediately bounce back and reabsorb mittleeuropa.

[@LebaneseBaron]

@@estabonrolon4851 actually, the Nationalist leadership was captured and coerced into cooperating against Japan during the war. And honestly, it makes more sense than a joint nationalist-communist front if you consider both Japan and Chiang Kai-Shek were nationalists and traditionalists. Though I agree about Italy, fascism wasn't De Gaulle's thing. And, most important of all, if France had De Gaulle as the genera commander, I doubt it would have told the Poles to stop mobilizing in 1939 (as it happened in our timeline), so both France and Poland would probably converge upon Germany if both of their armed forces were mobilized, and the latter would turn its attention Eastward, using its stronger forces and high morale (after defeating the Germans) to attack the USSR, who had also invaded Poland. It was on the best interests of France and the UK to support Poland against the Soviets. Anyway, such a timeline seems better than ours, killing two totalitarian regimes at once

[@Hrabns]

What if Luxembourg won WW2?

[@satan1189]

The world would be much better. Potatoes and gardenbeans everywhere By: me, a luxemburger

[@nathanschmitz2302]

What if the Cube won?

[@asdded8578]

We would all be rich. With the Swiss. Said from a French people living in the border of Luxembourg

[@will6412]

I was expecting someone down here to say they did lol

[@max-eu2qi]

Oh by the way, belgium won ww2

[@Benjamin-Franklin]

What if The French Treaty of Versailles was used What if Lenin didn't die and lead the USSR

[@timvanrijn8239]

No body is surpirsed wen the germans start a tottal war with france

[@Aecrim1]

If Lenin didn't die, Romania would be in deep trouble,since Lenin hated so much Romanians. He considers Romania is a "artificial nation" and should be integrated in Russia. A madman anyway

[@Victor-el3ul]

Wait ! Isn't what ACTUALLY happened ?

[@Benjamin-Franklin]

@@Victor-el3ul No The French Version was Extremely Brutal Unlike the British and American

[@Victor-el3ul]

@@Benjamin-Franklin How you're right; is it the one with Morgenthau plan ?

[@reds.victim1023]

Of course, it could've gone differently; De Gaulle was more of a military man than a politician, he only entered politics because some politicians didn't listen to him, and his main political backers were popular front politicians by the time WW2 breaks out.

[@GreatPolishWingedHussars]

As I said above it was also part of the betrayal that the Poles were actually hindered by the British and French in the preparations for war! Our good French "allies" refused to deliver the SOMUA S35 tank to Poland, which was superior to the German main battle tank Panzer III. In 1936 Poland laid out an ambitious program to expand the army. The Poles greatly admired and wanted to acquire France's best tank S35. With good armor protection, speed and a 47mm gun, the S35 was probably the world's best tank at the time. Additionally Poles would have improved this tank with the revolutionary Polish gundlach periscope G wz. 34. It was the first device to allow the tank commander to have a 360-degree view from his turret with a single periscope. The tank commander no longer had to stick its head out of the tank turret to get a panoramic view. In addition, the Poles could have equipped the tank with the superior Polish radio. This would have made this tank, which was anyway superior to the German tanks , unbeatable. These S35 tank would have been a significant boost to the Polish armed forces. The Polish military commission asked France for 100 of this tanks, plus machine tools and a license in order to produce even more in Poland. The French were not ready to deliver this superior S35 tanks to the Poles and they also refused to license the S35. Instead of that they delivered only ridiculous 50 smaller and less capable Renault R35 infantry support light tank. This tanks were not suitable for fighting the German main tanks III and IV. Poland actually didn't want the R35 tank, because the engine was overheating, the suspension was tough, and armament insufficient. In 1939 it was finally decided to buy R35 tanks as an emergency measure. Also because of resistance by the British, the weapons that the Poles most wanted, about 150 technically advanced fighters, were not supplied This still showed also how unwilling the British and French were to support the Polish "ally" with the necessary military armament. By th way, also the total amount of the loan from British government was also much smaller than asked for. Britain eventually agreed to lend just 8 million pounds instead of the 60 million that Poland needed. By the way, Poland proposed to the British and French as early as 1933 an invarson in Germany to disempower the German Nazi regime. The British and French have refused. The description of the economic situation of the Germans in 1939 is also interesting because there is also the myth that the Germans were economically superior in 1939. Because the Germans funded their military superiority to Poland with completely indebtedness of Germany! The Germans financed their rearmament program above all on debt. The Germans could not afford that rearmament program and were therefore bankrupt in 1939. Just incidentally, Poland was not bankrupt in 1939 like Germany it was. The war should finance the war for the Germans! Information from this Wikipedia link! "Economy of Nazi Germany" "The enormous military buildup was financed to a large extent through deficit spending, including Mefo bills. Between 1933 and 1939, up to 60% of government spending was rearmament costs. The Germans expected that the upcoming territorial expansion would provide the means of repaying the soaring national debt, by exploiting the wealth and manpower of conquered nations." The German Nazi government has since the inception of power, from 1933, the public treasury overused (spent too much money, too little taken) and was therefore constantly on the brink of bankruptcy. The Germans attempted this bankruptcy by means of raids, first to escape minorities in their own population (Gypsies, Poles and Jews), later abroad, through the occupation and plundering of foreign countries. Furthermore, Poland would have been able to repel the Germans alone in 1939 for that the Poles would have armed like the Germans but for that the Poles would have had to go into debt like the Germans up to bankruptcy! Poland had not to do this because Poland had strong allies with France and Great Britain! The Poles actually had enough planes, tanks like other weapons in 1939 to resist the Germans until the French and British attack in the West. As I mentioned before if the French and British had attacked massively in the West in 1939, as contractually agreed, the Germans would have quickly lost the war. Germany was not sufficiently prepared for a two-front war. As I mentioned before, Germany was actually bankrupt in 1939 and Poland was not broke in 1939. Poles have not armed excessively because the Poles have relied on the treacherous allies!

