What if no nineteenth century technological development, whatsoever?

I've been thinking that most of our modern world existed, at least in embryo, by the end of the nineteenth century, and that without that century, virtually nothing about the modern world would be the same. So, let's suppose technological development freezes on January 1, 1800, and doesn't start up again until January 1, 1900. So, no trains, cars, machine guns, light bulbs, telephones, telegraphs, motion pictures, steamships, gatling guns, high explosives, anaesthesia, radios etc. were developed in the nineteenth century. What historical developments occur in the nineteeth century, and how do those differ from OTL? And, what happens when things start moving again in the twentieth century?

What if Nazi Operation Sea Lion goes ahead, and is a miserable failure

While many people popularly criticize Hitler for failing to proceed with an invasion of Britain in 1940 or 1941, personally, I think the strategy he adopted was the only realistic one possible. After all, he had virtually no surface fleet. Even given temporary air superiority over the English Channel, which he might possibly have achieved, his forces would have faced the entire British Navy in speedboats. Presumably, they would have been exterminated, almost to a man. True, the British Navy would have suffered substantial losses from air attack, but it wasn't really that easy to sink a battleship in open water with the bombers and attack aircraft of the day. So, rather than lose a million men or so, for absolutely nothing, Hitler resigned himself to a strategy of bluff and intimidation, which Winston Churchill was more than capable of dealing with. So, let's suppose Hitler is enough of a fool to try it anyway. He loses a hundred divisions or so in a few hours of fighting, a disaster far worse than the Battle of Stalingrad in its entirety. What happens next? He can probably still hang onto France, he's still allied with the Soviet Union, and the French are totally prostrate. But, Stalin won't be impressed with his total failure, will he now? Stalin may start pressuring Hitler in ways that will make the German leader uncomfortable. Worse still, Stalin's likely to warm up a bit to Britain too, being the practical man that he is. And what can Hitler really do about it? He probably won't have the support or the military strength to mount an invasion of Russia, even if he wants to. An American entry into the War seems less likely, because the Japanese are likely to view Hitler's failure with some alarm, and think twice about a strategy of invading Singapore, Hong Kong, the Philippines and the Dutch East Indies. The British are likely to have additional forces available to defend their territories, given the Nazi debacle in the Channel. Thus, probably no Pearl Harbor attack, no forced American entry into the War. Will Hitler offer Peace terms with Britain, including partial withdrawal from France? This would seem reasonable, but rather out of character for Hitler.

Could Alfred the Great be the "real" King Arthur?

Alfred the Great is, I believe, the only English King seriously considered for canonization. Many Catholics do consider him to be a Saint. His successful defense of Christianity in the Kingdom is highly consistent with the legendary Arthur's devout Christianity and the stories of the Holy Grail. Alfred modeled his Kingdom largely on Charlemagne, whose influence on the whole of medieval thinking is unquestionable. An English Charlemagne would inevitably attract the attention of medieval poets, and inspire a kind of legendary status, along the lines of Arthur. Alfred was a great scholar, whose learning may have even exceeded his military prowess, or, quite possibly, have been the source of it. Again, the medieval poets could hardly fail to find a scholar/king, a kind of English Solomon, unappealing in a unique way. But, poets are not historians. They write of legends, not of reality. Isn't it rather plausible that they created the legend of Arthur on the basis of an essential historical reality that only really conforms to the persona of Alfred the Great?

Casablanca

In einem sehr allgemeinen Sinn, der Satz "Here'slookingatyoukid" schöpft ihre Kraft aus exakt den gleichen Quelle, die der Film Casablanca selbst tut - reine Spontaneität und Freude. Aber wie kann ein schrecklicher Krieg eine Quelle der reinen Spontaneität und Freude sein? Denken Sie daran, wussten die Amerikaner, sie würden diesen Krieg zu gewinnen, und dass sie ein großes Reich als Folge davon zu werden. Außerdem ist der Film selbst nicht nur Kriegspropaganda. Es ist wirklich nur eine Abenteuergeschichte, das Skript wurde geschrieben, bevor die Vereinigten Staaten im Krieg wurde. Aber der Film war nur ein paar Monate hergestellt, nachdem die Vereinigten Staaten im Krieg wurde, also haben wir die Aufregung der Krieg, aber bis jetzt nur wenige amerikanische Opfer.