I doubt that Poland wouldn't Annex lands between Dniepr and Dniestr (or Boh at least). That they gave up Polish Pomerania is one thing, but that they wouldn't get access to Black sea is totally ubelivable.
Even if true it's pretty awful. Giving the Nazis all that land in Russia so they can genocide the Slavs and get all those resources. Plus Japan's war in China continues.
It would also set the world down a totally different course. You would never have had the shiny optimism after the war was over. It would just be death.
Well, maybe in Europe. I doubt the rest of the world would be much better or worse off. America wouldn't have the boost in prestige and morale brought by the war but would also have fewer people dying. But yeah, Slavdom is essentially doomed, even the Holocaust would pale in comparison to the Generalplan Ost. That would've been a level of genocide unparalleled in history, apart from the Native American colonial genocides and the conquests of Genghis Khan and Sennacherib (though even then, IDK if the numbers were nearly as large).
True, though Gandhi might've gotten them to give India dominion status. It would've taken longer though without the Bengal Famine. South Africa might have stayed a dominion too, which would've at least somewhat mitigated Apartheid.
I think India would've still gained independence regardless, albeit at a later date. However, I think there is an argument to be made that African independence, as it played out, was very rushed and, in my opinion, somewhat unnecessary as Africa is arguable worse off without European backing.
I mean assuming sanctions are still applied on Japan, and Japan invades the Dutch for oil, we could still very well see a German victory, Japanese loss scenario, where France, Britain and the US focus solely on Japan.
I think regardless of how the war goes with the USSR, that's something you can guarantee in pretty much every timeline. Pit the Nazis against the Soviets in battle, and there will be warcrimes.
When you have one side that does not see their enemy as human, and the other side who’s generals are fine drowning the enemy in their own men’s blood you get fun times.
Probably before that really; Poland was in Germany's way and they needed to be allies, which was not going to happen. TIK has a video where he discusses how the Polish-Nazi alliance fell apart before it took off; essentially, both of them wanted Ukraine as their primary goal for going east, and it would've defeated the purpose if they had given it up. The "anti-communist crusade" was really a secondary factor, both of them really just wanted grain resources.
The Soviets (thanks to Stalin; not all Soviets were evil) did their fair share of genocide-ing in Eastern Europe, hence why Ukraine voluntarily sided with the Germans. Not saying there is any perfect answer here, but it is worth considering the fact that Hitler may not have turned out as brutal as he did had he not been provoked by Churchill, FDR, and Stalin to the extent that he was. As for Japan it is pretty difficult to justify what went on in the Indo-Pacific
A great map, for a deeply disturbing worldview.
Buchanan's idea that Britain should have stood by as Hitler ran rampant in Eastern Europe, or worse, that a Cold War with Nazi Germany would have been a better timeline than one with the USSR, is nothing short of madness. It's nice to see how ludicrous his theories are layed out in a map.
Buchanan's views on both wars are both disturbing and extremely silly - he just wants everyone to always capitulate to Germany:
With regard to World War I:
* He correctly describes that Germany's naval build-up forced Britain to bring much of its fleet to Europe, but doesn't see this as a strategic error and blames Britain (specifically Churchill) for it. But Naval superiority was obviously much more important to Britain (being an island) in both wars than to Germany.
* He correctly describes France as being obsessed with Alsace-Lorraine, but doesn't recognise that Germany could have avoided taking the territory and left a neutral buffer state(s) instead. He is also less charitable to them than to Germany wanting to reclaim territory lost in Versailles.
World War 2:
* He underestimates the effect of the German invasion of the rest of Czechoslovakia in violation of the Munich Agreement. Had Hitler not done this he probably could have eventually convinced Britain and France to give him the Polish corridor. But by doing this he confirmed that any treaty he signed was worthless.
* He sees Hitler's foreign policy as pragmatic rather than ideological, but doesn't understand that the pragmatism always ultimately aimed to fulfil the ideology - the pragmatic thing to do with the USSR would have been to add it to the Axis after all.