[@hirohito2271]

You don't really know DeGaulle, as a matter of fact in terms of politics, he is the one who created the fifth french republic and its constitution because the two precedent one were unbalanced between the legislative power and the executive power. The 3rd and fourth republics were based on a really strong legislative power given to the parliament, leading to numerous crisis due to the lack of action and speed of decisions taken. Degaulle really built a republic from scratch in new institutions based on a more powerfull government, and it is something challenged today by many french.

[@Freedmoon44]

​@@hirohito2271"by many french" we wouldnt have ANY problem with his constitution if our current presidents didnt abuse it harder than De Gaulle, and he was who made it specifically so that his personnal power as president was unnoposed and absolute in the areas he sought, and who added the constitutional article allowing for the president to declare dictatorship in time of absolute problem. The 5th republic relies nearly exclusively on its president to run smoothly, because a corrupt president will lead a corrupt governement for corrupt people. De Gaulle was a nationalist who led a nationalist governement for a nationalist France. It was fine then becaus De Gaulle was a military man before a politician, not anymore, the president needs better checks than other politicians who are his puppets

[@luisgelacio9581]

What if Monsieur Z was my Suggar Dadddy?

[@MrHistory269]

The United States Britain and Switzerland were all chilling on a couch with popcorn watching this as if it was game of thrones 😂

[@jasontempest4233]

And all three would have profited hugely £ $ £ $ £ $ £

[@Geshiko-GuP]

WW2 : soviets did it Europe : in a powerfull Union USSR : battered britain : rivaled France : head of Europa oh yeah..its Pan-Europa Time

[@markanderson3870]

...but France didn't lose WWII. I believe they were on the winning side.

[@apo5895]

Doesn’t make them the winners

[@landreaumorel971]

@@apo5895 Yeah but it sure as hell doesn't make them the loosers they are thought to be by some people.

[@apo5895]

@@landreaumorel971 the Third French Republic still lost ww2

[@augth]

I think de Gaulle wouldn’t have been close to fascists, he’s not like that. He was the French president from 1958 to 1969 and we are not a fascist country ! Also, it’s wrong to say France lost WW2, you should have said "what if France won in 1940" because France won in 1944-45 By the way, great video

[@josephquinnswolin3500]

What if France brought back Napoleon IV during the political crisis 1936.

[@guillaumeergo4401]

Is that video a kind of fake ? France did win the World War Two. Free France under de Gaulle was the legal and legitimate French government during the war. French troops helped in the Desert War against Rommel. They broke German lines in Italy. They liberate Paris and most of the mainland with the Resistance.... As said de Gaulle : "Je n'ai pas à proclamer la restauration de la République. Les actes de Vichy ont toujours été nuls et non avenus." Vive la République ! Vive la France !

[@tictac-bl4so]

The resistance was disorderly and was controlled by the British

[@akkiaddizone6889]

No, the third republic was destroyed and France was occupied This is like saying Russian Empire won WW1

[@ericfrey1180]

so, I'm coming to this video more than a year after it's been posted, so odds are I don't expect a whole lot of people to see this. what happened with germany defeating france in such a small time, can be traced to a singular fault - not reinforcing the border along Belgium, and expecting belgium to fight a massively larger force. when belgium went neutral, france was royally fucked. the maginot line was actually a fairly decent idea, but failing to build along the border with belgium made for an obvious and rather amusing weak point in a system that would have been far more effective had the enemy not circled behind it. the assorted bunkers featuring machine guns, cannons and mortars would have mulched the german vehicles (PZ.III's, PZ.II's, PZ.I's, Pz.38(T), half tracks, 2 1/2 ton trucks) and without the belgium exploit, the germans would have likely been fended off by the maginot defenses until the french military could mobilize their main force, at which point I wouldn't be surprised if france counterattacked germany for territory lost. the other alternative would have been an amphibious assault or paratrooper invasion, but that wouldn't neccissarily mean that germany would be able to insert enough forces in the right places to assure such victory as was done in our own timeline. following a likely armistice when germany realized that slamming their forces into the french concrete meat grinder was a bad idea, it would have shaken faith in big H's capacity for leadership, as well as any generals involved in planning the attempted overrun of france. or they could have just invaded russia first and been evicerated by them due to the vast numerical advantage the russians had as of 1940, resulting in the whole of germany being taken by force and assimilated into the soviet union like finland was in the years prior.

