Miscellaneous <1900 (Alternate) History Thread

Assuming no Soviet Union, whether the Whites win or Kerensky's republic, with no extreme bad example of socialism/communism to point at, how does that change the timing and amount of socialist programmes absorbed into Western Democracies because small communist parties are occasionally part of a coalition government or propping up a minority one?

Is Europe more socialist than OTL, or the same? Less?

Scandinavia?

Would Mao still have happened?

What about the USA? What about a USA where there is a CSA but no Sumter spark to cause a civil war? (USA-north has a much different cultural outlook than USA-aggregate including Dixie.) Could it reasonably have public health and be more like Canada OTL?
If you want a (relatively) stable Russia without Communism, I feel that one way or another its going to devolve into a strong dictatorship. However, the US and Europe had (and continue to have) no qualms dealing / trading with strong dictatorships as long as they aren't preaching world conquest. Assuming Mao is influenced by Marx's writings (and/or Russian Communist exiles?), he will broadcast his intentions to the world. Thus, Russia - if they are able to as they are rebuilding post WW1 & collapse of the Tsars - will support the KMT. Mao had the "Long March" even with Communist Russian assistance; ITTL without assistance the Long March will end in defeat (or a very small Communist China). With a (mostly) unified China, the KMT survive WW2.

I think Europe is slightly more socialistic, but not much. Communist parties will be able to push a little harder but after the example of the Nazi dictatorship, Europeans will continue to enjoy their freedom and not want complete government control even if its "not the Nazis".

I don't see the USA allowing the CSA to survive. Not sure what the POD for this would be, either. Even if there is no Sumter, there has to be another spark to start the secession. Even if you have some sort pre-Constitution split, the north will rapidly out-grow the south and reabsorb it. Alternately, faced with the CSA to the south and a possibly hostile Great Britain to the north, the US will become a lot friendlier to the British, faster. Thus as the anti-slavery movement gains steam, the US will quickly join forces with Britain to embargo the CSA, strangling it. But the US capital will be Philadelphia, and no attempt will be made to build a seat of government in a swamp a few miles from the CSA border. That would just be ASB. ;)
 
Howdy.

So I'm not quite sure where I should ask this, and after some deliberation, I came here.

Anyways, the question:

The Medici of Florence, Renaissance period. Cosimo started it off well with brokering the Peace of Lodi, Lorenzo il Magnifico built upon his work by stabilizing the Italian League, and Piero the Unfortunate squanders everything his ancestors done, leaving his younger brother Giovanni (better known as Pope Leo X) to clean up the mess... which didn't went well. The Protestant Reformation became a thing thanks to the selling of indulgences, after all. Pope Clement VII, also a Medici, got screwed over thanks to the Habsburgs and the French waging war across Italy.

The Kingdom of Italy was founded later on, a part of the Holy Roman Empire, which last up to the point Napoleon prone-boned the Continent.

Sooo... what I'm asking is- is it possible for the Medicis (or, at the very least a Florentine) to stop the whole mess before escalating beyond control? Uniting the Italian League into a singular nation? Set up an effective army capable of beating off the Habsburgs and the French, or at the very least making any wars economically unviable to either side? Ease off the control of the Pope from secular governance? And if all this is actually happened, what will be the resulting consequences in the far future? How will the World Wars (if they could even happen, that is) go?

Or, you know. If there is any works that have this as their subject, that can also act as answers.

Thanks, by the by.
 
