Alternate History Thread(CLOSED)

[Atheris]

Unlikely, but possible. Hungary would object to having its Balkan territory taken away, but it wouldn't be a major problem. Hungary would lose their shit if Transylvania was taken from it, though.

Germany didn't lose its eastern puppets, though. Ukraine, the Baltic Duchy, Belarus, etc. were kept as independent after WW1. They were taken by the Soviets, who knew Germany didn't have the power to face them. If the German Revolution still happens ITTL and Versailles restricts Germany's military, then the USSR will still take Germany's puppets.

Alright, so Hungary would object if all of Transylvania would be a federal subject. What about just south Transylvania?

They'd still probably rise in revolt.

Regarding the Amiens one, Germany basically lost the east at Versailles. Poland was recognized as a sovereign and a republic which took land from it's masters. The other puppets Germany couldn't maintain after loosing Poland. In this timeline however, the German revolution would probably fail if it happened at all, since the fleet wouldn't be on suicidal orders at the time of the ceasefire. My guess is it takes months to get the French army in proper supply before a new offensive, by the end of which there is little ground exchanged and both sides are tired. The Ottomans, however, are defeated, and loose even more land, with Bulgaria later occupying Thrace and Constantinople. Austria Hungary collapses to after loosing to the Italians, making them sign a ceasefire. By fall 1919 both armies would be mutinying, the French would be near revolt, and the Germans would be starving. In the end, they meet in Bern to sign a treaty. Germany cedes Alsace-Lorraine to France, and Togoland is split between France and Britain. The east remain in the German Sphere, and are allowed to "secure" Galicia, since Austria is in a civil war. Italy gains what it did OTL(though they probably start occupying other lands in Austria) and Austria itself gains Montenegro and puppets Serbia. There's a chance Germany will gain a small part of Poland. Bulgaria gets it's land from Serbia and Greece, along with lands from Turkey(till the republic comes, that it). None of the armies are reduced, except the German navy has to be half the British, and everyone pays war reparations. The league of Nations is made, and declares Galicia a Ukrainian and Polish mandate. Overall, most sides achieve most of their goals and in the end will likely gain a surplus of land if they lost any. Thoughts on what happens next?

The DNVP or something similar rises in Germany; the NSDAP isn't coming to power without a Bavarian People's Republic. The Turkish War of Independence would still happen, and Turkey would gain its land back. Why would Bulgaria gain any land from Turkey? Bulgaria was a Central Power, and allied with the Ottoman Empire and Germany. If Italy gains Dalmatia, then there's a chance that we won't see Mussolini in '22 and instead see the rise of the socialist/communist parties.

[Repubblica Fascista Sociale Italiana]

What if draft animals migrated to the Americas before the land bridge was flooded?

[Neanderthaland]

What if draft animals migrated to the Americas before the land bridge was flooded?

Several of them originated in the Americas, so I'm guessing that the same climate forces that drove American camels and horses extinct would have driven aurochs and the like extinct as well.

But I prefer this version: What if South Americans had successfully domesticated the Giant Ground Sloth?

Let's see Spanish cavalry try to trample that.

[Exalted Inquellian State]

Alright, so Hungary would object if all of Transylvania would be a federal subject. What about just south Transylvania?

They'd still probably rise in revolt.

Regarding the Amiens one, Germany basically lost the east at Versailles. Poland was recognized as a sovereign and a republic which took land from it's masters. The other puppets Germany couldn't maintain after loosing Poland. In this timeline however, the German revolution would probably fail if it happened at all, since the fleet wouldn't be on suicidal orders at the time of the ceasefire. My guess is it takes months to get the French army in proper supply before a new offensive, by the end of which there is little ground exchanged and both sides are tired. The Ottomans, however, are defeated, and loose even more land, with Bulgaria later occupying Thrace and Constantinople. Austria Hungary collapses to after loosing to the Italians, making them sign a ceasefire. By fall 1919 both armies would be mutinying, the French would be near revolt, and the Germans would be starving. In the end, they meet in Bern to sign a treaty. Germany cedes Alsace-Lorraine to France, and Togoland is split between France and Britain. The east remain in the German Sphere, and are allowed to "secure" Galicia, since Austria is in a civil war. Italy gains what it did OTL(though they probably start occupying other lands in Austria) and Austria itself gains Montenegro and puppets Serbia. There's a chance Germany will gain a small part of Poland. Bulgaria gets it's land from Serbia and Greece, along with lands from Turkey(till the republic comes, that it). None of the armies are reduced, except the German navy has to be half the British, and everyone pays war reparations. The league of Nations is made, and declares Galicia a Ukrainian and Polish mandate. Overall, most sides achieve most of their goals and in the end will likely gain a surplus of land if they lost any. Thoughts on what happens next?

