vote for it when it comes up - that one might wind up a bit more map-painty, though since there are some foreign implications to the 20th century setup
I like this, reconstruction was lenient and incomplete Edit: This was pretty good, I give this a 9/10 for being pretty grounded (and not being able to come up with any critique other than not being a game changer in the timeline like your Egypt scenario)
Tbh I don't think this could be some radical world changer - at least in the 19th century. That being said, off the top of my head, I do think that the end of ww2 has pretty big consequences; the US is going to be a lot harsher with South Africa, and Fascist Italy is going to play an entirely different game than the otl Republic. But I do see how this could be a tad muted in comparison
I think this is because a great deal of people, yourself likely included, see fixing problems as something you do with a political pen that one writes rights against racist whites, rather than building economic conditions that foster development. Abolishing slavery became quite a political force when slavery was a drag on the economy, particularly to the point where it fell out of favour in the North. This video places a lot of emphasis on the economic situation, followed by not stifling Black people via legislation, as the primary driver of reconstruction. Just to clarify that last bit, it's a lot easier for a government to oppress a group of people than to raise a group of formerly oppressed (Yes, they are still oppressed, but you know what I mean) people up to being on a better footing with the average hegemonic demographic (White people).
This is a very good point - and thank you, I did try to put emphasis on the economic question, especially because I don't think the north's population would be willing to entertain enforcing equality for much longer than OTL. as a result, the emergent freedmen needed to be given the tools to successfully stifle black codes and other disenfranchisement. (at the same time, I wasn't sure that it would be possible for them to prevent segregation everywhere, hence the army and an offhand comment about it still existing.) in addition, even here I don't think the Union would see certain attitudes change too early; if the US didn't elect a catholic until the 60s, even the most radical, john brown reconstruction would fail to get a black man into the white house before the 20th century.
Fantastic work, you do wonderfully with political history; this is something that a lot of alternate history content is weak in. Do you think you could ever attempt medieval alternate history? A lot of people say “it’s all random marriages and deaths” but it also saw incredible migrations and as all history does, affects our current world. I hope you could maybe crack open that understudied area!
Great video. I have some other suggestions: What if Al-Andalus survives? What if the Spanish-American war never happens (and what if Spain colonized the whole of Morocco)? What if Gran Colombia survived?
Nice video, and your growth in recent weeks has been astonishing. Also, you said about Italy probably remaining in the "Entente" since they got what they wanted in WWI (even if Benito comes to power). If they eventually joined WW2 on the side of the Allies, I think the Balkans would be influenced by the West, at least everything south of the Danube. So, the Soviets ended up being much weaker in Europe.
@@stefanofialho5484 thank you! that's actually a pretty good point - even if Italy is less likely to invade those nations, that means the Soviets lack the excuse to take southern Europe. Though I did briefly flirt with Yugoslavia being pro-German or someone else in the European axis, but tbh that was mostly to balance the picture of the stressa front
@@AlternosMundos If we consider that Benito is still coming to power, I still see him trying to expand into the Adriatic Sea, establishing a protectorate over Albania, and probably trying to take over the rest of Dalmatia, and perhaps some attempts to subjugate Greece. Yugoslavia could end up being the Poland/Czechoslovakia of the Balkans, depending on the situation in which they are divided between neighboring powers and by internal nationalist groups. Italy may end up being the "Soviet Union" of the Mediterranean, where it expands to the chagrin of its neighbors, but the Allies must recognize its gains for support against the Germans. If we think about Hungary, it could end up being the discount Italy for this timeline, developing an ultranationalist government and trying to reverse the Treaty of Trianon. Which probably pushes some Balkan nations into Italy's sphere for protection, but I see Italy being quite demanding for anyone to get their protection.
Funny enough, Italy already would've gotten the Albanian puppet due to Versailles, and that creates the tension that (in combination with pro-Stressa Italy,) is why I thought about Yugo winding up pro-Axis; Serbia is now the one with the mutilated victory myth, and has less ability to trade with the rest of the world. So Italian expansion over the Balkans isn't necessarily them invading in great power hubris (i mean, it is, but not like the invasion was OTL,) but inevitably part of the defeat of Germany. Germany, of course, isn't happy about allying with Yugoslavia, but they adjusted thier stances enough to suit their needs anyway.
