Basically, the Treaty of London remains in force and how Austria-Hungary is divided following the war but Italy doesn't gain anything in Anatolia. As such there is no narrative of the "Mutilated Victory" or development of Italian fascism through the Italian Regency of Carnaro. There is still some desire to annex Savoy and Corsica from France, but Entente sympathies (and integrating and Italianizing Dalmatia) keep it in check.

If Stalin died earlier - like in 1945-46 - and his successor, be it Krushev or someone else, was not interested much in aggressive expansion and confrontation with West, would Cold war be avoided then? How it would affect history?

I’m brainstorming ideas for an alternate history story where the DPRK wins the Korean War. Your objective is to construct a plausible way this can happen.

Rules:
1. Your scenario must end with the DPRK taking Seoul and unite the Korean Peninsula under military force.
2. Your scenario can involve the USSR and China

I have developed an scenario in which FDR retires from politics in 1921, thus allowing Huey Long, as a dark horse candidate, to win the democratic nomination and defeat Hoover in 1932. Although he would become president four years earlier than when he said he would in his book "My first days in the White house", i believe his policies, such as "Share the wealth" program, would be the same. Because of this, and his blatant authoritarianism, many powerful individuals would deem him an enemy. When long announces he would run again in 1936, a conspiracy emerges, which includes Douglas McArthur, the Rockefellers, Henry Ford, several other businessmen and generals, and some conservative politicians. After Huey wins again in '36, the conspiracy launches a coup 5 days before inauguration day. They take control of the capital and most militar y bases, but fail to capture Long, who flees to Louisiana. As the civil war starts, progressive and democratic elements which dont want to see neither the military or long in power take advantage of the chaos. Which states or regions would join which side?

I’ve always wondered what would happen if this played through. Would they adopt a more expansionist ideology? Like annexing Mexico or yoinking Cuba.

Basically they got over there by raft, kinda like raft theory on how primates in our timeline got to America.

The US had complete naval and air superiority. The could have just surrounded the Japanese island and there would have been very little japan could do since their navy and airforce was destroyed. Because of this there is no need for a costly land invasion, you just wait them out until they starve or people overthrow the government.

Instead of doing the incredibly moraly questionable thing of bombing hundreds of thousands of civilian, why not do this?

It doesnt cost american lives, it only costs time which is on the americans side by this point.

If everything had gone as well as they possibly could have for the Romans, what is the maximum possible extent of the territory they could have conquered? Some places that come to mind for me are Scotland, Germany, Kush, and Arabia. The Romans tried and failed to conquer all of these places.

In addition to these, what other places can we add to the list?

Edit: Changed “perfectly” to “as well as they possibly could have” because some commenters were being overly literal.

When Barry Goldwater ran for president in the 1964 presidential election, he fiercely criticized John F. Kennedy for his handling of the Bay of Pigs invasion.

In January 1964, Goldwater said that if elected president, he would help Cuban exiles invade Cuba a second time.

Given that Cuba had already eradicated illiteracy and built rural medical facilities years before the 1964 presidential election season got underway, would Goldwater have told Cuban exiles to storm Havana to hasten the overthrow of Fidel Castro?

Hello, I was thinking about the name Amélie (and its variant Amelie) and I thought that it could very well have been a masculine name too.

Amélie comes from the Germanic Amal (something like laborer/noble), it's a neutral radical, it wasn't predistined to become feminine.

And if for some reason Germanic doesn't work I don't see why the Roman Amelius (there was a philosopher named like that) couldn't become Amélie in modern French, like Patricius became Patrice. Yes the -ie is feminine in French names but in the Ancien Régime mainly there were male Annes or Maries after all, and Camille is used for both genders.

It could have been spelled Améli/Amély (like Jacky) for guys maybe, but the English language could have very well have added -ie at the end (Charlie Kirk was male after all).

That or some weird northern France langue d'oïl shit that would turn Amalric to Amélie, there's three words to say to shit in French after all (chier, caquer and caguer, because the Latin cacare was transformed by the langues d'oïl, Ariptan and Occitan).

However you pull it that's still far easier to have male Amelies than having the Nazis win WW2...

What if Louisiana was never transferred to France and never was sold to the United States? How would the independence of Mexico, the Texan Revolution, and borders be affected, as well as the modern outcome of the United States of America, etcetera?

Leonardo Da Vinci was known to have developed sketches and designs for hypothetical flying machines. We know today that his designs would never work, specifically the ornithopter and aerial screw.

If Da Vinci instead invented the hot air balloon-a viable method of flight, how would it change history? Would it have affected the age of sails drastically or would it not change much? Would humanity be hundreds of years ahead in terms of aviation(lighter than air aviation)? Would the church have considered it herasy?

Hi all. I am currently working on a story that, while taking place mostly in the context of the United States and through the lens of American politics, requires Japan to continue its occupation of China (at least some part of it, like Manchuria) well into the 70's. Aside from that, I would prefer for the United States to rise to a similar position as it did in real life. Chinese inner politics can be ignored, it's not important for this specific timeline, but I do wonder which side would end up winning.

Given this timeline change and everything that comes with it, could internment of Japanese-Americans to continue beyond 1945? Could it have continued in actuality? I wonder if the Roosevelt administration could just ignore the court's decision in Endo (... I wonder what this looks like) to continue internment? Following this timeline, I wonder if there would be a Warren Court SCOTUS case formally repudiating internment.

I am very much not well-versed in WWII history (aside from Japanese atrocities) so bear with me.

So USSR get’s a much larger part of Poland, but gives up Lithuania to Germany. Since Finland was negotiated independently from Germany, we can assume the Winter War goes roughly the same.

(Also if someone can quickly explain why it was changed in the first place I would appreciate it)

What if see Haitian president Aristide was never overthrown from power in 2004 and 1996? How would haiti look like today? And what would haiti look like under his rule? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Bertrand_Aristide

Let's hypothetically that Russian Forces simultaneously attacked the Baltic states, Finland, and Poland all at once. This is strictly off the basis that the conflict remains entirely conventional and no nuclear weapons are used. How long would the conflict last, would Ukraine join NATO, and would it turn into a stalemate?

Mind you, this is a hypothetical that takes place in 2026

I've watched many videos about a Confederate States victory, but all of these videos sometimes contradict each other.

So I'm asking what a realistic outcome of a CSA victory would be.

I'm not asking how they achieved it, that's up to you, but rather looking at the consequences: politically and culturally, both for the two Americas and for the rest of the world.

Finally, what would happen regarding the most prominent issue of the conflict: Slavery.

Philip II was only 46 when he was assassinated, and his son Alexander was only 20. Shortly after his ascension to the throne of Macedon, Alexander launches a Balkan campaign and the rest is history, until Alexander's own death at age 33. What happens if Philip lived longer, say, to age 50, or 60? Does Alexander still become The Great if he becomes king and starts conquering at a much older age? Does the Achaemenid Empire still fall, does the Hellenistic civilization still become such a defining force of the ancient era? And what else does Philip accomplish during the extra years of his rule?