The DNVP or something similar rises in Germany; the NSDAP isn't coming to power without a Bavarian People's Republic. The Turkish War of Independence would still happen, and Turkey would gain its land back. Why would Bulgaria gain any land from Turkey? Bulgaria was a Central Power, and allied with the Ottoman Empire and Germany. If Italy gains Dalmatia, then there's a chance that we won't see Mussolini in '22 and instead see the rise of the socialist/communist parties.

Alright, so here is the question for the Brest-Litovsk one: If Austria promised all ethnicities in it's empire, along with it's Serbian and Montenegrin puppets, federalization, could they beat the Hungarians?

Regarding the Amiens one, it's very likely that a conservative party like the DNVP would rise, without the anti-semetism of Hugenberg. We would see Zentrum, DNVP, and SDP governments often. Talking about Turkey, Bulgaria would probably take something from it after it surrendered, under the guise of "punishing them for their betrayal". About Italy getting Dalmatia, we come to a question: could Austria-Hungary beat all of it's ethnicities rebelling?

[Dominioan]

What if draft animals migrated to the Americas before the land bridge was flooded?

Several of them originated in the Americas, so I'm guessing that the same climate forces that drove American camels and horses extinct would have driven aurochs and the like extinct as well.

But I prefer this version: What if South Americans had successfully domesticated the Giant Ground Sloth?

Let's see Spanish cavalry try to trample that.

The Sloths would take over, eventually.

[Exalted Inquellian State]

Oh, also, I'm making a map about the stalemate world.

[Atheris]

They'd still probably rise in revolt.


The DNVP or something similar rises in Germany; the NSDAP isn't coming to power without a Bavarian People's Republic. The Turkish War of Independence would still happen, and Turkey would gain its land back. Why would Bulgaria gain any land from Turkey? Bulgaria was a Central Power, and allied with the Ottoman Empire and Germany. If Italy gains Dalmatia, then there's a chance that we won't see Mussolini in '22 and instead see the rise of the socialist/communist parties.

Alright, so here is the question for the Brest-Litovsk one: If Austria promised all ethnicities in it's empire, along with it's Serbian and Montenegrin puppets, federalization, could they beat the Hungarians?

Possibly. It's hard to say.

Regarding the Amiens one, it's very likely that a conservative party like the DNVP would rise, without the anti-semetism of Hugenberg. We would see Zentrum, DNVP, and SDP governments often. Talking about Turkey, Bulgaria would probably take something from it after it surrendered, under the guise of "punishing them for their betrayal". About Italy getting Dalmatia, we come to a question: could Austria-Hungary beat all of it's ethnicities rebelling?

The DNVP would rise on a platform of antisemitism. The Stab in the Back myth would still be popular and something along the lines of WW2 would still happen. Bulgaria wouldn't be able to take anything from Turkey; if they could've, then they would've OTL. For your last question, the simple answer is a flat-out no.

[Exalted Inquellian State]

Alright, so here is the question for the Brest-Litovsk one: If Austria promised all ethnicities in it's empire, along with it's Serbian and Montenegrin puppets, federalization, could they beat the Hungarians?

Possibly. It's hard to say.

Regarding the Amiens one, it's very likely that a conservative party like the DNVP would rise, without the anti-semetism of Hugenberg. We would see Zentrum, DNVP, and SDP governments often. Talking about Turkey, Bulgaria would probably take something from it after it surrendered, under the guise of "punishing them for their betrayal". About Italy getting Dalmatia, we come to a question: could Austria-Hungary beat all of it's ethnicities rebelling?

The DNVP would rise on a platform of antisemitism. The Stab in the Back myth would still be popular and something along the lines of WW2 would still happen. Bulgaria wouldn't be able to take anything from Turkey; if they could've, then they would've OTL. For your last question, the simple answer is a flat-out no.

