If you could change One event post 1900..?

Mussolini first developed fascism around 1919, so if he dies in 1917, there are no other fascists to replace him.
Ideas equivalent to fascism were already around (e.g., corporatism) and the threat of communist revolutions would have provoked popularity for such ideas. It just wouldn't have been called "fascism." Also, most conservative nationalist countries that emerged after WW One would not have the geographic location or the history to become enthusiastic about creating a new "Roman Empire" overseas. Italy might still have gone into Ethiopia, but trying to conquer Greece (which had a conservative nationalist authoritarian government)? No. Would Italy have intervened in the Spanish Civil War? Impossible to tell considering the difference in government type in TTL. Also what would be the butterflies TTL without Italian fascism in the details of the Nazi takeover in Germany and its policies re Spain and other matters in the mid-1930s? Again, requires a well-thought-out timeline to make a judgement.

To get a sense of just how subtly different things might have been in parts of Europe in the mid-1930s without Mussolini, read John Buchan's The House of the Four Winds, a 1935 "Ruritanian" novel in which monarchists and republicans struggle in Evvalonia, an imaginary Central European country, with a populist youth movement called "Juventus" and its disciplined "Greenshirts" playing an ambiguous role. (The British intelligence service wins the day.)
 
Last edited:
Hitler or Stalin take a bullet at some point during World War 1 or the Russian Revolution respectively.
Wouldn't work if Lenin didn't take a bullet. And to be completely safe, Trotsky too. Stalin only became a central figure, gradually, AFTER the Bolshevik seizure of power. But all three should be gone.
 
Last edited:
Hitler or Stalin take a bullet at some point during World War 1 or the Russian Revolution respectively.

With Hitler that would work but ratherly shot Lenin. And if you shot Lenin you probably have not even need to shot Hitler since rise of Soviet Union increased notably popularity of nazis. Stalin wasn't very important before 1920's and even in 1923 he wasn't most likely successor candidate.
 
Wouldn't work if Lenin didn't take a bullet. And to be completely safe, Trotsky too. Stalin only became a central figure, gradually, AFTER the Bolshevik seizure of power. But all three should be gone.
Lenin and Trotsky are terrible in their own ways. I did consider that. I just think that Stalin would be worse in terms of the human cost.

With Hitler that would work but ratherly shot Lenin. And if you shot Lenin you probably have not even need to shot Hitler since rise of Soviet Union increased notably popularity of nazis. Stalin wasn't very important before 1920's and even in 1923 he wasn't most likely successor candidate.
On second thought, you guys might be right. If killing Lenin could prevent the Soviet Union, that might be better than Stalin.
 
Someone more like William Tubman, instead of William Tolbert, is Tubman's successor. More Americo-Liberian & native reconciliation. No Doe coup. Liberia strong 💪💪💪

Ik it's minor and useless but Liberia is cool

Tolbert could have avoided the coup had he avoided the Rice Riots.

Tolbert was actually more of a reformer than Tubman.
 
Ideas equivalent to fascism were already around (e.g., corporatism) and the threat of communist revolutions would have provoked popularity for such ideas. It just wouldn't have been called "fascism." Also, most conservative nationalist countries that emerged after WW One would not have the geographic location or the history to become enthusiastic about creating a new "Roman Empire" overseas. Italy might still have gone into Ethiopia, but trying to conquer Greece (which had a conservative nationalist authoritarian government)? No. Would Italy have intervened in the Spanish Civil War? Impossible to tell considering the difference in government type in TTL. Also what would be the butterflies TTL without Italian fascism in the details of the Nazi takeover in Germany and its policies re Spain and other matters in the mid-1930s? Again, requires a well-thought-out timeline to make a judgement.
Yes but without him, at least in Italy there is no real figure that can unite the various disparate and many time opposed faction that formed the OTL PFI, the only other one is D'Annunzio but it's both a political illetterate and frankly he not only suck but he also totally uninterested on the day to day political work and necessity and it's a too extreme figure for many OTL people that joined or supported Mussolini
 
Have Yeltsin die or be otherwise unable to continue by mid-1993? So it's either a bit shrunken USSR (of Russia, Belarus, Ukraine and Kazakhstan, I guess) or independent Russia hopefully becoming a parliamentary republic.
 
