How would the Algerian war be different and what would happen after (or if) the FLN won? POD would be France Algeria industrializes Algeria and sends French southward to work in the heavy industry. This is triggered by oil is discovered in the 19th century The settlers soon outsource a large amount of manual labor onto the natives. France also collects Italian and Irish immigrants who are discriminated against by the French whites. What impact would the Algerian industrial plant have on WW2 and 1?How likely are the whites to form a South African style apartheid should the French leave and how would it go?

I have been thinking about this scenario and seeing at the Schlieffen Plan didnt work in real life, dragging Britain in and dragging the war out, what would happen if instead of Germany going through Belgium, they instead focused on Poland, Ukraine and the Baltics? Seeing as Russia was way weaker than the Central Powers initially expected, would not invading belgium keep Britain out of the war for good? And would Russia tap out sooner leading to an isolated France?

Since a Papal conclave is required to elect a new Pope which means dozens of cardinals worldwide would have to convene in Rome to elect the new Pope. This means hundreds of people (the cardinal electors and their staff), a great deal of whom come from countries hostile to the Axis powers, how would such an election have proceeded?

(but still with the same cast and crew, meaning Mark Hamill would be Paul, and Alec Guinness is Leto, for instance).

Would the purchase then have become the 5th province of the upcoming Canada (as part of the confederation) in the July, or would the region have continued as was?

What if they didn't get wiped by the storm and they sucedded in invading Japan and now Japan follow the Mongol religion will this make any difference in the compain in the west in invading Iraq or Anatolia

I'm particularly interested as he was trying to decrease the autonomy of provincial nobles, establish a national ethiopian military, empower the monarchy, reform the Ethiopian Orthodox church & enforce a centralized form of taxation, but this was cut short by his suicide after being defeated by a british expedition in 1868. But what if, he had been some military genius who was able to beat the british, or was wiser and didn't keep those missionaries hostage? I think he would have pushed through with his centralizing reforms and possibly even have established an absolute monarchy.

I know, it’s not realistic at all, but how will it affect the 2016 election! (Sorry, this technically breaks the 10 years rule by 2 months)

Hi. For an alt history thing I’m writing. What’s the simplest historical change that would accomplish that, as a point of divergence from our timeline? Really appreciate the thoughts and context!

Bayezid II is usually said to have banned printing in Arabic script around 1485, and the first Ottoman press in Turkish didn’t open until Müteferrika got permission in 1727. It printed 17 books and closed. The Jewish community in Istanbul had a Hebrew press running by 1493, so the technology was there.

I know the ban was probably less formal than it sounds. The calligraphers had a strong guild, the ulema didn’t want printed Qurans, and Arabic script was hard to typeset. But suppose Bayezid backed a press anyway and there was a working one in Istanbul by 1500.

A few things I’m wondering:

Does it change the long term gap with Europe? I doubt it. Plenty of places had presses and still got colonized.

The bigger effect might be internal. Luther’s pamphlets are what made the Reformation spread. If Sufi orders or Shia preachers coming out of Safavid Persia can print in bulk, the sultan probably loses control of religious debate a lot sooner.

And scientific advancement. Ottoman astronomers were still working in the Tusi tradition that Copernicus apparently drew on. If Copernicus is printed in Arabic in Istanbul by the 1550s, does the Islamic world stay in that conversation?
Interested to hear from anyone who knows the Ottoman side better than I do.

Edit: It’s about general implications of rcv on society. So in USA case it’s not just magically implemented for 1860 election. Let’s assume it’s there from beginning or 1800 or something.

Would China still have a huge share of green energy technology? Would wars be fought over certain metals?

What if haniball didn't screw around and goes directly to sac Rome instead of wandering 15 years in Europe

Let's suppose he accelerated his journey and arrived to Rome in 5 year with a massive army and sucedsfouly defeated Rome ending the 2 Punic war

Got bored at work and starting thinking about all these moments in history and what if they didn’t happen; so what would be your biggest/more curious “what if” moment ?

Would the states have got in, if they knew they couldn't get out? The Raw Truth.