Alright, that no changes a lot. You see, after Austria-Hungary collapsed in our timeline, Karl abdicated, and the last remnants of his empire became the Republic of German-Austria. It tried to join Germany, but was rejected. In this timeline, it would, so Germany would have modern day Austria, and the Sudetenland. Now, I did some calculations, and Germany is at a net land gain in this timeline. So it's likely there would be no stab in the back myth. Regarding Italy, they would likely take Dalmatia, since they had little competition, preventing Mussolini from rising to Power. After a while, Galicia would probably have a referendum on hether to join Poland or Ukraine. Based on their representation in the 1911 Cislethenian election, Galicia is 72 percent Polish, so it would go to Poland. And in real life, Bulgaria took nothing because they lost the war. Here, that is not the case.

[Repubblica Fascista Sociale Italiana]

What if draft animals migrated to the Americas before the land bridge was flooded?

Several of them originated in the Americas, so I'm guessing that the same climate forces that drove American camels and horses extinct would have driven aurochs and the like extinct as well.

But I prefer this version: What if South Americans had successfully domesticated the Giant Ground Sloth?

Let's see Spanish cavalry try to trample that.

If they didn’t go extinct?

The Americas had fertile farmlands, the lack of draft animals is generally the reason anthropologists point towards why North American natives didn’t settle and build large cities. The Andeans had the Llama, but even those could not be used the same way as cows, pigs, and most importantly, horses. Domestic animals are essential to building up a settled society, especially draft animals. When Europeans introduced horses, within a span of a few hundred years, they became a core of native American life as is.

[Neanderthaland]

Several of them originated in the Americas, so I'm guessing that the same climate forces that drove American camels and horses extinct would have driven aurochs and the like extinct as well.

But I prefer this version: What if South Americans had successfully domesticated the Giant Ground Sloth?

Let's see Spanish cavalry try to trample that.

If they didn’t go extinct?

The Americas had fertile farmlands, the lack of draft animals is generally the reason anthropologists point towards why North American natives didn’t settle and build large cities. The Andeans had the Llama, but even those could not be used the same way as cows, pigs, and most importantly, horses. Domestic animals are essential to building up a settled society, especially draft animals. When Europeans introduced horses, within a span of a few hundred years, they became a core of native American life as is.

It's difficult to say, because while it's entirely possible to domesticate these animals, it's no guarantee it will happen. Keep in mind that people in the Old World lived alongside horses for tens of thousands of years without domesticating them. And there doesn't appear to be any particular reason why they domesticated horses when they did, and not sooner. So it could be the case that Americans wouldn't have domesticated these animals at all, even if they were around.

One change I can predict with confidence: Americans on the East Coast of North America develop a kind of migratory agriculture where they would essentially travel in large circles, planting as they went. And then returning later in the year to reap the rewards. But it turns out that if there are pigs around, they will just learn to follow you, and eat all the seeds you sowed after you leave. So this form of agriculture would have been impossible, and that might have encouraged more sedentary agriculture of the type that we are familiar with.


Assuming that Native Americans did domesticate these animals, and assuming they did so roughly at the same time as the Old World, I still think they would be behind the Old World technologically. Having been largely cut-off from the much larger Old World trade networks. A lot of tech development comes from borrowing and adapting ideas from other people. That's why almost everyone uses Arabic numbers on Chinese paper money.

What might have helped the Americans more: because they would be living in close proximity to farm animals, they would have more zoonosis. That is to say: diseases that come from non-human animals. The introduction of these novel diseases to the Americans by Europeans, was probably the most devastating blow that the Americans suffered. With this, there's a chance that they either wouldn't have suffered as badly if these diseases were similar to Old World counterparts. Or that they would have at least spread their own terrible diseases back to the Europeans.

[Exalted Inquellian State]

I made a map of the world war one stalemate world in 1920. Guessing by how much land they control, do you think Austria could beat the rebel groups in it's country?

[Auristania]

What if draft animals migrated to the Americas before the land bridge was flooded?

They did. Camels and Horses and Llamas oh my all started in USA. When Native Americans left their Siberian Homeland and went to USA, they ate all the Camels and Horses and Llamas oh my

[Repubblica Fascista Sociale Italiana]

If they didn’t go extinct?