[@GreatPolishWingedHussars]

As I said above it was also part of the betrayal that the Poles were actually hindered by the British and French in the preparations for war! Our good French "allies" refused to deliver the SOMUA S35 tanks to Poland, which was superior to the German main battle tank Panzer III. In 1936 Poland laid out an ambitious program to expand the army. The Poles greatly admired and wanted to acquire France's best tank S35. With good armor protection, speed and a 47mm gun, the S35 was probably the world's best tank at the time. Additionally Poles would have improved this tank with the revolutionary Polish gundlach periscope G wz. 34. It was the first device to allow the tank commander to have a 360-degree view from his turret with a single periscope. The tank commander no longer had to stick its head out of the tank turret to get a panoramic view. In addition, the Poles could have equipped the tank with the superior Polish radio. This would have made this tank, which was anyway superior to the German tanks , unbeatable. These S35 tank would have been a significant boost to the Polish armed forces. The Polish military commission asked France for 100 of this tanks, plus machine tools and a license in order to produce even more in Poland. The French were not ready to deliver this superior S35 tanks to the Poles and they also refused to license the S35. Instead of that they delivered only ridiculous 50 smaller and less capable Renault R35 infantry support light tank. This tanks were not suitable for fighting the German main tanks III and IV. Poland actually didn't want the R35 tank, because the engine was overheating, the suspension was tough, and armament insufficient. In 1939 it was finally decided to buy R35 tanks as an emergency measure. Also because of resistance by the British, the weapons that the Poles most wanted, about 150 technically advanced fighters, were not supplied This still showed also how unwilling the British and French were to support the Polish "ally" with the necessary military armament. By th way, also the total amount of the loan from British government was also much smaller than asked for. Britain eventually agreed to lend just 8 million pounds instead of the 60 million that Poland needed. By the way, Poland proposed to the British and French as early as 1933 an invarson in Germany to disempower the German Nazi regime. The British and French have refused. The description of the economic situation of the Germans in 1939 is also interesting because there is also the myth that the Germans were economically superior in 1939. Because the Germans funded their military superiority to Poland with completely indebtedness of Germany! The Germans financed their rearmament program above all on debt. The Germans could not afford that rearmament program and were therefore bankrupt in 1939. Just incidentally, Poland was not bankrupt in 1939 like Germany it was. The war should finance the war for the Germans! Information from this Wikipedia link! "Economy of Nazi Germany" "The enormous military buildup was financed to a large extent through deficit spending, including Mefo bills. Between 1933 and 1939, up to 60% of government spending was rearmament costs. The Germans expected that the upcoming territorial expansion would provide the means of repaying the soaring national debt, by exploiting the wealth and manpower of conquered nations." The German Nazi government has since the inception of power, from 1933, the public treasury overused (spent too much money, too little taken) and was therefore constantly on the brink of bankruptcy. The Germans attempted this bankruptcy by means of raids, first to escape minorities in their own population (Gypsies, Poles and Jews), later abroad, through the occupation and plundering of foreign countries. Furthermore, the Poles would have been able to repel the Germans alone in 1939 for that the Poles would have armed like the Germans but for that the Poles would have had to go into debt like the Germans up to bankruptcy! Poland had not to do this because Poland had strong allies with France and Great Britain! The Poles actually had enough planes, tanks like other weapons in 1939 to resist the Germans until the French and British attack in the West. As I mentioned before if the French and British had attacked massively in the West in 1939, as contractually agreed, the Germans would have quickly lost the war. Germany was not sufficiently prepared for a two-front war. As I mentioned before, Germany was actually bankrupt in 1939 and Poland was not broke in 1939. Poles have not armed excessively because the Poles have relied on the treacherous allies!

[@mithatbilgi8199]

This might sound like a weird idea but what if Britain somehow won WW2 (as in they didn't become weak and lose their empire and it wasn't as much of a Soviet victory)?

[@brianlong2334]

It would have allied up with Germany for that, as we known Hitler was crazy about the idea of an alliance with the UK/ empire.

[@GreatPolishWingedHussars]