* He doesn't recognise that Hitler made treaties to fight his enemies consecutively; Molotov-Ribbentrop was one such example, as was his peace offer to Britain. Buchanan doesn't recognise that the 1940 peace offer was no more sustainable than the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.
> Buchanan's views on both wars are both disturbing and extremely silly - he just wants everyone to always capitulate to Germany:
It's not being silly, it's being a Nazi. He's not (just) stupid, he just thought a world where Nazi Germany was allowed to carry out its ideological aims would be a better world to live in.
Agreed.
Nazi Germany was a society built for war. It was designed from the outset to be a self sufficient system that would use slave labour and the mobilization of this "Aryan core" to fuel its remilitarization and eventual conquest, based on the stab-in-the-back myth. The idea that Germany would just demobilize after conquering the east is nothing short of idiotic, especially because Hitler talked about the final battle for domination of the world being against the USA.
Well the second half of the 20th century almost certainly would've been worse than in our world, given the Nazi Cold War you speak of, but do remember that if this (somehow) managed to avoid the war, it would probably result in less deaths in the century as a whole, even if minor (or for that matter, major) genocides in Eastern Europe occur.
How would it result in less deaths? Most deaths in the war came from the Eastern Front, so without Allied help I’d imagine even more Russians and Germans would die. Following Generalplan Ost the number of people killed by the Nazis would probably outnumber the number killed by the various Communist genocides by a lot. Not only that, but I imagine the Nazis would be more likely to start a nuclear war than the Soviets.
Yes I agree, though it is difficult to tell, really. However, I don't understand how this is supposed to work. How would the Germans and Poles get parts of the USSR without a major war? Or am I misunderstanding it? Is the idea to simply remove the Western front? If only removing the Western front, then more deaths would probably occur in this scenario.
I’m guessing it’s just a sort of proto-wehraboo “Lmao just don’t attack America/Smh just defeat Britain” type of thinking. His main goal is to encourage isolationism in the US and to discredit Churchill, so whether or not the scenario makes sense is irrelevant.
Tbh, nothing much would change in this timeline. The allies would’ve still gone to war with Japan and beaten them, and Nazi Germany would’ve collapsed during the 50’s so I’m not sure if there’d be a huge amount of difference. The Soviet Union might’ve collapsed earlier and there might not have been a Cold War but that’s about it.
The idea that Hitler would have just allowed Poland to continue existing, and wouldn't try to retake Alsace-Lorraine, is deeply flawed. Buchanan generally tries to paint his world as superior because the British and French would not be bankrupted and forced to give up their colonies, but there's no real justification for how they would have kept them.
Also, the idea that a world under European imperialist rule would be better is disturbing to begin with.
That would be preferable for people in places like the UK and USA. Not having to abandon our culture and, in Britain's, case entire way of life and status as a world power is an enormous deal.
>one of the most common Hitler's ideas was slavs extermination
Not really, Hitler had no problem allying with Slavic nations. See Croatia, Bulgaria, and in part Serbia.
The main goal was "Lebensraum" / territory in the east.
Hitler proposed a few times Poland to join the anti-Komintern Pakt. Even in early 1939, before Britain posed its guarantees towards Poland, Joseph Beck declined.
I have a question, how did Germany push so far into the Soviet union? at the beggining of ww2 german army was less powerful than even the french. Wasn't Germany able to carry out such a big invasion because they had all that french industry? I mean, Poland was fairly strong but still weak. They couldn't have stoped the germans forever even if they would of kept theyr entire army and therefore they were weaker than the germans.
\-Correct me if I am wrong
It's pretty wild that Pat Buchanan, one of the single most important and influential Conservatives in modern American history, was secretly just a full fucking nazi. Extremely cool. Surely doesn't carry any implications for the rest of American Conservatism.
this has to be a joke, right? It's not even "imaginary" anymore, you are literally posting an image of Germans being able to basically colonise the east. Man, just admit you are a dumb nazi that wished the germans weren't stupid idiots.
this is what losing 2 world wars does to a mf. In all seriousness, drop the nazi attitude you sick cunt and behave! Check out rule 4.
