Zyobot
Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
'Mickey Mouse Protection Act Doesn't Pass'.
Alternate History Ideas and Discussion
- Thread starter AndrewJTalon
- Start date
If he start purging earlier germans could lost earlier,too.In that case,they,actually,could suffer less.Or more.Depend on date - if he start purging after Stalingrad or during Bagration,german state could cease to exist and entire Europe would live in worker paradise.
I hope,that in that case survivors would at least not belive in commie shit.
Zyobot
Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
Judging by the emoji, I take it you think that's a good thing (which is where I lean myself)?
Even if they don't buy in to it, they'd be forced to tow the line for survival purposes. And giving the Soviet puppet governments' a few generations to indoctrinate their kids means that, in time, it'd hardly matter what their ex-Nazi elders think.
DarthOne
☦️
Yes, very much so.
Zyobot
Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
Alright, then.
'Operation Cherry Blossoms At Night Happens'. Maybe Truman declines to drop the bombs for whatever reason, causing the War in the Pacific to drag on for a few more months. Which is, presumably, enough time to carry out the operation--only for Little Boy and Fat Man to be dropped in retaliation anyway, never mind some brutal additional reprisals by American forces.
Not so.Władimir Bukowski,soviet dissident,explained why nobody in soviet union belived in soviet shit - becouse they have propaganda which told that they live in worker paradise,and they saw that only one who live there are KGB and party bosses.
There is good soviet joke about that -
In preschool teacher said - children,in USA people are suffering and chilldren have no good food and toys.But in soviet union kids have everything!
Then small girl Tania start crying.
Teacher asked - Tania,why are you crying? beouse of bad USA?
No teacher,i simply wont to live in soviet union....
Circle of Willis
Well-known member
Can't speak as to the second point, but for your first: I thought Richard III winning at Bosworth wouldn't extend the Plantagenet dynasty's rule over England that much longer. His wife and son have already died by then, considered ill omens for his controversial reign. IIRC he wasn't trying to marry his niece at the time of his death, but to instead secure a Portuguese marriage - unfortunately for him, the princess he chose was extremely pious to the point of being pretty much celibate and had rejected multiple suitors beforehand.
If Richard still dies without a legitimate son, the Plantagenet male line would still go extinct anyway (just in the early 1500s, most likely, rather than in 1499 with the execution of his attainted nephew Edward of Warwick) and his intended successors were the De la Poles, who were his nephews through his sister Elizabeth. They actually did take up the Yorkist claim against Tudor England in the early 16th century, lasting until their last heir was killed while fighting for the French (ironically with no English involvement, although Henry VIII was on the Spanish/Imperial side in that particular Italian war) at the Battle of Pavia.
As for his longer reign, Richard would probably continue the process of centralization & the cultivation of a robust middle class which began with his big brother, Edward IV, and historically was taken to even greater heights by the Tudors. Northern England, where Richard had his powerbase, will likely see more investment & development. He'd also quite possibly lock England into a course of continued confrontation with France, trying to salvage the Duchy of Brittany and potentially entering marriage negotiations with the HRE if the ones he had with Portugal fell through - he opposed Edward IV making peace with the French at Picquigny and the last notable thing he did before usurping Edward V was to smack around the Scots, France's traditional ally against England.
Buba
A total creep
This would have to be after the Battle of Nieman River in the autumn. Was there much of Wrangel left by then?
All the fighting would have to be by Polish and Romanian troops. Was there political will? Would the troops be enthusiastic? What exactly would they be fighting for, anyway?
What would be the political ends? Resurrection of the PLC? Don't make me laff ...
With hindsight an extra push to kill the marxist monster in the crib seems sensible, but I don't see the politics of this happening. First and most important question - what is the objective? Overthrow bolsheviks? And impose a Russian Government dedicated to the idea of Russia in 1914 borders?
Push Polish border to the Dneper and add to apathetic/hostile population?
I'm mixed on the French being interested - they do have a long lasting love affair with the idea of a Russia being a counterweight to Germany. Hence reinstalling a friendly regime in Moscow/Sankt Peterburg would be a viable objective. But on the other hand there are the useful idiots in France who'd protest, such a Russia would have to pass through Poland to get to Germany anyway - a mess, in short.
To the Powers that Be - thanks for cleanup!
Last edited:
This would have to be after the Battle of Nieman River in the autumn. Was there much of Wrangel left by then?
All the fighting would have to be by Polish and Romanian troops. Was there political will? Would the troops be enthusiastic? What exactly would they be fighting for, anyway?
