The most feasible scenario for this that I can see goes something like:

- Barbarossa is a huge success, the USSR collapses in late 1941. Stalin ousted. USSR surrenders. German Eastern front troop divert to middle east.

- Britain agrees to peace rather than lose remaining imperial territories. Churchill ousted in the process.

- Japan immediately after agrees to peace with Britain and France.

- With the scale war significantly reduced Japanese and American tension reduce. War seems avoidable and the Japanese don't launch Pearl Harbour.

- The US negotiates with Japan to cease the war in China and cease further expansion. Possibly cede back a few territories.

But given the manpower and in the industrial power of the USSR and the USA, I don't see a realistic scenario where they sue for peace rather than continue a war which they will eventually win.... other than some sort of massive internal collapse, which seems unlikely in both cases.

Perhaps humanity is lucky that Hitler was uncompromising and deluded by his belief in the so called "force of will". Had he been more strategic and connected to facts rather than believing his own propaganda, he may have found a way to some sort of compromise to pause the war in the west while he retooled Germany for a world war before Barbarossa. The outcome be may have been different, a stronger Germany, perhaps a more developed nuclear program. I'm sure that this has been the subject of numerous dime store novels.

Uuummm... Sorry. My father fought in WW2 amd my mother also lived through it. her brother shot down in 1942.... So I'm a little bit knowledgeable....

Anyway. plenty knew of the jewish holocaust. My parents both did. Mum said by 1943 it was well accepted. The thing is? No one could really get their head around it ... Face reality sort of?? Mum said it was on one hand accepted? But on the other everyone was sorta in denial.

As my parents told me? Very very wierd times... But most knew and certainly the governments knew. Spys had reported back to them for years. The Brits most definitely knew.

Mum recalled conversations with her parents & family about where all the jews and others were? It was clear they had been removed and there were plenty reports of them being put on trains etc... People knew alright.

Huge shortcoming with these questions.

Even when most of France was occupied, there was still a huge resistance movement internally. It's not like they went in, took France and all went quiet until D Day landings.

And no, you don't think the allies would have ignored the death camps and let Hitler carry on with his industrialised murder camps?

You're also speaking as if Germany didn't go East.. The Soviet Union was never ever going to stop at the border and everyone knew that the USSR was another party to watch in the war.

Stalin apparently would have accepted an armistice in 1941after losing a lot of territory, I think before the Kyiv encirclement. This was likely before he realized that it was a war of annihilation. I think that I read about this in Montefiore' s book Red Tsar.

[deleted]

I don't think the nature of WW2 and geopolitical reality would have just permitted the Axis to simply "stop". Those empires had military momentum and strategic goals that prevented a clean end to expansion or conquest. Much of this was material demand. Fanaticism was also a major factor. Thus, I can't see many realistic scenarios in line with what you are asking about, even if for some reason the US never got involved in the war.

Most unlikely. The Nazis had conclusively and repeatedly demonstrated that the only pathway to peace was through allies victory, because their attitude to peace treaties - much like the fascists in Russia now - was contempt towards those who would agree to them, and a clear intent to return to war and conquest as soon as they felt they'd regained an advantage.

It was clearly better and actually less dangerous to keep fighting them until they were completely defeated.

[removed]

Hitler thought Britain would make peace at some point during the blitz

What are you even on about!

They came from all over Gaul, met up at Alesia and fought there.

The point is not out how many nations they came but if they campaigned as one force

You should reread it then, as the relief army was composed of the armies of some 20 Gallic nations.

IIRC nobody claimed different armies

Did anybody claim that the Gallic armies were marching on one road?

Now that I think about it, friendly fire incidents happen in most wars, so I am sure that the War of 1812 is no exception.

They had the field, the knowledge, the networks, the crops, so on. Changing crops is not as simple as clicking a button. It would require months if not years of work.

Impact on World History is not a good qualifier, it's too vague. So if you want a more precise answer you need a more precise question. What kind of impact? Culturally? Linguistically? Politically? And by world history do you mean still visible today?

Because a lot of states had impact on history, like a lot. China basically defined east Asian culture, the Mongol empire is responsible for a lot of Russian history, eastern Europe was hugely impacted by Germany, Austria and Russia. France had as much an impact as the British in the make up of Africa. So on, so on.

And they did not march as one army on one road

The different armies itself had been divided into corps

There were over 500,000 soldiers at Leipzig; they also needed food and were relying on carts and wagons.

how was it being a cashier 100 years ago?

so I I'm working on a paper for my university degree. and I have come about a theory that being a cashier (or any of the bottom of the barrel jobs we see today) was... maybe not better.. but seen as a higher status and needed a "higher standard" to be.

Yes, definitely.

Others of course, adopted the caracolle.

In my experience you deal with this by doing a thorough title search and getting an ALTA survey, which would show the existence of several conflicting landmarks. Hopefully you can then get a boundary line agreement with the adjoining land owners. Usually the neighbors are fine with accepting whatever they perceived the boundary line to be. Then you record the boundary agreement in your county land records so that future title searchers know the problem has been cleared up.

A "rod" is actually a unit of land measurement. A rod is 16.5 feet. It's an old school surveyor's tool. I've heard that the measurement dates back to the Roman empire, where the soldiers were also road builders. In the version I was told, 16.5 feet was about the length of a Roman pike.

"Rods" were often a fractional unit of a "chain." A surveyor's chain is another old school tool. Chains were 66 feet in length. A chain is the same length as 4 rods. Back in the day when surveyors had more basic tools, a surveyor would start at a landmark, like a fence post, or a tree, or a metal marker. Then the surveyor would measure their compass heading and stretch out their 66 foot chain and take their measurements. When the distance got too small for the chain they would switch to the rod. A legal description written using this method would read something like "Commence at a fence post on the Southwest corner of the old Grantham tract, in the Southeast quarter of Section 32, Township 3 North, Range 4 East, thence run North 44 degrees, 35 minutes West 14 chains, 3 3/4 rods to the centerline of Redd Creek, thence run in a Northerly direction along the centerline of said creek..."