Top 10 most implausible Alternate history Scenarios?
video description
10. Could be fixed by a shift in court politics leading to the pro-expansionist factions in the Ming courts becoming more prominent and purging the isolationist factions. Court politics are not that hard to change in terms of alternate history. Even the Ming could turn around. If court politics truly were that rigid-Zheng He wouldn't even exist.
9. No arguments there.
8. The butterfly effect is just too strong at this point. The world would be unrecognizable without Christianity. Technology could be more advanced or less-we don't really know because technological advancement would depend on MANY other factors that the absence of Christianity would indirectly affect for us to truly know. We definitely cannot say its implausible either way,
7. Steam based technology already exists in this world. Its not a stretch to think that under some circumstances that steam based technology could become more dominant. A lot of steampunk is aesthetic anyway.
6. This one is legitimately implausible but not totally impossible. The Axis' best chance of winning WWII would be to keep the US out. I could see a SLIM possibility of an Axis victory if the Nazis won the war in Europe and helped Japan by keeping the US busy on a two front war. Japan and Germany's best chance is to wear the US down through a war of attrition or use pro-Nazi sympathizers in the US to wear the government down to decide its not worth it and lets Japan keep its Asian territory. Or maybe the Nazis develop the nuke they were building and launch it on the US-forcing us to surrender like Japan did in our timeline. I will say though that the scenario from Man in the High Castle is TOTALLY unrealistic. Again though, the most plausible Axis victory scenario is keeping the US out of the war-which is not impossible to imagine.
5. Britain dealt with revolutions all across its Empire and only gave up its colonial empire after being buttwrecked by the Nazis and then coerced by the US, Soviets, and colonial revolutions to give up their colonies. In a timeline where the US was still under British control-it is possible for resentment and revolution to resurface and for the British to crush them again. Especially if they are only dealing with the East coast. Its very possible that the US would keep revolting until they ousted them but its not implausible to think the British could have held on. At LEAST until the demise of the colonial age. Maybe a new superpower pressures them into giving up their colonies. Or maybe all of them revolt at once.
4. You have a point here in that conquering Germania wouldn't solve Rome's problems but Rome surviving as a unified empire under certain conditions is not implausible. Rome could consolidate its rule across its lands similarly to China.
3. Napoleon couldn't create a worldwide French Empire but it could become much stronger than it was in OTL-and it was pretty strong OTL
2. This isn't implausible at all. If the Confederacy won, they'd could become markedly poorer than the US if they reject industrialization and keep slavery around (they'd get sanctioned up the butt if they kept slavery around for the 21st century-which I find highly unlikely.
1. Yep. You are correct. Implausible. No arguments here.
Date: 2022-07-15
Related videos
Comments and reviews: 9
Daniel
I have two issues with your JFK surviving won't change anything part: One when you mention his list of accomplishments isn't that high you also fail to mention how that is because he died less than three years after taking office so there was no opportunity for him to have a high list of achievements since he wasn't there long enough. Two in alternate history hub's video on JFK surviving at the end he mentions how either LBJ or Nixon could have won the 1968 election and LBJ winning the election would be a pretty different departure from our timeline, (Nixon probably would retire from politics so Watergate doesn't happen for one and it is unclear what the future chain or president would be after LBJ even though we can certainly make some good guesses) what I am saying is that it is potential for JFK surviving to affect the timeline but it also is possible like you said that for the most part, everything is very similar to our own timeline, so like with most alternate history scenarios it is really hard to tell what would happen after the point of divergence. (Also this is a point of debate but some people would say the U. S. not nearly getting as involved as they did in the Vietnam war would be a pretty noteworthy/meaningful change which the Alternate History Hub video brings up) I think an issue I have with this video is that it talks about how there is no way all of these events could happen and yes some of them are really absurd but there are all possible are some of them extremely unlikely and as near impossible as you could get yes but there are all could happen. Even though for some even I agree they wouldn't happen. I personally feel like it would have been better to say all of these are highly unlikely but I'm not trying to be mean or anything.