The direct answer is no, most historians agree that many, if not all, of the original thirteen states would never have ratified the U.S. Constitution if they believed they were permanently trapping themselves in an unbreakable union.

The Raw Truth of 1787–1789 Sovereignty was paramount: The states had just fought a war to escape a distant, centralized authority (the British Crown) and viewed themselves as independent, sovereign republics.

The Union was an experiment: The Constitution was seen as a compact or a treaty between sovereign entities, not a permanent mystical bond.

Conditional entry: States like Virginia, New York, and Rhode Island explicitly included clauses in their ratification documents asserting that the powers delegated to the federal government could be withdrawn or resumed if they were perverted or abused.

Fear of tyranny: Anti-Federalists fiercely opposed the Constitution because they feared a powerful federal government.

If the Federalists had told them, "Once you sign this, you can never leave, no matter how tyrannical it becomes," ratification would have been utterly dead on arrival.

Why They "Got In" Anyway Mutual survival: The states were broke, vulnerable to foreign invasion (Britain, Spain, France), and experiencing internal economic chaos under the Articles of Confederation.

The right of revolution: The Founders believed in the inherent right to alter or abolish a government that became destructive (as stated in the Declaration of Independence).

They did not worry about a specific "secession clause" because they believed the ultimate right to resist tyranny was implied.

The Great Shift The idea that the Union was completely indivisible only became the dominant legal and political reality after the Civil War. It was decided by force of arms in 1865, and later codified into law by the Supreme Court in the 1869 case Texas v. White, which ruled that the United States is "an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States.

"In 1787, however, the structure was viewed as a voluntary partnership. Had it been framed as a permanent trap, the United States likely would never have formed.

North laid the foundation for JIM CROW

Northern "Black Laws" were restrictive state and territorial statutes passed across the antebellum North and Midwest to limit the civil rights, movement, and economic opportunities of free African Americans.

The Reality of Northern Black LawsExclusion and Residency:

States like Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and Iowa passed laws requiring incoming free Black individuals to pay heavy financial bonds (often $500 or more) as a guarantee of good behavior and self-support, or face deportation.

Oregon enacted complete exclusion laws banning Black people from residing, owning property, or entering the territory entirely.

Denial of Basic Rights: Even though northern states gradually emancipated enslaved people, their Black laws explicitly denied African Americans the right to vote, serve on juries, or testify against white citizens in court, leaving them vulnerable to exploitation and violence.

Segregation and Public Access: Legal and systemic segregation governed public spaces, transportation, and education, mirroring the racial caste system long before Jim Crow solidified in the post-Civil War South.

Distinction from Southern Black Codes:

While post-Civil War Southern Black Codes were designed to force emancipated freedmen back into a cheap plantation labor supply,

Northern Black Laws developed decades earlier to discourage free Black migration and maintain white supremacy in free states.

Section 4 of the Fourteenth Amendment legally signed away any right to financial compensation for the emancipation of enslaved people, effectively stripping former Confederate slaveholders / Farmers of an estimated $2 billion to $4 billion in human "property" value. That is $94.06 billion in todays money.

Perpetual debt peonage is a system where a person is forced to work to pay off a debt that can never be fully repaid.

Core Mechanics Manipulated balance: Creditors inflate debts by adding unfair interest, fees, and living expenses.

Stolen labor: Workers must labor for the creditor to pay down the balance.

Low wages: Earnings are kept lower than the cost of living.

Growing debt: The total amount owed increases over time instead of decreasing.

Trapped status: The debtor can never legally or financially escape the arrangement.

Historical Examples

Sharecropping: Post-Civil War US landowners trapped Black farmers using high supply costs.

Company towns: Employers paid workers in "scrip" valid only at overpriced company stores.

After the Civil War, the economics of slavery did not disappear; instead, they were legally and systemically transferred into a loop of re-enslavement and economic exploitation via sharecropping, debt peonage, and convict leasing.Southern planters and state governments leveraged an explicit loophole in the 13th Amendment—which abolished slavery "except as a punishment for crime where of the party shall have been duly convicted"—to rebuild the Southern economy using forced

Black labor. [ Antebellum Slavery ]

│

┌──────────┴──────────┐

▼ ▼

[ Convict Leasing ] [ Sharecropping & Peonage ]

(Forced Labor via (Systemic Debt via Land

Criminalization) and Credit Monopolies)

The economic transfer operated through three primary mechanisms:

1. Convict Leasing (Slavery by Another Name)Southern states passed Black Codes to criminalize ordinary behaviors like "vagrancy" (being unemployed) or changing jobs without permission.

