I actually would like to see an alternate timeline with the US and the Soviets being much closer together while the rest of Europe looks upon it with suspicion. Its such an alien concept to me that its fascinating. Like would the Soviets just be happy to have a semi-friendly nation working with them or would they be willing to risk relations with the US by pushing a full communist revolution.

I think you're significantly underestimating the effect American entry had on morale. From the perspective of the average soldier on the western Front, they didn't know about the extreme hardship in Germany. What they did know however was that they had never won a significant victory against the Germans, and their most powerful ally in the east was now beaten and out of the war. Without the perception of a powerful new ally coming in to help, the soldiers may have considered the war to simply be unwinnable and mutinies likely would have been far larger and more severe. War isnt fought by guns or tanks, it is fought by people, and people wont fight if they think winning is impossible(or if they think losing is worse then death, as in the case of Germany against the USSR in 1945)

Even in OTL, one German Division passed the Marne, until been thrown back by the Americans. In our alternate timeline, the Entente would need to compensate that, weakening the other fronts.

Interesting concept. I would love to find an alternative history fiction about a post world war partitioned Germany.

Glad to see another alternate history vid! Thanks! 😊

Fascinating stuff. I actually have the same feeling as you: I don't think the American intervention was quite as crucial to victory as it's sometimes portrayed. Yes, it was a massive morale boost, and it might have shortened the war by a year or more. But as in World War II and the American Civil War, long-term the Entente just had the advantage, in manpower, industrial capacity, raw resources, financial instruments etc. etc. The Spring Offensive was Germany's last real chance of victory, and it was a slim one, an all-or-nothing gamble with poor odds. I think most alternate historians wildly overestimate how successful it would have been. I think it's much more likely that it grinds to a halt near Paris, and I also think that even if Paris were occupied, that isn't an automatic German victory. Germany was streeeeetching its lines at that point. The homefront was unruly, and anything short of an amazing victory would have caused revolution and forced the Germans to the negotiating table.

god, the spring offensive was so poorly planned i have no idea how anyone thinks it would lead to germany winning the war. imagine planning an offensive with 0 strategic goals in mind and forcing your soldiers to raid allied tents for basic supplies

Glad to see you return

Love your videos man! Thanks for this! You should do one with the Habsburgs victorious!🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉

A question i always ask in such a scenario is "How do you cross the Rhine?" It was not technologically possible before 1943 to even try it while under fire. Most when discussing WW1 assume Germany would keep attacking and never fortify the Rhine instead, it is one thing striking when the army is in France but another when France is in Germany.

One thing about the US Military of the time is that while the Navy was struggling, and the Regular army was practically nothing, the US Marines where a very experienced fighting force thanks to Americas own form of Imperialism. Its why the units to see combat where Marines mostly. A post "WW1 but worse" world is a world I see where corporate backed American mercenaries become a common sight around the world since nominally we are at fever pitch to stay out of war, but the Chiquita Banana girls needs to dance on the graves of Latin American children to grow her fruit still.

neat concept.

How about the entente cultivating their alliance with Japan. to counterbalance the Americans.

Amazing

why does the map in the thumbnail show the USSR with its real life 1945 borders? Apart from that, very interesting video about a "what-if" that always got me curious! I like that you covered consequences other than just the military situation

All and all this video is very interesting. I like how you delve into how life in America and trends such as the Civil Rights Movement and women getting the vote change. The idea of a blowup with England over the Ente's blockade is a counterfactual I've never considered. I now imagine something like an American freighter trying to run the blockade. A Royal Navy ship fires a warning shot, but instead of going across the bow, it goes through the ship and causes considerable loss of life, perhaps even sinking the freighter. Matters would be worse if it turned out that the freighter was hauling food or medicine. That could give the American isolationists a lot to work with.

4:58 love the kaiserreich mention

Random Texas fact related to the video- Texas barbecue is the evolution of German cuisine from those immigrants. The sides are all things like sausages, potato salad, pickles, coleslaw etc. because that is the Texas Germans' evolution of traditional German food.

Great topic. I often find casual history buffs lack a real understanding of the situation in Europe in 1918 and vastly overestimate Germany and underestimate the entente. I agree with pretty much everything you had to say. I think a lot more would have to change about the war to lead to a Central Powers victory.

I like that you also detailed what American cultural society looks like (fashion, niche societies, etc.) because I’ve tried to speculate what effects alternative histories like these have on the average man and not the whole nation.

Mr. Mittrovich, have you heard of or read "Man-Made Hell" by Joseph Kyle (?), published by Sea Lion Press?

I couldn't imagine that Kaiser Wilhelm being close to the USA.

Great video as always! Suggestion: What if Kaiser Karl I of austria saved the whole Empire?

After the cold war should've stayed isolated but kept up to date on world events

YOU NEED TO DO A MCADOO VICTORY IN 1920.

