Alternate History Ideas and Discussion

Skallagrim

Well-known member
Thanks! i would be happy to see that,too.
With one difference - Hlond as pope from 1930 could be killed by germans in 1943,and that would be big change.
But if not - commies could murder him in 1948,so here he could live till 1960 or later if germans do not kill him.

No matter what would happen,he would certainly show the world in 1939 that Hitler and Sralin are allies.

If Hlond is Pope, I'm sure he's in the Vatican. He was right-wing to be sure, and he'd probably get on with the Italian fascists just fine. Certainly at first (since they were, at least, generally favourable towards Catholic tradition, and didn't support Hitlerist nonsense). So a possible effect here is that a sympathetic Holy See has the ear of the Duce, and encourages him to maintain his intitial anti-Hitler position. When Hitler invades Austria, you see Italy, France and Austria (and almost certainly Poland, to some degree) all go against Germany.

I'm confident Hitler would lose, at that point. So you get a more normal Germany (ruled by conservatives), and Poland, France, Italy and Austria are all allied. When Stalin invades Europe (which he surely would), Europe is pretty much united against him. Hard fight, but I don't think the commies win.

That would be a much better timeline than OTL. Very conservative Europe, Nazis removed early, and communism forever seen as the "great enemy" that only traitors can support.


----------------------------


I've read some things that said a Cadre of homosexuals entered into the priesthood in the 60s. With the intention of undermining the moral legitimacy of the Roman Catholic church. No idea if it's factual but it was an interesting little theory in my opinion

And they were all ninja-trained too, I gather?

I mean... it sounds like a conspiracy tale, but when you consider the Frankfurter Schule and the degree to which they (deliberately, by their own account!) infiltrated all sorts of institutions to turn them towards leftism...

Well. At the very least, you can't rule out that they made it into the Vatican, too.

(Not sure about the 'gayness' of these infiltration plans, of course, but the Frankfurter Schule certainly did have a higher-than-average percentage of homosexuals. All of the depraved, young-boy-fucking sort, too. Go figure.)
 
Last edited:

49ersfootball

Well-known member
Entertainment What If Scenario:
Diana DeGarmo pulls off the upset & wins Season 3 of American Idol. What are the ramifications going forward ?
 

ATP

Well-known member
If Hlond is Pope, I'm sure he's in the Vatican. He was right-wing to be sure, and he'd probably get on with the Italian fascists just fine. Certainly at first (since they were, at least, generally favourable towards Catholic tradition, and didn't support Hitlerist nonsense). So a possible effect here is that a sympathetic Holy See has the ear of the Duce, and encourages him to maintain his intitial anti-Hitler position. When Hitler invades Austria, you see Italy, France and Austria (and almost certainly Poland, to some degree) all go against Germany.

I'm confident Hitler would lose, at that point. So you get a more normal Germany (ruled by conservatives), and Poland, France, Italy and Austria are all allied. When Stalin invades Europe (which he surely would), Europe is pretty much united against him. Hard fight, but I don't think the commies win.

That would be a much better timeline than OTL. Very conservative Europe, Nazis removed early, and communism forever seen as the "great enemy" that only traitors can support.


----------------------------






I mean... it sounds like a conspiracy tale, but when you consider the Frankfurter Schule and the degree to which they (deliberately, by their own account!) infiltrated all sorts of institutions to turn them towards leftism...

Well. At the very least, you can't rule out that they made it into the Vatican, too.

(Not sure about the 'gayness' of these infiltration plans, of course, but the Frankfurter Schule certainly did have a higher-than-average percentage of homosexuals. All of the depraved, young-boy-fucking sort, too. Go figure.)
1.Thanks,i forget about fact that Mussolini initially was anti-german.It could happen.
And,dunno about pederast,but soviets send their people to catholics seminars before WW2.
And pererast mafia certainly take over catholic Church there.
 

Circle of Willis

Well-known member
Three what-ifs for three countries whose names start with 'I', involving the historical losers in each of these scenarios...

1) 'Ireland (and their Spanish backers) wins the Nine Years' War'

2) 'Eugene de Beauharnais and the Napoleonic Kingdom of Italy of which he was his stepdad's governor survive the Napoleonic Wars & Congress of Vienna, akin to/better than Murat's Kingdom of Naples'

3) 'East Indonesia gains independence by no later than 1950'
 

Skallagrim

Well-known member
1) 'Ireland (and their Spanish backers) wins the Nine Years' War'

Carew's attempts to keep MacCarthy neutral fail, which prevents Munster from being pacified effectively. Spanish troops (long-promised in OTL) arrive earlier, perhaps due to greater confidence in the Irish cause. The lack of security in Munster had tied down English forces, preventing their OTL immediate encirclement of the Spanish forces. Since the English were in constant danger of disease decimating their forces, the ATL worsening of their situation could plausibly tip the scales.

Outcome is utter failure and humiliation for the English, and a great triumph for the Irish cause. An era of Irish patriotism follows. The Stuarts still conciliate with Spain, and by extension, with Ireland as well. This staves off further attempts. The Plantation of Ulster is thus nixed permanently. Long-term result is a greater proportion of Scots in early colonisation efforts in America, I think. Ireland forges its own path, and may be a colonial power (albeit probably a fairly minor one) in its own right.