In an ATL where the South secedes but the conflict at Fort Sumter doesn't happen so there's nothing to start the Civil War:
  1. How long before slave states like Maryland that stayed in the Union get rid of slavery?
  2. How many Black people filter up from the Confederacy to live in the USA? Where do they settle to get work?
The Union saw the CSA as an existential threat because its independence would support the notion that any state that didn't like federal policy (or feared future federal policy) could just leave. Even if the Confederates secure the surrender of Ft. Sumter while Buchanan is in office (the only way I see it happening with a POD after secession), the north will not tolerate the existence of an independent CSA. There might be more prolonged attempts to coax the Confederacy not to leave, but they'd still fail because the differences were irreconcilable. With that being said if ASB result in a peaceful, successful secession, that would depend on which states in the upper south secede. Maryland and Delaware would probably abolish it if not in the 1860s than during 1870s. Kentucky was the last of the border states in OTL to ratify the 13th amendment, but that still leaves the question of the states which seceded after Ft. Sumter. I can't see them being willing to abolish it for a long time, perhaps the turn of the 20th century, assuming pressure from the other states to abolish it doesn't lead them to join the Confederacy. Even if slavery ceased to be the economic backbone, the southern elites would still want slaves as domestic servants and as sex slaves.

To answer your 2nd question, we'd probably see something similar to OTL's Great Migration, although it would happen earlier.
What about the USA? What about a USA where there is a CSA but no Sumter spark to cause a civil war? (USA-north has a much different cultural outlook than USA-aggregate including Dixie.) Could it reasonably have public health and be more like Canada OTL?
To get the South to secede without the Civil War I think you'd need a POD during the Articles of Confederation era at the latest. In that case, then, yes, I guess the northern states would have a similar culture to Canada. Heck, the Canadian accents and accents from the northern USA sound very similar and pretty different from the Dixie accents. With that being said if it's public healthcare you're asking about, that should be doable even with a POD in the 20th century. Employer sponsored health insurance began in 1929 when teachers in Dallas, Texas signed a contract to get 21 days of care for an annual fee. It didn't really takeoff though until 1943, based on an interpretation of a 1942 law capping wages for the purposes of stabilizing prices in wartime industries. The easiest way to get a USA with public healthcare would probably be as a New Deal program. Less likely but still plausibly you could try getting it passed during World War II, (presumably with some war readiness spin to it), or if you avert the Vietnam War, as part of LBJ's Great Society.
 

Bytor

Monthly Donor
The Union saw the CSA as an existential threat because its independence would support the notion that any state that didn't like federal policy (or feared future federal policy) could just leave.
No, that was Lincoln who saw it like that. Seward did not. If Lincoln had gotten is Illinois senator seat then Seward would likely have been the Republican nominee and likely have become president. He was far more given to negotiations than Lincoln was. Without war, nations like France and Great Britain are more likely to send consuls. Remember, he initially saw that Emancipation Proclamation as something that would do more harm than good to the USA on the international stage, and he thought very highly (perhaps too highly) of himself as a master of foreign relations and negotiations. Seward, always trying to negotiate things behind Lincoln's back as Secretary of Foreign Affairs, would keep doing that as President, and after a couple of years the recognition by great Britain would be almost inevitable given that OTL there were many powerful people like Russell, Gladstone and even Palmerston to some extent interested in doing so.

Once that happens, the USA going to war against the CSA becomes orders of magnitude more difficult, diplomatically speaking.
 
No, that was Lincoln who saw it like that. Seward did not. If Lincoln had gotten is Illinois senator seat then Seward would likely have been the Republican nominee and likely have become president. He was far more given to negotiations than Lincoln was. Without war, nations like France and Great Britain are more likely to send consuls. Remember, he initially saw that Emancipation Proclamation as something that would do more harm than good to the USA on the international stage, and he thought very highly (perhaps too highly) of himself as a master of foreign relations and negotiations. Seward, always trying to negotiate things behind Lincoln's back as Secretary of Foreign Affairs, would keep doing that as President, and after a couple of years the recognition by great Britain would be almost inevitable given that OTL there were many powerful people like Russell, Gladstone and even Palmerston to some extent interested in doing so.