“After the Civil War, Black Codes and other discriminatory laws made it easy for local officials to arrest African Americans... Convict leasing, in which state-controlled prisoners were leased to private employers, substituted for slavery...” -- [National Museum of African American History & Culture].

The Economic Transfer: Private corporations, railroads, mines, and planters paid the state a fee to lease these prisoners. The state generated massive revenue while businesses secured completely free, disposable labor. Because the employers did not "own" the workers as capital investments, mortality rates inside convict camps were frequently higher than they had been under chattel slavery.

1. Sharecropping and the Crop-Lien SystemBecause the federal government refused to redistribute plantation land to freed people ("40 acres and a mule" was canceled), Black families were forced back onto white-owned plantations.

The Economic Transfer: Landowners provided a plot of land, seeds, and tools on credit in exchange for a massive share of the year's harvest. Local merchants, often working hand-in-hand with landowners, charged exorbitant interest rates for basic necessities like food and clothing.

1. Debt PeonageThe Economic Transfer: At the end of the harvest, landowners manipulated the ledger books to ensure the sharecropper's crop value never quite covered their accumulated debt.“Black sharecroppers often went into debt to the planters...

This debt often accumulated, trapping many Black sharecroppers on the land and under the authority of white planters..

.Southern states enacted laws making it a criminal offense to leave a plantation while owing a debt, effectively turning financial manipulation into a legal anchor that locked generations of families to the same soil.

Economic Comparison:

Before vs. After the Civil WarEconomic Metric Antebellum Slavery

(Pre-1865)Postbellum Systems

(Late 19th/Early 20th Cent.)Primary Labor Source Enslaved human beings held as propertySharecroppers, tenant farmers, and leased convicts

Capital Risk High; enslavers lost capital if an enslaved person died Zero; states provided a continuous supply of cheap convict labor Financial Weapon Physical violence and legal status as property Debt liens, high-interest credit, and vagrancy laws Primary Beneficiary Planters and global textile financiers Southern state treasuries, industrial corporations, and landlords

Sicilian immigration to the United States primarily refers to the severe racial prejudice, economic exploitation, and brutal violence that Sicilian newcomers faced during the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

While modern American culture widely celebrates Italian food, tradition, and influence, the historical reality for these immigrants was defined by deep systemic hostility.

Extreme Systemic Racism and Segregation

Not considered "white": In the 1800s and early 1900s, American society operated under a strict Anglo-Saxon definition of whiteness.

Because of their darker skin tones and Mediterranean features, Sicilians and Southern Italians were categorized as a separate, racially inferior class.

Ship manifest tracking: U.S. immigration records at Ellis Island frequently segregated arrivals by marking mainland Italians as "Italian" but specifically designating those from the south as "Italian South" to distinguish them from more accepted Northern Europeans.

Dehumanizing stereotypes: National media routinely labeled Sicilian immigrants as "swarthy," lazy, unassimilable, and "filthier in their habits". Mainstream establishments often displayed signs reading "Dogs and Sicilians not allowed".

Mass Violence and Lynchings The New Orleans Mass Lynching (1891): The darkest chapter occurred on March 14, 1891, when a mob of thousands—including city leaders—stormed a New Orleans jail. They brutally murdered 11 Sicilian immigrants who had just been acquitted of killing the local police chief.

It remains the largest mass lynching in modern U.S. history.

Political dehumanization: Following the massacre, Future President Theodore Roosevelt famously called the lynching "a rather good thing," while a New York Times editorial described the victims as "sneaking and cowardly Sicilians, the descendants of bandits and assassins".

The origin of Columbus Day: The international fallout was so severe that Italy cut off diplomatic ties with the U.S.. To smooth over relations and appease the outraged Italian-American community, President Benjamin Harrison declared the first nationwide Columbus Day celebration in 1892.

