Situation: after Banksy's infamous Simpsons couch gag, the rumor about the show's Asian animation studio quitting the show comes true. No Asian studio will now touch the show, and it is cancelled as a result. The Simpsons is over and everybody knows why.

I'm particularly curious about the effect on Banksy and his creative output. He's the World's Angriest Graffiti Artist, constantly railing at the state of the world. Imagine if he successfully basically killed something that everyone, especially back then, thought was terrible.

Will Francoist Spain and Fascist Italy fight the newfound Protestant threat, or will they ally with it and form one unified far-right axis?

If there is a split between Fascist Catholic and Fascist Protestant countries much like the Sino-Soviet split, Will there be a 3-way war?

With pressure from Zionist parties in the British Empire, will the Holocaust never happen? Will a soverign State of Israel, or atleast a British Mandate Israel form?

Does Japan still get involved with the Anglo-German axis?

I would imagine the powers would be : The US, resistance movements in France, the USSR, Israel? Ireland, the numerous Baltic states, Ethiopia, Australia, Brazil, India, China, Indonesia, numerous African independence movements throughout Africa fighting two independent wars against

The British Empire, Third Reich, Rhodesia, Japan? the pro-British colonial governments, a partitioned and controlled Western and most of central Europe and Finland

And Fascist Italy, Portugal, and Spain

Who wins this war? Who are the powers? And how much of Africa and South Asia becomes independent?

Does Iran or the Arab states get involves? On which side?

In my theories, I would say 20-30 years.

In brief, although France eventually entered the American War of Independence, it wasn't enough to turn the American War of Independence into a global conflict.

Thus I give you this challenge: Create a plausible timeline where the American Revolutionary War becomes an alternate World War 1.

For this challenge, you only have one objective: create a plausible scenario where other nations BESIDES FRANCE get involved in the American War of Independence, either on the side of the British or the 13 Colonies.

You're allowed to pick any country you could plausibly see entering the American War of Independence (The only rule is that it must be PLAUSIBLE).

So, from what I can gather, Italy's Years of Lead was a series of attacks and back and forth violence between Italy's left wing and right wing paramilitary factions. But considering that there were also strong left wing and right wing groups in England at the time, what if the miners strikes of the 1980s lead to a British version of the Years of Lead where left wing and right wing groups engaging in violent campaign's against each other?

Leonard Wood won the Republican nomination in 1920 instead of Harding.

How different would have been his presidency?

Who would have been his Vice president?

Archeologists have found widespread use of copper by pre Colombian civilizations like the Olmecs, as early as 600-1000 BC. Other works involving gold, silver, and precious metals were more common. However, they never developed more advanced metallurgy techniques for iron and bronze. How would the world be different if they had?

There are certain elections years in which a certain candidate or party is pretty much guaranteed to win due to the circumstances of the time (e.g. Lyndon Johnson winning in 1964 due to the Kennedy assassination having been recent, any Democrat, whether Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton or someone else, winning the 2008 election due to the financial crisis, Bush’s unpopularity, and Iraq). From what I understand 1972 was one of those years, with Richard Nixon pretty much being guaranteed to win due to his greater popularity prior to Watergate and him announcing that he would start pulling us out of Vietnam prior to the election, taking steam away from McGovern. But I’ve wondered if in those kind of election years, if there was even one potential candidate who would have had so much star power as an individual that they could have “overrode” circumstances and won an election that their party wasn’t supposed to win, on the back of their individual strength alone.

From what I understand Neil Armstrong wasn’t particularly political and never planned on running for office, but if he had run for president as a Democrat in 1972, the immediate presidential election following the moon landing, would his star have shone so goddamn brightly that he could have defeated Nixon in a year when pretty much any Democrat would have lost by default?

Also, do you think there are other election years where one candidate or party was almost guaranteed tl win (1964, 1976, 1988, 2008, 2020) where there was one specific prominent individual who could have similarly pulled this off? If so, whom and why?