reply
I have two issues with your JFK surviving won't change anything part: One when you mention his list of accomplishments isn't that high you also fail to mention how that is because he died less than three years after taking office so there was no opportunity for him to have a high list of achievements since he wasn't there long enough. Two in alternate history hub's video on JFK surviving at the end he mentions how either LBJ or Nixon could have won the 1968 election and LBJ winning the election would be a pretty different departure from our timeline, (Nixon probably would retire from politics so Watergate doesn't happen for one and it is unclear what the future chain or president would be after LBJ even though we can certainly make some good guesses) what I am saying is that it is potential for JFK surviving to affect the timeline but it also is possible like you said that for the most part, everything is very similar to our own timeline, so like with most alternate history scenarios it is really hard to tell what would happen after the point of divergence. (Also this is a point of debate but some people would say the U. S. not nearly getting as involved as they did in the Vietnam war would be a pretty noteworthy/meaningful change which the Alternate History Hub video brings up) I think an issue I have with this video is that it talks about how there is no way all of these events could happen and yes some of them are really absurd but there are all possible are some of them extremely unlikely and as near impossible as you could get yes but there are all could happen. Even though for some even I agree they wouldn't happen. I personally feel like it would have been better to say all of these are highly unlikely but I'm not trying to be mean or anything.
reply
HgMan
The CSA could have won the ACW for a political standpoint. In the run-up to the 1864 elections, Lincoln was convinced that he was going to lose the election to those who were weary of the war and favored a negotiated settlement with the Confederates. Only a series of timely military victories by the Union insured Lincoln's victory and hence the continuation of the war. Had the North and South reached a negotiated settlement, however, the political situation with a free north and slave south would have been untenable. One of the principal issues in the 1850s run up to the war was anti-slavery agitation in the north and the the recovery of fugitive slaves. While the US was a single country, southerns had the legal right to recover their property in the north. In a situation with two sovereign nations, the north would have no such legal obligation to return the slaves (similar to antebellum Canada, thereby moving the safe haven for run away slaves to the new northern border of the CSA. This is not to mention other potential flashpoints between a divided nation, such as navigation rights on the Mississippi and other great commercial rivers. Yes, peace was possible in 1864, but the political situation between the new countries would have remained volatile to say the least.
reply
The CSA could have won the ACW for a political standpoint. In the run-up to the 1864 elections, Lincoln was convinced that he was going to lose the election to those who were weary of the war and favored a negotiated settlement with the Confederates. Only a series of timely military victories by the Union insured Lincoln's victory and hence the continuation of the war. Had the North and South reached a negotiated settlement, however, the political situation with a free north and slave south would have been untenable. One of the principal issues in the 1850s run up to the war was anti-slavery agitation in the north and the the recovery of fugitive slaves. While the US was a single country, southerns had the legal right to recover their property in the north. In a situation with two sovereign nations, the north would have no such legal obligation to return the slaves (similar to antebellum Canada, thereby moving the safe haven for run away slaves to the new northern border of the CSA. This is not to mention other potential flashpoints between a divided nation, such as navigation rights on the Mississippi and other great commercial rivers. Yes, peace was possible in 1864, but the political situation between the new countries would have remained volatile to say the least.
reply
Joseph
In order to have China colonize the Americas, one thing that you can to is to have China dissolving into various kingdoms after the fall of the Yuan. At this point you have competing kingdoms trying to outdo each other, and people trying very hard to leave because of the mess. Alternatively you could have a situation were fighting with the Spanish and Dutch pulled China south into Indonesia.
The one place where China did colonize (Taiwan) happened because of the Dutch.
Or you could have Ming China being conquered by Toyotomi Hideyoshi instead of the Manchus and establishing a maritime empire that starts competing with the Europeans. One thing about these althistories, is that you very quickly end up with worlds in which China or Japan don't exist as we know them.
Another alt-history would be an unsuccessful Chinese effort to colonize the New World circa 1400. If you have any exposure to old world diseases, livestock, and crops then the Europeans are going to be have a very rude surprise a century later.
reply
In order to have China colonize the Americas, one thing that you can to is to have China dissolving into various kingdoms after the fall of the Yuan. At this point you have competing kingdoms trying to outdo each other, and people trying very hard to leave because of the mess. Alternatively you could have a situation were fighting with the Spanish and Dutch pulled China south into Indonesia.