Yes but without him, at least in Italy there is no real figure that can unite the various disparate and many time opposed faction that formed the OTL PFI, the only other one is D'Annunzio but it's both a political illetterate and frankly he not only suck but he also totally uninterested on the day to day political work and necessity and it's a too extreme figure for many OTL people that joined or supported Mussolini
After seizing the city of Fiume which the allies were denying to Italy after WW One, D'Annunzio did some theatrical posturing (e.g., speeches from balconies) that Mussolini later copied. D'Annunzio also supported the idea of corporatism, which predated Mussolini's use of the term by over six decades and was interpreted in different ways by different thinkers and by the Vatican. D'Annunzio was not active in the National Fascist Party (PNF), was opposed to close dealings with Hitler (whom he attacked in a satiric pamphlet) and urged Mussolini to withdraw from the alliance with Hitler that resulted in the formation of the Axis. He died in 1938. His personal life was libertine and chaotic, and you are right that he probably could not have brought together a movement to take power in Italy.
 
Last edited:
After seizing the city of Fiume which the allies were denying to Italy after WW One, D'Annunzio did some theatrical posturing (e.g., speeches from balconies) that Mussolini later copied. D'Annunzio also supported the idea of corporatism, which predated Mussolini's use of the concept by over six decades and was different from Mussolini's version. D'Annunzio was not active in the fascist party (PFI), was opposed to close dealings with Hitler (whom he attacked in a satiric pamphlet) and urged Mussolini to withdraw from the alliance with Hitler that resulted in the formation of the Axis. He died in 1938. His personal life was libertine and chaotic, and you are right that he probably could not have brought together a movement to take power in Italy.

He also too occupied doing wild sex and drug party in Fiume to really govern it, leaving everything to others as he found the normal governing and politicking....booooooring
 
This will sound grim but have Jimmy Carter turn a blind eye and allow the Shah to let SAVAK off the leash in early 1978 so the Revolution gets crushed. No Khomeini probably means no Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, no Iran-Iraq War, no Gulf War, no 9/11 and no subsequent wars. Yes Saddam remains in power but the Middle East as a whole is more stable.
 
He also too occupied doing wild sex and drug party in Fiume to really govern it, leaving everything to others as he found the normal governing and politicking....booooooring
His behavior in Fiume and elsewhere is funny considering that one of the major universities in Italy, founded in the 1960s, is named after him. Also, in my comment above I just changed PFI to PNF. Is that correct or did Wiki get it wrong?
 
Someone more like William Tubman, instead of William Tolbert, is Tubman's successor. More Americo-Liberian & native reconciliation. No Doe coup. Liberia strong 💪💪💪

Ik it's minor and useless but Liberia is cool
It sure is. Philippine style democratization is probably possible without Samuel K.
 
Ideas equivalent to fascism were already around (e.g., corporatism) and the threat of communist revolutions would have provoked popularity for such ideas. It just wouldn't have been called "fascism." Also, most conservative nationalist countries that emerged after WW One would not have the geographic location or the history to become enthusiastic about creating a new "Roman Empire" overseas. Italy might still have gone into Ethiopia, but trying to conquer Greece (which had a conservative nationalist authoritarian government)? No. Would Italy have intervened in the Spanish Civil War? Impossible to tell considering the difference in government type in TTL. Also what would be the butterflies TTL without Italian fascism in the details of the Nazi takeover in Germany and its policies re Spain and other matters in the mid-1930s? Again, requires a well-thought-out timeline to make a judgement.

To get a sense of just how subtly different things might have been in parts of Europe in the mid-1930s without Mussolini, read John Buchan's The House of the Four Winds, a 1935 "Ruritanian" novel in which monarchists and republicans struggle in Evvalonia, an imaginary Central European country, with a populist youth movement called "Juventus" and its disciplined "Greenshirts" playing an ambiguous role. (The British intelligence service wins the day.)
except Balbo and Deannuzo, I know im mispelling it.
 
Someone more like William Tubman, instead of William Tolbert, is Tubman's successor. More Americo-Liberian & native reconciliation. No Doe coup. Liberia strong 💪💪💪

Ik it's minor and useless but Liberia is cool
later after i finish my timeline where the eastern sudanic region is filled with a bunch of irrelevant Dars, I'm making a "liberia doesn't explode" timeline
 
And perhaps give for Lenin some years more.



Yes for both, but I don't think that neutrality is great option for them at least during Cold War.



Agree.



Another good POD could be avoiding Operation Ajax and allowing Mossadegh to stay in power.
MM himself is kind of A Keresensy type, people around him want to kiss Gamal's ring or go red.
 
You probably has get him quick smoking. Or another way might be that India allows Kashmir join to Pakistan. But for that you probably has remove Nehru.
I highly doubt Kashmir will change. Nehru never liked Jinnah to begin with.

Otherwise, allowing Jinnah's vision to dictate the future of the country will save it from so many internal conflicts. Pakistan's elites were arguing what kind of country Pakistan would be after Jinnah died and it had disastrous consequences for the country's prosperity, stability, and democracy.
 
Allow the Princely states, the right to not accede to Pakistan or India. Balkinization has a soothing event in the long term.
 
Top