That was actually one of the first videos on the channel! ua-cam.com/video/L0vwfZS7ABw/v-deo.html Admittedly, it's not super indepth with Alandalus proper, but it hits most of the broadstrokes
Video suggestion. What if the Iranian Revolution of 1979 never happened because the Shah tried to foster more of a democratic republic during the 1970s? I've watched some lectures by Abbas Milani, and he thinks that the Iranian revolution was incredibly important in world history, and that the Shah trying to foster more of a democratic republic would have led to Iran remaining a secular and financially powerful constitutional monarchy. Islamism not taking hold in Iran creates a lot of divergences on its own, but the fact that there is a massive country by population that is also successful under a more western model reduces the powerful of Islamism via it being an inspiration as a role model. It could be to the Middle East what Singapore is to much of the currently underdeveloped world. Also, if, to which the ''if'' is a massive divergence itself, the USSR invades Afghanistan, the US can supply troops to a friendly and non-Islamist Iran, rather than Islamist Pakistan, you know what might not happen to a certain skyline. Then there are the questions of geopolitics regarding the Gulf States... Either way, it is your scenario for you to cover, if you so choose.
Funnily enough, I remember reading about how the point of the play was to show that immigrants have always been part of American history rather than to glorify the elitist adulterers, so in a TL where the US is more nativist by default, I could honestly see Hamilton being butterflied away even without the other cultural butterflies.
@@AlternosMundos NOOOOO! MY FAV ELITIST PRETTY BOY LIBERAL AUTHORITARIAN!!! This is almost as bad as Ataturk never coming to power (A WIAH scenario BTW).
@@AlternosMundos Is there a Pokemon that has the ability to replicate itself in a way that doesn't look like mitosis. I know next to nothing about Pokemon, but I'm thinking of something happening like ''1:Who's that Pokemon? 2: The better parts of you that got sick of XYZ.''. You could also have a joke about relationships not working out for comedic purposes.
There was the TL on alternatehistory.com called The Footprint of Mussolini that also shared a similar premise; tbh it always loses me after WW2 (wallace presidency basically kills the democrats and has Patton of all fucking people take over,) but it's a pretty engaging scenario.
Very minor question, but still relevant to this video. How much does the current Republican party and Democratic party having their roots in Lincoln and Jackson and the decades long inertia of the people/interests they represented matter to people presently. I'm just thinking of the ''Democrats are the real racists, while we Republicans are the party of Lincoln.'' etc etc. That obviously isn't the case here, and whatever thread of connection people could make to the Democrats are obviously a lot more difficult to make, at least when it comes to catchy slogans in a democratic republic like America.
The only things jacksonian about the modern democrats are a free trade consensus and a vague notion of populism, and even then that free trade consensus has waxed and waned depending on views of NAFTA at the time. the Republicans have always been a party of nativism and tariffs going back to the Whigs, but their stances have ebbed and flowed. And even then, their tariff stance is currently only relevant due to the extremist wings currently in charge of the party. TTL - the Liberals are the end of the line for anything resembling Jacksonianism. While the Republicans of Lincoln had a classical liberal bent, believing in hard money and little intervention in the economy, after the 1868 and especially the 1872 elections, those factions are gone from the Republicans. From there, the Republicans become rightwing interventionists (described here as pro-consumer anti-worker, but this is just due to my MS paint format being difficult for thorough discussion,) who remain nativistic but in favor of civil rights for african americans, while the liberals are the classical liberals with what remains of democratic populism; however, that proves unable to bare the weight of the gilded age and they're replaced by the socialists of the Populist/Peoples Party.
@@AlternosMundos To specify, I mean invoking the history of your party as a bad-faith defence to pretend that you are not racist because somebody who was the leader of your party 150 years ago happened to be famous for his anti-racist (By modern perceptions) party. This is in contrast to the current reputation of the Republican party as racist, deservedly so IMO. Thanks for the clarification.
