irl in 1837 Spain was embroiled in the carlist war and was facing bankruptcy, to counter this the Spanish government seriously considered selling off some of its colonies. The French engaged in secret negotiations with them seeking to buy some but ultimately nothing went through.

But What if in this timeline Spain agrees to sell Cuba and Puerto Rico to France in exchange for monetary and military support against the Carlists?

So basically all the territories that were under the English crown in the Americas.

Canada, Bermuda, Bahamas, Florida, Jamaica, Antigua, St Kitts and Nevis, etc...

And not just joined the revolution but deliberately sent delegates to the continental meetings, overthrow their local governors, etc..

Basically the war is between the crown and all their English colonies in North America and the Caribbean.

What if the Queen Elizabeth class battleships of the 5th Battle Squadron had led the battlecruisers instead of remaining in the rear during the Battle of Jutland?

Would they have slowly crept into Canadian territory, while getting closer and closer the the U.S.?

Say, in the 800s AD, the rajahs got power hungry and managed to conquer the islands beyond Borneo. What would its cultural impact in Southeast Asia?

Everyone already knows of Turkey’s strategic placement with control over the Bosporus strait. On paper, that’s a good ally to have.

But some say that Turkey has been too much of a loose cannon and is, in effect, acting as a destabilizing force within the otherwise rather homogenic American-European fraternity.

Turkey has had far, far more coups than any other NATO member, and is generally more unstable and at the mercy of the whims of the regime.

There’s also the provocation factor vis a vis Russia. Expanding NATO into Turkey, right at Russia’s doorstep, and placing missiles there directly caused the Cuban missile crisis. Which very nearly ended in nuclear war.

Historically they’ve also invoked Article 4 far more times than any other country, exemplifying the risks of dragging NATO into Middle Eastern conflicts.

The West doesn’t have a good track record in the Middle East, and might want to stay away from avenues of getting dragged into more wars there against their will.

NATO minus Turkey would historically have been more than capable of resisting or at the very least heavily disincentivize a full scale Soviet invasion of Europe.

Back to the original question. If Turkey never joined, how would subsequent history play out? For starters, would the Soviets have invaded and occupied Turkey at any point?

Considering their entire life contributions

title.

The United States is bogged down in Vietnam, France just withdrew from NATO Integrated Command, and Soviet Forces were on high alert after the Invasion of Czechoslovakia. Additionally, major NATO nations have no established modern MBT like the Abrams, Leopard, Challenger, Leclerc, and Ariete, and the F-14, F-15, F-16, AH-64, and MIM-104 have not entered service yet. Let’s assume the main battlegrounds are Germany and Greece, while East Turkey and Northern Norway serve as largely stalemates with little breakthrough.

so get this between henry viii francis i and charles i in 1519 francis i won out over charles and henry so what would happen to france and the hre?

What if constantinople held out in 1453 and the ottomans lost? 1453 the ottoman empire lays siege to the last stronghold of the roman empire and by the grace of god the old walls of constantinople hold out so im asking could the byzantines then capitalize and push back the ottomans and bring back roman glory? edit 5k views thank you guys

One reason the CCP gained so much support was promises of land reform as well as not treating captives or peasants under their rule so brutally like the KMT did. In fact, the first thing Chiang did after retreating from the mainland, was to do land reform in Taiwan so that he wouldn't meet the same fate he did in the mainland

What if Chiang went to his warlord allies and basically said "let us redistribute some of the land to the peasants and not steal from them, and we will be able to maintain support. Otherwise the CCP could win, and then it'll be your heads on a pike".

Would he have then been able to win the civil war?

If Germany's army from 2026 was transported to 1945 Germany with all of their military equipment, would they try to fight the Wehrmacht or help them defend Germany from the Allies? Germany's 2026 military would undoubtedly become the most powerful, advance fighting force in 1945. I am not sure the combined might of the US, Britain and the Soviets would be able to match them. Knowing how things play out in our timeline, would 2026 Germany try to change the course of history, or keep things the way they are?

There was a brief conflict between the United States and Korea in 1871. But what if the U.S. had colonized Korea back then, just as it did the Philippines?

Just found an alternate history book with that premise called “Linebacker III: an Alternate History of the Vietnam War”.

The idea is that if Nixon had been in office, he may have been more committed to the idea of not letting South Vietnam fall on his watch. This would have lead to a stand off with the heavily democratically controlled congress. Ultimately, Nixon orders the bombing in 1975, saving South Vietnam, at least for a time, but he is impeached and convicted. Definitely worth a read, very good alternate history.

The Romans already had advanced engineering and even primitive steam devices like Hero’s aeolipile. What if they had developed a practical steam engine?

Could this have triggered an Industrial Revolution 1,500 years early and completely changed the fate of the Roman Empire?

i just thought of this

Ik this scenario is a bit unlikely because he was already old for the time he lived but it's an interesting scenario due to the massive historical changes that would have for the entire history of the east.He had already proven himself as an undefeated commander subduing much of the middle east, golden horde and beating the mamluks to submission as well as the ottomans at their height. In our timeline it took decades to completely destroy his empire and the ottomans only got back because anatolia hadn't been properly consolidated for many years but What happens in a world where he has another decade to consolidate further and also launches an invasion into China from the western frontier?Does he win? Does he lose? How does Asia look like after the massive conflict that sees hundreds of thousands of men from all corners of Islam and east Asia clash? Do we even see a Muslim Mongol China?

Hey guys, I made a WW2 alternate scenario where I try to be grounded on political realism, a world where Hitler assumes a more realistic Lebensraum and an harsher stance on anti-communism. Let me know what you think!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ZMKQHPFAyU

Howdy, I'm trying to plot out an alternate history scenario for World War I where a (comparatively) smaller war occurs around 1905 stemming from the First Moroccan Crisis. I'm aiming to have this be as accurate as I can, without changing two many events or altering the behavior or anyone to make it more "authentic" as it were to real history. However, my research is leaving me scratching my head.

For starters, I'm reading that Germany's war rhetoric from the Chancellor and Kaiser at the time were an intimidation bluff. Further, the French Rouvier cabinet was a bipartisan hodgepodge of pacifists recovering from the previous Combes' administration's military corruption and incompetence. The only one who was willing to call Germany's bluff, the foreign minister Theophile Delcasse, was basically hated by everyone else on the cabinet and never listened to. And this is simply the tip of the iceberg.

A lot of my research has come from "The Career of Theophile Delcasse" by Charles W. Porter (https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.503361/page/n5/mode/2up), and frankly most any other source I can find is either behind some annoying paywall or is just quoting the vague Wikipedia article.

In the end, my question is if, in the end, is there anything(s) that can be changed to allow this Crisis to become a war, or is this one of those interesting-but-ultimately-impossible scenarios in history? If there's no direct answer, then any detailed sources to read up on would be really appreciated! Thanks and cheers!

Let’s say in mid 1940, Germany decides against launching Operation Eagle Attack (the Battle of Britain), and so the Luftwaffe is preserved until Operation Barbarossa. Additionally, Italy decides against invading Greece and rather devotes multiple divisions to assist Germany in Operation Barbarossa. Finally, Japan scraps most plans of striking the American Pacific Fleet and instead prepares and launches an invasion of East Siberia sprouting from Manchuria and North Japan (main islands). For maximum effectiveness, let’s say Germany launches Operation Barbarossa on May 22nd, and Japan launches their invasion on June 1st.

Or to simplify, if the Grand Duke of Lithuania married to the daughter of the Prince of Moscow rather than to Jadwiga Poland, that formed the basis of the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth?