Alternate History - Thing happened in real life, so what if thing NOT happened?

[Serbian Peacekeepers]

I'm a fan of the idea of Nazi Germany Surviving World War 2, but not really winning, so my idea for something like that is:

On D-Day, despite heavy American, British, and Commonwealth attacks, the German defenders held Normandy. Hitler was glad he had Allowed Rommel to move his army to Normandy. After the Failing of D-Day and the loss of thousands of Allied troops, the war was viewed very unfavorably and peace protests started, by the end of 1945 the Allies and Germany signed a Cease Fire, while the 2nd front isn't fully closed for the Germany, the lack of bombers over Germany removes alot of strain from Germanies factories.

this set up wouldn't lead to a Germany victory in my opinion, but at the very least give germany a opening to have a move favorable outcome to the war.

 

[Aurelian0131]

One of the biggest AH ideas I had for the longest time was what if Henry V of England managed to unite the English and French crowns into a single unified claim. Like would there be a United Kingdom of England and France? How would that affect Scotland which was always a French ally? Or even the knock-on effect that would happen to the War of the Spanish Succession years later.

 

[DJ Grelle]

Spoiler: reply to skeletonized cow

On September 8th, 1935, Carl Weiss takes aim at and attempts to kill Senator Huey Long, the controversial State Senator of Louisiana. Weiss is gunned down, dying on the scene. By some miracle, Weiss’ shots at Long missed and the Senator lives. An investigation of Weiss eventually leads to the discovery of a conspiracy involving President Roosevelt, Wall Street, and Standard Oil to have Long assassinated.

Roosevelt is impeached and arrested. John Garner becomes President, Garner's reputation remaining intact due to his carrying the torch to prosecute several of the businessmen also involved. Long manages to win the 1936 Democratic nomination for President, and despite most conservative Democrats rallying behind Garner for a third candidate, Long wins the 1936 election. Long’s Presidency sees him repeat his process in Louisiana on the Federal level, with Long stacking many political positions. Portions of Long’s Share Our Wealth program are passed, however opposition to Long rapidly grows and becomes increasingly radical. Militant organizations like the Klan, Black Legion, Silver Legion, Anti-Fascist League, and the newly founded “American Protection Society” grew rapidly in opposition to Long. The anti-Long Democrats also officially break with the Democratic Party to form the States'-Rights Party.

Political tensions across the USA escalate, and by July, 1938, an estimated three million Americans are participating in one or more radical opposition group. The Klan alone rebounded to north of half a million members. Long however has also assumed more or less total control over the Federal government, even successfully passing a bill that packs the Supreme Court. Then, during Independence celebrations on July 4th, Long is assassinated by Anarchists.

Burton K. Wheeler, Long's VP who was largely chosen to smooth over fears in the DNC, becomes President. Wheeler was not particularly pro-Share Our Wealth, but continues to push for a more moderate set of reforms. The United States remains polarized, but Wheeler is successfully able to reduce tensions somewhat, and the ongoing crackdown keeps the violence under control. Wheeler is able to successfully rally enough people to keep the Democratic Party in control of Congress in the 1938 midterms. When WW2 breaks out in 1939, Wheeler signs the American Neutrality Act which forbids the sale of war material or loans being given to the governments of the belligerents. Wheeler's government also cracks down on many of the militant groups in the United States without significant success.

I do not know enough of late interbellum US politics, but for the next part you’re skipping important evolutions in European continental politics:

• When the French popular front came to power in 1936, this was seen as France becoming communist/internationale aligned. It was also the reason the Belgian government (Catholic-conservative) renounced their mutual alliance and returned to their status of neutrality. You can go out either way with this: the French popular front can also alienate the UK, f.e. by actively intervening in the Spanish civil war. Or you can strengthen the Franco-Belgian alliance, making France more willing to intervene at Munich. A coalition of Czechia/Belgium/France/Poland but most importantly without Britain might be an obstacle for the renewed Wehrmacht but I think that with interior lines and tactical/operational superiority the Germans might win this conflict. It’d mean western european continental hegemony or something close to that.
• German influence in Yugoslavia is underestimated because of the British-backed coup (essentially a color revolution avant la lettre). But in the 30ies, Germany was the largest trading partner of Yugoslavia, and while pressured it was not outright coerced into the axis.

WW2 continues relatively unchanged until 1940 during the fall of France where there is no miracle at Dunkirk, and the BEF is annihilated. The subsequent political crisis brings down the government of Churchill, and snap elections are called in August. A pro-peace government is brought into power and Britain signs an armistice with Germany. Despite Barbarossa beginning during the peace negotiations, Britain quickly loses any appetite to resume the war and (temporarily) accepts German hegemony in Europe.

Just a status quo w/ Britain? Is it a bilateral peace treaty or a western-allies/Axis multilateral one? Does Britain halt its strategy of economic warfare or not?

Japan still seizes Indochina as per OTL, but no sanctions are placed upon Japan by the United States as President Wheeler, reelected in 1940, vetoes proposed sanctions. Britain also begins to seek rapprochement with Japan, seeking an alliance with Japan for a hypothetical resumption of the war with Germany. With trade upticks from Britain, and America not cutting off oil, Japan is able to continue its war with China unabated.

I’m pretty sure that the first US embargoes/sanctions started with the mukden incident in 1931.

The German invasion of the USSR begins much like OTL, however with one massive difference. Stalin, fearing that he is going to be arrested (as per OTL) drinks himself into a stupor and chokes on his own vomit. In the aftermath, the USSR undergoes a period of internal strife even as the Wehrmacht storms into the country. The Germans successfully seize Leningrad and Moscow during 1941, with the defenses of both having been thrown into disarray by the ongoing internal struggles. Stalingrad and Kuybyshev fall in 1942, and by 1944 organized Russian resistance collapses entirely. The Greater Germanic Reich is proclaimed as German troops begin to secure the southern Urals. A rump Soviet regime holds on in Omsk, with Lavrentiy Beria emerging as General-Secretary.

I see no issues with this part

The implementation of Aktion (Generalplan Ost and the Hunger Plan) in the eastern RKs begins to leak out into the broader world by 1943. In the United States, horror at the atrocities starts to break America out of its isolationist shell.

Generalplan Ost as it is known in the public’s mind was only one of a few napkin-math white papers that were written in the 1942-1943 period. The “kill everyone and settle it with germans” that gets touted around was quickly rejected as logistically impossible. After the war it was popularized by a czech communist historian as part of the entire “great patriotic war” cult. While there were absolute slav-genociders in the german government (e.g. Erich Koch) others thought segregation/ overlordship was far more effective (Rosenberg, Himmler (who was the one who rejected GPO). If the table talks are to be trusted then Hitlers opinion was that eastern europe should be re-organized along the lines of the British in India: centers of german settlement would rule over vast swathes of vassal states, chained together by railways like a string of pearls in the wilderness. Hitler found it unnecessary for the locals to learn to read more than the “Warning: high speed trains” signs along those lines. So more of a “keep them dumb and easily controlled” than a “KILL EM ALL #DIRLEGANG” type of thing.

The hunger plan was just a pragmatic “we cant feed them and we don’t care about them”

Britain speeds up rapprochement with Japan, and pursuing friendly relations with America. With Hitler also engaging in a degree of saber-rattling in response to American condemnation, Americans begin to panic, fearing the possibility of a German invasion. This would lead to the 1944 election seeing the defeat of Wheeler and the isolationist Democrats by a Republican and States'-Rights coalition. Republican Harold Stassen became President, while States'-Rights Theodore G. Bilbo became VP.