Another thought, if I'm not mistaken during the world wars religion took a big beating,. At so if the u.s. never enters World War 1, it's entirely plausible that it stays a more religious country longer.

Shout out to Marc from The Professor!

I think the treaty depends on when the central powers decide to sue for peace. If its after the failure of the 1918 offensive then they likely get a much lighter treaty as while the offensive failed, German armies haven't been routed and the allies lack the capabilities to deliver a decisive blow. In OTL the germans got so desperate after the failure of the offensive that they kept attacking after operation michael, the main thrust of the offensive, failed. Causing significantly higher german casaulities then their need be, all due to the fear of american troops landing in force and counter attacking. In this TL the central powers likely sue for peace after the failure of operation michael. This is when the German army was still intact and relatively powerful. And notice how I say central powers not just Germany, without American entry into the war and woodrow wilson pushing for recognition of nationalities, the entente never declares their support for indepent states out of Austria-Hungary, Britain was heavily opposed to the idea before america joins, so theres no entente recognition of czechslovakia. And if the armistice is asked for after operation michael, its before the Austro hungarian armies collapse. Which means central europe will likely stay intact. I see Germany losing Alsace lorraine but thats about it. They have 1 million men occupying states in the east and without american troops to threaten them theres no reason for germany to get rid of those men. So we still see independent eastern states, but Germany and AH don't lose land to them, Poland is likely very small for example. In fact we could possibly see Germany getting a free hand in the east and setting up the economic union they planned to during the war since their position in the east was unrivaled. Austria-Hungary doesn't collapse, Bulgaria gets its gains recognized, and the Ottomans lose less land. The kaiser still abdicates but with the eastern economic union the government will be able to sell it as a win so the german government doesn't destabalize. However if the central powers try holding out until 1919 then I can see the scenario going the way your video suggests.

Damn, it's impressive how much the war affected American culture and internal politics, for better or worse. One usually tends to look past that.

The thing is that, in the end, French divisions were retreating every time a Stormtrooper division attacked their trench, following the order of their supperiors, which only ended with American officers giving the order not to leave & strike back. The German troops were tired, but so were the French ones. Besides that, Petain & the Foch command blocked pretty much all contact from the "revolutionary" troops, so there wouldn't be an SFIO revolution among workers.

Germany had three albatrosses around its neck.

I've never played with the particular scenario I am about to suggest, but what if America entered WWI at the very beginning?

Germany wins because: if America is truly neutral, no weapons support, germany has no moral crush from the arrival of a new fresh faced enemy knowing the Brits and french are weary aswell. Troops werent really the factor, more the material and morale

Hmm I think we’re underestimating the potential ramifications of the yanks dying in British port or whatever happened remember when the reason why the Germans stopped unrestricted submarine warfare was because of because of US civilian I think with that in mind the and Americans tried of their ships being geld up in ports for months at a time would demand that the British alter their blockade to allow American ships to not only go though transit faster but for them to reach German ports and deliver there supplies(of course assuming they Kaiser pays up, which he will) of course they’d stipulate that only food and alcohol could be transported as to not to anger the Brit’s. I think the Americans in 1916 or whenever would see this as fair deal(and would be getting galvanized by any German spies as well) the Americans get their pay, along with America demonstrating their sovereignty and comment to neutrality by not having favorites. Hell the German spies would probably akin this diplomatic crisis to the war of 1812 comparing the British to doing virtually the same the thing, by disrupting American trade the Germans might even push it by comparing the American sailors in 1812 and 1916 conditions as similar after all, the American sailors thanks to the English are under threat of zeppelin air raids same as how the British were forcing american sailors to fight for them in the napoleonic wars! Now would the British actually accept this deal? I think likely after all it’s quite reasonable to anyone not in the entente, the Americans aren’t trading guns to the Germans they’re trading food it would be hard to convince foreign powers on why that was was such a bad thing. I can see the german government highlighting their starving cities and how the people are eating cats and dogs to just to survive, it would more likely than not grant them sympathy form neutral countries and their civilian populations along with painting the British in nasty light for a while. And of course we can’t forget a very important reason for the British accepting American terms, *their loans* , i won’t go into detail because i think it’s fairly obvious but generally pissing off your pay master is a bad idea and the Germans throwing gasoline on the fire doesn’t help matters. That’s why I believe the British would accept American terms and agree to a partial end to the German blockade. *Three cheers for diplomacy!* Now, just how would this affect the war effort? Well I can confidently say with the Germans able to to feed their population better we expect there to be more stable and less violent population, after all people will do anything to feed themselves which is the core reason in our timeline for most of the mutinies and revolts that later led to the kaisers unfortunate abdication. With a more loyal army and steady food coming back to the German army I think the Germans would take longer time before launching the Kaiserschlacht the reason for this would be because they wouldn’t fear an American entry into the war and would that time anyway to better supply their army now that they can. Would this be enough to cause Kaiserschlacht to be successful? Partially. The German army would be a lot more closer to Paris and would also succeed to dividing the French and British armies thanks to capturing French railways preventing a fast deployment of reinforcements but I don’t think they would reach Paris ether, it’s just too far away form current german positions and the german army would certainly be almost as exhausted as the British and French armies. Why do I think this time around the german army would be more successful, simply put its because of supply and what we know in our timeline. In our time the British managed to prevent any major german breakthroughs but they just barley managed to do that the British were exhausted in our timeline and that was when the Germans were facing supply problems and plagued with mutiny’s along with an more unstable home front, but in this timeline with those issues resolved(or at least far better) they would be able to break entente lines this time and achieve true success during the offensive! With the Germans in a far better situation now than in our timeline they would probably offer an armistice to the entente, the generals realizing that this would probably be as far they can push would support this and the German Kaiser hoping to ride the kaiserschlacht results along with encouragement of the Germans by shelling Paris would hope that would be enough convincing to end the war in German favor