What would be the political ends? Resurrection of the PLC? Don't make me laff ...
With hindsight an extra push to kill the marxist monster in the crib seems sensible, but I don't see the politics of this happening. First and most important question - what is the objective? Overthrow bolsheviks? And impose a Russian Government dedicated to the idea of Russia in 1914 borders?
Push Polish border to the Dneper and add to apathetic/hostile population?
I'm mixed on the French being interested - they do have a long lasting love affair with the idea of a Russia being a counterweight to Germany. Hence reinstalling a friendly regime in Moscow/Sankt Peterburg would be a viable objective. But on the other hand there are the useful idiots in France who'd protest, such a Russia would have to pass through Poland to get to Germany anyway - a mess, in short.
To the Powers that Be - thanks for cleanup!
This would have to be after the Battle of Nieman River in the autumn. Was there much of Wrangel left by then?
All the fighting would have to be by Polish and Romanian troops. Was there political will? Would the troops be enthusiastic? What exactly would they be fighting for, anyway?
What would be the political ends? Resurrection of the PLC? Don't make me laff ...
With hindsight an extra push to kill the marxist monster in the crib seems sensible, but I don't see the politics of this happening. First and most important question - what is the objective? Overthrow bolsheviks? And impose a Russian Government dedicated to the idea of Russia in 1914 borders?
Push Polish border to the Dneper and add to apathetic/hostile population?
I'm mixed on the French being interested - they do have a long lasting love affair with the idea of a Russia being a counterweight to Germany. Hence reinstalling a friendly regime in Moscow/Sankt Peterburg would be a viable objective. But on the other hand there are the useful idiots in France who'd protest, such a Russia would have to pass through Poland to get to Germany anyway - a mess, in short.
To the Powers that Be - thanks for cleanup!
Wrangel was on Crimea with all his army.Peasant start their uprising in entire soviet territorry/bigger in Tambow gubernia ave 50.000 soldiers and Tuchachewski need chemical weapons to destroy them/,sailors in Kronsdadt would mutiny in 1921,too.
In OTL soviet survived only becouse they were free to use their army to murder their own people.
So,it could be done relatively easily.
Goal - free Russia.France wonted that.Unfortunatelly,exactle for that reason all polish parties agreed to peace,becouse they belived that France would favour Russia to Poland/true/ , and never made peace wit soviets/idiots did so/
So,we need something which would change opinion of at least one polish major party.To be honest,i do not see how it would be possible.
Bear Ribs
Well-known member
So, during the Banana Wars, the US invaded Honduras about six times, occupied Haiti for almost two decades and the Dominican Republic for over one, invaded Cuba, etc. Basically, a majority of the Caribbean and a decent chunk of South America were invaded and controlled by the US for the purpose of keeping the profits of fruit companies in the black.
Suppose that instead of just invading and protecting banana plantations, the US made all those various nations into official US territory and made them additional states soon after? Obviously, the history of South America would be affected but what about the rest? How would world history change if the US captured all those territories and incorporated them into itself before WW1?
So, during the Banana Wars, the US invaded Honduras about six times, occupied Haiti for almost two decades and the Dominican Republic for over one, invaded Cuba, etc. Basically, a majority of the Caribbean and a decent chunk of South America were invaded and controlled by the US for the purpose of keeping the profits of fruit companies in the black.
Suppose that instead of just invading and protecting banana plantations, the US made all those various nations into official US territory and made them additional states soon after? Obviously, the history of South America would be affected but what about the rest? How would world history change if the US captured all those territories and incorporated them into itself before WW1?
Interesting idea but I see two problems.
a) Making them territories, or more likely outright colonies like the Philippines means a permanent commitment to both govern and guard them. Which means spending money, something that would be deeply unpopular to many in both Congress and the populations as a whole.
b) Making them states means a lot more people who are Hispanic/Catholic, still mistrusted by many Americans or blacks - even more unpopular as citizens.
Not to mention that those are existing, internationally recognised nations so there would be a diplomatic cost and also that many in those states would still favour their independence, rocky and impoverished as it might be. Especially on the diplomatic side as every nation they annex is going to make other nations in the region distinctly unhappy and probably seeking to avoid any US economic tension.