Tbh I see a British rapprochement with Italy (who would probably be snubbed by German hegemony of the continent) as more likely than a Japanese one. Their ally in the east would be the US and the oceanic dominions + the dutch east indies and perhaps even a commonwealth India ( the INC was pretty large at this point in time and they were moving towards independence. Indian independence was inevitable after the first world war, the question was only how and when.)

The new interventionist government signs an alliance with Britain, Cuba, Brazil, Ireland, and Columbia in 1946. This alliance, informally dubbed the Havana Accords, positions itself in quasi-opposition to the Triparte Pact. Over the next two years several more nations sign to the Accords, while Spain and France officially join the Pact. Tensions between Germany and America continue to degrade, with both going though internal struggles during the late 1940s. Germany struggles to maintain order over Europe, with the ongoing guerilla resistance to Generalplan Ost being an ever malignant ulcer while the United States struggles to maintain political unity.

Guerilla war during WW2 is massively overrated, and only two examples can really be brought up as “succesful”. The polish home army and its uprising - which was crushed if Germany won would mean the end of polish nationhood in eastern europe. The second one was Tito’s campaign in yugoslavia, which was more a civil war between croats and serbs with some german and italian support on one side. Bandenbekampfung in the soviet union was generally very effective.

I do wonder how tensions between the US and Germany would continue to rise. There aren’t any real borders or active zones of influence that overlap or touch. Where would these tensions arise? I mean, if the germans start actively courting South America I understand but I just dont see it happen tbh. And I doubt the americans could be made to care for the lives of slavs enough that it would lead to war. Yeah they’d be outraged, but is that enough to actively move towards war?

1947 sees the first major post-WW2 conflict as tensions between the increasingly left-wing Mexican government and the United States finally spills over into outright war. Germany intervenes by sending material, while Spain serves as a front for small groups of “volunteers” to assist the Mexicans. The Second Mexican-American War both provides justification for the United States to bulk up its army, and escalates the militancy of the isolationist elements within the United States. German aid to the Mexicans also escalates the tensions between the United States and Germans, and as 1948 draws to a close, both nations look on the verge of war.

I’m pretty sure that even with german help the peacetime US army would skull-fuck the mexicans harder than in 1848.

On October 14th, 1948, events took a sudden and unexpected turn. Just after giving a speech to a group of veterans from RK Caucasus, Adolf Hitler collapses. He is pronounced dead two days later, a victim of a fatal brain hemorrhage. The Reich totters on the brink of crisis over the next several months as the risk of putsch or civil war looms. Despite the odds, Hitler’s successor Hermann Goering holds onto the reins of power, becoming the new President of the Reich with Joseph Goebbels as Chancellor.

Civil war no, Putsch/small purge yes. I generally detest the “nazi civil war” trope since all internal struggles within nazi germany in OTL were quick, decisive and small scale. Night of the long knives lead to 200 ish deaths. The July 20th attempt lead to no more than 5000 executions. Order was quickly restored and nazi loyalists would keep firm control over the wehrmacht until the end of the war. (See Schorner restoring order in a disintegrating army group center)

Under Goering’s leadership, relations between the Reich and America improved somewhat, at least at first. However the Reich’s increasing influence in South America, and the Americans’ support for anti-German resistance in the Reichskommissariats and vassals leads to relations declining once again. Relations only further degrade as the two nations fight proxy conflicts in Indonesia, Peru, and Iran against each other.

Interesting. I can see where you’re coming from with this although I wonder how in gods name the americans would be able to support resistance within the RKs. It’s logistically very far and the germans would control much of the prewar trade routes into those regions (e.g. baltic, black sea, …)

With no nukes used I’d suggest rethinking the whole proxy wars thing. It was OTL the threat of nuclear armageddon that kept most of those conflicts from escalating.

In 1951, Alfred Rosenberg replaced Joseph Goebbels as Chancellor. This is largely in response to the latter’s disagreement with President Goering’s “Pragmatismus” campaign in regards to Generalplan Ost. Rosenberg, who sees the Slavs as not needing outright annihilation, is able to begin stabilizing the Reich’s eastern territories. This stabilization being the critical event by which the Reich is able to adopt an ever-increasingly confrontational attitude with America.

The 1952 elections in the USA prove somewhat contentious, but with the looming threat of Germany, both the Democrats and the Republican/States’-Rights coalition hold back on the more contentious tactics. Claude Pepper, a Democrat Senator from Florida, is elected President. Pepper brings back much of the old Share the Wealth programs albeit moderated, but in contrast to Long and Wheeler, Pepper is a solid interventionist.

The revitalized Reich, and the more oppositional America spell disaster for world peace. Both Reich and America begin to square up their political spheres in preparation for a showdown. Most of the British Empire is drawn into American orbit, although India once again revolts in 1953 which drags on the British effort. Italy was now led by the newly appointed Duce, Alessandro Pavolini, following Mussolini’s death by cancer and would renew its alliance with Germany in 1953 as well. Japan kept public neutrality during this period, although curiously their puppet regime in China nominally signed an agreement with Germany. The rest of the Americas nominally aligned with America while portions of the Middle East sided with Germany.

By mid-1954, the Reich and America formally broke relations. Across the planet, millions waited as catastrophe played out in slow motion; unstoppable and inevitable, the Letzterkampf approached. Every incident was screamed by the papers to be the final straw, the final outrage by the other party. Despite this, it took nearly a year for the actual incident to start the shooting.

On June 14th, 1955, a German U-boat accidentally strayed into British waters. Upon rising, the craft was sunk by the British. Germany accused Britain of hostile actions, the British claimed likewise, and after a week of ever-escalating demands, Germany sent one final ultimatum to Britain. Twenty-four hours later, it would be rejected by unanimous decree of Parliament.

The Reich responded by declaring war on Britain. The Third World War had begun.

Interesting. I disagree with some parts (e.g. Indian revolt; India would be almost independent at this point imho) Rosenberg is an underrated figure in 3rd reich tbf, he's quite interesting.
I'd like to add that by the 1940ies you'd see new men rise up in the nazi party/SS ranks. Well known veterans turning their wartime hero-ship into peacetime leadership. Weapons designers and other "architects of victory" like von Braun, Speer or Todt would leverage the influence they had gained in the war.
Other things like in which direction society would evolve is also interesting. Would there be a RETVRN to agricultural tradition like Darré and Himmler wanted? Or a futuristic step forward like technocrats like Speer and Koch wanted? Would the "new city" ideal be enforced throughout the Reich? Which borders would Germany force upon France after the war?

I autistically disagree with the "nazi germany would continue to use slave labor". It was a last ditch effort during the twilight of the 3rd reich and none of the organizers liked it. Because of morals or because it was not efficient enough, I'll leave up to you. But the fact of the matter is that it they only used it because it was truly necessary.

 

[Mayor Cody Travers]

Lately I'm pondering on the long-term societal effects of if the USA managed to never annex the Hispano/Mexican-heavy parts of the Mexican Cession: that no Mexican War happens and instead 1) it manages to peacefully buy Texas to the Colorado River of Texas (proposed from 1800s to the 1820s) or to the Nueces and Pecos (1820s to 1840s), and 2) pulls off buying Upper California above the 37th parallel (the southern Utah border line due west to just above Monterey, CA) to get a land route to and including San Francisco Bay (as proposed a couple times in the 1830s).