As I said above it was also part of the betrayal that the Poles were actually hindered by the British and French in the preparations for war! Our good French "allies" refused to deliver the SOMUA S35 tank to Poland, which was superior to the German main battle tank Panzer III. In 1936 Poland laid out an ambitious program to expand the army. The Poles greatly admired and wanted to acquire France's best tank S35. With good armor protection, speed and a 47mm gun, the S35 was probably the world's best tank at the time. Additionally Poles would have improved this tank with the revolutionary Polish gundlach periscope G wz. 34. It was the first device to allow the tank commander to have a 360-degree view from his turret with a single periscope. The tank commander no longer had to stick its head out of the tank turret to get a panoramic view. In addition, the Poles could have equipped the tank with the superior Polish radio. This would have made this tank, which was anyway superior to the German tanks , unbeatable. These S35 tank would have been a significant boost to the Polish armed forces. The Polish military commission asked France for 100 of this tanks, plus machine tools and a license in order to produce even more in Poland. The French were not ready to deliver this superior S35 tanks to the Poles and they also refused to license the S35. Instead of that they delivered only ridiculous 50 smaller and less capable Renault R35 infantry support light tank. This tanks were not suitable for fighting the German main tanks III and IV. Poland actually didn't want the R35 tank, because the engine was overheating, the suspension was tough, and armament insufficient. In 1939 it was finally decided to buy R35 tanks as an emergency measure. Also because of resistance by the British, the weapons that the Poles most wanted, about 150 technically advanced fighters, were not supplied This still showed also how unwilling the British and French were to support the Polish "ally" with the necessary military armament. By th way, also the total amount of the loan from British government was also much smaller than asked for. Britain eventually agreed to lend just 8 million pounds instead of the 60 million that Poland needed. By the way, Poland proposed to the British and French as early as 1933 an invarson in Germany to disempower the German Nazi regime. The British and French have refused. The description of the economic situation of the Germans in 1939 is also interesting because there is also the myth that the Germans were economically superior in 1939. Because the Germans funded their military superiority to Poland with completely indebtedness of Germany! The Germans financed their rearmament program above all on debt. The Germans could not afford that rearmament program and were therefore bankrupt in 1939. Just incidentally, Poland was not bankrupt in 1939 like Germany it was. The war should finance the war for the Germans! Information from this Wikipedia link! "Economy of Nazi Germany" "The enormous military buildup was financed to a large extent through deficit spending, including Mefo bills. Between 1933 and 1939, up to 60% of government spending was rearmament costs. The Germans expected that the upcoming territorial expansion would provide the means of repaying the soaring national debt, by exploiting the wealth and manpower of conquered nations." The German Nazi government has since the inception of power, from 1933, the public treasury overused (spent too much money, too little taken) and was therefore constantly on the brink of bankruptcy. The Germans attempted this bankruptcy by means of raids, first to escape minorities in their own population (Gypsies, Poles and Jews), later abroad, through the occupation and plundering of foreign countries. Furthermore, Poland would have been able to repel the Germans alone in 1939 for that the Poles would have armed like the Germans but for that the Poles would have had to go into debt like the Germans up to bankruptcy! Poland had not to do this because Poland had strong allies with France and Great Britain! The Poles actually had enough planes, tanks like other weapons in 1939 to resist the Germans until the French and British attack in the West. As I mentioned before if the French and British had attacked massively in the West in 1939, as contractually agreed, the Germans would have quickly lost the war. Germany was not sufficiently prepared for a two-front war. As I mentioned before, Germany was actually bankrupt in 1939 and Poland was not broke in 1939. Poles have not armed excessively because the Poles have relied on the treacherous allies!

[@brianlong2334]

@GreatPolishWingedHussars I think people don't understand economics as much as they think they do. German economy in 1939 was 110 billion RM, it was in det 38 billion. Most modern nations have massive det and have had em for decades, for example what's was the USA economy lasted time I checked 23 trillion and is in det 30 trillion.

[@GreatPolishWingedHussars]

@@brianlong2334 It is a historical fact that Germany was effectively bankrupt in 1939! The Germans could not afford the enormous rearmament, which was largely financed through government loans. The Germans wanted to rehabilitate their national budget using the expected loot from the occupied countries. This plan initially worked as long as the Germans were victorious in the war. But fortunately they lost the war. After the war they were not forced to make up for the damage caused. BUT...After the war, the Germans were even forgiven massive amounts of debt that they had accumulated through rearmament in the 1930s. This damn nation was effectively not punished or held accountable at all. The opposite happened and the Germans were whitewashed by American propaganda after the war. But fortunately this nation will eventually perish. The irrational migration policy will take care of that. The Germans obviously have no problem with being colonized. Perhaps because of self-loathing, they allow millions of culturally completely foreign Orientals from the middle east to colonize the own country. Mohammed is the most popular first name for newborns in the German capital of Berlin. Because it's amazing what's happening in Germany because the German allow millions of culturally completely foreign Muslim Orientals to colonize the own country. Yes they accept their colonization! Because tens of millions come from them and settle the country the term colonization is totally appropriate. By the way, Wiki quote: "Colonization is sometimes used synonymously with settling." Already today there are about 10% of Muslim Orientals in this country. Which are a kind of aliens. It is no coincidence why Germany has twice the crime rate compared to Poland. Even before the Ukraine war, Poland had millions of migrants from Ukraine. Yes, Poland is an immigration country. And the Ukrainians have no problem integrating in Poland. They are Europeans like the Poles and will be assimilated if they live longer in Poland. This did not significantly increase the Polish crime rate. On the other hand, Orientals and Africans immigrated to Germany. The result of this immigration is an extremely increased crime rate. It's not racism if one state it, one is just describing reality. Everyone knows that these migrants form parallel societies and that must do not integrate and adapt. The Orientals also give their children Oriental first names and not German first names. There can be no talk of an assimilation of most anyway. Due to this failure to integrate, there are social problems that lead to increased crime. In addition, crime is also increased by special cultural aspects of the countries of origin. Like, for example, these migrants come from Klan-influenced societies, which leads to klan crimes. Religion is also a reason why integration fails and the crime rate increases. The Ukrainians come from a Christian country. The Orientals and many Africans, on the other hand, are Muslims. This results in terrorism, but also crimes such as the genital cutting of girls or the murder of homosexuals or honor killings. Incidentally, this migration also leads to an increase in crime among Germans themselves, because it is also a crime if one attacks migrants and migrant camps, threaten migrants and hunts or even kills them. Already today there is a big conflict in this country of the "natives" against the orientals, although the orientals have reached until now only about 10% of the population in this country. Only a small percentage is assimilated. Most wanted to keep their oriental identity! A civil war for supremacy in the country is therefore likely with about 30% oriental population! The future of this country will definitely be violent! These are all consequences of radical left-wing politics in Germany!