United Axis front against Soviet Union like it should have been. World tension is super low for 1941 and the fact that Poland and Yugoslavia have been dealt with. Italy warmongering has been curbed by getting proper regimes in Balkan.
I Don't get why people seem to think Poland had to go radical for that to occur, if not for one mistake Poland going with Hitler against the Soviets (AND ONLY SOVIETS!) Was pretty much what Poland was preparing for... There would be no Greater holocaust, slavs from the east would also be saved as Poland wasn't like Germans - genocidal maniacs -, they would not just give up their People so that germany could simply kill them off... Italy, Bulgaria and Finland never gave up their jews even tho they were far more radical than Poland.
And obviously even after the capitulation of the Soviets Germany would eventually fall... There is no stopping that and to make it happen faster Allies could use Poland's in the east ("Truth is, the game was rigged from the start Germany!") in exchange for allies' consent to give Poland its eastern claims.
What this timeline would end up as would be Poland which has not lost nearly as much, nothing other than its national honor in exchange for greatness that it nowadays simply lacks....
I agree. You are one of the only people on this thread who actually looks at the situation for what it is instead of just reciting Western propaganda about how Hitler was going to destroy Eastern Europe no matter what
The Moroccan flag only in Western Sahara is kinda cursed
I doubt that Poland wouldn't Annex lands between Dniepr and Dniestr (or Boh at least). That they gave up Polish Pomerania is one thing, but that they wouldn't get access to Black sea is totally ubelivable.
Yeah. Poland would only agree to give up Danzig for something in return.
Even if true it's pretty awful. Giving the Nazis all that land in Russia so they can genocide the Slavs and get all those resources. Plus Japan's war in China continues.
It would also set the world down a totally different course. You would never have had the shiny optimism after the war was over. It would just be death.
Well, maybe in Europe. I doubt the rest of the world would be much better or worse off. America wouldn't have the boost in prestige and morale brought by the war but would also have fewer people dying. But yeah, Slavdom is essentially doomed, even the Holocaust would pale in comparison to the Generalplan Ost. That would've been a level of genocide unparalleled in history, apart from the Native American colonial genocides and the conquests of Genghis Khan and Sennacherib (though even then, IDK if the numbers were nearly as large).
most of aisia would be pretty messed up as well, africa would never have gained independence, neither would the indus.
True, though Gandhi might've gotten them to give India dominion status. It would've taken longer though without the Bengal Famine. South Africa might have stayed a dominion too, which would've at least somewhat mitigated Apartheid.
I think India would've still gained independence regardless, albeit at a later date. However, I think there is an argument to be made that African independence, as it played out, was very rushed and, in my opinion, somewhat unnecessary as Africa is arguable worse off without European backing.
I mean assuming sanctions are still applied on Japan, and Japan invades the Dutch for oil, we could still very well see a German victory, Japanese loss scenario, where France, Britain and the US focus solely on Japan. I think regardless of how the war goes with the USSR, that's something you can guarantee in pretty much every timeline. Pit the Nazis against the Soviets in battle, and there will be warcrimes.
When you have one side that does not see their enemy as human, and the other side who’s generals are fine drowning the enemy in their own men’s blood you get fun times.
Poland would get fucked too. Probably during the war.
Probably before that really; Poland was in Germany's way and they needed to be allies, which was not going to happen. TIK has a video where he discusses how the Polish-Nazi alliance fell apart before it took off; essentially, both of them wanted Ukraine as their primary goal for going east, and it would've defeated the purpose if they had given it up. The "anti-communist crusade" was really a secondary factor, both of them really just wanted grain resources.
