Let's assume Adolf Hitler dies in early 1939, months before the planned invasion of Poland.

With Hitler gone, the Nazi regime doesn't instantly collapse. Instead, leadership falls to a more pragmatic figure like Hermann Göring, who historically feared a premature global war with Britain and France and preferred diplomatic manipulation. (For this scenario, let's assume he successfully sidelines or compromises with Himmler and Goebbels to avoid an immediate internal civil war).

How does the timeline shift? I'm particularly interested in how the state evolves under him and whether it could have survived past 1945. Here are a few thoughts to consider:

• The Avoidance of WWII in 1939: Does Göring halt the planned invasion of Poland to use intense diplomatic pressure instead? If he secures Danzig peacefully, do Neville Chamberlain and France accept it out of relief, extending the era of appeasement and preventing a global war in 1939?
• The Nazi State Under Göring: Göring was famously corrupt, a lover of luxury, and less bound by Hitler's rigid ideological fanaticism. Does the Nazi state transform from an apocalyptic, ideologically driven war machine into a highly corrupt, militaristic corporate-state? How does Germany manage its massive economic debts without plundering conquered nations?
• Survival Past 1945: Without the catastrophic military defeats of a two-front world war, does the Nazi regime successfully survive past 1945? If it retains control over Austria, the Sudetenland, and the Czech territories, does it become a permanent, entrenched superpower in Central Europe?
• The Soviet Wildcard: Hitler's ultimate goal was destroying the USSR, but Göring didn't share that obsession. If Germany avoids an early war, does Stalin use the 1940s to completely rebuild and modernize the Red Army after his purges, eventually making the USSR an aggressive, unstoppable superpower that threatens Germany anyway?

What does Europe look like by 1950 in this timeline? Looking forward to hearing your thoughts!

So I was listening to Drachinifel recently and he was talking about the Abyssinia crisis where a large amount of the royal navy gathered at Alexandria in readiness to attack the Italians. Let’s assume that does turn hot and British and Italians go to war with each other(let’s assume Britain tells Italy to back down and they don’t) let’s also assume Hitler in one his well known impulsive moves declares war on the Uk to help his ally. And France’s gets involved on the UK’s side.

How do you think it’ll go?

I am reading the 9/11 commission book now and they stated that, in their own definitions, "Hijackings" were never intended to be airliners serving as missiles. They assumed the aircraft would land at the airport to have their demands met.

Same goes for NORAD. Most of the anticipated threats were meant to be from outside the US, such as Russian bombers, much less internal.

I say this because there are just some scenarios we weren't prepared for. Some of which that weren't even hypothesized. What would the call be for an F-15 that had a lock on any one of these aircraft that were hijacked on that fateful day?

Lastly - Whether or not this is anecdotal, I do not know, is it true that neither of the 19 terrorists even understood how to LAND the plane? Doesn't that rule out safely returning to an airport?

In this timeline, China and the USSR are so angry at Kim Il-Sung for purging pro-Soviet and pro-Chinese allies in his own regime that both the USSR and China jointly invade North Korea to remove Kim Il-Sung.

How might things change for North Korea as a result?

Think about it

Imagine that in 1922, the White movement with her Army win against the Bolsheviks and all the other Reds, taking back power. How would the world look like? Since there was no USSR, would there have been all of the events that it did? Of course, WWII would have happened still, but different. However as soon as the war is won like in this case it would have been hell. The millions dead, the starvations and lootings, many foreign troops still trapped as they desire to leave but have to to stay for now to "help stabilise". It wouldn't be easy. Who would act as a leader? Kolchak? Wrangel? Denikin? Krasnov? von Ungern-Sternberg? Brusilov? Kornilov? Perhaps one of them in charge until a government could be elected, or them in charge until a new Tsar could be crowned. Yes, who would have been new Tsar? G.D Kiril Vladimirovich, or maybe G.D Aleksander Mikhailovich? A White Russia in the world of 1922 would have to recover like the USSR did, industralising and so on. It would have been difficult, but not impossible. So, what if the Whites DID win the War?

Would it have helped legitimize the party as a proper political force (considering that he was already an established politician), or would it have totally screwed it over in the election? I don't really expect that he would do better than Perot, but I feel it may have provided a more consistent ideological baseline... but I could be wrong.

Would it have accelerated the party's decline, or would a different presidential candidate beating Perot in a competitive primary make the Reform Party even more "mainstream" going into that election?

Perhaps the most important development in all of human history was the transition from a hunter-gatherer to an agrarian (and eventually industrial) society. How would humanity be different if this change had never occurred? Would we still have prehistoric technology 12,000 years later, or would technology evolve in different ways? Would the environment be better off? I've also heard the assertion that racism and the patriarchy emerged because the transition to agriculture led to the establishment of private property. Would "isms" as we know them exist today in some form?

When FDR was elected to a third term of office in the 1940 presidential election, no one in the US ever imagined that he would die of a cerebral hemorrhage five years later.