Labor Exploitation and the "Padrone" System

Deadly working conditions: Fleeing extreme poverty and volcanic crop failures in Sicily, immigrants arrived with almost nothing.

They were funnelled into the most hazardous, low-paying labor available: digging coal mines, building railroads, and clearing southern swamps.

The Padrone system: Many fell victim to the padrone system—a network where labor brokers exploited the immigrants’ language barriers, trapping them in cyclical debt, taking large percentages of their wages, and housing them in overcrowded, disease-ridden tenements.

Erasing Identity to SurviveForced assimilation: The hostility was so intense that many Sicilian families made the painful choice to hide their heritage to protect their children.

They anglicized their surnames, actively stopped speaking their native Sicilian dialects at home, and buried family traditions so their children could pass as mainstream Americans.

Irish immigration during the Industrial Revolution is that it was a gritty story of survival, systematic exploitation, and fierce anti-Irish racism, rather than a planned migration for economic advancement.

Irish immigrants did not leave home for new opportunities; they fled starvation, only to become the disposable backbone of British and American industrialization.

The Myth of Voluntary Migration

Fleeing a catastrophe: The Great Famine (1845–1852) forced over a million Irish people to flee.

Refugee status: They arrived completely destitute, weak from starvation, and deeply traumatized.

Coerced labor: Landlords often paid for cheap passage just to clear poor tenants off their estates.

Brutal Work and Disposable LivesDeadly infrastructure: Irish laborers built the canals, coal mines, and railroads of Britain and America.

High-risk jobs: They were routinely given the most dangerous tasks, like handling explosives or digging unstable tunnels.

Disposable labor: In the American South, Irish workers were often hired for tasks considered too dangerous for expensive enslaved people. If an Irish worker died, the employer suffered no financial loss.

The "Irish Rate": They were systematically underpaid compared to native-born workers, forcing entire families into the workforce.

Urban Slums and Disease Extreme crowding: Immigrants packed into cellars and cheap tenements in cities like Boston, New York, Liverpool, and Manchester.

Sanitation crises: These neighborhoods lacked clean water, sewage systems, or ventilation.

Rampant disease: Cholera, typhus, and tuberculosis spread rapidly, causing incredibly low life expectancies.

Social blame: Elite classes blamed the Irish for these conditions, labeling them naturally dirty and chaotic.

Systematic Racism and Discrimination

Dehumanizing propaganda: Newspapers and cartoonists regularly depicted the Irish as ape-like, subhuman, and violent.

Employment bans: Help-wanted signs openly stated "No Irish Need Apply" (NINA), locking them out of skilled labor.

Religious persecution: As Catholics, they faced violent hostility from Protestant majorities, leading to deadly anti-Irish riots.

Political backlash: The rise of the "Know-Nothing" party in America was fueled entirely by anti-Irish, anti-Catholic nativism.

Battle for Labor Laws

The United States has had the bloodiest and most violent labor history of any industrialized nation in the world. While there is no single database that captures every local scuffle, comprehensive historical tallies document at least 37 major multi-state industrial wars, hundreds of distinct labor riots, and more than 1,100 documented deaths directly resulting from acts of violence during strikes and union actions.

The raw truth is that American workers fought a literal, armed century-long war against private corporate armies, police forces, and federal troops to secure basic rights like the 8-hour workday, child labor laws, and safe working conditions.

📊 The Scale of American Labor Violence (1877–1947) Before labor unions were legally protected by the New Deal in the 1930s, going on strike meant risking your life. Historians break down the casualties and battles across three major eras:

Cambridge University Press & Assessment

[1870s - 1890s: The Gilded Age Uprisings] └── Railroads and steel plants erupt. Federal troops deploy frequently. [1900s - 1920s: The Armed Insurrections] └── Coal miners face private militias. Actual trench warfare breaks out. [1930s - 1940s: The New Deal Clashes] └── Factory sit-downs and citywide general strikes. Legal rights are codified.

Era / Major Conflict Estimated Deaths Key Violent Characteristics

The Great Railroad Strike (1877) 100+ dead State militias fire Gatling guns into crowds; workers burn train yards.