3) 'East Indonesia gains independence by no later than 1950'

Theoretically plausible if they opt for pretty close ties with the Netherlands in return for official recognition of their sovereignty. The problem is that Java will never accept it, and a lot of muslims living in the East won't accept it, either. So the outcome is an Indonesian 'civil war' (but actually Javanese war of conquest), with East Indonesia getting Dutch backing.

Realistic outcome is that Celebes/Sulawesi and the North Moluccas (both majority-muslim) are absorbed into Indonesia, while the South Moluccas and the Lesser Sunda Islands would stay independent from Indonesia, in practice under Dutch protection. (At the time, these regions were majority-Christian, although Bali was majority-Hindu, while Lombok and Sumbawa were majority-muslim.)

This would result in "Indonesia proper" being far more anti-Dutch, while Dutch efforts at retaining influence would be concentrated in the South-East. There would be far fewer Indonesians in the Netherlands, and there would be no Moluccan resentment over having been betrayed by the Netherlands.

Meanwhile, Papua-New Guinea would be a unified island-nation, so they'd be much happier with this ATL, too.

All in all, I would call this an excellent outcome. Superior to OTL in every way.
 

Lord Sovereign

Well-known member
A question I have, that probably can’t be answered, is a scenario in which the Americas aren’t discovered for another few hundred years.

We know there were many great pre-columbian kingdoms and burgeoning empires at the time, so I can only ponder what would happen with a bit more time. When, inevitably, two great pre-columbian empires would wind up sharing a border, and Thucydides trap comes into play, whom would dominate that world so very alien to us?

Essenitally the question is, whenever European explorers arrive, would the Emperor of the Americas sit in Tenochtitlan or Cusco?
 

Blasterbot

Well-known member
Europe would be in for some hard times. Corn, Potatoes, and Tomatoes were kind of a big deal for letting Europe's population grow. without those? the demographics are gonna shift dramatically. not even touching on what the lack of sugar/tobacco trade would do at that time. spain probably isn't nearly as big a deal though without the economy destroying amount of gold they brought over from the new world.

As for the new world? Tenochtilan is more militaristically minded and would conquer a lot of their neighbors. they also were so bad at being an empire that a couple hundred spainards were able to convince their conquered territories to rebel and win. they likely would not have been there for the long haul without a big reform. I know less about Cusco but they were more trade oriented so likely would have lasted longer.

unfortunately for the hypothetical new world empire a delay would be unlikely to do much for them. Disease would still wipe out the vast majority of the empire once first contact was made. the more interconnected things are the worse it would be. and the European tech advantage would likely still be just as big.
 

ATP

Well-known member
A question I have, that probably can’t be answered, is a scenario in which the Americas aren’t discovered for another few hundred years.

We know there were many great pre-columbian kingdoms and burgeoning empires at the time, so I can only ponder what would happen with a bit more time. When, inevitably, two great pre-columbian empires would wind up sharing a border, and Thucydides trap comes into play, whom would dominate that world so very alien to us?

Essenitally the question is, whenever European explorers arrive, would the Emperor of the Americas sit in Tenochtitlan or Cusco?
Not possible,you need Europe do not developing better ships for next 400 years.
But,let assume that it happened -

STILL IMPOSSIBLE.
Aztec were stupid sadistic cunts,and their days were numbered.When they fall,you would get 10 or more city states fighting each others.

Incas were centralized smart cunts - but,their religion would kill them.Each dead King still need to have its own court,which was possible only thanks to conqering new civilized territories.And,incas was out of territories to conqest - so,when there would be no enough supplies for each dead King,it would be civil war and end of their state.

Nobody would dominate anything,we would get another period of small states.
 

Buba

A total creep
As history shows, a period of small states is very often replaced by a big state.
China, India, Mesopotamia, Persia ...
In Mexico - once their former vassals defeat and eat the Aztecs - anything from 20 to 200 years may again produce a single entity - or simply some regional hegemon.
In the Andes - same.

But IMO - I repeat - technology and geography are very strongly against the formation of an entity spanning from Zacatecas to Bio-Bio.
 

Skallagrim

Well-known member
A question I have, that probably can’t be answered, is a scenario in which the Americas aren’t discovered for another few hundred years.

We know there were many great pre-columbian kingdoms and burgeoning empires at the time, so I can only ponder what would happen with a bit more time. When, inevitably, two great pre-columbian empires would wind up sharing a border, and Thucydides trap comes into play, whom would dominate that world so very alien to us?

Essenitally the question is, whenever European explorers arrive, would the Emperor of the Americas sit in Tenochtitlan or Cusco?

Realistically, we are looking at rough equivalents of very ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia, here. These guys aren't going to become continent-conquerors any time soon. Even getting a real bronze age going would be a huge step for them.



The Aztec hegemony didn't have great long-term prospects, and in-fighting beetween the Nahua states was a given. They were essentially in their warring states phase. I think the Tarascans had a pretty good chance of swooping in and crushing those warring factions after they'd eventually tire each other out.

