Alternate History Thread

I know there are a few alternate history sites around the web, but i’d like to create a specific thread for it on DB, considering all the people i know and all the people who may be interested in the subject that i can coax in.  
So, i’ll describe this thread with two specific and intriguing words: what if. Then we apply these two words to past human history.  
Both starter speculations (“what if Hitler had won WWII?”) and more intricate speculations (“what if no revolts had occurred against byzantine emperor Basil II?”) are welcome.

@BadgingBadger
 
I’m down for that.
 
I gues i should star by asking what would have happened if the Prussia had been defeated in the Seven Years’ War, as it looked like it would happen until certain unexpected events stopped this from happening.

Just to clarify, i’ll advise on using some alternate history community slang:  
POD: Point Of Idvergence. The event that branches off our reality from the alternate reality you’re hypothesizing about.  
OTL: Our Time-Line. Means the world as we live in, the world as we know it.  
TTL: This Time-Line. Means the alternate world that you’re speculating about, which possesses a specific POD.  
ASB: Alien Space Bats. A snarky remark once made, which is now used to refer to absurd and improbable situations (such as Hitler managing to create an atom bomb arsenal during WWII, or the Zulus managing to defeat and annex all of the british empire)  
Handwaving: events that are hamfisted in for convenience, such as WWII happening in an alternate TL where Caesar is not assassinated.  
Wank: disregarding how funny the word is, it means a situation whereas a nation, country, ideology or political alliance gets paramount power in economy, military, territory, or influence. A scenario where Mexico retains its northern territories and annexes some in the caribbean while beating off US influence is called, for example, a Mexico-wank.

@Mildgyth  
Prussia had an insurmountable ammount of luck in the Seven Years’ War, it’s no wonder that its survival is called the “Miracle of the House of Brandenburg”. Had they been defeated, we’d see a partition of its territories between its overwhelmingly numerous enemies.  

 
East Prussia goes to Russia, with free access from Poland.  
Pomerania goes to Sweden.  
Silesia goes to Austria, as the austrians had lost the territory before and wanted it back badly.  
A rump Margraviate of Brandenburg remains, with shame on its face.  
Hanover may be occupied by Austria and France, though i’m unsure of its fate after Britain is defeated.
 
With Prussia out of the equation, France can concentrate its army into naval operations, shipping them over to fight in the north american theatre. This means a survival of french Louisiana and Canada. With the threat of french colonist invasion still relevant, the thriteen colonies don’t see their reparation-taxation as invalid, and consider seceding from the british empire as too risky. Thus, no US.  

 
Without the massive war reparations and economic depressions, the french revolution never happens, and french monarchism remains strong.

@BadgingBadger  
If there’s no French Revolution then is it possible that Napoleon fades into obscurity?

@neutralgrey  
Yes. It was the course of events in the french revolution that allowed Napoleon to rise through the ranks of the french army and, then, the french government.  
Napoleon’s career. It started with the Battle Of 18 Vendemiaire, where he commanded a small task force to take down a catholic reactionary guerrilla invading Paris. Despite being outnumbered, he succeeded, and impressed the french republican government. There’s a potential PoD – what if Napoleon had lost this battle? Would the french monarchy be restored by a more successful and uncontrolled Vendée Rebellion?  
After Paris, Napoleon went for Italy. After Italy, he was sent to Egypt in order to cut off the british from access to India through the Red Sea. While he failed at his main objective, he commanded his army so well there that he was cheered when he returned to France.  
After the 18 Brumaire coup in 1800, Napoleon became a dictator, then an emperor. After becoming emperor, he went on numerous impressive campaigns in Europe, and the rest is history.

With Hitler dying in WWI that leaves Germany alone to go through with this crisis of money burning and everything for the next couple of years.

How about a possible outcome from an uncertain event? Like: what if hitler had died in the Patagonia except than in his bunker? A city in the state of Cordoba received a huge influx of nazi “inmigrants”.

@igotnopicks  
We may see a socialist revolution break out during the Great Depression of 1929 if Hitler isn’t there as a secondary option.  
But even with Hitler alive, the socialists had a chance – i hear they were practically tied with the nazi party back in the 1932-1933 elections. Hitler’s rise was a result of the german magistrate’s incompetence and playing by his tricks.

@BadgingBadger
 
And of course, no Napoleon would also mean that the South American colonies probably wouldn’t have become independent when they did.

@Mildgyth
 
Napoleon was a huge influence. USA’s own independance helped push everyone too.

@Mildgyth  
When they did, at focus.  
Napoleon brought a puppet usurper to the spanish throne with him during the Peninsular War. While the spanish regime would certainly be more stable without a napoleonic invasion and with a legitimate monarch still on the spanish throne, the spanish colonial system was on countdown for collapse since the late 18th century. Not to mention the american-sponsored Monroe Doctrine.