Circle of Willis
Well-known member
Geraldine Ferraro refuses to release her family's tax returns and her husband's financial scandal (for which he was historically fined $1,000) blows up a year early, when the spotlight is on the couple much more intensely and Lee Atwater still cares enough to go nuclear on them over it. Whatever razor-thin chance Mondale had gets blown up with it, the election is an even bigger curbstomp for Reagan and in addition to increasing his popular vote share to somewhere between FDR in 1936 & James Monroe in 1816, the incumbent's gains are enough to give him Minnesota (which he lost by fewer than 4000 votes IRL).
Mondale must now endure the added humiliation of being the only major-party presidential candidate in American history to not have won any state on the electoral map, ranking him below even the likes of Alf Landon, Herbert Hoover and Rufus King. I guess he'll still have DC (where there was a 70% gap between him & Reagan historically) but that only sorta-kinda counts.
Zyobot
Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
Thanks, man. Didn't see your reply until just now (the Alerts system must've acted up for me again), but definitely looks more original than other "Reagan wins over 60%" scenarios I've seen, which require switching out Mondale for someone even less electable (like Jesse Jackson).
Not trying to justify an Appeal to the Middle fallacy here, but just to have a more concrete figure, I'll take the average of the difference between King 1816 and FDR 1936, then add it to 60% to give Reagan 1984 about 63.7% of the popular vote (and all fifty states along with it!). As you say, it's too much of a long shot that he wins D.C., but 535 electoral votes is still a crushing defeat for Mondale and a sweeping victory for Reagan. In which case, I'm interested in how pre-1972 downtimers who're featured IATL time-travel scenarios would react to a Republican president winning this massively (due to how they only have Democratic candidates to look to for blowout reelection bids at or around the US's current size).
Circle of Willis
Well-known member
My guess is they'd be shocked speechless. A Republican has won the single most crushing victory in American political history, greater than FDR at the height of his popularity, and it's a rather unorthodox one at that - an old actor who managed to get even the working class, unionized, 'white ethnic' voters of the cities (a longtime reliable Democratic voting bloc) on board with his platform even though it includes free trade, spending cuts and welfare cuts. I daresay it'd be downright incomprehensible to a New Deal Coalition Democrat visitor, even.
Zyobot
Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
That's actually a more comprehensive and specific way of putting my more amorphous thoughts on that exact scenario. I'd also add that, considering how ITTL, America would've gone from this:
1936 Election Map
To this (plus Minnesota!):
1984 Election Map
In less than fifty years would knock their socks off that much more, before they demand to know how the GOP went from the brink of extinction in their time to the evermore right-wing leviathan of the Eighties within just a lifetime. Which would really ruffle the feathers of New Dealers both then and now, but it'd clearly demonstrate the ebb and flow of history bringing even the most seemingly ascendant paradigms to an end someday. Ditto with what FDR himself would think of Reagan grinding the Democrats into dust both ITTL and IOTL, and without a record economic downturn dragging the party down, to boot!
TheRomanSlayer
Kayabangan, Dugo, at Dangal
1) What if Richard the 3rd had won?
2) I've had various ideas for how the USA could have joined the Central Powers. With the idea being that we get a bunch of small POD's prior to World War 1 that keep nudging the USA away from Great Britan-slash-keep the distrust between the two countries going. The first POD that I came up with would be a slightly hotter version of the Trent Affair.
Trent Affair - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
While war is averted, it comes closer than it does in the OTL. Throw in a handful of further minor divergences here and there in the late 1800s (such as more of a kerfuffle over the UK selling warships to the Confederacy; perhaps the CSS Stonewall actually makes it to Confederate hands?) and/. or 1900s and you'd be set.
The USA would be much warier towards the British and, while still isolationist, would be more along the lines of 'armed isolationism', meaning a more substantial US Army and navy than in OTL.
1) The de la Poles would ultimately become the next reigning dynasty, but then there is also Edward Plantagenet, 17th Earl of Warwick as the next potential heir, but then again he might have already been attainted due to his father's previous treason against Edward IV.
Since they would have no problems with needing divorce spanish Queen,England would remain catholic country.Many tragedies would be avoided,and catholic church would have less martyrs.
USA could ,if become independent,still be protestants.Puritans still would need place to go.
Zyobot
Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
'Different Political Alignments of US States'.
By which I mean the Solid South staying Democratic and/or most of New England remaining Republican, though we can easily discuss smaller-scale alternative political leanings by state (i.e. Vermont keeping up its unbroken Red streak well after 1964).
By which I mean the Solid South staying Democratic and/or most of New England remaining Republican, though we can easily discuss smaller-scale alternative political leanings by state (i.e. Vermont keeping up its unbroken Red streak well after 1964).