Whatifalthist's "What if Ataturk never existed?"

[Admiral Bloonbeard]

The following was originally posted here :

https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/whatifalthist-is-just-racist-now.540761/page-8#post-24110250

As many has discussed here already, Whatifalthist is an alternate history YouTuber notorious for his bad takes and obvious right wing bias. Recently he has been accused of extremism and racism.

This video is just so badly made. So he shows the map of Turkey after Turkey loses the war of independence. Without Ataturk, Turkey loses that war. He then shows the map of Turkey. Ok, plausable.

Than, this is where the video turns into a crazy mishmash. He claims that if the Turks lost the war of independence, Mussolini would not have risen to power because Italy would own parts of Turkey and the Italians would not feel betrayed. I agree with that. Than, he talks about World War 2. How exactly does World War 2 start? He never explains how. Without Mussolini, Hitler would never got into power. He doesn't explain who rules Germany but let's assume some far right conservative controls Germany. According to him, Turkey joins the Axis due to feelings of revenge. Ok, I can see that. But somehow, early WW2 still goes exactly the same way, IE France still falls. HOW? According to him, without Mussolini, Italy stays neutral in World War 2 because the Italians feel no need to fight World War 2. Wrong. If Turkey joins Axis, Italy likely sides with Britain and France to protect their Turkish holdings. If Italy joins Allies, I can't see France fall. He then claims that Germany would use Turkey as a base not only to conquer Soviet oil fields but also invade the lightly defended oil rich British and French colonies in the middle east. He is absolutely wrong there. First, the Middle East was not lightly defended OTL. Britain had more troops in the Middle East than Egypt or Singapore. Second, without the North African front because he claims Italy isn't fighting in the war (unlikely if Italy owns Turkish land), those troops that fought in North and East Africa OTL would be fighting in the middle east. And Spain joins Axis but Italy remains neutral??? Whatifalthist contradicts himself so much.

So how do you think World War 2 would turn out if Whatifalthist's premise in Turkey actually happened?

 

[TheSpectacledCloth]

This video was made 6 years ago.

 

[Jett-Power]

Why do you think that Italy joining the war on the side of the Allies would prevent France from falling? Italy's army was very bad, like really bad.

 

[Aluma]

This video was made 6 years ago.

Sure, doesnt mean we cant discuss the premise
Many TLs here are older than that after all

 

[Admiral Bloonbeard]

Why do you think that Italy joining the war on the side of the Allies would prevent France from falling? Italy's army was very bad, like really bad.

It would be like World War 1 whare Germany sent troops to the Alps against Italy. In 1915 the Austro Hungarians had 61 divisions deployed in the Italian front while Germany had 5 divisions there in 1917.

 

[Jett-Power]

It would be like World War 1 whare Germany sent troops to the Alps against Italy. In 1915 the Austro Hungarians had 61 divisions deployed in the Italian front while Germany had 5 divisions there in 1917.

It still wouldn't have prevented France from falling.

 

[Sacer Bubonicus]

As many has discussed here already, Whatifalthist is an alternate history YouTuber

Alleged alternate history Youtuber at this point.
I personally subscribe to the idea that the real Rudyard Lynch was replaced by a bodysnatcher about a year ago.

Than, this is where the video turns into a crazy mishmash. He claims that if the Turks lost the war of independence, Mussolini would not have risen to power because Italy would own parts of Turkey and the Italians would not feel betrayed. I agree with that. Than, he talks about World War 2. How exactly does World War 2 start? He never explains how. Without Mussolini, Hitler would never got into power.

Mussolini was only a rough guide for Hitler, not a blueprint. When Hitler tried his own version of the March on Rome a year later, he got shut down. Without Mussolini, the prerequisites for Hitler do not change. The prerequisites for WW2 do change though, since Italy's place in the Axis can't really be filled by the Turks.

If Turkey joins Axis, Italy likely sides with Britain and France to protect their Turkish holdings. If Italy joins Allies, I can't see France fall.

Italy's army was a joke, even if its navy was pretty good when it had fuel enough to go places.
While the presence of the Italians can certainly change things up, the Nazis' OTL path of events in northern France is still pretty likely.
After that, it's all Italy can do to wage a defensive war in the Alps.