Let’s say France wins the Battle of the Nile, successfully crushes all rebellion in Egypt, and wins the siege of Acre along with further battles? How far does France(the directory) want to go in that region in taking land, and more importantly how far does Napoleon want to go?

How would it effect the world.

Bonus Challenge: Have the famously horribly inaccurate Literary Digest poll's predictions prove accurate, with Landon winning at least 57% of the popular vote and 370 electorial votes

Context: In OTL, Marx actually tried to move to Texas, however his application for a passport was denied by Prussia.

What if it wasn’t denied and he moved to Texas?

Basically, what if the German monarchy was restored in West Germany in 1949?

The idea I have is that in a alternate timeline, Carl Friedrich Goerdeler, a staunch monarchist and conservative who was apart of the July 20th plot to overthrow Hitler, and died in prison in 1945 in our timeline, instead chooses to flee Germany.

He gets into contact with the western Allies via the British and proposes a plan,m.

Carl supports the occupation and denazification of Germany, but he proposes a new government in the aftermath of whatever new Germany would exist.

He proposes the return of the German monarchy.

He cites that democracy had proven weak and ineffective in Germany, allowing someone like Hitler to rise to power, and that it could happen again, or Germany could go to the Soviet side and turn fully communist.

But with the restoration of the monarchy, this time maybe in a similar style to the British Monarch

He says this new proposed monarch would not be from the house of Hohenzollern, but from another German royal family, such as Bavaria’s House of Wittelsbach.

This is, at the time ignored this, as they didn’t want to negotiate any kind of deal about the fate of Germany.

However as the Cold War starts and the plan to unite western Germany forms, this suggestion is remembered and followed through, thus the German Monarchy is restored as the head of a new unified western Germany.

How would this effect the Germany internally and how would this effect German Reunification near the end of the Cold War?

This is something I’ve been thinking about for a few days now, being what exactly would the Great War look like if Napoleon was triumphant in the Napoleonic Wars. Just to simplify things, let’s go with the outcomes made by AlternateHistoryHub and Possible History. The two big things from those being that Napoleon successfully invades Britain (necessary for the greater project I’m working on, mainly due to the 1798 Irish Republic surviving) and that Napoleon manages to escape the cycle of infinite coalitions.

With that being said, I feel as like it is fair to say that the First World War, in one way or another, was inevitable. What happens between the end of the Napoleonic Wars and the start of the Great War is up to you, but what do you think the war would look like when it arrives?

After a much more violent Shay's rebellion with several smaller rebellions happening across the U.S., all the chaos convinces the early founding fathers that Republicanism is flawed and that a Constitutional Monarchy similar to the United Kingdom's with better checks and balances would work better in the long term. As a way to strengthen their relationship with France as well, they elect for a French monarch to be placed on the throne instead of a German one suggested in the Prussian Scheme and plots like it. How would this effect history especially with the Quasi-War happening around a decade later? How would this affect the Napoleonic wars as now French nobility and maybe even some members of the monarchy have another place to flee to?

In 1803, at the time of the Louisiana Purchase, France retained control over Saint-Pierre and Miquelon, Santo Domingo (modern day Dominican Republic and Haiti), Guadeloupe, Martinique, Saint Martin, Saint Lucia, Tobago, and French Guinea.

There are a few factors that could cause France to decide to sell all its holdings, those being:

1. Deciding that they simply weren’t worth the money and manpower to defend, especially as some were already occupied by Britain
2. Wanting to milk as much money out of the United States as possible
3. An attempt at baiting the United States into entering a conflict or just politically/economically hostile state with Britain, due to them occupying some of France’s (now America’s) territories
4. Just the simple realization that the war in Haiti was lost

So what if they did? How would life be in these territories under American rule? Would they all remain part of the US to this day? What future conflicts would arise due to this?

the canal was built to cut shipping times and is both important and vulnerable trade atrery.

so what if the suez canal was there already as a natural thing so a strait between the medeteranian and red sea.

it would be 70m deep like the gulf of suez but have the same width as gibralter at 14km wide or turkish at just 700m wide?