(Note that while the Aztecs were unusually dickish to their subject peoples, the identification of them as "sadists" is a fundamental misapprehension. The human sacrifices appear to be a ritualised form of population control, since Meso-America had a cycle of overpopulation, drought, and epidemic disease. Seen that way, "mass sacrifice to prevent the end of the world" has a certain logical truth behind it. A cynical one, to be sure, but it's not like they killed people for the fun of it.)

A Tarascan Empire might plausibly extend to cover an area including roughly the Southern half of modern Mexico, and reaching into the area that is present-day Belize. That is: the Meso-American cultural sphere, plus some expanded periphery.



The Andean cultural complex, meanwhile, looks to have settled into its imperial phase. I see no reason why this wouldn't last for certuries. Any further conquests would presumably be ephemeral; the empire had reached its definitive form. Note that objections such as "they'd need new courts for each dead king" are laughable. Such rituals change when they become impractical. Empires do not fall over that. They'd just symbolically inter each dead ruler into a grand palace where the dead monarchs "rule" for all eternity-- or something like that.



Anyway, the two civilisations would not overlap. There is some evidence of minor sea-trade along the West Coast, and this might plausibly increase. But this would be like interactions between Rome and China (or perhaps Rome and India). Trade goods from afar, the occasional intrepid visitor from distant lands, but no meaningful interactions.



An additional consideration is that without Europeans showing up, the Mississipians will also continue to develop. As I've noted before, one of the best opportunities for a metal-working revolution in the Americas was at the Northern periphery of that cultural sphere, extending into the Great Lakes region.



Final consideration: to keep Europeans away, you need a massive screw-over of all Eurasia. I'm talking Years of Rice and Salt level stuff here, except you definitely need to fuck over the muslims, too-- otherwise they just show up within two centuries at most. You basically need to go >90% death rate on all Eurasia.
 
Last edited:

Buba

A total creep
Well, if Columbus sinks (or is quitely excuted by the Portuguese while returning) there might be a 100-200 years during which the Portuguese have a victualisation base at Bahia, while some tight lipped illterate fishermen and whalers ply the Acadia area. And terminate with extreme prejudice any snooping to the west of the Azores.
 

IndyFront

Well-known member
Even though its only been like 1.5 years I wonder how different the world would be if Russia's conquest to annex half of Ukraine had succeeded. They got their shit pushed in early and only control around half the territory they strove for at best. Yeah, war-fatigue is setting in, but most of the West are pretty confident and ballsy in their support for Ukraine over Russia. I wonder how significantly different the geopolitical stage would be had they succeeded.
 

ATP

Well-known member
Well, if Columbus sinks (or is quitely excuted by the Portuguese while returning) there might be a 100-200 years during which the Portuguese have a victualisation base at Bahia, while some tight lipped illterate fishermen and whalers ply the Acadia area. And terminate with extreme prejudice any snooping to the west of the Azores.
I think,that Portugal would take Carribean and Brasilia shore - but,not able to hide it for more then 100 years.Enough for Aztecs to fall,but not for any new Empire taking power there.

And Incas,thanks to their dead courts,would probably fall,too.
 

Lord Sovereign

Well-known member
Alright then, here’s a slightly more plausible one.

What if France comes of the better in what is essentially the second “Hundred Years War?” (Otherwise known as the long 18th century, from Blenheim to Waterloo). Basically, the wars against Britain that France lost, it wins in this timeline.

My first prediction is there’s no Napoleonic Age as, if Royal France keeps on clapping everyone’s cheeks, then there’s not nearly as much impetus for revolution. Indeed, if Louis XIV achieves his dream of uniting the crowns of France and Spain, we will have “Pax Francia” instead of “Pax Britannica.”
 

Buba

A total creep
Well, no USA for starters, as at some point of such a Frank-Wank XVIIIth century the North American colonies get zapped.
If they are lucky the British retain control from South Carolina to south Main, with the Appallachians as western border.
 

49ersfootball

Well-known member
Three what-ifs for three countries whose names start with 'I', involving the historical losers in each of these scenarios...

1) 'Ireland (and their Spanish backers) wins the Nine Years' War'

2) 'Eugene de Beauharnais and the Napoleonic Kingdom of Italy of which he was his stepdad's governor survive the Napoleonic Wars & Congress of Vienna, akin to/better than Murat's Kingdom of Naples'

3) 'East Indonesia gains independence by no later than 1950'
On the third topic, I'm assuming you're referring to East Timor Leste correct ?
 

ATP

Well-known member
Alright then, here’s a slightly more plausible one.

What if France comes of the better in what is essentially the second “Hundred Years War?” (Otherwise known as the long 18th century, from Blenheim to Waterloo). Basically, the wars against Britain that France lost, it wins in this timeline.

My first prediction is there’s no Napoleonic Age as, if Royal France keeps on clapping everyone’s cheeks, then there’s not nearly as much impetus for revolution. Indeed, if Louis XIV achieves his dream of uniting the crowns of France and Spain, we will have “Pax Francia” instead of “Pax Britannica.”
And later making french candidate polish King in 1733,and manage to did Return of Rightfull King in 1745.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top