Looking at the map I attached, thus almost everywhere with Hispanic majorities of any stripe (Mexican-American, Chicano, colonial Hispano descendants in Tejanos/Neomexicanos/Californios) are NOT in the USA if we keep it to the above borders excepting if America purchased to the Nueces/Pecos - even then the Tejanos at least joined the Texians in revolt.

I honestly wonder if it'd be better for social cohesion long-term. American ethnocultural history from the colonial age up to the massive Mexican migrations of the 1940s to 2010s was dictated in literal white and black and built around that, and at the least northern whites were starting to come around to seeing blacks someday be assimilated into the American melting pot a la ethnic whites from Europe post-Civil War, and no doubt it'd be a snail's pace but that'd seep into southern whites' minds as well. I think all the migration from Latin America kind of warped ethnic tensions all over again by giving a second obvious skin color in a different region (the west, natch) to deal with, then them spilling over into the east coast (Puerto Ricans, Cubans, your endless Mexican low-wage workers). Heck, maybe geography plays a minor part in this cohesion as well - northern California and the Pacific Northwest are green and forested, and so even are the small parts of the Mountain West people actually settled in, letting everyone have a sort-of similarity to life no matter where they are in this "rump" (still fucking huge) USA. And also that you can cross to the Pacific Northwest and Mountain West easy via South Pass and then some of the easier ways to get to California via the California and Applegate Trails, but the majority Hispanic southwest parts are closed off by deserts and mountains. Even economically I struggle to think of what southwestern Texas, New Mexico and Arizona, and southern California at least below the Tehachapi Mountains bring in physical resources to America. Finally: you have in Texas the Wild Horse/Neuces Strip and Chihuahuan Deserts bordering the Nueces/Pecos Rivers, in the Mountain West the Great Basin, and in California the Santa Cruz Mountains (for the Bay Area) and San Joaquin River (bordering the Tulare Lake marshlands) as excellent natural borders between Anglo-American and Hispanic-Mexican cultural complexes instead of the current modern but messy border running through much of the latter.

 

[Skeletonized Cow]

Lately I'm pondering on the long-term societal effects of if the USA managed to never annex the Hispano/Mexican-heavy parts of the Mexican Cession: that no Mexican War happens and instead 1) it manages to peacefully buy Texas to the Colorado River of Texas (proposed from 1800s to the 1820s) or to the Nueces and Pecos (1820s to 1840s), and 2) pulls off buying Upper California above the 37th parallel (the southern Utah border line due west to just above Monterey, CA) to get a land route to and including San Francisco Bay (as proposed a couple times in the 1830s).

Looking at the map I attached, thus almost everywhere with Hispanic majorities of any stripe (Mexican-American, Chicano, colonial Hispano descendants in Tejanos/Neomexicanos/Californios) are NOT in the USA if we keep it to the above borders excepting if America purchased to the Nueces/Pecos - even then the Tejanos at least joined the Texians in revolt.

I honestly wonder if it'd be better for social cohesion long-term. American ethnocultural history from the colonial age up to the massive Mexican migrations of the 1940s to 2010s was dictated in literal white and black and built around that, and at the least northern whites were starting to come around to seeing blacks someday be assimilated into the American melting pot a la ethnic whites from Europe post-Civil War, and no doubt it'd be a snail's pace but that'd seep into southern whites' minds as well. I think all the migration from Latin America kind of warped ethnic tensions all over again by giving a second obvious skin color in a different region (the west, natch) to deal with, then them spilling over into the east coast (Puerto Ricans, Cubans, your endless Mexican low-wage workers). Heck, maybe geography plays a minor part in this cohesion as well - northern California and the Pacific Northwest are green and forested, and so even are the small parts of the Mountain West people actually settled in, letting everyone have a sort-of similarity to life no matter where they are in this "rump" (still fucking huge) USA. And also that you can cross to the Pacific Northwest and Mountain West easy via South Pass and then some of the easier ways to get to California via the California and Applegate Trails, but the majority Hispanic southwest parts are closed off by deserts and mountains. Even economically I struggle to think of what southwestern Texas, New Mexico and Arizona, and southern California at least below the Tehachapi Mountains bring in physical resources to America. Finally: you have in Texas the Wild Horse/Neuces Strip and Chihuahuan Deserts bordering the Nueces/Pecos Rivers, in the Mountain West the Great Basin, and in California the Santa Cruz Mountains (for the Bay Area) and San Joaquin River (bordering the Tulare Lake marshlands) as excellent natural borders between Anglo-American and Hispanic-Mexican cultural complexes instead of the current modern but messy border running through much of the latter.

I'm not sure if the different borders would necessarily cut out the potential Hispanic population in the USA; aside from Arizona, not a single US state had >10% Hispanic population before Mexican immigration began to occur en masse under Roosevelt. The reasons for the immigration, cheap labor, probably wouldn't be butterflied away.

There would also be decent loses in natural resources, at least in the 37th parallel border USA. Modern day New Mexico alone accounts for 3% of our oil, and 10% of our natural gas, not to mention vast deposits of uranium and other minerals. Arizona produces nearly 3/4ths of our copper production, and has considerable gold, silver, and uranium deposits. And California's oil deposits, now relatively lacking in value, but historically important would mostly be in Mexico.

Even worse would be the loss of California's major ports. Basically all important west coast ports are south of the 37th parallel; and even if today California is shitting the bed, the loss of such territory would dramatically shrink America's capacity on the west coast. America would be focused far more on the east, and the PNW and North California would probably be the sleepy backwater of America than a significant player.

The more interesting consequences IMO might be on the Mexican side. Without the Mexican-American war, Mexico might be able to avoid a decent chunk of the instability and turmoil of the mid-1800s, and with the bonus resources in the expanded Norte, the Mexican Republic might be able to avoid the economic failures that led to the French invasion. This would leave Mexico in better shape as it enters the 20th century, possibly avoiding the rule of Portifario Diaz and subsequent Mexican Revolution. By the 21st century, Mexico would still be poorer than the USA, but possibly more wealthy and stable. A more prosperous Mexico might not be the pants-shitting country of today, and thus avert the worst parts of the migrant crisis of the present.

Spoiler: TL Autism

Thanks to you all for responding, I'm working to hammer out something better thanks to your feedback (and actually giving it research). I kind of want to write some large autistic timeline with enough edge in it to send the likes of Calbear into convulsions.

@Skeletonized Cow

I agree with your complaints about how AH seems to treat the Nazis as being so incompetent in their stories that it boggles the mind that they could even win the the Second World War in their stories without collapsing into a civil war the second Hitler coughs too long.

For your story, I enjoyed it and it is fairly compact. The affects of Long being president do indeed cause massive differences (like being neutral in ww2) but I feel like more minor differences should also show up.

Long during his time as Louisianan governor showed a proclivity to using soldiers to get his way, such as using national guard units to bust gambling dens without invoking martial law and encouraging soldiers to shoot first, ask questions later. Thus, I feel that he and future presidents should be seen more encouraged to use soldiers to get their way, creating a far more authoritarian presidency earlier that's not afraid of sicking soldiers on Americans. Also after successfully packing the Supreme Court, I imagine that with that cat out of the bag that other parties would follow suit to "correct" Long's packing with their own Court packing.

Another criticism would Beria taking power after Stalin as Beria was so unpopular that it didn't take long before every power player in Moscow ganged up to depose Beria and have him shot. This was despite Beria basically being part of the triumvirate group to succeed Stalin in power.

Other than these nit-picks, good story.

America's internal struggles is definitely something I glossed  way too much over. For expanding on it, my general idea is that as an enduring legacy of Long, America on a federal level has fallen into pretty drastic disfunction. The Supreme Court is effectively non-functional thanks to the packing and subsequent back and forth, several of the states having re-asserted their autonomy, and paramilitaries operate nearly openly in whole swathes of the nation. Although the situation slowly improves after Long, even by 1955 the USA is considerably less well off and less stable than OTL's USA. Also, I'd have to imagine that every election after 1936 is probably extremely rotten and full of fraud, far more so than OTL.

Basically, America is running very poorly ITTL. I've had to sabotage America as much as possible so that America v. Germany wouldn't be a near-guarentee American win.

Finally, I probably would need more research regarding the actual politicians involved and the Presidents. I more or less just pulled people I recalled as OTL candidates and knew enough to guess a position for. With more research, I could make things worse.

As for Beria, you're right he is about the least possible person to take charge. But, while I do agree that him holding onto power for any length of time is exceptionally unlikely, for a future revision I think Beria seizing power briefly would be a good catalyst for the USSR breaking up during Barbarossa.

@Skeletonized Cow ,

interesting take as insofar as that Goebbels gets the spot light, at least for like three years, before being sidelined by the quite obscur Rosenberg and his arcane autism. Would definitely like to read a story about the internal mechanisms and power struggle in a post-war Reich that has largely won everything it set out to do in 1933. In particular the particularism of the Gau-system is something not ONE writer in the AH-segment that does a story about an alternate Third Reich gets right. These people either never showed up as an integral part of the political system of the Reich (which they were) or they're rolled into Bormann who serves as a stand-in for the pedantic, "boring" bureaucrat (which he most definitely wasn't - if anything, Lammers deserves that role) or grey suit without any personality or goal. Seriously, without the Gauleiter, Hitler wouldn't have had near-total control over Germany, at all.

Or the writers go into the absurd territory, aka Himmler becomes Führer for whatever reason. I bet a hundred shitcoints Himmler would be shitcanned/sidelined/conned out of power by Heydrich or Pohl the second Hitler croaks, because he was feared and loathed by nearly everybody of importance. "Meine Ehre heißt Treue" my ass - the SS, as every Nazi-organisation was a crabs-in-a-bucket type of deal. Everyone who had the will and resources to do it craved for more power and maneuvered over the bodies of everyone else to get it.

Anyway, my personal thoughts on a post-war Reich: it basically creates a vast modern consumer society built on the backs of slave labour gathered in the conquered eastern territories. The internal politics and policies continue to be an incoherent autistic mess, with Hitler actively pushing for even more factionalism and rivalries, so that he continues to have the last laugh/say. With the war won, Speer and his ministry loses a lot of power, the only reason why he's still of significance post-war is his contribution to victory and the OT, which will build all the stuff the Germans need in the east. The real power lies either with Göring who continues to head the labyrinthic Luftwaffe and other obscure organisations (4 Year Plan), the various Gauleiter (Hanke, Ley and Sauckel and whoever is in charge of the east in particular), Bormann as de-facto party leader and maybe, just maybe the Wehrmacht, if Hitler doesn't decide to merge them with the SS (which me might do, at least in the east). And yes, the Reich has nukes and is the only country with a working nuclear triade, at least for five odd years.

I mostly put Goebbels as Chancellor based on Hitler's OTL last will. I know there's a lot of debate on who would replace Hitler, and in what manner, but the idea of Hitler as the only Fuhrer makes sense IMO.

As for the Gauliter, you're absolutely right that people don't put enough thought into them in any Nazi timeline. Their dual status as Party leaders, and administrative figures (so many were Reich Governors and so forth) perfectly embodies the idea of the National Socialist State being the fusion of Party and Government. In truth, I understand why people do though, the nature of the Gaus is so variable and dependant on the nature of their Gauliter that you basically have to read and study each one individually.

And yeah, I agree with you on a lot of the assessment of the Reich in a hypothetical victory. The bizarre quasi-feudal totalitarianism of the regime was a gigantic spaghetti pile of characters whom were all clawing at each other's throats, and almost certainly by deliberate design of Hitler. At least the factionalism would keep any rivals from emerging to oppose the Fuhrer!

Finally, @DJ Grelle, I can't reply to your post but you have a lot too.

I am skipping a lot of interwar Europe, but I want to do so largely to have a Nazi-victory feel as close as possible to one from OTL. I did initially consider it being a very divergent TL, where Goering comes to power in 1938, but it pretty quickly felt like said Nazi victory was too divergent from OTL. I want something in the line of Fatherland more than anything more divergent.

Britain and Germany agree to a status quo ante bellum between the two respective nations, with Italy being dragooned into the same agreement. It's a icy, hostile peace, and trade between the two remains effectively non-existent but the blockade is lifted. The peace party in Britain remains in power long enough for Germany to stomp the Soviets, so ideas of a "Round Two" only emerge post-alliance with the USA.

Relations between Japan and the USA soured in 1931, but the 1911 Treaty of Commerce and Navigation between America and Japan was only terminated in 1939. AFAIK, and I could well be wrong, it was the termination of this treaty that began the sanctions against Japan.

You're right that Generalplan Ost, as popularly imagined, probably wouldn't occur barring something severely autistic (Himmler as Fuhrer, etc) but I do think that German rule in the East would be brutal enough to provoke outrage in and of itself. To expand on things moving forward, what provokes outrage should be programs like the Resettlement of the Jews to Madagascar (a bit of a meme, I know, but Hitler himself did approve of the idea), the string of atrocities against the Poles, and the general treatment of the Slavs as inhuman. These wouldn't be as severe as GPO, but still bad enough that it gets Americans to go react disgustedly.

British attempts at rapprochement with Italy would almost certainly exist as well, but I'm not sure how well I could see it working. Mussolini and the Italians certainly wouldn't trust Hitler, but England rules the prime colonies the Italians would be eyeing up. Also, England did just get BTFOed extremely hard by the Germans, I would have to imagine that would diminish any idea of changing sides.

You're right with India though, India would be barreling towards independence earlier than OTL than later. That might open up more possibilities though; perhaps India gets its independence as a united bloc, which prompts civil war or other crises.

You're also right that Soviet partisans are overrated. But, I do think they'd be a big problem if the Germans achieved their drive to the Urals. There's simply too much of Russia there to hold down well, and especially along the Uralic border as they could retreat into Siberian Russia. Yes, the Germans could also raid that far, but Russia is fucking huge and it'd be impossible to guard the whole thing. That said, I probably will need to revise certain elements regarding resistance and so forth.

As for the proxy-war ideas, it might be a little far-fetched, but I think it works in the vein of the Spanish Civil War. Neither America nor Germany are ready for war with each other (America is shitting the bed, Germany needs to digest the East) and so are mostly trying to exert influence to shore up their own spheres. Germany and America would probably come to conflict in South America actually, the Germans did largely consider South Americans to be mongrel, inferior races but saw in SA a valuable source of resources; similar to their position on Africa.