[@pawe6473]

How to make your faction popular by French - put a name "Popular" in the middle of your party name.

[@afisto6647]

"Great Britain hegemony over Europe" What kind of joke is this ?

[@rokball4892]

1. What if Russia defeats the German Empire and the Ottoman Empire during the WW1? 2. What if Goguryeo success to unified the Korean Peninsula during the three kingdoms of Korea? 3. What if South Korea won the Korean War? (1950-1953) 4. What if the Korean Empire never fails? 5. What if the Russian Empire won the Crimean War? 6. What if the French won the French and Indian War? 7: What if Mongolian army success to invade Japan? 8. What if North Korea was collapsed at Arduous March in 1996?

[@camwintlenewell6448]

The first one sounds like the HOI4 mod “In the name of the tsar”

[@zhongxina7601]

@@camwintlenewell6448 yeah kinda interesting

[@chrisdechristophe]

Well actually the German success in France was very close. A slightly more aggressive response could have broken an over extended German advance.

[@kennethbracken2053]

What if the 1916 easter rising suceeded. Like the Aud is never found and scuttled and it got more german investment, possibly opening up another front in world war 1 and leading to more rebellions throughout the British empire

[@jamestodd1104]

Ginja Ninja no one cares about the Irish. Sorry.

[@MonsieurDean]

It's coming.

[@kennethbracken2053]

@@MonsieurDean Thanks!

[@timlage7788]

He finally done it the alerate history scenario that everyone wonders but try's to imagine, what if France won ww2

[@Bluesonofman]

What if the German military turned on Hitler when the Rineland was remilitarized and restored the Kaiser Reich?

[@ajuk1]

What if WWII had ended in a bit of stalemate with Germany retreating back to Poland and managing to hold a position and then being able to prevent the invasion by the Allies into France?

[@theholyspiritus4326]

I honestly dislike the fact that Germany got "its eastern territories ceased as punishment" but kept Austria.... As in the country they got by directly breaking the treaty of versailles

[@12SPASTIC12]

They didn't keep Austria. Austria isn't part of Germany. Unless this is some spicy commentary on the EU that's gone over my head.

[@GreatPolishWingedHussars]

Pity is definitely not appropriate for the Nazi nation! This Nazi nation should have been punished much more severely because this nation was responsible for 50 million deaths in Europe caused by the various genocides, the terror in the occupied countries and the effects of war.

[@GreatPolishWingedHussars]

Austrians should have been treated very differently. Because this nation was voluntarily part of the Nazi nation and also participated in the crimes and in the war.

[@GigaNietzsche]

@@GreatPolishWingedHussars Silence Polak

[@GreatPolishWingedHussars]

@@GigaNietzsche Always those fools trying to insult me ​​with the word Pole in Polish. Because "Polak" means nothing other than Pole! He's definitely trying to insult an American with the nasty insult...American! In addition, the stupid attempt to give someone commands via the Internet! Only complete fools try that!

[@PatriotGabe]

The only problem I see with this timeline is the lack of any American involvement. For sure, without the catalyst of Pearl Harbor, America would probably not become involved militarily in any of the European conflicts but the soft power of the American economy and their own hegemony in the Pacific would've prompted some push back from the French and Japanese. In the end, I see some Anglo-American alliance, based on their similar cultures and values, as the alliance that goes against a Fascist/Nationalist France-Japanese alliance and the traditional Soviet power bloc.

[@strasbourgeois1]

France did win WWII. It wasn’t annexed at all, and there were no negative territorial changes. While Germany imposed harsher terms on us, such as giving in 400 million francs daily, to support Germany in the war, we still survived and actually gained a lot more than we lost.

[@alix9751]

Holy fucking shit, we were literally occupied and the republic was destroyed ! How is that not a loss ??

