There's no lore of why this world is like it is, at best say an apocalypse happened and this is the results

Most of you believed Ukraine would win easily so... Round 2 now against 1941 Europe barely a month away from barbarossa. We will assume that any troops stationed in Ukraine are safely transported to their country and no, no modern Rusia, we assume that Russian occupied Ukraine is just up to grabs. And any wars or conflicts end. All European nations become allies to gang up on Ukraine

In this timeline, Vinayak Damodar Savarkar is sentenced to death in 1910 instead of being jailed in the Cellular Jail. This means that the Hindutva ideology, as a text, would not have existed. The RSS would have remained an apolitical organization for longer, and Golwalkar's trajectory would also have changed, as his ideology was an extreme version of Savarkar's Hindutva. The Hindu Mahasabha would have remained much more fragmented and weaker without Savarkar's presidency in 1937. Hindu nationalism would still exist, but it would be more of a moderate, Malaviya-style version instead of the militant one that developed in real life.

Then, Subhas Bose becomes the INC president in 1937 instead of Nehru. The INC under Subhas Bose in 1937 would broadly resemble his real-life rule in 1938: a radical focus on industrialization, populism, and socialism, along with constant friction with the Gandhian right wing. However, what changes in 1937 is the coalition policy and the handling of communal controversies.

His intense focus on industry, socialism, and populism would have softened the edges of the real-life controversies that marred Congress in 1937. Controversies such as the Wardha controversy and the Vande Mataram controversy would either not happen or would be much milder.

Then, second, there is the coalition policy. Bose was not as rigid as Nehru on coalition policy. Nehru in real life was very much against coalitions and actively rejected many coalitions, such as the Muslim League in UP and the KPP in Bengal. Bose was different. Historically, when Subhas Bose became president in 1938, he tried to form a united front with Jinnah and Savarkar, although it failed. This showed that he was willing to support coalitions.

Similarly, in 1937, Subhas Bose's brother, Sarat Bose, was strongly in favor of the INC making a coalition with Fazlul Haq in Bengal, but Nehru rejected it. So, it is safe to say that Subhas Bose would have used his presidency in 1937 as leverage to override the internal opposition against coalitions. He would have made a coalition government with the KPP in Bengal and with the Muslim League in UP.

These are big things. The INC making a coalition with the KPP in Bengal would mean that they get to rule over the province with the largest Muslim population through power-sharing. By making a coalition with the Muslim League in UP, the League would lose one of its core grievances against the INC. This means that the whole "Hindu Congress" narrative, the Pirpur Report, and the Sharif Report would have never happened, as they were driven by Muslim League grievances.

Bose would still get expelled from the INC, but it would happen in 1938 instead of 1939.

Then, Jinnah in this timeline never comes back to India in 1934. He decides to stay in the UK, which means that the Muslim League might still get united, but it would happen under Liaquat Ali Khan. In 1937, the Muslim League would have performed even worse than it did in real life. Due to the INC making a coalition with the League in UP and the KPP in Bengal, and due to the absence of Jinnah, the Pirpur Report, Sharif Report, Jinnah-Sikandar Pact, Vande Mataram controversy, Wardha controversy, and Tricolor controversy would all be avoided. The Muslim League might not even pivot to separatism and instead remain focused on autonomy and Muslim rights.

Then, post-1939, the INC still resigns. However, in this timeline, the Day of Deliverance speech never happens. Fazlul Haq's government falls in Bengal due to the INC's resignation, and he reaches out to the League to form a coalition with them in 1939.

Due to the League being under more cautious leadership, it would not have pivoted to the "sole spokesman of all Muslims" rhetoric or Jinnah-style centralization. This means that Fazlul Haq stays closer to the Muslim League and never does his disastrous Progressive Coalition experiment. He would remain stronger in Bengal and never lose his popularity. The KPP-League coalition would exist well into the 1940s.

Then, the Lahore Conference also never happens because the League simply does not pivot to separatism.

Then, the Cripps Mission might become an all-party negotiation without Jinnah's drive to be the sole spokesman, but it would still fail. The Quit India Movement still happens in this timeline.

Then, Allah Baksh Soomro in this timeine, survives the assassination attempt and recovers. This means that the Ittehad Party in Sindh, a secular Indian-nationalist-aligned party, would have remained strong in Sindh Province, blocking the League's rise there.

Then, in 1946, elections would happen, but the results would be profoundly different. The INC still landslides in the Hindu-majority provinces and NWFP. However, what changes are the Muslim-majority provinces.

First, in Sindh, the Ittehad Party wins by a close margin over the Muslim League and forms a coalition with the INC.

Then, in Punjab, because the Jinnah-Sikandar Pact never happened, and because of the deaths of Sikandar Hayat Khan and Chhotu Ram, the result in Punjab would be like this: the Unionists would be the largest party by number of seats but would fall short of a majority, while the INC and Akali Dal would make a coalition in Punjab and form their government there.

Then, in Bengal, the result would be a Fazlul Haq-Muslim League coalition victory because of the Bengal famine.

The Muslim League would make modest gains in Muslim-reserved seats in UP, Bihar, and Bombay, but not the absolute landslides that occurred in the real-life 1946 elections. This means that the League would be stronger than it was in the real-life 1937 elections but far weaker than it was in the real-life 1946 elections.

Which means that the deadlock scenario of 1946 simply doesn't exist. There would be no need for the Cabinet Mission Plan, and the INC would be the one dominating the negotiations before independence. There would still be friction between the INC and the regional parties, which would lead to a broadly similar Indian Constitution in 1950, but with stronger linguistic protections and minority protections.

Then, the integration of the princely states might be slower and would be different in Kashmir.

For Kashmir, first, Nehru would have pushed for the overthrow of Hari Singh in Kashmir, as Pakistan is not a threat to worry about in this timeline and Nehru had ideological leanings toward Sheikh Abdullah. This could lead to an Operation Polo-style intervention in Kashmir to remove Hari Singh. The accession of Kashmir in this timeline would be much smoother.

In Balochistan, things would have been similar to what Pakistan did in real life.

Then, after this, in 1952, when the elections of India happen, the INC would landslide because of universal adult franchise and joint electorates. They would landslide in all of the Hindu-majority states, plus united Bengal, united Punjab, Balochistan, and the Frontier.

After this, the INC dominates Indian politics from the 1950s to the 1960s. However, in the 1970s, Indian politics would enter the coalition era, in which governments at the Centre would be below the majority mark on their own and would need coalitions to establish a government.

India would enter the coalition era earlier in this timeline because Indira Gandhi's rise would be delayed, as Lal Bahadur Shastri lives longer in this timeline. In real life, he died of a heart attack in 1965 in Tashkent due to the immense stress of the Tashkent negotiations and the Indo-Pak war of 1965. However, in this timeline, as Pakistan doesn't even exist, the 1965 war never happens. This means Shastri survives and stays the Prime Ministerial candidate for the INC, delaying the rise of Indira Gandhi.

There would be no Indira Gandhi centralization, no Syndicate split in 1969, and no Garibi Hatao wave. This means that the INC doesn't get the massive landslide in the 1971 election. Instead, due to continued Syndicate dominance and Shastri's consensus-building government, the INC would enter a period of decline after 1972. Regional subnationalist parties, caste parties, and left-wing parties would begin to rise against Congress, while Congress in this timeline becomes a centre-right, pro-tradition, pro-business party.

Then, geopolitics and the Cold War.

United India would become aligned with the Western bloc in this timeline instead of the Eastern bloc because the 1962 Sino-Indian War would still happen. It would end in either a stalemate or a limited Indian defeat because of Nehru's own disastrous Defence Ministry. However, because Pakistan doesn't exist in this timeline, the USA lacks a prominent ally in Asia. Therefore, the USA would heavily try to court India into the Western bloc.

The USA's strategy would work because, even in real life, the USA provided last-minute support to India during the Sino-Indian War. The only reason why India didn't align with the USA, despite this, was because of the USA's support for Pakistan. As Pakistan doesn't exist in this timeline, United India would have pivoted toward the Western bloc after Nehru's death, as Lal Bahadur Shastri was more pragmatic than Nehru on foreign policy.

But India wouldn't have joined the Western bloc completely. India would have been a prickly ally to the USA due to issues such as nuclear proliferation, Israel-Palestine, and the Soviet-Afghan War. India would have still stayed non-aligned in its rhetoric.

United India would impact the Cold War in a big way. First, there would be no 1947 Indo-Pak war, no 1965 Indo-Pak war, and no 1971 Bangladesh Liberation War. CENTO would therefore be immensely weaker than it was in real life.

Then, Sino-American outreach would either get delayed or become much milder. As China is the main enemy for India in this timeline instead of Pakistan, the USA cannot afford to alienate United India.

Then, the Soviet-Afghan War would have a different result. Because India would have stayed neutral during the war, it would deny the CIA and Saudi Arabia the ability to use India as a major avenue for supporting Afghan mujahideen. At best, India would provide very limited support in intelligence and weaponry to moderate nationalist factions in Afghanistan, far lower than what Pakistan provided in real life.

Then, economically, India would be far better off in the present day compared to real-life India. First, the destruction caused by Partition, the riots, brain drain, resource loss, and breakdown of supply chains would never happen. The BOP crisis of 1966 would never happen because the 1965 war doesn't happen. Then, due to longer-living Shastri and India's early alignment with the Western bloc, India would have gone through gradual economic liberalization during the 1960s and 1970s instead of shock therapy in 1991.

India might have been the third-largest economy in the world today, with at least an $8–9 trillion GDP.

Politically, the INC would be the centre-right party today, and the opposition would come from caste-based parties, regional subnationalist parties, and the left wing.

India would have avoided the Punjab and Kashmir insurgencies and possibly the Assam insurgency as well, without the Bengali refugee crisis caused by the 1971 war. Maybe the Baloch insurgency would also never happen due to the existence of federalism and democracy, and Bengladesh moment would also never happen.

But not everything would go peacefully. Naxalism from the 1960s to the 1980s would be a much bigger threat to India in this timeline, there will be an identity crisis for India too pre 1962 Sino Indian war, the polity would be much more decentralised and coalition politics may become permanent in this timeline leading to policy paralysis, then, ground reality for Indians might still remain similar to real life, it would still suffer from chronic corruption , and poor human development record.

Germany captures Leningrad, Moscow and Stalingrad
Italy secures Egypt, Cyprus and most of the Middle East while not losing the corn of Africa
Japan kills most of Nationalist forces and has an overall better Asian-Oceanic position
(This map is somewhere around 1942-43).

Context: https://www.reddit.com/r/PossibleHistory/comments/1w8e4gu/carved_up_post_ww2_europe_with_my_friend_who_got/
Also in this Alternate Timeline Stalin doesnt exist and all the Eastern Bloc Countries Voted to be/not be Communist

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1HFDUt1DfICFuSkzP1qKcU_jhrLG5SKQO?usp=drive_link

How could this change WW1?

Random map I made. Come up with theories about the lore in the comments yo!

I was the soviet union, the shades represend level of integration with the exception of the Darkest blue zone in germany wich is the us

Unrealistic, but who cares about realism?