I do think which conflicts occur will need revising, but the one I want to keep is the Second Mexican-American War. Yes, Mexico would be beaten quickly in the field, but like the Bandit War, the Mexican bandito resistance would prove troublesome. IOTL the American interwar army was smaller than that of Portugal's, so the war would also be troublesome on the manpower front alone, hence why it is the excuse to expand.

So, the other stuff is a lot more that I need to expand upon to make a proper TL. TBH, I'm leaning towards a technocratic Germany as I think it makes some more sense with Goering in charge. I'd have to imagine the SS would be pretty heavily cleaned out, and characters like Himmler eliminated. Although Goering seems to have known dick about economics, his work with the 4 year plan and the Reichswerke are undeniablely leaning into the idea of an industrial German Reich, not the agrarian peasant-warrior Germany. That said, I think Speer would have either been eliminated too, or at least shunted out of a lot of power. Speer was clearly very power hungry, and may actually have emerged as a potential threat to Goering's power.

Anyways, I want to reiterate a thanks to you all. This autism will continue eventually, I hope to produce something actually good for you all shortly. Sorry for writing a leftist meme wall of text, but I clearly have a lot to say regarding this matter. I want it to be high effort, so this discussion is helpful.

 

[DJ Grelle]

@skeletonized.cow

Spoiler: Regarding Himmler and SS

While Himmler was a total wacko - scaring the hoes with his talks about the hyperborean spirit - he was also a scarily good administrator and transformed what was essentially a bodyguard unit into a state within a state. In the 40ies the SS was a massive organisation, with not just it's own armed forces and government institutions but also major industrial enterprises under its control (f.e. the Ostindustrie GmbH).
And he did this all while plenty of the other old fighters were not exactly his friends. I'm interested to hear what you've got in mind for the SS in your TL.

Spoiler: Regarding the 3rd reich

I'm also interested in how the gleichschaltung progresses. When the war started the lander were still a thing but towards the end the Gau system had replaced the lander for all intents and purposes. Will the lander be dissolved and the old German government be replaced with the Nazi party? As opposed to a single party state, you'd get a Nazi state inside of which different parties would operate. They'd just be called the SS, the aristocratic clique around Göring, the industrial-technocrat around speer or Todt etc etc.

Regarding AH in general: how would you guys feel about an EIC centered timeline?

 

[Skeletonized Cow]

Regarding AH in general: how would you guys feel about an EIC centered timeline?

I'd say go for it. India in general is critically underused in any AH, and the EIC has so much potential for interesting events. At its peak, it was a literal megacorporation that directly or indirectly ruled around a sixth of the global population, but even long before that the internal and external politics of the EIC seem fascinating. I'd love to see what you come up with.

Spoiler: More TL Stuff

Himmler was relatively capable with the SS, but I don't think he'd survive without Hitler. He was too independently minded, too disliked, and had too many weird ideas to last long after Hitler. I want to write more on the Reich's internal struggles, and I need to do more research, but Himmler and the SS are going to be slowly scraped out of opposition to the "Dear Reichsmarschall" in the 1948-1952 period. That said, I don't think they'd all necessarily be killed; Goering would probably shunt a lot of the oppositional SS figures off to their own little domains as a part of his consolidation of power. By the time he was solid enough in his position as Reichspresident to just straight up disappear them all, they'd all likely already be in a "neutralized" position. If I want to go full meme, OS-Burgund not being "le funny black sun nightmare" but an unstable and dysfunctional retirement home for politically disfavored SS goons might be the solution.

That said, the SS would never go away. I think portions would begin to be transformed post-victory over Russia into Wehrbauer and play a big role in controlling the East regardless. The East would be quite a weird place, and the role of the SS would be heavily varied from district to district. Some parts of RK Moscow might resemble OTL Rhodesia, while others the old Livionian Order or RP Bohemia and Moravia. And others could just be fully Germanized.

I think gleichschaltung was the natural endpoint of the Gaus. So many Gauliter already were the Reich Governor, or some other administrative post, such that it was the logical end-state. The ultimate fusion of NSDAP and the Reich itself into a single intertwined entity is undeniably the ongoing process IOTL. I can't see it stopping ITTL. Even Goering would continue the process, wrangling the Gauliter would be the best and safest way to consolidate power post-Hitler. Thus, the Gauliters only become stronger under Goering.

I don't think the Lander would ever be formally abolished though. I think they'll just fade into history, the same as the Reich Constitution and so many other elements of the old Germany. Slowly eliminated, but still existing on paper as a microscopic part of the pagentry of the Reich.

And factionalism will of course continue. How could it not? I don't think it'd be Nazi Germany without the Reich's half-mad, half-genius internal structure.

 

[Ishtar]

ASB Ideas:

An actual young earth but not based on creationism. Say scientists find irrevocable evidence the earth is less than 10,000 years old. What is a plausible naturalistic model for the formation and evolution of a young earth geology? (Beyond but including aliens).

Random portals appear across the planet circa 3000 BC, allowing microbes, animals, plants and people to go to other locations on earth. For example on in Mesopotamia might lead to one in Scandinavia, which has a few leading to South America that have thousands with portals to Africa and Pacific islands and so on.

Common ASB concept but why not? Alexander the Great lives for a 1000 years and becomes immortal during that time, can he conquer the world?

More "realistic" ideas

No WW1 or WW2, Europe's population and its young men do not perish en masse in the mud. What does 2023 look like?

No Hellenization, Persia smashes Greece at Platea and Salamis. Sparta and Athens are destroyed, and the rule of the king of kings extends to Europe? How long does the Persian empire last? What will bring it down?

Russians take Constantinople-sometime between 1650 and 1870 the Russian Empire achieves one of its biggest dreams, and manages to take the city from the Ottomans, gaining control at least of the European side of the Bosporus?

 

[Ughubughughughughughghlug]

Martin Cortez was accused (probably falsely) of conspiring to lead New Spain into independence against Spain, and Gonzalo Pizarro actually did wage a war of independence for Peru (spurred on by the Spanish trying to regulate exploitation, among other things). Considering the huge ocean in the way, history could have very well created a culturally syncretic Mesoamerican/Andean independent state in the Americas long before the United States came along in OTL. Suppose this was the way that Indians cheated to survive: it's a conquistador ruling class, but one that goes native, having become the equivalent of those nomads warlords that roll into a land and conquer it instead of a colony of overseas.

The English Civil War spilled over into the colonies in the form of a campaign in Maryland and Puritan New England and Cavalier Virginia generally supported who you would expect. The ECW could have perhaps resulted in an early secession in the Americas, or just a full-on theater of the war.

What if Vajrayana Buddhism was much stronger such that the Dalai Lama was effectively the Pope of the Orient with Tibet as his Papal State.

 

[Charred Dinosaur]

Theoretically how would the Portugese and subsequent European powers to visit India react to discovering a Indus River Valley still ruled by the Indo Greeks? Would they just be viewed as another Indian civilization or a European offshoot? And assuming there are enough similarities between the Indo Greeks and European Greeks to foster a shared feeling of identity in political circles would it be reasonable to assume that a alternate version of the Megali idea would be born which would involve reconqeuring all of Alexander's Empire, something that would for example put a considerable deal of pressure on the sizable Greek minority of Egypt?

And by the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries how would colonial powers interact with them. Would they remain independant but like Persia be subjected to the Great Game, or would they be absorbed into the British Raj, and if so how would they react to the idea of joining a united India?