Once that happens, the USA going to war against the CSA becomes orders of magnitude more difficult, diplomatically speaking.
Seward was more open to negotiation on slavery to keep the states in the Union. He was not more willing to let them secede. It was not just Lincoln, who saw the CSA as an existential threat; it was a matter of public opinion in the north. French and British consuls weren't going to change that. Seward was willing to go to war against any nation recognizing the Confederacy.
 
Has there ever been a timeline where the CSA wins the Civil War, but falls apart due to internal struggles without the war giving them a common enemy?
 
Has there ever been a timeline where the CSA wins the Civil War, but falls apart due to internal struggles without the war giving them a common enemy?
The Rock of Chickamauga (don't know if I got the name right) is doing this right now.
 
What if Zheng He's expeditions were never discontinued by the Ming Dynasty?
It is a good question, I personally think that if they were able to continue it, perhaps in later times of Ming Dynasty they could immigrate people to colonies outside of China, thus reduce the damage of various peasent uprisings.
 
Does alternatehistory.com has any AH stories that are not written in the forms of history records but in the form of actual story?(AH of real world history, I know Fandom AH got plenty of actual stories) I've been on this website for a long time and I noticed that most alternate history stories here seems focus on the "history" part, so much so that most "stories" here don't feel like a story, rather like history record of what actually happened. It's intriguing, but also a bit of strange to me. On Chinese website, most "alternatehistory" stories are first and foremost stories, I'm sure that I have never read of any Chinese alternatehistory "stories" in the style of history record. Most Chinese stories are like, say for example, one of my favorite story is about a guy self insert into the last emperor of Ming Dynasty and try his best to prevent the fall of Ming Dynasty. There are a lot of part of the story focus on his effort to try to capitalize China at the time and reform the army and give more rights to peasents, but there are also many part of the stories focus on his relationship with the empress and his other consorts, one of the driving forces of him to fight so hard is that he does not want his children die like they did in the history, most Chinese alternatehistory stories that I read of, regardless of their qualities, are like this, but as far as I see there seems not a single stories here is actual story instead of history record.
 
Does alternatehistory.com has any AH stories that are not written in the forms of history records but in the form of actual story?(AH of real world history, I know Fandom AH got plenty of actual stories) I've been on this website for a long time and I noticed that most alternate history stories here seems focus on the "history" part, so much so that most "stories" here don't feel like a story, rather like history record of what actually happened. It's intriguing, but also a bit of strange to me. On Chinese website, most "alternatehistory" stories are first and foremost stories, I'm sure that I have never read of any Chinese alternatehistory "stories" in the style of history record. Most Chinese stories are like, say for example, one of my favorite story is about a guy self insert into the last emperor of Ming Dynasty and try his best to prevent the fall of Ming Dynasty. There are a lot of part of the story focus on his effort to try to capitalize China at the time and reform the army and give more rights to peasents, but there are also many part of the stories focus on his relationship with the empress and his other consorts, one of the driving forces of him to fight so hard is that he does not want his children die like they did in the history, most Chinese alternatehistory stories that I read of, regardless of their qualities, are like this, but as far as I see there seems not a single stories here is actual story instead of history record.
CAny you give us a link bro it seems a good read
 
CAny you give us a link bro it seems a good read
The name of it is 挽明, literal meaning is "Save Ming Dynasty", or something like that. If you are able to read pure Chinese then I promise you it will be worth your while, though unfortunately the author has declared that he will not continue the story, for reasons unknown to me. Nevertheless, the story was long enough by the point he stopped.

Later I will make a post to recommend more Chinese alternate history stories, would give you the link too.
 
Last edited:
In alternate timeline where Philip of Anjou becomes heir to the French throne in 1712 due to his brother and nephews all dying (instead of his brother and elder nephew dying while OTL's Louis XV survives) but where there is still seen within France a possibility to win Spain (which realistically is lost) and his first wife, Maria Luisa of Savoy, still dies in 1714, who does Philip of Anjou marry? Is Elisabeth Farnese still on the table or is it preferable for Philip to marry someone else?
 
Top