The Americas had fertile farmlands, the lack of draft animals is generally the reason anthropologists point towards why North American natives didn’t settle and build large cities. The Andeans had the Llama, but even those could not be used the same way as cows, pigs, and most importantly, horses. Domestic animals are essential to building up a settled society, especially draft animals. When Europeans introduced horses, within a span of a few hundred years, they became a core of native American life as is.

It's difficult to say, because while it's entirely possible to domesticate these animals, it's no guarantee it will happen. Keep in mind that people in the Old World lived alongside horses for tens of thousands of years without domesticating them. And there doesn't appear to be any particular reason why they domesticated horses when they did, and not sooner. So it could be the case that Americans wouldn't have domesticated these animals at all, even if they were around.

One change I can predict with confidence: Americans on the East Coast of North America develop a kind of migratory agriculture where they would essentially travel in large circles, planting as they went. And then returning later in the year to reap the rewards. But it turns out that if there are pigs around, they will just learn to follow you, and eat all the seeds you sowed after you leave. So this form of agriculture would have been impossible, and that might have encouraged more sedentary agriculture of the type that we are familiar with.


Assuming that Native Americans did domesticate these animals, and assuming they did so roughly at the same time as the Old World, I still think they would be behind the Old World technologically. Having been largely cut-off from the much larger Old World trade networks. A lot of tech development comes from borrowing and adapting ideas from other people. That's why almost everyone uses Arabic numbers on Chinese paper money.

What might have helped the Americans more: because they would be living in close proximity to farm animals, they would have more zoonosis. That is to say: diseases that come from non-human animals. The introduction of these novel diseases to the Americans by Europeans, was probably the most devastating blow that the Americans suffered. With this, there's a chance that they either wouldn't have suffered as badly if these diseases were similar to Old World counterparts. Or that they would have at least spread their own terrible diseases back to the Europeans.

Regarding zoonosis, if the animals were the same species as those found in the old world, and had not gone extinct, they would’ve likely developed a good resistance to many of the diseases later brought over. Which brings up another question, assuming they still lag behind technology, but have sheer population on their side, would Europe still be able to colonize? And considering Americas started the concept of colonialism, would European colonialism just not be a thing?

[Neanderthaland]

It's difficult to say, because while it's entirely possible to domesticate these animals, it's no guarantee it will happen. Keep in mind that people in the Old World lived alongside horses for tens of thousands of years without domesticating them. And there doesn't appear to be any particular reason why they domesticated horses when they did, and not sooner. So it could be the case that Americans wouldn't have domesticated these animals at all, even if they were around.

One change I can predict with confidence: Americans on the East Coast of North America develop a kind of migratory agriculture where they would essentially travel in large circles, planting as they went. And then returning later in the year to reap the rewards. But it turns out that if there are pigs around, they will just learn to follow you, and eat all the seeds you sowed after you leave. So this form of agriculture would have been impossible, and that might have encouraged more sedentary agriculture of the type that we are familiar with.


Assuming that Native Americans did domesticate these animals, and assuming they did so roughly at the same time as the Old World, I still think they would be behind the Old World technologically. Having been largely cut-off from the much larger Old World trade networks. A lot of tech development comes from borrowing and adapting ideas from other people. That's why almost everyone uses Arabic numbers on Chinese paper money.

What might have helped the Americans more: because they would be living in close proximity to farm animals, they would have more zoonosis. That is to say: diseases that come from non-human animals. The introduction of these novel diseases to the Americans by Europeans, was probably the most devastating blow that the Americans suffered. With this, there's a chance that they either wouldn't have suffered as badly if these diseases were similar to Old World counterparts. Or that they would have at least spread their own terrible diseases back to the Europeans.

Regarding zoonosis, if the animals were the same species as those found in the old world, and had not gone extinct, they would’ve likely developed a good resistance to many of the diseases later brought over. Which brings up another question, assuming they still lag behind technology, but have sheer population on their side, would Europe still be able to colonize? And considering Americas started the concept of colonialism, would European colonialism just not be a thing?

Possibly not. They were able to colonize Africa. But had a much harder time of it. Despite most of Africa being behind Europe technologically.

Now disease worked in Africa's favor there. Malaria made it very difficult to colonize huge parts of the continent until quinine was developed. The Americans wouldn't have this advantage. And I want to make clear: the exchange of disease would still have been very deadly. But it's possible that without as overwhelming of a success in North America, that the entire colonial impulse would be subdued somewhat.