The American Catholic priest Charles Coughlin reacted to Adolf Hitler's invasion of the USSR by issuing a radio broadcast hailing the invasion as "the first strike in the holy war on communism" and accusing Jews of having dragged the US and UK into war with Nazi Germany.

Given that Coughlin was a far-right Catholic priest who not only defended Hitler's invasion of the Soviet Union but was also anti-Semitic, what would the bilateral relationship of the US with the Axis Powers have been like if he had run for the Democratic presidential primary in the 1940 presidential election and gone to win the 1940 election?

What if Adolf Hitler was an Austrian nationalist instead of a German one

They held onto it for weeks allowing the Lusitania to get torpedo'd and drawing the U.S. into the war. What if they gave it up immediately or held onto it indefinitely? Would the sinking have been prevented and further U.S. involvement? Would it have changed the course of the war?

It is well documented how Indian army’s 1st para regiment conducted a daring and brilliant flanking maneuver, climbing the near vertical cliff in dead of night under rains and muddy conditions, to win this highly strategic point for Indian Army. Yet under Soviet pressure Indian PM Shastri give back the pass under the Tashkent agreement.

What would the history of Kashmir valley, the proxies infiltration and relationship between India and Pakistan have been if this was not given back?

For those who don’t know, this is one of the major passes that connects to hills of Pakistan’s Kashmir region to the actually Kashmir valley and historically has been a very difficult sector for Indian army to plug (the uri sector). It also cuts Uri and Poonch and makes the travel between two Indian areas long and difficult

What if the labor and progressive movements at the turn of the century were defeated? The US government continued to crack down on strikes and no form of anti-trust laws developed, with corporate interests continuing to dominate. How do you think this would've impacted American history? Was reform inevitable? Would reactions have been more violent, even revolutionary?

Northern Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio

Hi!

After reading Hitler's American Model, I've wondered how the confederacy in general impacted WWII. The book shows how Nazis were inspired by Jim Crow laws while creating their Nuremberg laws.

If the United States had made a larger and more successful effort to end the confederate ideals after the Civil War, how do you think that would have impacted the success of Nazism in Germany, and WWIl as a result?

I don't know that Nazis would have been as bold in creating the Nuremberg laws if they didn't have the United States to point to as a success in segregation.

Jimmy Carter was a notoriously hapless president, picking stupid fights with a hugely Democratic congress, micromanaging his government, having his inaction/bad choices cause the Iranian Revolution and other issues...

The country's situation between 1977-1980 was awful and something of a poison chalice, but the blowout of 1980 was never unavoidable.

Had a more able Democrat with better political instincts and congress relations been elected in '76 (say, Walter Mondale or Ed Muskie), what would he have had to do to avoid the Reagan Revolution?

instead of serbia leading and creating yugoslavia it was croatia. what effect does this have on yugoslavia?

Hotel Lux was a hotel in Moscow where foreign Communist leaders who fled to Russia were held captive from the 1920s and into the 1950s. It existed from the time of the Communist revolution and was only disbanded with Stalin's death. The paranoid Soviets ruled with an iron fist also against their own, purging anyone who they deemed as unreliable.

What happened in Hotel Lux is still shrouded in mystery for the most part. All we know is that it was notorious and even "good" Communists had no chance of surviving and ended up in the Gulag. Others who survived Hotel Lux, like Western German SPD politician Herbert Wehner later kept insisting that their experiences there lead to them "breaking with Moscow".

Hotel Lux must have been a horrible experience, the question is just: Why exactly? It's apparent the inmates weren't treated badly, because this is what the Gulags were there for. It was also in Moscow right at the center of Communist power. Last but not least, we're talking about the future elites of Communist rule over Europe, and you better treat your apparatchiks well, or they may turn against you eventually.

It's also doubtful they were constantly surveilled for heretic thoughts, because there was no reason for such thoughts: The early Communist revolution was a desired project by everyone and everyone was well aware that such things go down with brutality. Both, their philosophical underpinnings as well as the memory of the French Revolution make it clear that when push comes to shove, you use raw violence and a lot of it. Last but not least most Communists experienced WW1 in one way or another and were accordingly desensitized towards violence, especially against those who they saw as responsible of the carnage.

Therefore there must have been something else by which some cadres were deemed reliable and others haven't. This something else also must have been something so heinous that nobody would ever talk about it in public, even if they end up dissenting like Wehner, and which at the same time makes them loyal in a way that ascends over national, religious or other affiliations.

Communists don't see morality as guiding principle, but only power. They also see Western bourgeois society as the root of evil and therefore everything it stands for: Monogamy, church, chastity and the protection of the weak, while projecting their own power. As we know of Gramsci and Lukacs, the best poison against this is sex and a lot of it from a young age onward and with no limitations to whatever sexual desire someone has. Not only does this annihilate the ideals of bourgeois society, but is also an expression of total power: Nothing is more potent than immediate total sexual power over someone else.