He then claims that Germany would use Turkey as a base not only to conquer Soviet oil fields but also invade the lightly defended oil rich British and French colonies in the middle east. He is absolutely wrong there. First, the Middle East was not lightly defended OTL. Britain had more troops in the Middle East than Egypt or Singapore. Second, without the North African front because he claims Italy isn't fighting in the war (unlikely if Italy owns Turkish land), those troops that fought in North and East Africa OTL would be fighting in the middle east. And Spain joins Axis but Italy remains neutral??? Whatifalthist contradicts himself so much.

And this is where I agree with you again.

Conclusion: contrivances up the ass, as typical of a 16-17 year old spewing his very limited set of undigested history books at you.

 

[Admiral Bloonbeard]

It still wouldn't have prevented France from falling.

Alleged alternate history Youtuber at this point.
I personally subscribe to the idea that the real Rudyard Lynch was replaced by a bodysnatcher about a year ago.

Mussolini was only a rough guide for Hitler, not a blueprint. When Hitler tried his own version of the March on Rome a year later, he got shut down. Without Mussolini, the prerequisites for Hitler do not change. The prerequisites for WW2 do change though, since Italy's place in the Axis can't really be filled by the Turks.

Italy's army was a joke, even if its navy was pretty good when it had fuel enough to go places.
While the presence of the Italians can certainly change things up, the Nazis' OTL path of events in northern France is still pretty likely.
After that, it's all Italy can do to wage a defensive war in the Alps.

And this is where I agree with you again.

Conclusion: contrivances up the ass, as typical of a 16-17 year old spewing his very limited set of undigested history books at you.

From Wikipedia :

"The division was the basic formation of the Italian Royal Army. On 10 June 1940, the army had 59 infantry divisions, three National Security Volunteer Militia (Milizia Volontaria per la Sicurezza Nazionale [MVSN]) divisions, five high mountain (alpini) divisions, three mobile (celere) divisions, two motorized divisions, and three armored divisions. In addition, there were estimated to be the equivalent of about nine divisions of frontier guard troops.[2] There were also numerous colonial formations at or near the division level composed of troops from Italian Libya and Italian East Africa."

That's nothing to sneeze at.

 

[Sacer Bubonicus]

From Wikipedia :

"The division was the basic formation of the Italian Royal Army. On 10 June 1940, the army had 59 infantry divisions, three National Security Volunteer Militia (Milizia Volontaria per la Sicurezza Nazionale [MVSN]) divisions, five high mountain (alpini) divisions, three mobile (celere) divisions, two motorized divisions, and three armored divisions. In addition, there were estimated to be the equivalent of about nine divisions of frontier guard troops.[2] There were also numerous colonial formations at or near the division level composed of troops from Italian Libya and Italian East Africa."

They are also shittily equipped, their tanks make the Japanese look sophisticated, and their divisions are binary instead of triangular (as all other forces were), which makes them about 2/3rds the strength implied by their numbers (and, in practice, even less due to their other weaknesses).

 

[Admiral Bloonbeard]

They are also shittily equipped, their tanks make the Japanese look sophisticated, and their divisions are binary instead of triangular (as all other forces were), which makes them about 2/3rds the strength implied by their numbers (and, in practice, even less due to their other weaknesses).

I don't doubt that Italy would do horribly invading Germany but Germany would still need to have an army sized formation in the alps and Luftwaffe groups. OTL the German plan was bad and they barely won at Sedan in 1940 against elderly French reserves.

 

[Sacer Bubonicus]

I don't doubt that Italy would do horribly invading Germany but Germany would still need to have an army sized formation in the alps and Luftwaffe groups. OTL the German plan was bad and they barely won at Sedan in 1940 against elderly French reserves.

The German plan in general was shit, but the addition of the Italians by itself isn't what would make them fail; the Allies being more competent would.
Italy's performance on the defense would undoubtedly be better than on the offense, but it would still be pretty bad, so the Germans can definitely defeat them after taking out France. It's not like they have any enemies on the continent between Dunkirk and Barbarossa.

At least Italy's rugged terrain and limited width makes it impossible for the Germans to outflank the Italians while they fight down Italy's boot, which will make the war difficult and potentially prolong it to the point that their food situation forces them to surrender, or the war lasts long enough that the Soviets decide to attack Germany while they're distracted, thereby relieving the Italians. Unlikely, though.

 

[Admiral Bloonbeard]

The German plan in general was shit, but the addition of the Italians by itself isn't what would make them fail; the Allies being more competent would.
Italy's performance on the defense would undoubtedly be better than on the offense, but it would still be pretty bad, but they can definitely defeat them after taking out France. It's not like they have any enemies on the continent between Dunkirk and Barbarossa.

At least Italy's rugged terrain and limited width makes it impossible for the Germans to outflank the Italians while they fight down Italy's boot, which will make the war difficult and potentially prolong it to the point that their food situation forces them to surrender, or the war lasts long enough that the Soviets decide to attack Germany while they're distracted, thereby relieving the Italians. Unlikely, though.

How do we expect the Germans expect to win at Sedan if they transfer significant parts of the Heer and Luftwaffe to counter the Italian invasion? They nearly lost at Sedan OTL and if the French had one more division at Sedan OTL I think the Germans would have indeed lost.

 

[THE KINGFISH]

Alleged alternate history Youtuber at this point.
I personally subscribe to the idea that the real Rudyard Lynch was replaced by a bodysnatcher about a year ago.

He was replaced by Doug Walker, doing his political alter-ego with an AI voice generator.

Mussolini was only a rough guide for Hitler, not a blueprint. When Hitler tried his own version of the March on Rome a year later, he got shut down. Without Mussolini, the prerequisites for Hitler do not change. The prerequisites for WW2 do change though, since Italy's place in the Axis can't really be filled by the Turks.

Not to mention fascism varies depending on a country’s ideology. Some like Nazi Germany were very imperialist and wanted to fundamentally reshape society in their image, while others like Franco’s Spain and Salzar’s Portugal were for the most part content with their current size and colonial holdings and simply wanted the existing social conservatism cranked up to 11.

Italy's army was a joke, even if its navy was pretty good when it had fuel enough to go places.
While the presence of the Italians can certainly change things up, the Nazis' OTL path of events in northern France is still pretty likely.
After that, it's all Italy can do to wage a defensive war in the Alps.

And this is where I agree with you again.

Conclusion: contrivances up the ass, as typical of a 16-17 year old spewing his very limited set of undigested history books at you.

I do think it’s possible (not certain, so don’t count on it) that if Italy was on the Allies side, Hitler might have ordered something like the Italian invasion earlier than 1943 to secure their border. This would possibly slow down or delay Operation Barbarossa. But with the Soviet’s quick industrialization still happening, this would make the Eastern Front (which still happens because Hitler was an egomaniac) even less successful for the Nazis.

So unlike what Whatifstalgia Althistic said, rather than an Axis victory scenario #2845283736284737, the Nazis could potentially lose harder.

 

[Admiral Bloonbeard]

He was replaced by Doug Walker, doing his political alter-ego with an AI voice generator.

Not to mention fascism varies depending on a country’s ideology. Some like Nazi Germany were very imperialist and wanted to fundamentally reshape society in their image, while others like Franco’s Spain and Salzar’s Portugal were for the most part content with their current size and colonial holdings and simply wanted the existing social conservatism cranked up to 11.

I do think it’s possible (not certain, so don’t count on it) that if Italy was on the Allies side, Hitler might have ordered something like the Italian invasion earlier than 1943 to secure their border. This would possibly slow down or delay Operation Barbarossa. But with the Soviet’s quick industrialization still happening, this would make the Eastern Front (which still happens because Hitler was an egomaniac) even less successful for the Nazis.

So unlike what Whatifstalgia Althistic said, rather than an Axis victory scenario #2845283736284737, the Nazis could potentially lose harder.

Not unless if France holds which is very likely considering the Germans almost lost Sedan OTL. The Italian invasion of Germany will go horribly but Germans will have to divert significant resources the Italian front like the Austro Hungarians and Germans did in World War 1.

 

[Sacer Bubonicus]

How do we expect the Germans expect to win at Sedan if they transfer significant parts of the Heer and Luftwaffe to counter the Italian invasion? They nearly lost at Sedan OTL and if the French had one more division at Sedan OTL I think the Germans would have indeed lost.

Given that the Italians contributed 22 divisions(*) to the invasion of France IOTL and were themselves easily beaten back by the French, I doubt it.
I don't know what forces the Wehrmacht had garrisoning the borders, but they certainly did not deplete their numbers to invade France, so I'm pretty sure the Italians wouldn't be an issue.