2 and 2 halves of main questions I have regarding this scenario. First, how does, if at all, the increased social status of American Blacks change the politics of other countries and their social movements/development. At the Treaty of Versailles, Japanese representatives, as well as letters to Wilson by Ho Chi Minh, called for decolonisation and the recognition of all people, regardless of their racial group, to be considered equal (To White people). While I doubt that this would be accepted at the end of WW2, it might be mandated by the end of WW2, assuming it actually gets off the ground and causes a massive amount of havoc. Though, and this is important for later, probably not as much damage to European colonial empires as OTL. Second of all, what happens to, or to people like, Henry Wallace, the VP under FDR during 1945-1945? If he is president, even without significant changes to his political positions that in this alternate 1940s are still very progressive, he will definitely be much more in favour of decolonisation than OTL administration. Western Europe may be more independent of American influence. Also, regardless of how powerful the USSR is coming out of WW2 (IMO, probably more powerful, though probably smaller, due to Germany losing many resources against the other European powers), socialist anti-colonial movements might be a lot more powerful. Vietnam in our own timeline is a good case study, and would likely be replicated around the world much more. Granted, this may not be an American conflict. Edit: Another clarification, mostly focused on WW2 itself. Germany losing more to the other European powers does not necessarily mean that the other European powers are more damaged by the end of the war. The Rhineland not being a part of Germany massively weakens their ability to wage war, as well as allowing for troop incursions close to Berlin. Perhaps a french protectorate of the Rhineland as a Maginot line in it, rather than in France proper, or at least French forces in the Rhineland. The rapid success of Germany in the late 1930s and early 1940s, be it through conquest or diplomacy (Anschluss and Munich agreement) aided German morale/political will in the NSDAP. That may not be as present. Italy sharing the burden of anti-German effort also has a similar effect for reducing the destruction of European empires. In this more different timeline, Anschluss may go differently due to, like OTL, Italian protection for Austria against Anschluss. If this goes poorly for Germany, they may be very unprepared. Stalin could get more of what he wanted out of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact with regard to other European powers fighting each other rather than fighting the USSR. The USSR might swoop in later in the war without being invaded to take much of this alternate European Axis (No Italy, and perhaps no Bulgaria, but still including Hungary and Romania). BTW, ''Romania'' isn't a real word according to the red line underneath it. Other than that, and the inevitable questions I will develop later, this was a great video (As if not specifying everything about everything decreases your high quality).
Admittedly, i don't think the improvement for black americans would change much abroad; in the 1840s-1880s, black americans generally did perceive themselves as better than those still living in Africa. Plus, the US went into TTL's Versailles with a far less ideological and moralistic mindset - Wilson made his 14 Points public during his numerous attempts to get a negotiated peace settled, which TTL's Republicans wouldn't do because they don't have an equivilent. meaning there's little real hope for the Japanese or other groups. As to the rest, I'm not sure. I'd probably have to figure out how WW2 goes with a surviving stressa front and my presumption that France falls and germany still invades the Soviets. But in general, europeans would win the military battles and lose the political ones - think the Suez and Carnation Revolutions. So it seems likely that, for example, Italy would keep Libya and likely use it as a colony as a result.
Oh shit you actually did it!!
Edit: Thank you for the shout out! I’m halfway through and this already leagues better than Mr.Z’s take.
@@CahokiaOfficial you mean I did better than the Rhodesia apologist? I'd hope so! But more seriously thank you for the appreciation and suggestion
@@AlternosMundosYou nailed it! We need a part 2 asap!
@@AlternosMundosWhat would happen to Haiti? I feel the US would invade and annex them most likely.
vote for it when it comes up - that one might wind up a bit more map-painty, though since there are some foreign implications to the 20th century setup
@@AlternosMundoshey another question. What happens to the Native Americans in this timeline? Would they be given a better or worse hand?
