Hi good people,

Been thinking about what would have happened if Germany continued it's economic and military deals/assistance with Chiang Kai-Shek after the Japanese invaded in 1937.

I was hoping some of you experts here could layout some possible scenario's.

If you can only see this happening - for example - with no Anti Commintern pact of 1936, or a reduced role for Joachim von Ribbentrop in foreign policy with China, thats all good. I would like to know how this would realisitcly work and what the effect would be.

so they were industrialising slowly but them helping serbia and fighting with meat waves showed they were incompetent and was the accelerant for the soviets to rise. there was still discontent for thr tsar.

so what if seeing the brewing discontent the tsar and/or the duma stopped them from joining ww1 shafting serbia?

Let us suppose that Alexander of Greece is not bitten by a monkey and, consequently, does not die.

Would he have managed to retain the throne? Would the fact that he was married to an ethnic Greek woman have made the House of Glücksburg more popular in Greece?

I encourage you to analyze both scenarios, both the one in which he retains the throne and the one in which he does not, but I think it is more interesting if his brother Constantine does not regain the throne and Alexander is only replaced by a republican/military government.

Been brainstorming a way where ww2 shakes out with USA and IJA essentially swapping sides. USA joining axis isn't that difficult, there was existing tensions with UK in the late 20s early 30s including war plans being drawn up by both sides, their racist laws inspired the Nazis and could have drawn the two sides ideologically close, just need FDR to not win and be replaced by someone like Lindbergh. War breaks out, Britain tries to embargo Germany, US shipping interdicted leading to a ww1 style entry into the war. USA invades Canada and likely Mexico and its navy clashes with the UK.

Having Imperial Japan join the Allies is more difficult. Maybe Germany keeps a pro-China policy, and the British are able to maintain better relations with the Japanese and eventually induce them to launch their OTL offensive campaigns against a distracted America with a weaker navy and an ongoing ground campaign on two fronts in north America? The idea of a potential Soviet-Japanese alliance is really interesting as well. I have a lot of ideas about what happens after divergence but I'm just struggling to put Japan in the Allied camp right now. Not super worried about hyper realism as long as things are somewhat plausible its good enough.

I've heard that one of Hitler's greatest fears was poor morale from a failiure to produce enough food and consumer goods for the country resulting in revolts. Let's say that following the failiure of Stalingrad in late 1942, it gets to be too much as the people are disillusioned from the previous promises of prosperity. Riots begin across Europe as the Nazis lose even the illusion of public acceptance. It all comes to a head with Hitler's assassination in early 1943. However, with the public now critical of any military occupation seizing control of the country proves harder than the July 20 Plotters of OTL had expected and arms factories across urban centers are raided to supply communist militas and republican resistances. With no allied beachhead in Continental Europe yet, what happens? Would the Soviets take advantage of the confusion to draw the iron curtain even further than OTL? Would the allies be forced to accept the conditional surrender they never wanted?

The fuhrer is magically gifted a modern laptop with dozens of filled powerbanks and charging cords for his birthday (20th April). The laptops only functionality is to run ChatGPT. The Ai has access to all modern technology, discoveries, and events.

Historically, none of the eponymous Three Kingdoms won the century-long war after the collapse of the Han Dynasty. Shu Han was conquered by Wei in 263, and then Sima Yan overthrew the Wei Emperor in 266 to form the Jin Dynasty. He then invaded and conquered Wu in 280, uniting the land under the short-lived Jin Dynasty.

My question is what if Shu Han (often viewed as the good guys thanks to Romance of the Three Kingdoms and the Dynasty Warriors video game series) had managed to defeat its enemy Wei and unite the land? The most likely POD I can think of is that its ally Wu doesn't betray Guan Yu at Fancheng, allowing Guan Yu's forces to meet up with the Shu Army from Hanzhong and attack the Wei capital, Luoyang, defeating Wei. Shu Han branded itself as a continuation of the Han Dynasty, so I could see Liu Bei restoring the Han Emperor to the throne as a figurehead while performing the actual governance himself.

However, the real question is how long unification under Shu would have lasted. Liu Bei died in 223, and his son, Liu Shan, was infamously incompetent and possibly mentally disabled. An incompetent ruler would have led to instability, as was historically the case with Sima Yan's son Sima Zhong. Not to mention the Sun family might have tried to seize an opportunity to wrest control of the land away from the Liu Family, especially if someone like Sun Hao still became the head of the Sun Clan.