[Exalted Inquellian State]

Just a question. During World War One and the Paris Peace Conference, how much did the Entente care about German colonies, and how would this change if world war one ended in negotiated peace with the borders of the map I made?

[Exalted Inquellian State]

Alright, so here is the question for the Brest-Litovsk one: If Austria promised all ethnicities in it's empire, along with it's Serbian and Montenegrin puppets, federalization, could they beat the Hungarians?

Possibly. It's hard to say.

Regarding the Amiens one, it's very likely that a conservative party like the DNVP would rise, without the anti-semetism of Hugenberg. We would see Zentrum, DNVP, and SDP governments often. Talking about Turkey, Bulgaria would probably take something from it after it surrendered, under the guise of "punishing them for their betrayal". About Italy getting Dalmatia, we come to a question: could Austria-Hungary beat all of it's ethnicities rebelling?

The DNVP would rise on a platform of antisemitism. The Stab in the Back myth would still be popular and something along the lines of WW2 would still happen. Bulgaria wouldn't be able to take anything from Turkey; if they could've, then they would've OTL. For your last question, the simple answer is a flat-out no.

Ok, so if the DNVP did rise on a platform of anti-semitism, how authoritarian and antisemetic would they be?

Also, why is a Bavarian People's Republic necessary for the NDSAP?

[Exalted Inquellian State]

Alright, here's a map sequel. Feel free to critisize.

[Atheris]

Alright, here's a map sequel. Feel free to critisize.

(Image)

Why does Germany own Luxembourg, and extra parts of Poland?

Possibly. It's hard to say.


The DNVP would rise on a platform of antisemitism. The Stab in the Back myth would still be popular and something along the lines of WW2 would still happen. Bulgaria wouldn't be able to take anything from Turkey; if they could've, then they would've OTL. For your last question, the simple answer is a flat-out no.

Ok, so if the DNVP did rise on a platform of anti-semitism, how authoritarian and antisemetic would they be?

Definitely not as much as Nazi Germany. Probably as bad a Nazi Germany before Kristallnacht. Kristallnacht probably wouldn't even happen.

Also, why is a Bavarian People's Republic necessary for the NDSAP?

One of the main reasons the NSDAP rose to power was because of the fear of communism - the Soviet Union to the East, the Bavarians in the South, the Popular Front in the East. The German people were utterly terrified that Germany would fall to the "people's revolution".

[Exalted Inquellian State]

Alright, here's a map sequel. Feel free to critisize.

(Image)

Why does Germany own Luxembourg, and extra parts of Poland?

Ok, so if the DNVP did rise on a platform of anti-semitism, how authoritarian and antisemetic would they be?

Definitely not as much as Nazi Germany. Probably as bad a Nazi Germany before Kristallnacht. Kristallnacht probably wouldn't even happen.

Also, why is a Bavarian People's Republic necessary for the NDSAP?

One of the main reasons the NSDAP rose to power was because of the fear of communism - the Soviet Union to the East, the Bavarians in the South, the Popular Front in the East. The German people were utterly terrified that Germany would fall to the "people's revolution".

Germany owns parts of Poland because that was the plan-to own lands in the North. if your talking about Silesia, they bought it or convinced the LoN to give it to them. Mari-Adelaide was relatively pro-German. I believe she and the Kaiser went to a ball during the war.

Regarding the anti-semetism of the DNVP, I can breathe a sigh of relief. But would it allow free and fair elections?

Also, if Germany owned the catholic Austrians, and had buffers against communism, would the NDSAP still be popular if the Bavarian uprising happened?

[Exalted Inquellian State]

Well, it happened. This isn't a nightmare or hallucination. We will have a discussion about... Soviet anime.

Here's how this works. We take turns, and discuss different five year periods, from the POD to Today. We will start with the guy who suggested this idea, and then me. After that, everyone just says a five year period first. This will continue until we reach present day. Now who came up with this?

[Exalted Inquellian State]

Alright, while we're waiting for the anime discussion to start, I'll continue talking about the WW1 stalemate timeline.