I like this, reconstruction was lenient and incomplete
Edit: This was pretty good, I give this a 9/10 for being pretty grounded (and not being able to come up with any critique other than not being a game changer in the timeline like your Egypt scenario)
Tbh I don't think this could be some radical world changer - at least in the 19th century. That being said, off the top of my head, I do think that the end of ww2 has pretty big consequences; the US is going to be a lot harsher with South Africa, and Fascist Italy is going to play an entirely different game than the otl Republic. But I do see how this could be a tad muted in comparison
@@AlternosMundos Makes sense
I think this is because a great deal of people, yourself likely included, see fixing problems as something you do with a political pen that one writes rights against racist whites, rather than building economic conditions that foster development. Abolishing slavery became quite a political force when slavery was a drag on the economy, particularly to the point where it fell out of favour in the North. This video places a lot of emphasis on the economic situation, followed by not stifling Black people via legislation, as the primary driver of reconstruction.
Just to clarify that last bit, it's a lot easier for a government to oppress a group of people than to raise a group of formerly oppressed (Yes, they are still oppressed, but you know what I mean) people up to being on a better footing with the average hegemonic demographic (White people).
This is a very good point - and thank you, I did try to put emphasis on the economic question, especially because I don't think the north's population would be willing to entertain enforcing equality for much longer than OTL. as a result, the emergent freedmen needed to be given the tools to successfully stifle black codes and other disenfranchisement. (at the same time, I wasn't sure that it would be possible for them to prevent segregation everywhere, hence the army and an offhand comment about it still existing.) in addition, even here I don't think the Union would see certain attitudes change too early; if the US didn't elect a catholic until the 60s, even the most radical, john brown reconstruction would fail to get a black man into the white house before the 20th century.
@@AlternosMundos Praise be from the creator.
Fantastic work, you do wonderfully with political history; this is something that a lot of alternate history content is weak in.
Do you think you could ever attempt medieval alternate history? A lot of people say “it’s all random marriages and deaths” but it also saw incredible migrations and as all history does, affects our current world.
I hope you could maybe crack open that understudied area!
Thank you! There are two medieval videos currently out on the channel but uh... yeah i've got some new ones coming up.
If I’m gonna be honest, I might make some type of these videos in the future. What if historical videos are my favorite types of videos.
Do it!
Jesus that was a whirlwind!
a fun one, I hope
Great video. I have some other suggestions:
What if Al-Andalus survives?
What if the Spanish-American war never happens (and what if Spain colonized the whole of Morocco)?
What if Gran Colombia survived?
Nice video, and your growth in recent weeks has been astonishing. Also, you said about Italy probably remaining in the "Entente" since they got what they wanted in WWI (even if Benito comes to power). If they eventually joined WW2 on the side of the Allies, I think the Balkans would be influenced by the West, at least everything south of the Danube. So, the Soviets ended up being much weaker in Europe.
@@stefanofialho5484 thank you!
that's actually a pretty good point - even if Italy is less likely to invade those nations, that means the Soviets lack the excuse to take southern Europe. Though I did briefly flirt with Yugoslavia being pro-German or someone else in the European axis, but tbh that was mostly to balance the picture of the stressa front
@@AlternosMundos The comment you are responding to is 11 minutes younger than your response to it. I just find that surprising.
@@AlternosMundos If we consider that Benito is still coming to power, I still see him trying to expand into the Adriatic Sea, establishing a protectorate over Albania, and probably trying to take over the rest of Dalmatia, and perhaps some attempts to subjugate Greece. Yugoslavia could end up being the Poland/Czechoslovakia of the Balkans, depending on the situation in which they are divided between neighboring powers and by internal nationalist groups. Italy may end up being the "Soviet Union" of the Mediterranean, where it expands to the chagrin of its neighbors, but the Allies must recognize its gains for support against the Germans.
If we think about Hungary, it could end up being the discount Italy for this timeline, developing an ultranationalist government and trying to reverse the Treaty of Trianon. Which probably pushes some Balkan nations into Italy's sphere for protection, but I see Italy being quite demanding for anyone to get their protection.
Funny enough, Italy already would've gotten the Albanian puppet due to Versailles, and that creates the tension that (in combination with pro-Stressa Italy,) is why I thought about Yugo winding up pro-Axis; Serbia is now the one with the mutilated victory myth, and has less ability to trade with the rest of the world. So Italian expansion over the Balkans isn't necessarily them invading in great power hubris (i mean, it is, but not like the invasion was OTL,) but inevitably part of the defeat of Germany. Germany, of course, isn't happy about allying with Yugoslavia, but they adjusted thier stances enough to suit their needs anyway.