The one place where China did colonize (Taiwan) happened because of the Dutch.
Or you could have Ming China being conquered by Toyotomi Hideyoshi instead of the Manchus and establishing a maritime empire that starts competing with the Europeans. One thing about these althistories, is that you very quickly end up with worlds in which China or Japan don't exist as we know them.
Another alt-history would be an unsuccessful Chinese effort to colonize the New World circa 1400. If you have any exposure to old world diseases, livestock, and crops then the Europeans are going to be have a very rude surprise a century later.
reply
Katana
I feel like the most silly ones are anything where the point of divergence is too far back. It just makes it seem silly once you get into the modern era because realistically nothing would be as similar to our timeline as it is in these stories and scenarios. It can be done well but rarely is.
Or when small divergences have effects they realistically wouldn't. Like the main reason England got control of Scotland was because the Scottish treasury was empty and the country was desperate, and by 1745 the Act of Union was long over with, so a Jacobite victory in '45 wouldn't likely have changed English government's damage to Celtic cultures by very much. It would have avoided giving them an excuse for the Highland Clearances though and those might not have happened, which would mean a great deal both for Scotland and the Americas, but a Stuart on the throne wouldn't have magically erased all of the sectarian problems of the English Reformation or anti Celtic sentiment in England.
reply
I feel like the most silly ones are anything where the point of divergence is too far back. It just makes it seem silly once you get into the modern era because realistically nothing would be as similar to our timeline as it is in these stories and scenarios. It can be done well but rarely is.
Or when small divergences have effects they realistically wouldn't. Like the main reason England got control of Scotland was because the Scottish treasury was empty and the country was desperate, and by 1745 the Act of Union was long over with, so a Jacobite victory in '45 wouldn't likely have changed English government's damage to Celtic cultures by very much. It would have avoided giving them an excuse for the Highland Clearances though and those might not have happened, which would mean a great deal both for Scotland and the Americas, but a Stuart on the throne wouldn't have magically erased all of the sectarian problems of the English Reformation or anti Celtic sentiment in England.
reply
Tomasz
The scenario: Vikings established the constant colonies in the North America. And they established the highly profitable trade route: Vinland (i. e. America) - Greenland - Iceland - Norway and merchants of them had explored the land until Mayan Cities. But! Even in great number (in their scale) they would be too weak to tame the Indians. So they would rather concentrated on trade acctivity. For gold, furs, wood and other stuff from Americas they would pay by european ithems like iron and horses. So, Native Americans would know the european technology and in XVI century they would defeat the Spaniards. Aztec Empire with it's cruelty, ingenuity and perfect organization also familiar with European technology would be one of most powerful in the world. But would it be a better history variant?
reply
The scenario: Vikings established the constant colonies in the North America. And they established the highly profitable trade route: Vinland (i. e. America) - Greenland - Iceland - Norway and merchants of them had explored the land until Mayan Cities. But! Even in great number (in their scale) they would be too weak to tame the Indians. So they would rather concentrated on trade acctivity. For gold, furs, wood and other stuff from Americas they would pay by european ithems like iron and horses. So, Native Americans would know the european technology and in XVI century they would defeat the Spaniards. Aztec Empire with it's cruelty, ingenuity and perfect organization also familiar with European technology would be one of most powerful in the world. But would it be a better history variant?
reply
bruh
The CSA winning makes no sense. The Union would defend DC to the last man, and even after Gettysburg with Lee winning, it would only be tactical. If it was on the 1st day, than the victory is minimal. If its on the 2nd day, it has more affect. If its on the 3rd day, it was at this point dumbed down to a tactical victory. And if lee attacks on the 4th and wins, the battle is useless and lee advances on DC, Meade redeploys to DC and Grant is called back to DC and possibly the union traps the Army of Northern Virginia is cut off in Pennsylvania and the CSA falls in June of 1864. There is no way around it because the CSA didnt have the men or industry to fight the Union. And even if they won in 1861 the union would attack maybe latter than half or a decade later. The CSA cant win.
