Miscellaneous >1900 (Alternate) History Thread

General idea for a potential alternative ww2 with USA involved much later but stronger USSR

After Molotov-Ribbentrop pact Stalin is paranoid about USA economic might and signs a pact with Japan and tells them not to declare war on the USA but they can fight the allies
Japan never joins tripartite pact, nor joins an official pact with USSR
They divide china like with eastern Europe (just theoretically for now)
USA continues embargoes and lend lease to USSR to help against Germany (to help Britain), to China to help against Japan (to help Britain) and to Britain (to help against Britain)

1. WW2 as OTL up until 1941 except Soviets do better in Poland and Finland
2. April 1941 Iraq coup, Turkey allows Axis to use its railways basically joining because its scared of more aggro Soviet. They get Iraq oil but cant do anything with it because no tankers
3. Barbarossa slightly delayed because of new front in Iraq/Syria but otherwise as otl, not enough time to prep at turkish border so little movement, but black sea becomes axis sea sooner
4. Because Stalin listen to his generals Soviets better prepared and its not the amazing push we saw otl, however Nazis have slightly more oil and better help in Black sea and from Turkey so that is in their favour. but the invasion started from further west and no Finland so that helps soviets. Mostly soviets are ready for it so nazis have no chance
5. Iran invasion British more desperate for USSR help and scared about Iran/Afghanistan joining Axis because of Iraq so happens sooner. lend lease still happens as otl at least until after dec 1941
6. In order to threaten Suez encouraged by Italians and anti-Jewish Nazis push through Syria and attack Transjordan and Israel. By using Syria like this Free France is more popular outside of closer places to the Med.
7. Suez falls from both angles and British retreat down the Nile, the Med becomes Axis lake. Cyprus falls then Malta

World is something like this:

upload_2019-8-5_19-39-0.png


8. japan invades dutch east indies ignoring american possessions (America still embargoes Japan but they have more trade from Soviets), they continue to collaborate with vichy france in indochina and china but are neutral in the nazi soviet war and the nazi allies war.

So there are three wars:

Japan vs Allies (USA supports)
Nazis vs Allies (USA supports)
Nazis vs Soviets (USA supports Soviets to help Britain)
Soviets are neutral to Japanese, the Japanese are neutral to the Nazis, the Allies are neutral to the Soviets

9. After Nazis lose steam Soviets begin to push back, demanding Britain start a two front war
10. Britain focuses on Africa and Middle East as Japanese steamroll Pacific, invading Australia. Stalin secretly agrees to help against Japan after Germany is defeated in return to keep lend lease going
11. Soviets establish air superiority over black sea and push along Anatolia to seize the straits
12. soviets and british jointly retake Jerusalem, discovering horrors, and then Suez
13. Free France takes East Africa and Madagascar.
14. After securing Burma Japan begins to invade India, while Asia goes badly Europe is going better
15. Soviets push in Eastern Europe and Nazis depopulate everywhere else with soldiers. Norway is invaded, and North Africa slowly falls.
16. Eventually dday happens with commonwealth and allies troops. Soviets seize all of Germany to the Rhine, all of Balkans including Greece, and Italy goes communist.
17. Japanese control most of China, Oceania and are involved in India
18. at this point now that Germany is gone USA has enough propaganda and war support to get them involved against Japan (americans were pretty against German intervention even though they supported the Brits)
19. Its 1945/46 and USA declares on Japan while the Soviet prepares for war with Japan, it has supported tons of commies in china secretly and along their demarcated sphere line they agreed upon
20. Americans and British in India, SEA and Oceania and the Soviets push in China and Manchuria. Obviously tons of commie support everywhere as OTL
21. Soviets destroy Japanese with their veteran troops but dont have a navy to really invade, eventually USA/Brits wear down the Japanese navy and invasion of mainland commences in 1947/48. Japan is partitioned

Cold war begins with Soviets holding the Bosporus, most of Europe and China. Lots of commie revolts in colonies, especially SEA as OTL, more in India too. Soviets closer to Africa so Egypt likely goes commie. No Israel ITTL because Jerusalem was destroyed by nazis
 
This is quite possibly the dumbest scenario I've come up with and yet I can't get it out of my head.

1941. Hitler invites either Stalin or top Soviet generals to Germany to discuss some nebulous thing (perhaps offering significant territorial concessions or something on the premise of securing the east to fight Britain). Whilst there, the visiting Soviets are blown to kingdom come in their hotel by """Polish terrorists.""" Operation Barbarossa starts as soon as possible.