There could also have been a modified Schlieffen Plan where Germany avoids invading Belgium altogether, allowing both Belgium & GB to remain neutral - thus WW1 Western theater becomes just the Franko-German War of 1914. Then the war would just be a repeat of the Franco-Prussian War of 1870.

The US had a large german population at the time. So what if we actually entered on Germans side

Honestly an incredible concept in my head now, a fictional story set in a world where America remained neutral, entente forces prevailed with victory before 1920, Germany got the ottoman treatment and had the Turkish reaction leading to a United German peoples and ironically notably larger Germany by 1925-30. Usa went socialist and began a soft tie with soviets that was a legit alliance by 1935, british empire underwent more extreme reforms in increased autonomy and established dominions across its empire from the increased exhaustion of the empire, and alongside France they turned against the socialist usa and ussr, allying with the Germans and supporting this nationalistic moderate right Germany to become a more or less German empire again. With france, Britain and Germany working together to push the agenda that usa and ussr will attempt to invade and convert all of Europe and the wider world to communism, i can imagine this powerful trio amassing quite the alliance of lesser European, even middle eastern nations. I have to suspect that Japan would be more likely to work with the socialist alliance in the hopes of snatching the European colonies of Asia and taking China, meaning China would largely be brought in with the Europa alliance. Assuming some time between 1935 and 1940 the Europa alliance starts a war preemptively, the Japanese ambitions spark a war between 1930 and 1940, or the socialists strike first between 1940 and 1950, any of the options would result in a very interesting and utterly wild ww2. Depending on how this alternate Germany functions (if their Jewish scientists are still by their side), how Britain reforms it’s empire (does australia, South Africa, Canada, and India each become far more equal heads of their respective regions of the empire for example), does their alliance securely hold the lands across to the Middle East that can allow resources that alongside africa, India, and Australia will allow their side to cripple the soviets, repel the Japanese and secure a near inevitable victory, or will they be demolished from all sides. I assume the British-German cooperation would lead to some terrifying technological advantage between the two of them alone, combined with industry, navy and colonial resources I think this is absolutely capable of being a more deadly war then ours was, even without the natsoc atrocities. A war based series in such a timeline starting in the last years of buildup for the war and based over a 6+ year war timeframe would almost certainly see some scary weaponry, Anglo-Deutsche (or Germanic to be more vague) nuclear weaponry would be a certainty and most likely too late to use on Russia, but usa being hit by a rain of nukes after a near decade of war and left in a post apocalyptic hellscape while the European empires begin a new era of revived imperialism and unparalleled capability to inflict death, and Japan sees a more European imperialist themed fate. Certainly the potential for a scary post war world, the war being fully over by 1950 (1960 if the war started in the 50’s), and the following 20-50 years being very unsettling, I can only imagine the 2000’s.

It never occurred to me that Slovenia fought on the Austrian side. Obvious of course. My Grandfather was 14 when the war started so he wouldn't have taken part. Mind you, he and my older uncles were guerrillas in WW2 (against Italians & germans). Scary times for them. I have it so easy in Australia thanks to them.

Even if it wouldn't change much, no on principle, didn't have much reason for us to be involved in that disaster.

We got Kaiserreich to make this what if...

The other scenario you didn’t address is what if the USA stayed out of the war because Britain stayed out? I have seen British historians debate whether they should have been involved or not. Americans got involved partly because Wilson was such an Anglophile. That is a scenario where Germany could have won, and all the old aristocracies of Europe might have survived longer.

The Salonika Front decided the war, not the Western Front.