How would the United States have been different if all government employees had been required to pass a qualification exam since 1789?

Self explanatory, I think it depends on the year in 2000 Bush has a better chance of winning imo due to the Monica Lewinsky scandal and party fatigue (Granted I wasn't born yet), but in 04 IDK I could see it being a tossup(Disclaimer if Hillary wins in 2000 I think she losses for sure in 04)

Ok, now I do not know alot about Canadian history past that time the US started a war where... Nothing was really gained and people just died left and right. But I know enough to remember Canada's french origins. Which lasted about 200 years before the brits took it over... So this gives me an idea for a what if scenario that relies on a few changes

1-French Canada is far more populated (Might not be possible given the ratio of Canada's size to the amount of actually useful land is... not great, but for the purposes of this timeline, we just assume French Canada goes far more western then before.

2-The British, similary to America, impose several taxes on this new colony they've just gained, not giving them political representation, basically doing most of the things they did to provoke America to say 'F this Im out.' Not a one to one ratio, but enough to make the Canadian people a little less then happy at the site of a union jack.

In this timeline, the American revolution gives inspiration to a much greater French Canadian population. In only a matter of months or years after America wins its war against the British, French Canada's population or atleast part of it, after a few years of preperation, planning, kicks off there revolution against the British.

Now what? Would America do anything at all or choose to conserve its recources trying to keep its own people together. What about the other colonial powers? And how does this affect world history going forward?

Edit: I know no one asked but to clarify why French Canada needed to be more populated. French Canada has anywhere between 35-55,000 people. Alot of people. But this entire population of people would still be less people then the 231,000 strong that were in the continental army. Though acording to further research, 'never more than 48,000 people at any one time'. Going under my initial assumption, I decided that the 55,000 people, even if they all, 100% of the population, formed a militia, would not be enough to build up an army that could effectively go up against the British Militia. Especially considering that some estimate for the amount of American Soldiers that died between 25,000 to 70,000. Thats almost half of FC's population at least and more then the whole population at most.

In 1789, Thomas Jefferson proposed that the Constitution of the United States of America should feature an expiration date wherein every 19 years, a Constitutional Convention would be organized to create a new Constitution whose laws would ideally reflect the trials and tribulations that the country found itself in at the time. Jefferson believed that this would empower each generation with the ability to indefinitely modernize the country instead of chaining each generation of America's populations to the whims of it's founding generation.

I'm wondering how the USA would evolve if Jefferson's proposal to have the Constitution expire every 19 years became law.

I've seen it argued that this system would make the country better but I disagree. I think it would simply enable for the USA to undergo radical legal changes and evolve much more quickly both in a bad direction and good direction. One Constitution could possibly make the USA a paradise while the next could turn the country into a fascist dictatorship if it had enough support.

-
Using the ratification date of the OTL Constitution, here are the dates that each Constitution would function ( it's all June 21st )

-

Constitution I - June 21st, 1788 - June 21st, 1807

Constitution II - June 21st, 1807 - June 21st, 1826

Constitution III - June 21st, 1826 - June 21st, 1845

Constitution IV - June 21st, 1845 - June 21st, 1864

Constitution V - June 21st, 1864 - June 21st, 1883

Constitution VI - June 21st, 1883 - June 21st, 1902

Constitution VII - June 21st, 1902 - June 21st, 1921

Constitution VIII - June 21st, 1921 - June 21st, 1940

Constitution IX - June 21st, 1940 - June 21st, 1959

Constitution X - June 21st, 1959 - June 21st, 1978

Constitution XI - June 21st, 1978 - June 21st, 1997

Constitution XII - June 21st, 1997 - June 21st, 2016 ( Present Constitution ( 12 ) )

Constitution XIII - June 21st, 2016 - June 21st, 2035 ( Next Constitution )

-

What sort of changes do you think the USA would undergo with this system? What new laws might be attached too or carried over from each new Constitution?