(Also, you'd think the Italian plan would be to fight the Wehrmacht together with their allies to maintain strength in numbers, so most of their forces would be in France anyway, and not in Austria.)

(*): binary, don't forget

Edit: actually, this says it.

Number of German divisions by front in World War II

www.axishistory.com

They had around 30 divisions outside the western front throughout early 1940, with 18 being their absolute lowest number in June, more than enough to repel an Italian invasion... though if the Soviets decided to stab them in the back for some reason, they'd have absolutely nothing stopping them in that case.

 

[Karl the Writer]

Alleged alternate history Youtuber at this point.
I personally subscribe to the idea that the real Rudyard Lynch was replaced by a bodysnatcher about a year ago.

Mussolini was only a rough guide for Hitler, not a blueprint. When Hitler tried his own version of the March on Rome a year later, he got shut down. Without Mussolini, the prerequisites for Hitler do not change. The prerequisites for WW2 do change though, since Italy's place in the Axis can't really be filled by the Turks.

Italy's army was a joke, even if its navy was pretty good when it had fuel enough to go places.
While the presence of the Italians can certainly change things up, the Nazis' OTL path of events in northern France is still pretty likely.
After that, it's all Italy can do to wage a defensive war in the Alps.

And this is where I agree with you again.

Conclusion: contrivances up the ass, as typical of a 16-17 year old spewing his very limited set of undigested history books at you.

Alright, I'll clear up some issues here. I used to be really into that crap when I was younger (thank God I got out of it). First off, his fall into "geopolitical commentary" aka right wing political Youtuber pretending to be an alt-hist Youtuber, began somewhere in mid-2020 with his WW3 video.

Even his TLs were mostly pieces of crap in hindsight, devolving into deterministic rants whose sources were half remembered videos he watched a year ago and whose military understanding was slim to none. Case in point, his Nazi Victory video. Somehow, taking Moscow allows for the Germans to go on longer because something something 3 - 1 attack defender ratio. Never mind that refers to combat ability instead of numbers and the Germans would be at the end of their supply lines and exhausted. Then, taking the Caucasus allows for the Germans to reap all the oil benefits because real life is a HOI4 game where holding a province gives you all the resources regardless of your ability to, you know, get it where it needs to go. My point is that this man never had any idea what he was talking about with only a superficial understanding of history. I did more research for my failed 1st TL than he ever did. You are very right to say this was someone regurgitating undigested history books at a screen.

 

[Admiral Bloonbeard]

Alright, I'll clear up some issues here. I used to be really into that crap when I was younger (thank God I got out of it). First off, his fall into "geopolitical commentary" aka right wing political Youtuber pretending to be an alt-hist Youtuber, began somewhere in mid-2020 with his WW3 video.

Even his TLs were mostly pieces of crap in hindsight, devolving into deterministic rants whose sources were half remembered videos he watched a year ago and whose military understanding was slim to none. Case in point, his Nazi Victory video. Somehow, taking Moscow allows for the Germans to go on longer because something something 3 - 1 attack defender ratio. Never mind that refers to combat ability instead of numbers and the Germans would be at the end of their supply lines and exhausted. Then, taking the Caucasus allows for the Germans to reap all the oil benefits because real life is a HOI4 game where holding a province gives you all the resources regardless of your ability to, you know, get it where it needs to go. My point is that this man never had any idea what he was talking about with only a superficial understanding of history. I did more research for my failed 1st TL than he ever did. You are very right to say this was someone regurgitating undigested history books at a screen.

I love how Spain joins Axis right after a civil war that destroyed the country when Italy stays neutral when Turkey is obviously hostile and wants it's land from Italy back.

 

[Admiral Bloonbeard]

Given that the Italians contributed 22 divisions(*) to the invasion of France IOTL and were themselves easily beaten back by the French, I doubt it.
I don't know what forces the Wehrmacht had garrisoning the borders, but they certainly did not deplete their numbers to invade France, so I'm pretty sure the Italians wouldn't be an issue.

(Also, you'd think the Italian plan would be to fight the Wehrmacht together with their allies to maintain strength in numbers, so most of their forces would be in France anyway, and not in Austria.)

(*): binary, don't forget

Edit: actually, this says it.