[@akkiaddizone6889]

Dude, France didn't win, The Third Republic was destroyed You are trying to say France survived The war which is true. This is like saying Russian Empire won WW1

[@GeoNoob]

​@@alix9751free france kept fighting, there wasnt any period where a french state ceased to exist during ww2

[@sorcererberoll4641]

All they had to do was use the expand the maginot line national focus

[@poserdragon719]

What if Germany went communist instead of fascist

[@jovohodzic508]

We would call each other comrades for centuries to come.

[@scoutgaming9728]

Instead of tasteless French “surrender” memes, there would be German surrender memes.

[@fredricknoe3114]

Here's your weekly reminder for the Elliot Rogers scenario.

[@fredricknoe3114]

@althist commune He would seize the memes of banana production

[@caesarpizza1338]

What if the Russian warlord era existed?

[@viorp5267]

Funfact: There was a Plan proposed by Poland for a joined invassion of Germany in 1935 or 1937 as Józef Piłsudski saw Hitler as very dangerous. Infact the French partly agreed and considered this, but backed out due to fear of Brittish interferance on the German side. An US General even traveled to Warsaw where support for this plan was declared aka. the US would not join, but would support it like how they did with the allies in WW2. Now an alternate history where Poland and the French invade Nazi Germany in 1937 with the UK siding with the Nazis would be interesting as hell.

[@hsr4248]

So basically, France: MEGA BUFF Germany: MEGA NERF

[@igorkarsanov2374]

What if the Arab Spring was far left instead of far right?

[@Shunteration]

What if Khrushchev decided to fully reform the Soviet Union, instead of the moderate reforms and liberalization, and had purged Stalinist elements from the Party, before trying to open up to the west, or, at least, Europe?

[@timvanrijn8239]

It break harder. Dont wake people with waterbuket if the first tine goes wrong

[@andrewbenjamin3128]

Presidentreich

[@lordpfeiffer8490]

I don't know Peral Harbour still happens and now Japan would have been alone so the entire usa military would have been developing planes and battle aircraft carriers. So now you have a Japan who fell quicker.

[@calvinfeisalfatwanirwana9389]

Did you design the flags on your thumbnails yourself? I love them! They're so cool!

[@singingphysics9416]

Why do you think Britain would stay out of a Russian-French war? British had involved itself in every European conflict to maintain the 'balance of power'. Even the war-weary, pro-appeasement Chamberlain government declared war on Germany after it invaded Poland and would have won a successful war (being allied with France) in this scenario

[@obiwankenobi7251]

The title should have been:What if France didn't surrender?

[@jeffreyroot7346]

Agreed! That's all it would have taken. Germany was at the ragged edge of their logistical resources and the invading troops were exhausted. If France had retrenched further south, the German offensive would've collapsed under it's own weight.

[@druisteen]

Easy to say .... Dunkirk screwed the fighting spirit ! It's easy ( always ) to fight whive not your own blood ! @@jeffreyroot7346

[@druisteen]

Dunkirk anyone ?@@jeffreyroot7346

[@stalinethegreat2822]

Nope would never have workerd,half of they country was gone,most of they industry captured,morale was at his lowest,revolution on the rise,and an almost destroyed army.

[@sachoune3416]

The fallen of Dunkirk and Bir Hakeim would like a word with you. We've saved the brits 2 times, hosting the americans on their territories to avoid us becoming a soviet puppet state after the war was the least they could do.

[@svfactory]

What if, Jean-Baptiste-Donatien de Vimeur de Rochambeau, and Lafayette never helped Washington ?... ;)

[@Tamalegooch]

μSv Factory we would be speaking british

[@a1_cheesy]

But would the French flag still be white🧐

[@Zretgul_timerunner]

*implying french lost in any of the world war to begin with* (FRENCH SWEARING PLACEHOLDER)

[@sachoune3416]

There's a reason why we're among the permanent members in the UN security council :)

[@NexusBreach]

What if the Easter rising in 1916 was successful opening up another front for the British in World war 1.

[@timvanrijn8239]

Britian gets bommed to shit and blocaded. Germany wins its war with france as trade in food resumes and the french troops riote

[@Tamalegooch]

Jumpy Jolteon i think britain would just let them go. Ireland wouldnt be worth losing a global conflict over.

[@eddietuite732]

What if manchuku reformed the Quing Dynasty

[@monroecorp9680]

The Alternative Hypothesis has a great video about this very topic - entitled something like, 'a defense of Frances conduct in ww2'. I WISH France developed the kind of character shown in this timeline instead of what they actually developed into (The Anglo countries of the British Empire & the U.S. likewise). But we all know debt-free currency wouldn't be smiled upon.

[@Ethan_Willemse]

Just because you said "Alternate Hypothesis" I'm liking this comment.

[@thatrubberduck5448]

Do a video on what if America abolished slavery during the revolution

[@jeiku5314]

Oui oui baguette.

[@kadiryildiz1862]

Could you make a remake of this video

[@boeyzhang8565]

Love the flag 😍❤️❣️😍❣️❣️❤️😍❤️

[@earlwyss520]

The question is what if the Germans never invaded Belgium, and let the Sitzkrieg continue indefinitely? Would the British and French just maintain their lines, or would they invade themselves? If the Germans had not had to fight on the western front, they would have had more resources to bring to bare against the Soviet Union when the time came. Also Hitler needed to never align himself with Mussolini, and let the Italians get their butts kicked all over the North African desert by Montgomery 's 8th Army.