Before any theories can be made here religion would have to be addressed. If they converted to Islam Indian history would be more familiar, but if they stayed Buddhist or became Sikh, Hindu or even Nestorian and blocked off Islamic expansion then on top of answering how the Europeans would react to the Indo Greeks you would need to take into account how their interactions with a India never colonized by muslims and entirely under Hindu control would differ from OTL?

Anyone feeling autistic enough to throw their hat into the ring and give their ideas?

 

[DJ Grelle]

Theoretically how would the Portugese and subsequent European powers to visit India react to discovering a Indus River Valley still ruled by the Indo Greeks? Would they just be viewed as another Indian civilization or a European offshoot? And assuming there are enough similarities between the Indo Greeks and European Greeks to foster a shared feeling of identity in political circles would it be reasonable to assume that a alternate version of the Megali idea would be born which would involve reconqeuring all of Alexander's Empire, something that would for example put a considerable deal of pressure on the sizable Greek minority of Egypt?

And by the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries how would colonial powers interact with them. Would they remain independant but like Persia be subjected to the Great Game, or would they be absorbed into the British Raj, and if so how would they react to the idea of joining a united India?

Before any theories can be made here religion would have to be addressed. If they converted to Islam Indian history would be more familiar, but if they stayed Buddhist or became Sikh, Hindu or even Nestorian and blocked off Islamic expansion then on top of answering how the Europeans would react to the Indo Greeks you would need to take into account how their interactions with a India never colonized by muslims and entirely under Hindu control would differ from OTL?

Anyone feeling autistic enough to throw their hat into the ring and give their ideas?

Funnily enough, there is a parallel that happened OTL.
While most of us think of Christianity as a western faith, there were also conversions throughout the east. You might have heard about the Coptic Eyptians, or the Christian Assyrians.
But in the south of India (Kerala) there was also a major christian community.
These "Saint Thomas Christians" - legend says they were converted by the Apostle Thomas - were mostly likely converts of preachers in the late antiquity.
When the portuguese arrived in goa in 1500 they were very confused at first, but soon recognized them as christians and sent a message to the pope in rome, who quickly put the eastern syriac rite of st thomas in communion with the catholic church.

In a sense, they became a part of christendom and would also follow the major cultural happenings within christianity. For example, when the reformation happened and protestant dutch and english (and danish, but thats a whole other can of worms) preachers reached india, the st thomas rite would also split. One part stayed in communion with the catholic church, guided by hardline jesuits. Others would align themselves with the reformation, turning in a sort of protestant coptic mix. Others again would turn against european christianity as a whole, and move towards a more syncretic faith, mixed with local cults.

So if indo-greeks remained a major force along the indus (which would mean a lot for indian history since most of the foreign conquerors came via the afghan highlands) then when the europeans arrive they would recognize them as "greek"

Relgion wise, islam was not *just* brought with the sword. Just like the syriac rite of st thomas, a lot of muslim influence in the south originates from traders plying the southern silk road (its not really a one-directional trade lane but a massive network stretching from zanzibar in the south, to hormuz and basra in the north and the spice island in the south east and china in the north east).

The idea that europeans would not colonize them is kinda stupid since the first peoples colonized in the economic exploitative sense were greeks, by the italian city states who turned entire islands into plantations to profit their republics. The iberian conquistadores would use these techniques and organisations (after all they were very intertwined with genoa) when they discovered the new world, mainly to organize the caribbean sugar isles.

 

[Mayor Cody Travers]

@Skeletonized Cow thank you for that response, it was a pleasure to get someone understanding and taking my thought seriously. Even if butterflies would turn things potentially twisty, Mexican labor being imported into America seems a broad stroke commonality, and I readily admit to not knowing that on the oil resources in the southwest.

I suppose my only other thought on the Hispanic population in the southwest in present is that they will eventually become fully accepted and Americanized, but split into two strands - the primarily European-descended/white-skinned colonial Hispanos and Mexicans will become as “white”and mainstream as Italians and Irish-Catholics are in the northeast while the mestizo/brown-skinned Chicanos will become the colored (semi-) underclass a la blacks in the former slave states.

 

[Dysnomia]

ASB Ideas:

An actual young earth but not based on creationism. Say scientists find irrevocable evidence the earth is less than 10,000 years old. What is a plausible naturalistic model for the formation and evolution of a young earth geology? (Beyond but including aliens).

Random portals appear across the planet circa 3000 BC, allowing microbes, animals, plants and people to go to other locations on earth. For example on in Mesopotamia might lead to one in Scandinavia, which has a few leading to South America that have thousands with portals to Africa and Pacific islands and so on.

Common ASB concept but why not? Alexander the Great lives for a 1000 years and becomes immortal during that time, can he conquer the world?

More "realistic" ideas

No WW1 or WW2, Europe's population and its young men do not perish en masse in the mud. What does 2023 look like?

No Hellenization, Persia smashes Greece at Platea and Salamis. Sparta and Athens are destroyed, and the rule of the king of kings extends to Europe? How long does the Persian empire last? What will bring it down?

Russians take Constantinople-sometime between 1650 and 1870 the Russian Empire achieves one of its biggest dreams, and manages to take the city from the Ottomans, gaining control at least of the European side of the Bosporus?

Time portals like in Chrono Trigger?

How would that work though? Wormholes that exist on Earth but are now closed because the Earth is more stable?

My mom told me a story when I was a kid. I'm not sure where she heard it. It was about a woman who was hiking with friends in the desert. She walked behind a big cactus and didn't reappear on the other side. Everyone thought she was hiding behind the cactus as a joke. But they never saw her again. She just disappeared. This is likely something similar to the story of the man who fell forever. i.e. a guy jumps from a lighthouse and never reaches the ground or is heard from again.

Urban legend type stuff meant to scare kids. Don't joke around in dangerous places. But if you can just go "poof" I'd love to find out what the scientific explanation is.

 

[DJ Grelle]

Spoiler: The Oligarchy

Great Britain was the victor of the Napoleonic Wars (1792-1803-1815). Of all the major participants, it came out the least damaged. While its war economy was running red-hot, its debt high and its people restless, it was also on top of the world. Its fleet was the largest the world had ever seen, manned by well-drilled sailors and led by experienced officers. The continent was locked in a balance of powers leaving the British poised to expand their empire across the globe, even after gaining much overseas territory throughout the two decades of Napoleonic warfare.

So too in India. The East India Company, already on the ascendant after the Carnatic wars (1744-1763) - where it established itself as one of the stronger warlords in the disintegrating Mughal empire - would expand even further. The last French possessions in India were overrun in mere months, presidency armies and navies sailing out to expel the ancient enemy from their holdings in the Indian ocean.

Yet there was another major competitor beyond the Cape. The Dutch and the English had an unspoken and unwritten gentleman’s agreement that they’d acknowledge and respect each other’s sphere of influence. But when the Dutch Republic fell and the French revolutionaries were received with open arms by Dutch Patriots, the EIC moved to take control of the VOC possessions as well.

But before the first shot was fired between EIC and VOC units, a rather fascinating event took place. The Patriot movement, eager to rectify the sluggish rent-seeking economy that had plagued the Netherlands for decades by that point, threatened many of the rich, merchant dynasties that owned stock in the VOC.

And thus, under leadership of the Lords XVII there was an exodus (1795). For the second time in Dutch history, rich merchants and other well-off families fled in the face of government persecution.

The closest safe haven was England, and the City of London. While the typical London banker might be rather chauvinistic and unwelcoming, this time it was different. They embraced their fellow rich protestant oligarchs. The City leaned on the British government, and soon the Dutch refugees were naturalized as British citizens.