Alright, so as my colleague said, Italy takes Dalmatia, preventing a certain Bald man from rising to power. However, this doesn't completely change the fact that the economy is probably in the toilet, and the rebelling Slavs don't help. So, socialist parties begin to rise in popularity. In fact, it may get so bad they sell South Tirol to Germany. But when the Stock Maerket crash happens, the people start rioting and in 1930, the Monarchy is overthrown, and replaced with a socialist republic. They execute any opposition, and declare this guy chairman.


Palmiro Togliatti, GenSec of the Italian communist party from 1927 till his death in 1964

Also, I believe some background is neccesary. In our timeline, Hungary nearly went communist. Here, due to a longer war and a civil war in Austria-Hungary, this happens. They are revanchist and hell bent on creating a Danubian Socialist Federation. S they, Ttaly, and the USSR buddy up and create a socialist alliance. France would see issues too, and I'm not sure if that would cause them to go socialist, since the poverty and them kinda winning the war, or F**cist(but against Germany and not action francais) due to the WW1 socialist government not winning.

On an unrelated note, I don't think the DNVP would be anti-Slavic, for obvious reasons(glances at Slavic puppets in east).

[Atheris]

Alright, while we're waiting for the anime discussion to start, I'll continue talking about the WW1 stalemate timeline.

Alright, so as my colleague said, Italy takes Dalmatia, preventing a certain Bald man from rising to power. However, this doesn't completely change the fact that the economy is probably in the toilet, and the rebelling Slavs don't help. So, socialist parties begin to rise in popularity. In fact, it may get so bad they sell South Tirol to Germany. But when the Stock Maerket crash happens, the people start rioting and in 1930, the Monarchy is overthrown, and replaced with a socialist republic. They execute any opposition, and declare this guy chairman.

(Image)
Palmiro Togliatti, GenSec of the Italian communist party from 1927 till his death in 1964

Also, I believe some background is neccesary. In our timeline, Hungary nearly went communist. Here, due to a longer war and a civil war in Austria-Hungary, this happens. They are revanchist and hell bent on creating a Danubian Socialist Federation. S they, Ttaly, and the USSR buddy up and create a socialist alliance. France would see issues too, and I'm not sure if that would cause them to go socialist, since the poverty and them kinda winning the war, or F**cist(but against Germany and not action francais) due to the WW1 socialist government not winning.

On an unrelated note, I don't think the DNVP would be anti-Slavic, for obvious reasons(glances at Slavic puppets in east).

Why did you censor fascist?

[Exalted Inquellian State]

Alright, while we're waiting for the anime discussion to start, I'll continue talking about the WW1 stalemate timeline.

Alright, so as my colleague said, Italy takes Dalmatia, preventing a certain Bald man from rising to power. However, this doesn't completely change the fact that the economy is probably in the toilet, and the rebelling Slavs don't help. So, socialist parties begin to rise in popularity. In fact, it may get so bad they sell South Tirol to Germany. But when the Stock Maerket crash happens, the people start rioting and in 1930, the Monarchy is overthrown, and replaced with a socialist republic. They execute any opposition, and declare this guy chairman.

(Image)
Palmiro Togliatti, GenSec of the Italian communist party from 1927 till his death in 1964

Also, I believe some background is neccesary. In our timeline, Hungary nearly went communist. Here, due to a longer war and a civil war in Austria-Hungary, this happens. They are revanchist and hell bent on creating a Danubian Socialist Federation. S they, Ttaly, and the USSR buddy up and create a socialist alliance. France would see issues too, and I'm not sure if that would cause them to go socialist, since the poverty and them kinda winning the war, or F**cist(but against Germany and not action francais) due to the WW1 socialist government not winning.

On an unrelated note, I don't think the DNVP would be anti-Slavic, for obvious reasons(glances at Slavic puppets in east).

Why did you censor fascist?

That word barely deserves the right to be said.

[Atheris]

Why did you censor fascist?

That word barely deserves the right to be said.

I could say the same about communism, but you won't find me censoring it. Censoring a word has a dangerous risk of the Streisand Effect.

[Exalted Inquellian State]

That word barely deserves the right to be said.

I could say the same about communism, but you won't find me censoring it. Censoring a word has a dangerous risk of the Streisand Effect.

I guess the fact that you only noticed that and not the rest proves your point. I'll stop on the censoring. What about the rest of the post and my other ones?

Also, briefly touching on the earlier Brest-Litovsk one, the Ottoman Empire would probably have a big 700 year anniversary celebration in 1999.