Very cool
What if the sino-soviet split went hot
Twilight of the Red Tsar scenario.
commenting to boost engagement
Please do a what if Al-Andalus survived.
That was actually one of the first videos on the channel! ua-cam.com/video/L0vwfZS7ABw/v-deo.html
Admittedly, it's not super indepth with Alandalus proper, but it hits most of the broadstrokes
I like this
Not bad good but not bad give rate 8.5/10
Video suggestion. What if the Iranian Revolution of 1979 never happened because the Shah tried to foster more of a democratic republic during the 1970s?
I've watched some lectures by Abbas Milani, and he thinks that the Iranian revolution was incredibly important in world history, and that the Shah trying to foster more of a democratic republic would have led to Iran remaining a secular and financially powerful constitutional monarchy. Islamism not taking hold in Iran creates a lot of divergences on its own, but the fact that there is a massive country by population that is also successful under a more western model reduces the powerful of Islamism via it being an inspiration as a role model. It could be to the Middle East what Singapore is to much of the currently underdeveloped world. Also, if, to which the ''if'' is a massive divergence itself, the USSR invades Afghanistan, the US can supply troops to a friendly and non-Islamist Iran, rather than Islamist Pakistan, you know what might not happen to a certain skyline.
Then there are the questions of geopolitics regarding the Gulf States...
Either way, it is your scenario for you to cover, if you so choose.
18:17 Could this be the Nordic model? I'm going by Michael Munger and his lecture series and a few debates he has been in from Duke University.
17:06 Hamilton play is coming a little earlier than expected. I keep seeing signs about it in the Sydney metro.
Funnily enough, I remember reading about how the point of the play was to show that immigrants have always been part of American history rather than to glorify the elitist adulterers, so in a TL where the US is more nativist by default, I could honestly see Hamilton being butterflied away even without the other cultural butterflies.
@@AlternosMundos NOOOOO! MY FAV ELITIST PRETTY BOY LIBERAL AUTHORITARIAN!!!
This is almost as bad as Ataturk never coming to power (A WIAH scenario BTW).
What if the ERE survived? (Almost certainly by the 4th Crusade _not_ going so absurdly off the rails)
I was having other ideas of what was happening at 8:32.
@@lljkgktudjlrsmygilug ... are they safe for UA-cam because I couldn't think of any other weirdness
@@AlternosMundos Is there a Pokemon that has the ability to replicate itself in a way that doesn't look like mitosis. I know next to nothing about Pokemon, but I'm thinking of something happening like ''1:Who's that Pokemon? 2: The better parts of you that got sick of XYZ.''. You could also have a joke about relationships not working out for comedic purposes.
21:16 There was a scenario on r/imaginarymaps about a 3-way cold war between Italian fascists, Soviet communists, and Western capitalists.
There was the TL on alternatehistory.com called The Footprint of Mussolini that also shared a similar premise; tbh it always loses me after WW2 (wallace presidency basically kills the democrats and has Patton of all fucking people take over,) but it's a pretty engaging scenario.
Hello :)
Very minor question, but still relevant to this video. How much does the current Republican party and Democratic party having their roots in Lincoln and Jackson and the decades long inertia of the people/interests they represented matter to people presently. I'm just thinking of the ''Democrats are the real racists, while we Republicans are the party of Lincoln.'' etc etc. That obviously isn't the case here, and whatever thread of connection people could make to the Democrats are obviously a lot more difficult to make, at least when it comes to catchy slogans in a democratic republic like America.
The only things jacksonian about the modern democrats are a free trade consensus and a vague notion of populism, and even then that free trade consensus has waxed and waned depending on views of NAFTA at the time. the Republicans have always been a party of nativism and tariffs going back to the Whigs, but their stances have ebbed and flowed. And even then, their tariff stance is currently only relevant due to the extremist wings currently in charge of the party.