Number of German divisions by front in World War II

www.axishistory.com

They had around 30 divisions outside the western front throughout early 1940, with 18 being their absolute lowest number in June, more than enough to repel an Italian invasion... though if the Soviets decided to stab them in the back for some reason, they'd have absolutely nothing stopping them in that case.

Welp, the Soviet factor does it. Unless Hitler was such a big gambler he needs troops across the Soviet AND Italian borders.


Also, what makes you think the majority of Italian troops would be in France? In 1918 they had 40,000 in France. There were more Italians in the Balkans and in Libya in the Senussi campaign in 1918 than in France.

 

[Sacer Bubonicus]

Also, what makes you think the majority of Italian troops would be in France? In 1918 they had 40,000 in France. There were more Italians in the Balkans and in Libya in the Senussi campaign in 1918 than in France.

Because an invasion north through the mountains is likely to quickly get bogged down in trench warfare like the last time, and the terrain will mean that the Italians will suffer higher losses on the offensive than they would in the open fields of France - again, like last time.

 

[3t_sloth]

The following was originally posted here :

https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/whatifalthist-is-just-racist-now.540761/page-8#post-24110250

As many has discussed here already, Whatifalthist is an alternate history YouTuber notorious for his bad takes and obvious right wing bias. Recently he has been accused of extremism and racism.

This video is just so badly made. So he shows the map of Turkey after Turkey loses the war of independence. Without Ataturk, Turkey loses that war. He then shows the map of Turkey. Ok, plausable.

Than, this is where the video turns into a crazy mishmash. He claims that if the Turks lost the war of independence, Mussolini would not have risen to power because Italy would own parts of Turkey and the Italians would not feel betrayed. I agree with that. Than, he talks about World War 2. How exactly does World War 2 start? He never explains how. Without Mussolini, Hitler would never got into power. He doesn't explain who rules Germany but let's assume some far right conservative controls Germany. According to him, Turkey joins the Axis due to feelings of revenge. Ok, I can see that. But somehow, early WW2 still goes exactly the same way, IE France still falls. HOW? According to him, without Mussolini, Italy stays neutral in World War 2 because the Italians feel no need to fight World War 2. Wrong. If Turkey joins Axis, Italy likely sides with Britain and France to protect their Turkish holdings. If Italy joins Allies, I can't see France fall. He then claims that Germany would use Turkey as a base not only to conquer Soviet oil fields but also invade the lightly defended oil rich British and French colonies in the middle east. He is absolutely wrong there. First, the Middle East was not lightly defended OTL. Britain had more troops in the Middle East than Egypt or Singapore. Second, without the North African front because he claims Italy isn't fighting in the war (unlikely if Italy owns Turkish land), those troops that fought in North and East Africa OTL would be fighting in the middle east. And Spain joins Axis but Italy remains neutral??? Whatifalthist contradicts himself so much.

So how do you think World War 2 would turn out if Whatifalthist's premise in Turkey actually happened?

Personally I don't think OTL determinism is very realistic in general. It is very common however both on and outside this site, something to do with it being increasingly impossible to forecast the effects of a butterfly with any great certainty. I think this attack however is very harsh though, and seemingly has more do with the current fashion to pour scorn on the youtuber in this site, than anything.
To be blunt, while find whatifalt history's scenario, to not be very compelling, the points you raise are actually less so in my opinion. For example, while just about anything could have led to a scenario were Hitler does not get into power, I fail to see how Mussolini was so integral to Hitler, that a Nazi takeover is overwise unthinkable.
Similarly, even a liberal Italy, could easily have remained neutral or even joined the Axis eventually, because Italy had other interests that did not revolve around Italian debt and trade imbalance to the UK, and it's hypothetical Anatolian colony. Adratic (and quite possibly expansionist) interests that could easily collide with the UK.
And thus we come back to the idea of Italy being neutral. The French had just 5 divisions facing the Italians, significantly less than the army of the Alp's pre-war strength. France still falls, provided of course fall Gelb isn't butterflied.

I was not aware that the British forces in the middle east where larger than Egypt, or Singapore but it does not surprise me, especially if this is the Singapore of 1939/1940 that you are referring to. Since in terms of magnitude these forces weren't very large. British Middle East command encompaed a huge area of non contiguous and unstable colonies and protectorates. An axis Turkey with German and local support, could number in the hundreds of thousands even ATL. British forces involved in Syria, Iraq and Iran numbered in the tens of thousands (OTL at least).