This is why I believe the true selection filter applied in Hotel Lux was sexual deviancy. Those Communists cadres who engaged in it - homosexuality, bestiality, BDSM, rape, pedophilia - survived and were allowed to rise to power, whereas those who didn't like it, were deemed unreliable and had to go. The shared intense sexual gratification made sure the survivors had a common positive experience and made sure they had a shared secret, it also separated them forever from any kind of bourgeois lifestyle, filming everything made sure there was enough kompromat for dissenters and lastly, why would anyone care for anyone or another cause, when their deepest sexual desires would be fulfilled to the fullest extend whenever they wanted?

There can be no other conclusion than that Hotel Lux was funnel for sexual deviancy. While there is no direct evidence, there are various indications of the true (homo-)sexual nature of Communist leaders of the Communist world:

• The Socialist brother kiss
• Honecker and Castro holding hands on a (love?) boat
• Herbert Wehner marrying his step-daugther after the death of his wife

I'm not sure about Wehner's motives there, it was legal as both were adult and officially he did it to ensure her a good pension. But it's not too far away to speculate he may have been accustomed to the incest lifestyle himself too much. It's a known phenomenon that extremely close relationships emerge among family members when the barrier of incest has been broken.

What I still do see is that while Wehner and probably others did live a secret lifestyle of illegal sexual practices (especially during their vacations in Sweden), they may have retained their moral sense and knew about its toxicity for society at large. This lead them to break with the Comintern, whereas others like Chancellor Brandt lived it more or less openly, or even excelled in the utilizing of sexual kompromat for intelligence like Markus Wolf, who was more or less the Jeffrey Epstein of the Cold War.

What do you think, is this plausible and are there other indicators for Hotel Lux being a sex blackmail operation?

Let's say that the ming enter a relatively more peaceful era (perhaps everything went perfect for them?), making them able to go to america with some treasures fleet and after making the surrounding empires tributary states. How advanced would the big americans civilizations (incas, mexicas/aztecs and mayans) get if they got gunpowder, iron metallurgy, paper and horses with them? Would they be able to stop the europeans from colonizing them? (Considering that most of the deaths from disease was because of mistreatmet and bad health conditions rather than the natives being weak to them)

If Italy followed its treaty with Germany, and joined the war on its side (hoping for major benefits, if France falls quickly, etc), how much it would have changed course of WW1?

This question kind of points out the obvious: that Islam is one of the biggest religions in the world right after Christianity.

What I would like to ask: If Islam were the world's primary major religion and Buddhism were the world's second major religion. What would have to happen for that to be the case, and what would the consequences be? What would history look like?

What would’ve happened ?

On September 12, 1996, 21 year old Uruguay/American man by the name of Ricardo Lòpez had a mailed a letter bomb, rigged with sulfuric acid, to Björk's residence in London after finding out she would never date him, due to her relationship with rapper Goldie. After sending the letter bomb, he took his own life so he wouldn't get arrested for the crime. But in September 15, 1996, the police had investigated his apartment to find out what happened and found out about the letter bomb, and we're able to stop it. But what if this didn't happen? What if instead, Ricardo had either postponed his suicide or if the police decided not to investigate his apartment until it was to late? Had Ricardo Lòpez successfully killed Björk how would it effect pop culture, how would the music scene change, what would be of Björk's legacy, and would it have any effect on the music scene during the rest of the 90's, and going into the 21st century?

Apparently someone still managed to get the challenge wrong so here it is again:

Your objective is to Take a real OTL Germanic tribe from this list of tribes and plausibly turn it into the conqueror of a substantial part of Asia.

Rules:

1. Your chosen tribe must be historically attested.
2. The tribe must remain recognizably Germanic when the expansion begins.
3. Your POD must happen between 300 to 600 AD, during the Great Migration. Any POD after 600 AD is disqualified.
4. You may alter the tribe’s historical migration.
5. No supernatural or outright impossible advantages.
6. Butterflies are allowed
7. The Germanic tribe must do the conquering.
8. Alliances, subject peoples, mercenaries, and assimilation are allowed.
9. They must conquer a major Asian region or several substantial historical kingdoms, continent.
They do NOT have to conquer all of Asia!
10. No deadline unless you specifically want one.
I’d actually leave the chronology wide open. Antiquity and the Migration Period provide obvious opportunities, but somebody might devise a bizarre yet convincing medieval survival scenario.
11. Bonus points for obscure tribes.
12. Your chosen Germanic tribe (or a clearly recognizable state/civilization descended from it) must itself conquer and establish an empire in Asia in your alternate timeline. You cannot use a later, substantially different civilization merely because Germanic peoples contributed to its origins. Thus, “Norse founded the Rus → Russia eventually conquered Siberia” does not count (This was what caused the confusion last time-hopefully this helps). I am looking for an alternate-history conquest**, NOT** an OTL chain of historical succession
13. Optional objectives: take an obscure tribe; and have them DESTROY THE HUNS or the Mongols