In my timeline "The Fire Never Dies", socialist opposition to US entry into World War One escalates into a full-scale socialist uprising and civil war in 1917. This not only prevents American soldiers from ever seeing action on the Western Front, but also cuts off the supply of war materiel to the Entente. I had the Kaiserschlacht offensive going better than in our timeline due to the French and British being undersupplied, with the Germans getting in sight of Paris before proposing a negotiated end to the war. The only good news for Britain and France is that they don't have to repay their loans to American financiers who have been killed by American socialist revolutionaries.

The war would have dragged on longer, but Germany would still lose.

If the US didn’t bankroll the entente war effort then Germany would have gotten a more even peace rather than a crushing loss. However a full German victory would be very debatable

No?

It‘s funny, because in my german hystory lessons in middle school I learned that it was the english and french troops with their tanks, the poor decisions of the german head of state, leaving the population starve as well as the financial and material support of the US that brought the victory. We as the loosers of the war know about the small role the United States played on the battlefield, so the, staying pseudo-neutral wouldn‘t have helped the germans very much.

Next video; what if Germany stayed out of ww2?

Yes, no bras. More Corsets.

If the allies would have lost without America how exactly would Germany overcome the Royal Navy who had a larger navy then the entire axis powers combined? and are these historians American by any chance ??🙃

What if the Austro-Hungarian empire was made of chocolate?

This seem to be a popular opinion only in the US. The Austrians and Ottomans were already collapsing. The Germans would still have internally collapsed due to the blockade.

The entente would have still won i think. Germany was good but was running out of time in 1918 for sure

we had as as many german american as british we co

I still think Germany would win but that's just my opinion.

It would have been better if the UK had also stayed out of it as they almost did. Most forget that SERBIA triggered the war by having an agent murder the Franz Ferdinand (the heir to the throne of the Austro-Hungarian Empire) and his wife. Russia supported the murderers which caused Germany to support Austria. France decided to jump in and try to conquer Alsace and Lorraine thus also supporting the murderers. In the Interwar period Serbia controlled Yugoslavia continued to cause problems. Only under Tito's control after World War II kept Serbia from causing problems until after his death. After Yugoslavia separated into is former countries, Serbia started committing genocide in them. It finally took NATO intervention to crush Serbia mass murder of non-Serbs. If Serbia had been punished for the July 1914 murders, the 20th Century might have been less violent.

The US militarily made little impact in WW1.

Over half the US population was Germanic. The US also traded with Germany when they could get a sub over here to buy things COD. The Germans doing unrestricted submarine warfare against Britain was NO DIFFERENT than the British doing the same to the Germans, but with surface ships. Britain also did the same against the neutral country of The Netherlands. Most stories of German atrocities in Belgium were British propaganda. By rights, the US should sided with Germany, but Wilson, the biggest POS to ever live in the White House, was so pro British that was never going to happen. The biggest affect the US entering the war had was that the US assumed all of Britain's and France's war debts, which allowed both countries to buy more war material from the US.

Lol

Would Spanish flu reach Europe without mass transmission by American troops

The US

Sorry, not buying it. Peace based on Status qou ante proposed by Austro-Hungary would be widely popular. Serbia and MonteNegro would follow Romania sa puppets of Central powers. Without american morale bust, without huuuge american loans and supplies, Italy and France would seek peace, and then go bankrupt, with UK going broke and empire collapse by 1930. USA would suffer badly for loss of loans to Antante.

Spanish flu started from Chinese migrants working on the railroad. It is never talked about.

From the german side, the entry of the US did not change morale much one way or the other. It was rock bottom at this point, and for good reason. The comments talking about well-motivated german stormtroopers or whatever are supposing that the german army was somehow qualitatively different from the rest of western europe. They weren't, and the stalemate on the western front despite major offensives is testament to that. Ultimately, the US socialists saying that this war was not in service of the people were right. Only France and the US were democracies at that point, and Germany was not the genocidal monster it became later. Obviously, they all had a colony or three and practised future war crimes there. And man the people of 1917 were sick of the war, especially in Germany. It doesn't matter if the US became involved or not, the peace talks would've been between a German republic and a victorious Entente.

Just because the devil you know was awrful doesn’t mean the devil you don’t would be much better. Germany in ww1 was not a pinnacle of modern western values and in a world where they won they still would have done plenty of bad things. It would have been a difference in degrees but not in type. In the east they still viewed the people there as barbarians, though not below human, and saw themselves on a civilizing mission on which they had little regard for civilian life, happy to kill or neglect as long as they got what they wanted economically and it didn’t go against their very specific long term vision for what future civilization in the region would look like. In the west it would have been traditional subjugation

USA should habe stayed neutral yes. Germany would have gotten her rightful place in Europe with land gains according to Brest-Litovsk, the Baltics, Belarus and Ukraine to Germany. Then settle for peace with France and Britain and Austria-Hungary gaining all of the Balkans, securing the European character of Europe and never allow the third world to overrun the homelands of the European peoples. USA should secure her own borders and stay out of everyone’s business