[@LapisMinecraft]

“The First Great War”

[@sticktheok]

“Second Great War”

[@supercraig89day]

During the early 1900’s, the Entente/Western powers had seen both Communism and Nazism, however believed Communism was worse. What if they believed Nazism was worse than communism and focused on Germany instead of Soviet Union?

[@jameslewis2635]

By the start of World War 2 France had no chance of victory against Germany. Their tank designs were terrible (they look OK for top trumps, but when you look at the use of them and their reliability they were hopeless - check out the videos made by The Centurion) and the effort they put into modernising their communications was practically non-existant. The latter point is the biggest single factor that lead to their defeat with none of the allied factors involved knowing the state or actions of the others with any degree of accuracy. For them to have won they would have had to intercede before the Germans had managed to re-arm.

[@nicobruin8618]

8 million men? The French military wasn't even half of that. They only had a slight numbers advantage on the Western front in 1940. They did have more tanks yes, but again not way more. France tanks were on average better armoured and armed, but German tanks were generally faster and had better ergonomics. So one needs to take a look at the full picture.

[@VictorLepanto]

The French military mounting a deep incursion of Germany on their own seems highly dubious. France's weakness long preceeded the 30s. A German English coalition defeated France during the Napoleonic era & the Prussian hegemony conquered France on their own. France could never have attained anything more then a border stalemate, like in WWI.

[@Alex-qf9ry]

The real defeat of Napoleon was the lost of it's entire army in Russia. After that the defeat was inevitable.

[@chheinrich8486]

A Stalemate could have been enough to end to wra with germany, after ww1, NOBODY wanted another stagenat Front that would lead to countless deaths

[@ouicertes9764]

De Gaulle is reponsible for the current state of the president status in France, as a deified-daddy-saviour, an absolute nightmare.

[@beau64]

But they did win WW2....The allies won WW2. France was a part of the allies....The USA didn't win, the USSR didn't win.....the allies did.

[@blukumul7889]

In a nutshell: France is not Surrenderland.

[@The_Alt_Vault]

Well with France pushing forward and breaking Germany perhaps establishing a presence in the Sarr land though Germany would remain under Nazi Rule their position would be a lot weaker possibly prompting a military take over with Rhomal being made chancellor. From here an eventual invasion from Russia would still be on the cards so plans would be made for the defence of Europe with Germany establishing dominance over central Europe. The Latin Bloc would still form as an alliance between France, Italy and later Spain. Meanwhile Britain with its hegemony being threatened in Asia with the rise of Japan and the US being able to take Canada with nothing the UK could do to stop them. Plans for The Imperial Federation would have to be revived with Britain's major colonies being given separate devolved parliaments while non-settler colonies would remain as they were with the encouragement of new settlers to Africa and parts of India. The US would likely not invade Canada with war plan Red as they would rather sell weapons to the Latin Bloc and Germany and would realise Britain could be useful in a war against the Soviets. By the late 1940s, Russia would drive forward with the aid of communist uprisings in Poland and Czechoslovakia. Though this assault would be halted due to the concentration of German forces as well as the arrival of Latin forces that would invade with the idea finally destroying their common enemy as well as ensuring Germany couldn't become a threat if they win the war. From here the war would be a slow push eastwards with American lend-lease making up for any lack of production. While Japan would invade eastern Russia with small-scale naval invasions though Japans near complete lack of a tank program would mean that progress would be limited to the coastal regions. It would be at this time the US would invent the first atom bomb. But they wouldn't have anyone to use it on but with Japan invading eastern Russia the US would join and aid in the landings capturing Vladivostock. With the capture of Russias major city in the east, the US would drop the first atom bomb demonstrating their power to the world and forcing the Soviets to finally surrender. In the Postwar Germany would control much of eastern Europe with the Soviet regime would be torn down in favour of a republic. Japan would continue its conquest of Aisa by capturing the Duch esat indies forcing The Latin Bloc to attack to bring The Netherlands into its developing union. While The Imperial Federation would invade first seeing that Australia was now threatened. leading to the capture of Indonesia by the Imperials and being brought into the Empire. This would cause the Latins to back down as any further action would lead to war. A war in which the Latins would likely lose due to the Royal Navy being able to blockade France as well as being able to take much of their African holdings thanks to the to the Cape to Ciro railway. So from here, The Imperial federation would develop their own bomb and defeat Japan expanding their hold in China and establishing bases in Japan itself though quickly making allies of the defeated Empire. Meanwhile, the US would expand into Mexico and Latin America knowing now that a war with the Imperials would be too costly. So by the mid-60s Most of western Europe is under the Latin Union though conflicts between Spain, France and Italy cause disunity while Germany maintains its independence but has good relations with the Union, Russia is a broken shell becoming a wild west like area with hardly any real control over its land beyond the Ural mountains. Much of the American continent is now under direct or indirect rule by the US through its South American lands would be prone to communist uprisings. Meanwhile, the Imperial Federation prospers in its unity while it suppresses communist forces in its African dominions, India prospers as the empires grate eastern armoury. This would continue to the early 2000 with the eventual collapse of the Latin union due to political divisions. While Germany would have to release its puppets due to greater calls for independence and the threat of a resurgent Russia. Though the Imperial Federation would continue to prosper while only being rivalled by the US.