In return, the Lords Seventeen, the board that led the VOC and had led the Dutch refugees to England, agreed to the Leadenhall Agreements (1798 ).

The Leadenhall Agreements - named after the street on which the East India House was located - merged the Dutch and the British companies, forming the United East India Company. It was a decision not taken lightly, but all who had a stake in either of the companies thought it prudent. It took some time sorting out the practicals of it all, but in the end the companies became a single entity.

The Dutch Cape colony and its varied possessions in the East Indies archipelago were consolidated into a few new presidencies. The Cape presidency ruled from Kaapstad. Ceylon, becoming a part of the Madras presidency. The Near East Indies presidency, mostly the trade posts around Sumatra and Java were ruled from Batavia. The Great East Indies presidency was ruled from Ambon.

Stamford Raffles, who had proven himself a capable young administrator and a rather charismatic leader with knowledge of the local languages was appointed as the re-organizer of the archipelago possessions. But as the Napoleonic Wars raged in Europe, Raffles would go above and beyond the call of duty….

So this is the first part of my EIC TL. The biggest change is that the Patriot movement remains united in their desires to reform the Dutch society, but before a Dutch terror can break loose many of the rich merchant dynasties flee to England, where - funnily enough - the bankers and merchants of London welcome them with open arms.

 

[Ughubughughughughughghlug]

Theoretically how would the Portugese and subsequent European powers to visit India react to discovering a Indus River Valley still ruled by the Indo Greeks? Would they just be viewed as another Indian civilization or a European offshoot? And assuming there are enough similarities between the Indo Greeks and European Greeks to foster a shared feeling of identity in political circles would it be reasonable to assume that a alternate version of the Megali idea would be born which would involve reconqeuring all of Alexander's Empire, something that would for example put a considerable deal of pressure on the sizable Greek minority of Egypt?

And by the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries how would colonial powers interact with them. Would they remain independant but like Persia be subjected to the Great Game, or would they be absorbed into the British Raj, and if so how would they react to the idea of joining a united India?

Before any theories can be made here religion would have to be addressed. If they converted to Islam Indian history would be more familiar, but if they stayed Buddhist or became Sikh, Hindu or even Nestorian and blocked off Islamic expansion then on top of answering how the Europeans would react to the Indo Greeks you would need to take into account how their interactions with a India never colonized by muslims and entirely under Hindu control would differ from OTL?

Anyone feeling autistic enough to throw their hat into the ring and give their ideas?

They turn their nose up at it and ignore it. That's basically how Western Eurotrash reacted to anything that wasn't Western (Catholic or Protestant) Christianity or White people that aren't from the same corner of the world as them (hence how the White Iranians, Sikhs, and many high-caste Indians are lumped in with "brown" people despite having Whiter features than half of Europe).

The Sikhs, Iranians, Mysore, and Madagascar are all valid candidates for pulling a Meiji (crash-course Westernization where they keep control of their country). Thailand escaped colonization like Japan did so maybe they are a candidate too.

Settings with pitched naval warfare on the Great Lakes (I don't know of any) or horse nomads on the Plains (requires horses introduced before the gunpowder era).

Indian Ocean being knit by the Dutch into a pleuricontinental maritime state. Peshawar Lancer's Angrezi Raj is an Anglo-Indian syncretic version of this, I say Dutch East Indies, Dutch Australia, Dutch Cape, and Indian trading posts combined, surviving, turning into a national identity linked by sea.

English Civil War was basically a French Revolution long before the French Revolution and I think this is obscured by it having failed and it having been theocratic. Surely it could have taken a more radical route (it DID have Bible thumper Jacobins in the form of people like Levelers) and turned into a mix of the Reformation and Napoleonic eras (revolutionary Puritan republicanism exporting itself at gunpoint, if not through outright invasion then arming enemies in cold war against Catholic Europe as revolutionary Islamic republicanism did in the modern Middle East).

Spanish/Portuguese or American conquistador army conquers Japan.

The Inca nearly wiped Pizarro off the map, having reduced him to one city on the coast at one point. Inca survival giving a (is this the plot of Guns of the Tawantinsuyu?).

In one of my alternate history settings I've written some lore (but no prose) for I have a Muskogee federation surviving as a British protectorate in which a castizo Muskogee overclass rules Irish convicts/refugee indentured servants and Black slaves on Deep South plantations. Also have American maroonage becoming a much larger problem to the extent that a Melungeon monarchy emerges in Appalachia.

Spanish Conspiracy succeeds in establishing a Spanish Anglophone protectorate in the Ohio River watershed.

Elephants are somehow released into the Tennessean wilderness in the distant past, a climate so suitable for them that it hosts an elephant preserve. They become a fixture of the landscape and play a role in colonial warfare. Other Old World animals ought to be able to thrive there (hippos function in Colombia, for example, surely they could in Louisiana).

 

[Mista House]

One of the biggest AH ideas I had for the longest time was what if Henry V of England managed to unite the English and French crowns into a single unified claim. Like would there be a United Kingdom of England and France? How would that affect Scotland which was always a French ally? Or even the knock-on effect that would happen to the War of the Spanish Succession years later.

its a tricky one but my guess is as follows:

If he does unite the nations then I would suspect Scotland and Ireland wouldve been brought into the fold much faster. Scotland relied on France both as an ally but also to distract expansionist England. Without that its possible they might have tried to find other alliances but its difficult to see anyone really giving a shit. Frengland or Englance becomes an economic powerhouse. A large population which dominates a large area of sea trade, has several highly profitable industries and a large army.

The issue is post unification does the country become centralised like England or decentralised like France. England was far more centralised than many other Medieval kingdoms and had been since the Anglo-Saxon period.

 

[DJ Grelle]

The Sikhs, Iranians, Mysore, and Madagascar are all valid candidates for pulling a Meiji (crash-course Westernization where they keep control of their country). Thailand escaped colonization like Japan did so maybe they are a candidate too.

Disagree regarding the Sikhs, Mysoreans and Madagascar, they do not have the literacy or bureaucratic backing to do a Meiji. Iranians maybe but that was already tried in the 16th and you've got the safavids out of that so kinda.


semi related
I really hate the "which other nations could industrialisation happen in" which is just a codeword for postcolonialist wanking from seething indians and their ilk.

NONE

The only, single exception might be wallonia as part of a greater france after a napoleonic victory.

Industrialisation (i.e. mass manufacture fueled by fossil fuels) (=! putting out system) requires the following things

- strong state to enforce patent laws (not a thing outside of western europe)
- physiocracy/agricultural supremacy being at least reined it if not sidelined in favor of manufacture/trade
- active fossil fuels already in use (the fire pumps of newcomen were first used in coal mines because coal was so abundant) Only Azerbaijan uses fossil fuels outside of north-western europe in the pre-industrial period
- capable iron working artisans capable of manufacturing airtight vessels
- interest in natural sciences to understand gases and the laws that govern them
- market demand large enough to necessitate the capital investment

britain in the 18th/19th century really was "the perfect storm". No other country in history even comes close.
No, Song china or Tipu's mysore were not on the cusp of an industrial revolution. Nor was the roman empire.
Asking "Could the industrial revolution start in X or Y country" implies centuries of historical changes.