The Haymarket Affair (1886) 11+ dead A dynamite bomb is thrown at police; police open fire on the crowd.

The Homestead Strike (1892) 10 dead 300 armed Pinkerton detectives wage a literal barge battle against steelworkers.

The Pullman Strike (1894) 30+ dead 10,000 U.S. Army troops crush a nationwide rail boycott by force.

The Colorado Coalfield War (1913-14) 70 to 200 dead Machine-gun fire and arson by the National Guard kill women and children

(Ludlow Massacre). The Battle of Blair Mountain (1921) 16 to 100+ dead Largest armed uprising since the Civil War. 10,000 miners fight private armies; army planes drop bombs.

The Memorial Day Massacre (1937) 10 dead Chicago police shoot fleeing, unarmed striking steelworkers in the back.

⚔️ The Nature of the Violence: Who Was Fighting?

The "raw truth" of this violence is that it wasn't just spontaneous rioting. It was systemic, organized warfare characterized by: Private Corporate Armies: Mega-corporations hired mercenary groups like the Pinkerton Detective Agency or the Baldwin-Felts Detectives.

These groups used armored trains (like the infamous "Bull Moose Special" in West Virginia) to machine-gun striker tent colonies.

State and Federal Intervention: When private guards couldn't break a strike, Governors and Presidents regularly deployed the National Guard and the U.S. Army.

More often than not, the government acted as an enforcement arm for the factory and mine owners.

Worker Insurgency: Outgunned workers did not just take the blows. Strikers formed their own armed militias, sabotaged rail lines, blew up mine shafts with dynamite, and successfully forced corporate mercenaries to surrender in pitch battles like Homestead and Blair Mountain.

📉 How the Violence Finally Stopped The relentless bloodshed only cooled down when the rules of the game changed legally.

The Wagner Act (1935): The federal government finally gave workers the legal right to unionize and bargain collectively, moving the fight from the trenches to the courtroom.

The Taft-Hartley Act (1947): This law placed tighter restrictions on strikes. A 1969 historical study noted that between 1947 and 1962, strike-related deaths plummeted to just 29 over 16 years, proving that legal infrastructure replaced gun smoke.

Every weekend you enjoy, every 8-hour workday, every safety regulation, and the ban on child labor was paid for in literal blood on American soil. That can easliy be bent or obolished.

If you want to dig deeper into the raw history, I can give you the step-by-step breakdown of: The Battle of Blair Mountain

The Battle of Blair Mountain took place from August 25 to September 2, 1921

The War for Workers Rights and Labor Laws. Workers Rights and Labor Laws are gradual starting in 1935 to the present day.

The "ugly whole truth" about Blair Mountain, West Virginia, spanning from the late 1800s into the early 1900s, is the story of an authoritarian corporate police state that triggered the largest armed labor uprising in United States history. For decades, powerful coal operators ruthlessly suppressed human rights, culminating in the 1921 Battle of Blair Mountain, where the federal government ultimately intervened on behalf of the coal barons.

1800s to 1900s: The Creation of the Corporate Shackles

Following the Civil War, industrial tycoons bought up massive tracts of Appalachian land, turning southern West Virginia into a patchwork of "company towns".

Economic Servitude: Miners were rarely paid in U.S. currency. Instead, they received "scrip"—private paper or metal tokens minted by the coal company. This scrip was worthless everywhere except at the company-owned store, where prices were artificially inflated.

Weaponized Evictions: The company owned everything: the miners' shacks, the churches, the schools, and the soil. If a worker complained, stepped out of line, or mentioned joining a union like the United Mine Workers of America (UMWA), The miner waz shot dead and his family was immediately evicted, and their belongings were thrown into the mud.

The Baldwin-Felts Mercenaries: To enforce absolute obedience, coal operators hired the Baldwin-Felts Detective Agency. These private mercenaries functioned as a brutal, lawless militia. They used armored trains (the infamous "Bull Moose Special") to machine-gun striker tent colonies, beat organizers, and spy on workers.