The last version got derailed by a comment that seemed to criticize a historical oversight rather than engaging with the challenge itself.

Your objective: Create a plausible alternate-history scenario in which Turkey becomes involved in a conventional war against at least one of the following countries:

**Primary eligible countries:**
1. Georgia
2. Armenia
3. Greece
4. Iran
5. Syria (I understand that Turkey fought in Syria in our timeline-the point of the challenge is to create a timeline that leads to a war where Turkey fights MULTIPLE countries ALONGSIDE Syria and Iraq)
6. Iraq (See clarification regarding Syria)
7. Any country ending in “-stan,” including Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan, Afghanistan, and Pakistan (They do not have to share a land border with Turkey).

**Rules:**

**Historical timeframe:** The point of divergence must occur between 1991 and 2006, while complying with the subreddit’s 20-year rule.

**No nuclear weapons:** Conventional warfare only.

**Historical plausibility:** Explain what political, diplomatic, territorial, or military developments cause the war.

**Multiple belligerents permitted:** Turkey may fight one country or several countries simultaneously.

**Consequences:** Feel free to explore how the war develops and what its outcome means for the surrounding region.

**Timeframe**: In light of the sub’s rules against scenarios that take place within the last 20 years, your scenario has to happen between the years 1991 (The year the USSR fell) and 2006 (2006 is the cutoff point).

The challenge is to construct a plausible chain of events leading to war, not simply to declare that two countries suddenly start fighting.

I'm a bit of a true crime junkie. I am particularly obsessed with anything to do with serial killers.

After watching Criminal Minds for most of my late teens, I acquired an interest in the psychology around serial killers or killers in general. Sometimes, I see a famous case on the news and I'm remembering something I learned from that show.

Yes, I know that Criminal Minds changes stuff for TV, but I feel like some of the underlying psychology it utilizes has some basis in reality.

Some of that psychology came from the efforts of the FBI's Behavioral Science Unit, whose members interviewed some of the worst serial killers in American history, namely Edmund Kemper, Ted Bundy, among others.

With that being said, I would like to know how modern criminology would've developed if these individuals never became murderers. Would certain investigative techniques have emerged later or would other offenders and their cases fill in the gaps?

Aside from the standard hypothetical, I also want to ask about an ethical dilemma it brings up.

If studying these crimes eventually helped investigators prevent other murders, does that change how we should evaluate the historical consequences of the original crimes? What I mean to ask is how should we relate the suffering of their victims to the progress that came afterwards? Obviously, nothing can justify horrific murders, but I wonder whether it's possible to acknowledge the contributions these cases made to criminology without inadvertently treating the victims' suffering as a necessary sacrifice for scientific progress.

Unlike most alternate history challenges where you're asked to find a way for the Confederates to win the Civil War, this one is different.

I'm not asking for a scenario where the Confederates win.

I'm asking for a plausible series of events where the Civil War ends with the United States being balkanized, triggering a North American version of China and Japan's Warring States Period.

during the treaty of sevres the empire or the eventual ussr instead of supporting attaturk went for weat armenia and incoperated it into the empire or armenian ssr?

Is Yuan Shikai's empire something that would, if it had lasted, reflect a continuation of the traditional Chinese Imperial system, or would it be considered a completely separate institution?

instead of tsar nicholas creating the duma as a hollow institution it had actual teeth and was able to make the tsar and the romanovs constitutional monarchs.

so what if the prvisional governemnt suceeded in empowering the duma and implementing the reforms?

Let's say Hans Oster, Helmuth James von Moltke, Erich Weinert, Walther von Seydlitz, Friedrich Olbricht, Friedrich Fromm, Rudolf von Gersdorff and Henning von Tresckow successfully organize a resistance movement with a guerrilla army powerful enough to challenge the Nazi regime, beginning in November 1941.

What would they need to do to topple the government by June 1943?

What would have happened if Boris Yeltsin had actually dissolved the State Duma and postponed the 1996 election by two years? Would Putin still be put in power? Would a Communist (Zyuganov most likely) have then won the next election, or would have Yeltsin banned the Communist party? I am reading a great books about the oligarchs in Russia and was shocked how close this was to happening. Thanks!

I just listened to a podcast with the same title and I found it very interesting. I’d like to know your thoughts on that.