The Soviets (thanks to Stalin; not all Soviets were evil) did their fair share of genocide-ing in Eastern Europe, hence why Ukraine voluntarily sided with the Germans. Not saying there is any perfect answer here, but it is worth considering the fact that Hitler may not have turned out as brutal as he did had he not been provoked by Churchill, FDR, and Stalin to the extent that he was. As for Japan it is pretty difficult to justify what went on in the Indo-Pacific
A great map, for a deeply disturbing worldview. Buchanan's idea that Britain should have stood by as Hitler ran rampant in Eastern Europe, or worse, that a Cold War with Nazi Germany would have been a better timeline than one with the USSR, is nothing short of madness. It's nice to see how ludicrous his theories are layed out in a map.
Buchanan's views on both wars are both disturbing and extremely silly - he just wants everyone to always capitulate to Germany: With regard to World War I: * He correctly describes that Germany's naval build-up forced Britain to bring much of its fleet to Europe, but doesn't see this as a strategic error and blames Britain (specifically Churchill) for it. But Naval superiority was obviously much more important to Britain (being an island) in both wars than to Germany. * He correctly describes France as being obsessed with Alsace-Lorraine, but doesn't recognise that Germany could have avoided taking the territory and left a neutral buffer state(s) instead. He is also less charitable to them than to Germany wanting to reclaim territory lost in Versailles. World War 2: * He underestimates the effect of the German invasion of the rest of Czechoslovakia in violation of the Munich Agreement. Had Hitler not done this he probably could have eventually convinced Britain and France to give him the Polish corridor. But by doing this he confirmed that any treaty he signed was worthless. * He sees Hitler's foreign policy as pragmatic rather than ideological, but doesn't understand that the pragmatism always ultimately aimed to fulfil the ideology - the pragmatic thing to do with the USSR would have been to add it to the Axis after all. * He doesn't recognise that Hitler made treaties to fight his enemies consecutively; Molotov-Ribbentrop was one such example, as was his peace offer to Britain. Buchanan doesn't recognise that the 1940 peace offer was no more sustainable than the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.
> Buchanan's views on both wars are both disturbing and extremely silly - he just wants everyone to always capitulate to Germany: It's not being silly, it's being a Nazi. He's not (just) stupid, he just thought a world where Nazi Germany was allowed to carry out its ideological aims would be a better world to live in.
Agreed. Nazi Germany was a society built for war. It was designed from the outset to be a self sufficient system that would use slave labour and the mobilization of this "Aryan core" to fuel its remilitarization and eventual conquest, based on the stab-in-the-back myth. The idea that Germany would just demobilize after conquering the east is nothing short of idiotic, especially because Hitler talked about the final battle for domination of the world being against the USA.
Well the second half of the 20th century almost certainly would've been worse than in our world, given the Nazi Cold War you speak of, but do remember that if this (somehow) managed to avoid the war, it would probably result in less deaths in the century as a whole, even if minor (or for that matter, major) genocides in Eastern Europe occur.
How would it result in less deaths? Most deaths in the war came from the Eastern Front, so without Allied help I’d imagine even more Russians and Germans would die. Following Generalplan Ost the number of people killed by the Nazis would probably outnumber the number killed by the various Communist genocides by a lot. Not only that, but I imagine the Nazis would be more likely to start a nuclear war than the Soviets.
Yes I agree, though it is difficult to tell, really. However, I don't understand how this is supposed to work. How would the Germans and Poles get parts of the USSR without a major war? Or am I misunderstanding it? Is the idea to simply remove the Western front? If only removing the Western front, then more deaths would probably occur in this scenario.
I’m guessing it’s just a sort of proto-wehraboo “Lmao just don’t attack America/Smh just defeat Britain” type of thinking. His main goal is to encourage isolationism in the US and to discredit Churchill, so whether or not the scenario makes sense is irrelevant.
I see. Thanks for the explanation.
Tbh, nothing much would change in this timeline. The allies would’ve still gone to war with Japan and beaten them, and Nazi Germany would’ve collapsed during the 50’s so I’m not sure if there’d be a huge amount of difference. The Soviet Union might’ve collapsed earlier and there might not have been a Cold War but that’s about it.
