Confederates in the allies and Union in central power Confederados en los aliados y Union en Central poder

@@luistorres9201No it’s the opposite

@@luistorres9201 no it will be neutral

Conferates uses the power of friendship to win

@@uhjay109 i don't think anyone will support owning slaves

But that is exactly what Hitlers Germany wanted too. Destroy the Soviets together with the west.

If only democracy wouldn't have been imposed to them or wouldn't have come with harsh punishments. If only...

Toothbrush twerp! Lmao.

@@Hardcore_Remixer If only indeed...

@@Hardcore_Remixer except democracy wasn't imposed on germany, they overthrew the monarchy themselves lmao.

they had the whole support of the allies!

@@HandOfWar ikr

​@@CatfoodChronicles6737and they gained the Baltics too, so no need to worry about that

lol

It makes me sad that Spain lost the civil war to Comintern, luckily it was brought back by allied intervention!

Spanish empire with all American colonies?

@@MegaJoy_0001 nah only the african ones

@@sethhenty6128 how bout both

Getting this will only allow the accursed Franco-German feud to continue beyond WW2. Honestly, its original annexation from back in 1871 was a diplomatic mistake that caused more harm than benefit to Germany in the long run.

But Ludwig the 14th took lothringen away from the germans at first

@@gengarzilla1685 I'd say both sides have just claims for the land. I think the Germans would take it as compensation for the war, and what would the French do when Nuclear weapons have now been developed? The French would never be able to get it. And if Germany can give up on their eastern territories in our timeline then France can give up On Alsace-Lorraine in this timeline.

​@@sean.m. l'Allemagne n'existe pas à ce moment là, du tort au Habsbourg oui

Always in the description!

Vind ik ook

i just looked into that after that comment, very interesting and cool timeline

@@HandOfWar the final episode of that series is coming soon, it’s the next episode he’s releasing (probably)

Denmark didn't fight in WW1, France just hated Germany that much.

Denmark didn't take anything from Germany, they didn't even fight in the First World War. France gave them North Schleswig as a "fuck you" to Germany in the Treaty of Versailles.

@@rmartinson19 France also wanted Denmark to take up to its former borders with the duchy of Schleswig and Holstein (Basically putting Hamburg on the Danish border), but the Danish King refused, only accepting the North due to extensive Entente pressure

Sévres was insane too, just total imperialistic madness. No wonder the Turks rose up against it and forced that treaty to be scrapped.

Tf are you saying, treaty of Versailles completely demolished germany economy. They also Lost Major lands and colonies and their pride vanished as the french and British abused the germans

@@gian562 "Lost major lands" Alsace-Lorraine, the polish corridor, Memel, a tiny bit of Schleswig-Holstein, and a teeny bit of upper Silesia. Not even 10% of their land. Again, compare to the other central powers. Losing your "pride" is immaterial, also, and unprovable and unquantifiable. Their losing their colonies was probably their biggest loss honestly, but saying Namibia, Madagascar and Tanganyika were major losses is questionable at best.

⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠@@belthesheep3550I’d disagree that the treaty of Versailles was itself mild on Germany. To the Germans they were a first rate power that was supposed to rival Britain and Russia in the coming centuries as a dominant power so not just losing land, but having their military limited and restricted, and their entire government overhauled by foreign powers seemed both excessive and humiliating, and for a proclaimed imperialist power that was intolerable. That damaged pride and the poor economic conditions following the war allowed hitler to rise on a messege or restoring German glory and power to what it once was. Their colonies also weren’t practically valuable. Most colonies were actually run on deficit spending and were only occupied for the prestige of having a colony and the raw materials that could be harvested from them, so losing them didn’t actually mean much compared to losing Danzig, Alsace Loraine, or even small parts of Silesia, all of which had substantial German populations and were historically German territories at some point. Of course we know all of this with the benefit of hindsight, but a fairer treaty would’ve minimized German territorial losses outside of Alsace Loraine (a non negotiable for France) and the colonies which could be gifted to Italy as compensation for not receiving several of their territorial demands in the Adriatic or ottoman empires, while the pacific colonies could be carved up by Japan and America. Germany wouldn’t lose any lands outside of that and would get to keep Danzig, which if gifted to Poland would serve as an easy Casus Belli for war by any future German government. If we wanted to give Poland a route to the sea we could simply have them form a union with Lithuania. Call it larping if you want but the Lithuanians having increased autonomy in the new polish-Lithuanian government while both get to avoid territorial disputes with Germany seems like a preferable alternative to what we got IRL. Lastly the German government would be made into a constitutional monarchy and the German military would only receive modest limitations on its manpower and military weapons. This would be done to prevent the rise of extremism but more specifically communism which was a serious threat in the Weimar Republic and having a more conservative figure head and government could ease the transition. The Saarland would also be occupied by an international coalition to repay the cost of damage done in France and the Low Countries and the Rhineland demilitarized to prevent German aggression against this action until the reparations were paid and the Saarland would be returned.

@@motivationallizard6644 I have to point out the treaty of versailles did not depose the german monarchy, a revolution did. Further the myth of versailles being unfair and very harsh on Germany didn't originate from the restrictions on their army, or the loss of land, but mostly from the economic reparations to be paid through direct payment and the occupation of the rhineland. Maynard Keynes being an early proponent of this idea. Mind you also the germans did not seem to shy away from imposing harsh treaties on their defeated enemies, just look at the treaty of Brest-Litovsk for their idea of "just peace". As for how to make the treaty fairer? Cede the saarland to France. Give Austria to Germany. Don't force the Lithuanians into a union they didn't want to be in. Help the poles against the russians to create a friendly Ukraine and Belarus, if at all possible federate them into a new commonwealth (the ukrainians actually considered this early on), Danzig to remain german, but allowing the poles extraterritorial rights to the ports and forcing a free trade agreement between the two countries, cede to Italy the dalmatian coast. These may seem like very random sounding choices, but they'd do a fair bit to help balance out the differences between powers (especially considering that under the germans' socialist policies the addition of austria as a burden would have weakened them), to maintain Italy as a friendly regime to the entente and to mitigate the help from the east the germans received when starting aggressions.

Yeah that’s it. My „wage“ if you calculate it with the hours is lower than minimum wage but I’ll take it

no shit sherlock

What? Bro, you are kidding, yes?

You joking right ? Germany repayed it's reperations fully in 2021!!!

Ok so it would be fair if Germany took all French Colonies, Demanded high amount of Money, Hard military restricitions, More main Land lose, etc. in 1871 ?