In an alternate 1950s, after the Korean War ended, the DPRK discovers rare earth elements. I imagine this creates a butterfly effect where, by trading these rare earth elements with other countries, the DPRK becomes a superpower on the same level as China

Extremely unrealistic, yet you can sort of see where I’m coming from. Leaving aside any sort of conspiracies regarding the September 11th attacks, let’s assume the tragedy had an impact so great on the american public that it left the country seeking a new, more radical leadership. Xenophobia, islamophobia, racism and maybe even imperialist sentiments rise through the roof, and soon enough a new President, alongside a new, fascist, Congress and Government take over the country. How would this change the course of modern politics?

It was nowhere near possible for Prigozhin to take Moscow with only 25,000 men, but at the same time, he had already taken Rostov, which is the headquarters of the Southern Military District and the main supply hub for the Russian forces in Ukraine.

How would the war change if he had fortified himself in Rostov instead of going for Moscow? Would Ukraine's summer counteroffensive succeed? How long would PMC Wagner last in the city (assuming if they refuse to surrender to Putin's forces)?

What if in 1984, when a delegation from Turks and Caicos Islands went to Ottawa to propose joining Canada, it was well received by Canadian politicians and citizens, and then the Turks and Caicos Islands were incorporated as a Canadian Province, territory, or part of an existing province?

In the 1970s, North Korea is discovered to have the same amount of oil as Kuwait as well as similar quality, How would the situation on the Korean Peninsula change as a result of this?

My guess is that he would be campaigning in carpathia and Persia while anti-caesarean senators try to get more power. I think he overestimated how popular he was. This might spiral into a civil war, but would more likely end in ceasar returning to Rome to stabilize it, or Lepidus, who would probably be in charge, not letting it get so far. I dont think much else would have changed maybe Caesar would be inclined to actually call himself Roman King and making Rome a monarchy instead of using the euphemism emperor. What do you think?

Fascism will most likely die with Mussolini, who will likely die in 1953 (the Mussolini family has had short life spans), and King Umberto II will do what King Juan Carlos I did and restore Democracy to Italy

What happens to their colonies is up in the air. They will definitely lose East Africa at some point. But Libya is more complicated as Italians really really wanted to colonize Libya or as they called it “Italy’s Fourth Shore”. By the time of WW2, Italians had already risen to 13% of the population in an extremely rapid period of time and already outnumbered the natives in Tripoli. Another 15 years and the discovery of oil and no wartime involvement, it’s possible that Italians could have managed to outpopulate the natives as Libya was far less populated compared than say, Egypt or Algeria. So Libya may remain apart of Italy even into the 21st century, the areas around Tripolitania and Cyrenaica might even get incorporated into Italy Proper with a rump protectorate to the south.

So this timeline is basically the worst ending for Libya.

Please see Somali Civil War, Operation Gothic Serpent and the Battle of Mogadishu for context regarding how things went down in our timeline.

Let's say that in a parallel universe, for whatever reason, the United States does not deploy military forces to Somalia to intervene in the Somali Civil War.

This alternate scenario could take two forms:

In Scenario A, maybe President George H.W. Bush has a premonition of the mess of things that transpired in our timeline's version of events, and interpreted it as a warning not to get involved whatsoever in the Somali Civil War.

As such, the United States returns to isolationism in this alternate 1993.

In summary, in this alternate reality the UN would still send aid to Somalia, the United States Armed Forces stays completely out of the war.

In Scenario B, following the events of Bloody Monday, President Bill Clinton (who in this alternate reality adopts an isolationist mindset like George H.W. Bush did in Scenario A) decides not to approve the proposal to deploy a task force composed of elite special forces operators from both the US Army Rangers and Delta Force.

In both scenarios, the United States does not deploy military forces to capture Aidid and stays out of Somalia entirely.

How does this affect things later on? Does this lead the American public to view Bush and Clinton as heroes, or cowards? Does this lead Osama bin Laden to have alternate motives for 9/11 (In our timeline, Osama bin Laden used America's military intervention in Somalia to justify the 9/11 attacks in his "Letter to America.")?