reply
The CSA winning makes no sense. The Union would defend DC to the last man, and even after Gettysburg with Lee winning, it would only be tactical. If it was on the 1st day, than the victory is minimal. If its on the 2nd day, it has more affect. If its on the 3rd day, it was at this point dumbed down to a tactical victory. And if lee attacks on the 4th and wins, the battle is useless and lee advances on DC, Meade redeploys to DC and Grant is called back to DC and possibly the union traps the Army of Northern Virginia is cut off in Pennsylvania and the CSA falls in June of 1864. There is no way around it because the CSA didnt have the men or industry to fight the Union. And even if they won in 1861 the union would attack maybe latter than half or a decade later. The CSA cant win.
reply
Dan
When it comes to the South industrializing, its important to remember that many Southrons at the time of the Civil war saw industrialization as the antithesis of their identity. A common justification for secession was that the Northern character of industry, urbanism and mercantilism conflicted with the Souths agricultural, rural and Jeffersonian character therefore legitimizing the creation of a new nation for a separate society. The author of company Haitch mentions this in that memoir. Southerners would scorn industrial development and trust their descendants could pull off more of Lees miracles without regard to the fact that war would only become more industrial, and that those miracles would be made impossible by industrial, total war.
reply
When it comes to the South industrializing, its important to remember that many Southrons at the time of the Civil war saw industrialization as the antithesis of their identity. A common justification for secession was that the Northern character of industry, urbanism and mercantilism conflicted with the Souths agricultural, rural and Jeffersonian character therefore legitimizing the creation of a new nation for a separate society. The author of company Haitch mentions this in that memoir. Southerners would scorn industrial development and trust their descendants could pull off more of Lees miracles without regard to the fact that war would only become more industrial, and that those miracles would be made impossible by industrial, total war.
reply
Richard
There was one other way for Japan to win the WWII, but it is a bit too horrible to contemplate: Nuclear weapons. There is a series of conjectures that Japan could have built simple atomic weapons. Maybe, if Pearl Harbor was a single aircraft dropping a single bomb in the midst of battleship row (which would have rendered the ships unusable, even though none of them would have actually sunk) and other single aircraft damaging huge chunks of other US naval bases on the West Coast. Of course, this could only work if Japan could deliver enough nukes, before the US deployed enough radar systems to prevent aircraft sneaking into US airspace, to get Roosevelt to sue for peace.
reply
There was one other way for Japan to win the WWII, but it is a bit too horrible to contemplate: Nuclear weapons. There is a series of conjectures that Japan could have built simple atomic weapons. Maybe, if Pearl Harbor was a single aircraft dropping a single bomb in the midst of battleship row (which would have rendered the ships unusable, even though none of them would have actually sunk) and other single aircraft damaging huge chunks of other US naval bases on the West Coast. Of course, this could only work if Japan could deliver enough nukes, before the US deployed enough radar systems to prevent aircraft sneaking into US airspace, to get Roosevelt to sue for peace.
reply
TheMelnTeam
If Japan hadn't done Pearl Harbor and instead stuck with hits on Philippines/been less brutal in China, I wonder to what extent US would have focused efforts in the Pacific rather than on Germany. They still couldn't compete on industry, but would US will to fight have been as high w/o horrors in China and especially Pearl Harbor + resources committed against the Germans first? I can envision a scenario where Japan loses but isn't forced into unconditional surrender.
Though it's debatable whether leadership that would act that way would have initiated war in China or against Philippines/US/allies similarly.
reply
If Japan hadn't done Pearl Harbor and instead stuck with hits on Philippines/been less brutal in China, I wonder to what extent US would have focused efforts in the Pacific rather than on Germany. They still couldn't compete on industry, but would US will to fight have been as high w/o horrors in China and especially Pearl Harbor + resources committed against the Germans first? I can envision a scenario where Japan loses but isn't forced into unconditional surrender.
Though it's debatable whether leadership that would act that way would have initiated war in China or against Philippines/US/allies similarly.
reply
Add a review, comment
Other channel videos