[@alexcc8664]

The Germans k ew they couldn't beat Britain and France. That's why they drove between and around them and caused panic in the high command. Look at the relatively low casualties. Genius ta tic but if they'd have fought head on they'd have lost.

[@Linneom]

France had the power with the help of the British and Poland could'ev won but we're blinded by false peace. What if things changed else were What if the Japanese took over China what would change in the Pacific theater? Great video BTW Happy New year

[@MonsieurDean]

Happy New Year, Pally!

[@AMBEE-sp2ev]

The French surrender memes would never exist which would make the world a less funny place.😒😒😒

[@luisreyes1963]

So France won WW2, and yet couldn't hold onto Vietnam any longer. Go figure. 🤨

[@KyleJohnsonUK]

revealing your crypto-fascism with every passing video...

[@xornxenophon3652]

They always say that alternate history should not go that far from real history that it gets utterly unbelievable. You would have to change so many things regarding France to make that scenario work...

[@cadenrolland5250]

Actually this is not so unlikely. And here is the video to prove it. kzbin.info/www/bejne/ony3k5t5Zdhorsk

[@JustinianG]

I think you'd like this timeline I made. it's basically the Greek equivalent of this one. but france still does better cus they'd need to have done beter to weaken Germany enough for Greece to escape WW2 without being plundered by the nazis. kzbin.info/www/bejne/sKalYYmPdt6sp8k

[@JustinianG]

Did u like my timeline?

[@weon_absoluto]

Man your map of south america is so f wrong chile has more lands in the north that thet ewon in 1881 and officialy in 1904

[@skot547]

Suggestions: What if the Polish Hungarian Union in the 14th century survived? What if Vladimir the Great made Islam the official religion of the Kievan Rus (he rejected it when choosing a religion for Russia mainly because of its ban on alcohol which he described as the the " joy of all Rus' ")? Also I know this is a really obscure topic, but a "United Irishmen succeeding" scenario would be great.

[@timvanrijn8239]

Cant the kingdoms are seperated by mountains and one court is ineffective. And The russ bcomes its own school/domination of islam heavly inspired by christianty. alcohol is oke in it. Like in mali The states are sell stabile because trade and allainces. Russia might not form. German Scandinavian polish and romanian crusades as in teutonic knights. Russians are seen as non europians or outsiders more then in otl. National fictions of slavic Brotherhood never exist.

[@arcadia6795]

Why is Australia white. In this time Australia should be similar to Canada and New Zealand?

[@yaoiboi60]

Ironic. He could save other nations from fascism, but not his own.

[@charlesdawson2928]

(0:10) If we're imagining memes about France then we are stupid.

[@erichunsaker4969]

*waiting patiently for Greece winning Greco-Turkish war (1919-22) video*

[@grambo4436]

What if Poland becomes a neutrally rich and advanced country similar to Switzerland?

[@belygorod8368]

Impossible Russians and Germans have a primal instinct to invade Poland

[@morsecode980]

1. What if Napoleon went back to pre-unification Italy after graduating from French military school, led an early war of Italian unification, and attempted to recreate the Roman Empire? 2. What if the 1825 Decembrist Revolt in Russia succeeded? 3. What if Germany was Balkanized after WW2? 4. What if the January (Polish) Uprising in 1830-31 succeeded? 5. What if the Ottoman Empire fought for the Allied Powers in WW1 or stayed neutral? 6. What if Japan westernized and became Catholic in the 1630’s due to the Shimabara Rebellion succeeding? 7. What if Italian King Emmanuel II defeated Mussolini, stole his ideas, and changed them so the monarch would get all the power?

[@Davidf901]

France didnt had a chance..their all army got circlied, dunkrirk...

[@erichvonmanstein1952]

Far more tanks ? Germans had 3500 tanks in the beginning and France had 4200.Not far more.

[@sueb7496]

What's 1000,000 French guys with their hands in the air? WW2!

[@candyneige6609]

If France has invaded Germany early, WW2 would have ended before it even began.

[@Crashed131963]

True. France actually advanced into Germany but decided to stop ,while Poland keep the main Germans busy in 1939. They lost their chance.

[@beastieman4207]

happy new year Monzier Z🎊🎉 hope u get more subs this year👍👌🏻

[@MonsieurDean]

Happy New Year To You Too!

[@MrRemicas]

De Gaulle wasn't that much important before the Fall of France. He was a rising officer in the army, notably thanks or in spite of his theory on armored warfare, and sub-secretary under the War Minister, which gave him some legetimacy in making a government in exile, but with a victorious France in WW2 I have a hard time seeinf him rise to power in this scenario.