They turn their nose up at it and ignore it. That's basically how Western Eurotrash reacted to anything that wasn't Western (Catholic or Protestant) Christianity or White people that aren't from the same corner of the world as them (hence how the White Iranians, Sikhs, and many high-caste Indians are lumped in with "brown" people despite having Whiter features than half of Europe).

This is wrong.
I've read plenty of primary sources of europeans coming into contact with foreigners and its nothing but gushing exoticism.
They had a bottomless interest for every single part of the world outside of them. Detailed drafts of the most repetitive and useless of labors exist just because europeans had a childlike naivety and interest in the world. Europeans were obsessed with what foreigners did and thought. F.e. one of the major works of the enlightenment are the "lettres persanes" by voltaire, which is a fictionalized visit of a persian prince satirizing the france midway the 18th century.
This is some arab or chinese chauvinism you're projecting on western europeans.

 

[Ughubughughughughughghlug]

This is wrong.
I've read plenty of primary sources of europeans coming into contact with foreigners and its nothing but gushing exoticism.
They had a bottomless interest for every single part of the world outside of them. Detailed drafts of the most repetitive and useless of labors exist just because europeans had a childlike naivety and interest in the world. Europeans were obsessed with what foreigners did and thought. F.e. one of the major works of the enlightenment are the "lettres persanes" by voltaire, which is a fictionalized visit of a persian prince satirizing the france midway the 18th century.
This is some arab or chinese chauvinism you're projecting on western europeans.

Maybe more of projecting the attitudes I see in most people nowadays towards non-Western history. I feel like the average person acts, talks, and thinks like the whole White and Christian worlds are confined to some place west of the Elbe and north of the Mediterranean.

Disagree regarding the Sikhs, Mysoreans and Madagascar, they do not have the literacy or bureaucratic backing to do a Meiji. Iranians maybe but that was already tried in the 16th and you've got the safavids out of that so kinda.

semi related
I really hate the "which other nations could industrialisation happen in" which is just a codeword for postcolonialist wanking from seething indians and their ilk.

NONE

The only, single exception might be wallonia as part of a greater france after a napoleonic victory.

Industrialisation (i.e. mass manufacture fueled by fossil fuels) (=! putting out system) requires the following things

- strong state to enforce patent laws (not a thing outside of western europe)
- physiocracy/agricultural supremacy being at least reined it if not sidelined in favor of manufacture/trade
- active fossil fuels already in use (the fire pumps of newcomen were first used in coal mines because coal was so abundant) Only Azerbaijan uses fossil fuels outside of north-western europe in the pre-industrial period
- capable iron working artisans capable of manufacturing airtight vessels
- interest in natural sciences to understand gases and the laws that govern them
- market demand large enough to necessitate the capital investment

britain in the 18th/19th century really was "the perfect storm". No other country in history even comes close.
No, Song china or Tipu's mysore were not on the cusp of an industrial revolution. Nor was the roman empire.
Asking "Could the industrial revolution start in X or Y country" implies centuries of historical changes.

I'm not talking a self-started one, but an imitation one. As I understand Japan did admittedly have a highly literate, highly urbanized society, but a somewhat crappy resource base (hence their desperation for colonial empire) and a need to copy other people. Same deal as China or the Soviets later industrializing by being mediocre copies of the West. They may not be as good of candidates, but the reason I mentioned those three was because I've heard of each of them making an attempt (in contrast to the rest of the world not bothering at all).

 

[DJ Grelle]

Maybe more of projecting the attitudes I see in most people nowadays towards non-Western history. I feel like the average person acts, talks, and thinks like the whole White and Christian worlds are confined to some place west of the Elbe and north of the Mediterranean.

This is true, modern historical eurocentrism is off the charts, and you can probably reduce it to whig history/ post enlightment "mission civilisatrice" type of stuff.
Fundamentally - despite all its screeching for diversity and inclusion - the modern western liberal is so smug in its own superiority that they do not even consider non-liberal (non-white) points of view as valid. (The postcolonialist school is an adoption of western whig thought/liberalism by non-whites and thus it takes a special places as it confirms the smug superiority of the AWFL).

Although specialized fields in historiography ignore that stuff. f.e. Late Antiquity as a periodisation for the early caliphate is the general consensus. If you look into the history of catholicism then the term ultramontanism will spring out in the 19th century. Translatio imperii has been studied as used by Charles V of Spain in his role as king of the aztecs and inheritor of montezuma's mantle.

The world has always been far more interconnected than people think, and western europe has been a backwater for most of earths history.

I'm not talking a self-started one, but an imitation one. As I understand Japan did admittedly have a highly literate, highly urbanized society, but a somewhat crappy resource base (hence their desperation for colonial empire) and a need to copy other people. Same deal as China or the Soviets later industrializing by being mediocre copies of the West. They may not be as good of candidates, but the reason I mentioned those three was because I've heard of each of them making an attempt (in contrast to the rest of the world not bothering at all).

Japan's desire of a colonial empire was more of an attempt to imitate the western powers in a desperate attempt at not getting colonized themselves.
Imitation industries are still rather difficult, you need competent artisans/workmanship to copy stuff.

For example, this is 18th century southern indian ironworks:

This was the european equivalent in that period.

Do you really think the Mysoreans will be building steam engines with purely manual labor?

In "the Anarchy" by William Dalrymple (edit: good book, worth the read), it is noted how an Indian aide to the french commander of the Indies recognizes that the french need less than a few thousand men and twenty pieces of artillery to conquer the subcontinent. Such is the difference in organisation, military tech and discipline.
People underestimate how hard it is to copy stuff, how difficult it is to close the gap. China started their attempt in the late 19th century and they've barely reached par with the west.
The so called great divergence (in technology but also in other stuff like politics) is so incredibly massive that it can be barely comprehended. It also started far earlier than commonly thought. Active use of machinery (although mainly wood and leather stuff) can be traced to the 16th century in W. Europe.

Earlier in my post I've ragged on "whig history" but it is kind of understandable in a sense. The west just skullfucks the rest of the world tech-wise.

 

[Ishtar]

Time portals like in Chrono Trigger?

How would that work though? Wormholes that exist on Earth but are now closed because the Earth is more stable?

My mom told me a story when I was a kid. I'm not sure where she heard it. It was about a woman who was hiking with friends in the desert. She walked behind a big cactus and didn't reappear on the other side. Everyone thought she was hiding behind the cactus as a joke. But they never saw her again. She just disappeared. This is likely something similar to the story of the man who fell forever. i.e. a guy jumps from a lighthouse and never reaches the ground or is heard from again.

Urban legend type stuff meant to scare kids. Don't joke around in dangerous places. But if you can just go "poof" I'd love to find out what the scientific explanation is.

Spatial portals.

For example, you are a Mesopotamian peasant and walk through a space between two bushes, you end up in Australia near modern Sydney.

You could call them intra terran wormholes, idk. Basically, it allows people, animals and flora to intravenously traverse continents (or just a few miles). I imagine hundreds of thousands to around 100 million of these portals scattered around the globe, all with single destinations on the other side. Basically, they connect two separate areas or points in space, on earth. One might connect a place in Eastern North America and one in Central Asia, another near Rome and the Antarctic, and so on.

This would lead to a lot of interesting cultural and political effects. The very idea of human states and societies as we understand them would no longer be applicable. As empires could project power through portals, across continents. Flora and fauna could traverse the globe, before globalization, microbes from India end up in Ireland, and animal life from pacific islands ends up in the Sinai desert.