The Spark: Blood in the StreetsBy the early 1900s, southern West Virginia was a powder keg. Tensions boiled over into what historians call the West Virginia Mine Wars:

The Matewan Massacre (1920): Baldwin-Felts agents arrived in Matewan to evict striking miners. The pro-miner town police chief, Sid Hatfield, stood up to them. A shootout erupted, leaving seven detectives and three townspeople dead.

The Assassination of Sid Hatfield: On August 1, 1921, Baldwin-Felts hitmen shot Sid Hatfield down in broad daylight on the steps of the McDowell County Courthouse. He was unarmed and walking with his wife.

The 1921 Armed UprisingHatfield’s murder pushed the miners past their breaking point. In late August 1921, an estimated 10,000 armed coal miners tied red bandanas around their necks—solidifying the term "rednecks"—and began a march toward Mingo County to free imprisoned union workers and dismantle the mine guard system.

Blocking their path at Blair Mountain was Sheriff Don Chafin, a corrupt lawman on the direct payroll of the coal companies. Chafin assembled a 3,000-man army of mercenaries and deputies, fortifying the mountain ridge with machine-gun nests.

War on American Soil:

For five days, a full-scale guerrilla war raged. Over one million rounds of ammunition were fired.

Aerial Bombing: Private planes hired by the coal operators dropped homemade pipe bombs and leftover World War I tear gas directly onto the miners' positions.

Federal Intervention: President Warren G. Harding deployed 2,500 federal troops and a squadron of Army bomber planes.

The miners, many of whom were WWI veterans, refused to fire on the American flag. They surrendered, laid down their arms, and went home.

The Ugly Aftermath and Systematic Erasure

The aftermath of the battle reveals the bleakest truth about the era: the system protected capital, not human lives.

Mass Indictments: Following the surrender, nearly 1,000 miners were indicted for murder, conspiracy, and treason against the state.

Conversely, not a single coal boss or mercenary faced charges for the dynamic bombings or the systemic abuses.

Union Crushing: The UMWA was completely broken in southern West Virginia. Membership plummeted, and miners were subjected to even harsher conditions until the New Deal legislation of the 1930s finally granted them the legal right to unionize.

Historical Erasure: For over half a century, this massive civil uprising was deliberately left out of West Virginia school textbooks.

The state government and coal corporations actively suppressed the memory of the Mine Wars to preserve the industry's image.

Our timeline: During WWII, the US government commissioned Walt Disney to make propaganda cartoon shorts, which Walt was glad to do because the money kept Disney afloat during wartime.

The US government was worried that the Nazis would recruit South American nations or even volunteers from those countries to SS battalions. In fact, in our timeline we know Argentina was uncomfortably friendly with Nazis even harboring them after the war.

Part of this campaign entailed Disney making a movie to connect and bring about friendship between North and South America. Saludos Amigos was specifically made in order to warm relations between USA and South America, and film and military historians both generally agree it did what it was supposed to. Saludos Amigos debuted in Rio de Janeiro in 1942 with much fanfare and was received well in all countries in Latin America.

Point of Diversion: the film is made and it backfires spectacularly. South American audiences and governments are offended by the caricatures and perceived stereotypes. As a result of the film highly offending all SA nations, combined with diplomatic efforts by Ribbentrop, Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Colombia, Venezuela, Peru, Ecuador, Bolivia, Chile, Panama, and Paraguay declare war on the United States of America and immediately begin hostilities.

Like if the japanese were not friendly but also not hostile to the us, then how would a free japanese army and navy help the war in europe if there was no Pacific battle?

https://komando1.substack.com/p/remembering-the-king-who-drowned

500 years ago, a young king drowned, fleeing a lost battle against the Turks. What if he lived instead? Even falling into the hands of the enemy alive would not be fatal; high nobility and royalty were usually kept alive and then freed against ransom.

Louis was young, the Reformation was just going underway, and he was a king of the Czechs, who were already borderline heretics, and the Hungarians, who later proved quite open to Protestantism. Could the balance of religions in Central Europe be permanently altered? Would the Hapsburgs be ever able to gain as much prominence as they did, and reconvert whole nations to Catholicism? Would Prussia and Russia be kept at bay if the Jagiellonians kept their small empire intact?

A lot of what-ifs for a single bad day.