TTL - the Liberals are the end of the line for anything resembling Jacksonianism. While the Republicans of Lincoln had a classical liberal bent, believing in hard money and little intervention in the economy, after the 1868 and especially the 1872 elections, those factions are gone from the Republicans. From there, the Republicans become rightwing interventionists (described here as pro-consumer anti-worker, but this is just due to my MS paint format being difficult for thorough discussion,) who remain nativistic but in favor of civil rights for african americans, while the liberals are the classical liberals with what remains of democratic populism; however, that proves unable to bare the weight of the gilded age and they're replaced by the socialists of the Populist/Peoples Party.
@@AlternosMundos To specify, I mean invoking the history of your party as a bad-faith defence to pretend that you are not racist because somebody who was the leader of your party 150 years ago happened to be famous for his anti-racist (By modern perceptions) party. This is in contrast to the current reputation of the Republican party as racist, deservedly so IMO. Thanks for the clarification.
2 and 2 halves of main questions I have regarding this scenario. First, how does, if at all, the increased social status of American Blacks change the politics of other countries and their social movements/development. At the Treaty of Versailles, Japanese representatives, as well as letters to Wilson by Ho Chi Minh, called for decolonisation and the recognition of all people, regardless of their racial group, to be considered equal (To White people). While I doubt that this would be accepted at the end of WW2, it might be mandated by the end of WW2, assuming it actually gets off the ground and causes a massive amount of havoc. Though, and this is important for later, probably not as much damage to European colonial empires as OTL.
Second of all, what happens to, or to people like, Henry Wallace, the VP under FDR during 1945-1945? If he is president, even without significant changes to his political positions that in this alternate 1940s are still very progressive, he will definitely be much more in favour of decolonisation than OTL administration. Western Europe may be more independent of American influence. Also, regardless of how powerful the USSR is coming out of WW2 (IMO, probably more powerful, though probably smaller, due to Germany losing many resources against the other European powers), socialist anti-colonial movements might be a lot more powerful. Vietnam in our own timeline is a good case study, and would likely be replicated around the world much more. Granted, this may not be an American conflict.
Edit: Another clarification, mostly focused on WW2 itself. Germany losing more to the other European powers does not necessarily mean that the other European powers are more damaged by the end of the war. The Rhineland not being a part of Germany massively weakens their ability to wage war, as well as allowing for troop incursions close to Berlin. Perhaps a french protectorate of the Rhineland as a Maginot line in it, rather than in France proper, or at least French forces in the Rhineland. The rapid success of Germany in the late 1930s and early 1940s, be it through conquest or diplomacy (Anschluss and Munich agreement) aided German morale/political will in the NSDAP. That may not be as present. Italy sharing the burden of anti-German effort also has a similar effect for reducing the destruction of European empires. In this more different timeline, Anschluss may go differently due to, like OTL, Italian protection for Austria against Anschluss. If this goes poorly for Germany, they may be very unprepared. Stalin could get more of what he wanted out of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact with regard to other European powers fighting each other rather than fighting the USSR. The USSR might swoop in later in the war without being invaded to take much of this alternate European Axis (No Italy, and perhaps no Bulgaria, but still including Hungary and Romania). BTW, ''Romania'' isn't a real word according to the red line underneath it.
Other than that, and the inevitable questions I will develop later, this was a great video (As if not specifying everything about everything decreases your high quality).
Admittedly, i don't think the improvement for black americans would change much abroad; in the 1840s-1880s, black americans generally did perceive themselves as better than those still living in Africa. Plus, the US went into TTL's Versailles with a far less ideological and moralistic mindset - Wilson made his 14 Points public during his numerous attempts to get a negotiated peace settled, which TTL's Republicans wouldn't do because they don't have an equivilent. meaning there's little real hope for the Japanese or other groups.
As to the rest, I'm not sure. I'd probably have to figure out how WW2 goes with a surviving stressa front and my presumption that France falls and germany still invades the Soviets. But in general, europeans would win the military battles and lose the political ones - think the Suez and Carnation Revolutions. So it seems likely that, for example, Italy would keep Libya and likely use it as a colony as a result.
@@AlternosMundos Hi. I just edited the question after you responded by adding extra detail.
@@AlternosMundos Do you get notifications for when someone responds to your comments?
yes, but delayed and i usually use the comment dashboard on the studio site more than them.
What if the austrians won the thirty years war?