@neutralgrey  
Not to mention that, without Napoleon, usage of the metric system would either stay in France or have less luck in spreading.

@BadgingBadger  
Plus all the reforms he enacted while emperor would never have existed, France may have been a very different place

@neutralgrey  
Yes, the napoleonic code was quite a milestone.  
It’s possible that, if the french directoire regime survived without an 18 brumaire coup, it would develop into a government that toes the republican line yet still leans to the conservative side – think the medieval Republic Of Venice, but larger, more vigorous, more stable, and more influential.

@BadgingBadger  
Huh, so what do you think this France would do when WW1 happens?

@neutralgrey  
Without Napoleon to instigate nationalism in the many peoples he liberated and pacified, there would probably be no united Germany and no united Italy. Both states were cluttered patchworks of independent duchies, republics, and kingdoms until they were unified due to waning austrian reactionary power. Thus, the european balance of powers wouldn’t be so modified as to cause an intricate system of alliances as shown in the period between 1871 and 1914, which would mean that WWI probably doesn’t happen.  
Even WWI was a result of Russian aspirations with Serbia, who was being harassed by Austria-Hungary. Had the russians not been so interested in pan-slavism, WWI as we know it could have never even happened, and Serbia could have been swallowed by Austria-Hungary without questioning.  
Could there be a similar system of alliances in a scenario where France remains under a girondin regime? Probably, but it’d be very different from OTL, in terms of involved nations and time periods.

@BadgingBadger  
You think there’d be smaller wars between the ununifed countries?

@neutralgrey  
Probably. Germany and Italy have almost always been battlegrounds in the period before their unifications, as each of the numerous statelets had its own ambitions and alliance preferences.  
In the Thirty Years’ War (1618-1648), for example, the divide was mostly catholic christian (south germany/bavaria, the palatinate, and the rhineland) versus protestant christian (Prussia, Brandenburg, Brunswick, Schleswig-Holstein, Thuringia), with some small exceptions.  
After religion was phased out of “legitimate excuse” status, alliances became more complicated and unpredictable. Just look at France’s allies in the Seven Years’ war – how was it possible for both Sweden and Russia, two countries with conflicting aspirations in the Baltic Sea and Poland, to end up fighting against a common enemy?

Back in WWII…  
The Dunkirk pocket was the last remaining biritsh military activity zone during the last stages of the Battle Of France (May-June 1940). Miraculously for the British Expeditionary Force, the nazi wehrmacht and luftwaffe were ordered (by command of Hitler) to halt, as the german high command was afraid of the belgian mud season hampering their tank advance. This allowed the hasty, yet effective, evacuation of 330.000 british troops from french soil, with the help of french defensive forces and british civilian ships repurposed by the rescue.  
 
But what if Hitler had felt bolder that day, and ordered the army to not stop and pursue the BEF? Of course the tanks would find difficulties due to mud, but every wasted second would be costly, and the luftwaffe could spot and harass the trapped british forces until the tanks could reach Dunkirk. The BEF, at most 200.000 troops of them, would be captured by the wehrmacht.  
Realizing that their soldiers’ lives would be in danger, the british parliament would probably force Churchill to resign and conclude peace with the nazis in exchange for their hostage troops. The nazis would probably loot some supplies from these captured soldiers.  
Without the need to maintain a costly atlantic wall or keep northern France occupied, Germany would be able to take on the Soviet Union one-on-one. Considering that they’d have more troops and supplies at their disposal, the nazis would gain the upper hand in the eastern front.  
I consider this to be the most likely scenario for an Axis victory, at least in Europe.  

@BadgingBadger  
I think a more likely scenario for an Axis victory is if the communist revolution failed and Stalin is either killed or leaves the country. With no Stalin there’d be no five year plan and Russia wouldn’t industrialize at a rapid rate thus they wouldn’t be able to churn out so many tanks and guns

Would WW2 still happen if Hitler died during WW1?

@ice1517  
Unless some other guy charismatic enough takes his place, probably not.

@ice1517  
Even if Hitler died during WW1, the world would still have to deal with Mussolini and Imperial Japan attacking China

@ice1517  
WWII was a direct product of Hitler’s preferrence to exploit his enemies aggressively instead of compactuating with them.  
Without Hitler, Germany does not go on a napoleonic-like conquest spree of multiple european countries.  
Without the invasion of France and the Netherlands, Indonesia and Indochina remain colonized throughout the 1940’s, and Japan is less willing to invade them for resources. Thus, the Second Sino-Japanese war remains confined to just what its name says.  
There’s even a possibility of an earlier WWII happening in 1938, if the Munich Agreement (which gave the Sudetenland to Hitler) was never signed, or if the Little Entente between Czechoslovakia (the target of said agreement), Yugoslavia and Romania remains united and threatens to go to war if Hitler invades the Sudetenland.