The Soviet leadership is now decapitated.

This again isn't technically ASB, just the product of 400 IQ. :rolleyes:
 
What if Catroux declares for Free France after he receives his resignation? Let's say he ignores the British suggestions and trusts his gut. Would Japan invade Indochina? Japan OTL never declared war on Free France or Vichy France.

What about a Japan that was the same but didn't join the Axis?
 
WI Austria keeps Pressburg/Pozsony/Bratislava in the breakup of the Dual Monarchy? According to the Austro-Hungarian ethnic map, it was well within the German part, and even to this day Bratislava is one of the closest national capitals to another country's border.
 
How popular has the idea of direct elections for judges been during history (20th century more specifically).

Reading up on the Constitution building process in Lithuania in 1920-1922, I found a small blurb stating that the Social Democrats wanted to have judges elected via popular vote, and I'm wondering if this was a trend at the time or whether it was something they came up with.
 
How popular has the idea of direct elections for judges been during history (20th century more specifically).

Reading up on the Constitution building process in Lithuania in 1920-1922, I found a small blurb stating that the Social Democrats wanted to have judges elected via popular vote, and I'm wondering if this was a trend at the time or whether it was something they came up with.
It's common in America. It's seen as a way to avoid bureaucratic or elite cliques surrounded around the Governor's or other local powerbroker's patronage.
 
Long time listener...first time poster

This is a question that has been touched upon in other posts dealing with the what-if scenario around non-bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but I have been wondering how post-WW2 history would have been gone if atomic weapons were never developed or at least never successfully developed. I'm assuming a Cold War would still arise but without the threat of Nuclear War, there would surely have to be major ramifications?
 
In all the discussions of forbidden sea mammals, has there been any discussion of the possible role of coastal artillery? There are parts of the English channel where it doesn't even require specialized oversized guns to shoot to the other coastline; how much investment in such artillery could the Germans have done if they'd decided to go big on that, and could they have come remotely close to being able to chase the Royal Navy out of an area of the channel large enough to allow a crossing? I mean, I don't know how they could have protected any such hypothetical coastal batteries from the RAF, but it's a possibility I've never seen discussed, so I was just vaguely curious about it. And thought I'd put it in this thread because the official mammal thread is very old and it doesn't seem to deserve its own thread. If anyone has a link to where it has been discussed, I'd greatly appreciate it!
 
If Stalin wins the Winter War with annexation of Finland, would Germany invade Sweden to secure their border?
While I don't want to give the Nazis too much credit for being rational, the Soviets performing better in the Winter War would certainly be very concerning for them, probably sufficiently so that trying to secure Sweden as an ally would be a more likely direction for them to go (and Sweden would presumably be very concerned about the Soviet threat now on their border, and so might be receptive).
 
WI: Chinese Units in Beijing in late May '89 switch sides and side with the people and students?

Talking about the local units, that would not shoot on the people, not those from other provinces that are responsible for June 4th.
 
WI: Chinese Units in Beijing in late May '89 switch sides and side with the people and students?

Talking about the local units, that would not shoot on the people, not those from other provinces that are responsible for June 4th.
On May 17th you had over 1,000 troops from the General Logistics Department who marched to Tiananmen to support the protestors; so perhaps the May 17th movement becomes a much larger general revolt amongst the Beijing garrison and leads to General Secretary Zhao Ziyang, Defense Minister Qin Jiwei and the 7 Retired Generals led by Zhang Aiping causing something of a revolt amongst the general PLA and within the Party itself, leading to an overthrow of Deng? I'm not sure what'd happen after but there was a lot of internal debate and anger against Deng Xiaoping and Yang Shangkun at the time for the martial law decision.

Edit: If anyone were to take over in a revolt against Deng it would have to be Zhao Ziyang, I did some more reading up on him and Tiananmen and he seems to have been universally beloved by the protestors and could've worked in an interim capacity pushing his radical reforms. Another possibility is that the leader of the 38th Army (that apparently was in a stand-off with the 27th Army), Maj General Xu Qinxian takes up arms to defend the protestors (also to note, a lot of protestors were veterans of the 38th Army) and various stranded units also join him in rebellion against Deng.
 
Last edited:
May 21st, 1941. Bismarck sails from Bergen... and promply hits a floating mine, that blows off most of it's bow. Frantic repairs manage to save the ship, but it has to sail back to Germany, doing only 5 knots. Hitler is livid.
 
I've made a thread asking how would a US-UN victory in the Korean War effect the military strategy of both blocs in the Cold War; sadly it didn't' seem to get any responses so perhaps I might have a better chance of getting answers here. And yes I'm aware that the presence of nuclear weapons will never go away even in such a scenario.
 
I've made a thread asking how would a US-UN victory in the Korean War effect the military strategy of both blocs in the Cold War; sadly it didn't' seem to get any responses so perhaps I might have a better chance of getting answers here. And yes I'm aware that the presence of nuclear weapons will never go away even in such a scenario.
An American victory in Korea means there are now US troops on the Chinese border, which would be… interesting. I think such a show of American/western strength right at China’s doorstep might make China and the Soviets close their ranks, and might even prevent the Sino-Soviet split, or make it a bit less severe, which in turn would have effects on Vietnam.

A unified, pro-western Korea might also liberalize earlier, and might thus become a major economic player similar to Japan much earlier.

It’s also possible that a defeat in Korea forces the Soviets to be more beligerent elsewhere, to make up for the loss in prestige. This means there could be more Soviet involvement in other theatres, like the various Arab-Israeli wars.
 
The Nazi victory is a cliche trope, however I am interested in potential scenarios where Nazi Germany loses, yet in a shorter war where Hitler is able to establish peace afterwards and retain some of the territories they conquered. Perhaps an armistace is established before him and Stalin go to war, or Hitler delays his hatred for Soviet Russia longer so we don't see the Red Army destroying him. How good was Hitler at realpolitik?

Generally, I'm interested in scenarios where instead of a full second world war, we get a bunch of separate wars
 
An American victory in Korea means there are now US troops on the Chinese border, which would be… interesting. I think such a show of American/western strength right at China’s doorstep might make China and the Soviets close their ranks, and might even prevent the Sino-Soviet split, or make it a bit less severe, which in turn would have effects on Vietnam.

A unified, pro-western Korea might also liberalize earlier, and might thus become a major economic player similar to Japan much earlier.

It’s also possible that a defeat in Korea forces the Soviets to be more beligerent elsewhere, to make up for the loss in prestige. This means there could be more Soviet involvement in other theatres, like the various Arab-Israeli wars.
Funny you mention that since I'm planning on making a TL where a POD in the Korean War indirectly leads to a WWIII in the 1960's (initially conventional mind you).

The Nazi victory is a cliche trope, however I am interested in potential scenarios where Nazi Germany loses, yet in a shorter war where Hitler is able to establish peace afterwards and retain some of the territories they conquered. Perhaps an armistace is established before him and Stalin go to war, or Hitler delays his hatred for Soviet Russia longer so we don't see the Red Army destroying him. How good was Hitler at realpolitik?

Generally, I'm interested in scenarios where instead of a full second world war, we get a bunch of separate wars
From what I gather, Hitler was more of an evil idiot who just got lucky, though there are some rare moments where he did something pragmatic in regards to strategy IIRC.
 
Funny you mention that since I'm planning on making a TL where a POD in the Korean War indirectly leads to a WWIII in the 1960's (initially conventional mind you).


From what I gather, Hitler was more of an evil idiot who just got lucky, though there are some rare moments where he did something pragmatic in regards to strategy IIRC.
I think the issue was not with hitler being an idiot, he was likely a rather shrewd political mind, as evidenced by his assumption of power through (initially) legal means after a failed coup. His problem rather was that Hitler was not a grand strategist, he was a footsoldier. That was less of a hinderance when he took the advice of his seaaoned a d professional generals. But as he grew more paranoid and through other factors, he came to rely more and more on his own advice.
 
I am thinking of a distopian TL where Margot Honecker takes over in the late 80s.
Either official or unofficial (With Erich seriously ill, but not dying)

They did not call her ministry the last pocket of Stalinism for nothing.

So it would include a massive crackdown on the opposition, both in the party and outside.
Probably a June 4th style action against protesters.

Maybe even Soviet troops involvement against the will of Gorbachev, that will trigger the 1991 coup early and more successful.
 
Ted Kennedy serves in Korea instead of being sent to Europe.

Charles Percy's daughter is never murdered.

Lucille Ball dates Reagan.

Joe Biden, George McGovern, Bill and/or Hillary Clinton become/stay Republicans.

Jimmy Carter is in the navy longer.

John Carpenter doesn't get continually screwed by executive meddling.

Steve McQueen kills Manson in a confrontation prior to the Tate murders
 
Top