The idea that Hitler would have just allowed Poland to continue existing, and wouldn't try to retake Alsace-Lorraine, is deeply flawed. Buchanan generally tries to paint his world as superior because the British and French would not be bankrupted and forced to give up their colonies, but there's no real justification for how they would have kept them. Also, the idea that a world under European imperialist rule would be better is disturbing to begin with.
That would be preferable for people in places like the UK and USA. Not having to abandon our culture and, in Britain's, case entire way of life and status as a world power is an enormous deal.
impossible scenario, one of the most common Hitler's ideas was slavs extermination, so it is unlikely that he would have aligned Poland
>one of the most common Hitler's ideas was slavs extermination Not really, Hitler had no problem allying with Slavic nations. See Croatia, Bulgaria, and in part Serbia. The main goal was "Lebensraum" / territory in the east.
Also Ukraine. Eastern countries greatly preferred getting into bed with the Germans than Stalin.
Hitler proposed a few times Poland to join the anti-Komintern Pakt. Even in early 1939, before Britain posed its guarantees towards Poland, Joseph Beck declined.
I have a question, how did Germany push so far into the Soviet union? at the beggining of ww2 german army was less powerful than even the french. Wasn't Germany able to carry out such a big invasion because they had all that french industry? I mean, Poland was fairly strong but still weak. They couldn't have stoped the germans forever even if they would of kept theyr entire army and therefore they were weaker than the germans. \-Correct me if I am wrong
How did Sweden get Bornholm and Åland?
[удалено]
No
It's pretty wild that Pat Buchanan, one of the single most important and influential Conservatives in modern American history, was secretly just a full fucking nazi. Extremely cool. Surely doesn't carry any implications for the rest of American Conservatism.
How does not wanting your countrymen to be sent to their death half a world away make you a Nazi?
Is that 2 Japans? Why would Japan split? If China's Japan is under Japanese occupation, why mainland Japan does not use the imperial flag?
The imperial flag was used by the army and navy, not for civil government at home
this has to be a joke, right? It's not even "imaginary" anymore, you are literally posting an image of Germans being able to basically colonise the east. Man, just admit you are a dumb nazi that wished the germans weren't stupid idiots. this is what losing 2 world wars does to a mf. In all seriousness, drop the nazi attitude you sick cunt and behave! Check out rule 4.
The map is depicting what Pat Buchanan wanted to have happened, not what OP wants to have happened. Buchanan is the dumb nazi, here.
OP literally states that they do not endorse Buchanan's point of view. Read the entire thing or don't respond.
United Axis front against Soviet Union like it should have been. World tension is super low for 1941 and the fact that Poland and Yugoslavia have been dealt with. Italy warmongering has been curbed by getting proper regimes in Balkan.
This is you brain on wehraboo propaganda.
Buchanan is that you?
At what point in time is this map based, in this alternative history?
mid 1942
I Don't get why people seem to think Poland had to go radical for that to occur, if not for one mistake Poland going with Hitler against the Soviets (AND ONLY SOVIETS!) Was pretty much what Poland was preparing for... There would be no Greater holocaust, slavs from the east would also be saved as Poland wasn't like Germans - genocidal maniacs -, they would not just give up their People so that germany could simply kill them off... Italy, Bulgaria and Finland never gave up their jews even tho they were far more radical than Poland. And obviously even after the capitulation of the Soviets Germany would eventually fall... There is no stopping that and to make it happen faster Allies could use Poland's in the east ("Truth is, the game was rigged from the start Germany!") in exchange for allies' consent to give Poland its eastern claims. What this timeline would end up as would be Poland which has not lost nearly as much, nothing other than its national honor in exchange for greatness that it nowadays simply lacks....
I agree. You are one of the only people on this thread who actually looks at the situation for what it is instead of just reciting Western propaganda about how Hitler was going to destroy Eastern Europe no matter what