Miscellaneous >1900 (Alternate) History Thread

I had an idea that i tough was interesting but i don't think i could make a thread out of it. What if women were sent like the men during the first world war? To make it less shitty for them let's they were politically and legally equals to men in that time. That would have greatly changed the great war and the overall population of the countries involved. There would be far less civilians to work on the farm and in the factories, cities outside the front line would have been far more deserted.
Belongs in ASB forum
I remember there is someone who wrote a trilogy about it.
 
I think the Alliance would had far more chance to win but that vastly depend on France capability to hold on and when did the US and the other light blue countries get involved in the war.
I think 1915-1916 for most of them. Afghanistan could entry in 1915 or even early since they shouldn't be worrying about Russia or Persia.
 
'Biggest Possible NASA Budget?'.

None too big at the moment IOTL, it seems, at least compared to other departments.
 
I have been reading about the 1968 Republican primaries recently and was made aware of the fact that Ronald Reagan had tested the waters for a campaign that year as a compromise candidate for President if the GOP convention deadlocked. Let's say the convention was deadlocked, and Reagan is picked as a compromise candidate with George Romney or someone like him as the running mate. Would Reagan have a good shot at winning the general election? Given how hard conservative he was just four years after Goldwater, how he'd only been governor of California for two years at this point, and how close the race was between Richard Nixon and Hubert Humphrey ITOL, would he be in contention for the Presidency that year? Or would Humphrey have a much cleaner path into the White House?
 
I've got an idea for a surviving HMS Vanguard, that serves off Korea before being retained by the RN and given some modest modernizations. Getting a last minute reprieve from being scrapped by being sent to the Falklands before coming home to be a museim ship, but considering the state of the UK's finances, that's gonna be pretty much ASB.
 
FDR got shot in Feb 15 1933
And he......

Lived

And take the oval office in March 4 1933 still,

However, New Deal failed, New Deal being remembered like OTL Perestroika?

(I know someone is gonna argue that BUT IT DOES, IT FAILED IN OTL, so let me be cleared, US still getting worse and FDR are incompetent to cure the nation)

What would happened to America next?
 
FDR got shot in Feb 15 1933
And he......

Lived

And take the oval office in March 4 1933 still,

However, New Deal failed, New Deal being remembered like OTL Perestroika?

(I know someone is gonna argue that BUT IT DOES, IT FAILED IN OTL, so let me be cleared, US still getting worse and FDR are incompetent to cure the nation)

What would happened to America next?
Based on what I've typically seen in standard alternate history, this will end before 1940 with a communist or fascist revolution, a Nazi-Japanese invasion (yes, I know this is ridiculous if not ASB, but it's a standard answer), or some other catastrophe that causes the New Deal to be remembered as an anecdote compared to everything that came after.
 
Based on what I've typically seen in standard alternate history, this will end before 1940 with a communist or fascist revolution, a Nazi-Japanese invasion (yes, I know this is ridiculous if not ASB, but it's a standard answer), or some other catastrophe that causes the New Deal to be remembered as an anecdote compared to everything that came after.
My scenario is "FDR is president still, however his New Deal failed still"
FDR basically became America Gorbachev
 
I have a question: To what extent are the claims made in this thread about Weimar Germany correct:

Namely the idea that the idea of west slavs such as Poles or latins such as Italians being inherently inferior to Germans and deserving of enslavement, or Weimar Germany not being a liberal democracy because the Nazis were able to take power, or Germans just going and commiting genocide even without the Nazis in the event of a war in the east? Do these claims have any merit?
 
I have a question: To what extent are the claims made in this thread about Weimar Germany correct:

Namely the idea that the idea of west slavs such as Poles or latins such as Italians being inherently inferior to Germans and deserving of enslavement, or Weimar Germany not being a liberal democracy because the Nazis were able to take power, or Germans just going and commiting genocide even without the Nazis in the event of a war in the east? Do these claims have any merit?
Ah, that thread. Basically from what I've seen they are the type of people who believe so strongly that OTL is the best possible outcome that they will devote all their efforts to suggesting that any alternative will necessarily end in a catastrophic outcome. Which is basically what we see there with things like that stupid debate about whether the United States was democratic or not *even though the thread is about Germany*.
 
Anyone whose main interest is Cold War America? I'd like to have a PM with someone whose main interest/specialty is in that field for a project I have.
 
Anyone whose main interest is Cold War America? I'd like to have a PM with someone whose main interest/specialty is in that field for a project I have.
I know a bit about US navy submarines in the period, as well as something about navy and USAF planes during the cold war. But there are plenty of very knowledgeable people on the site, you may have luck finding some by poking around the alternate aircraft and warships threads. You could also search for cold war timelines out there and give them a quick look through to see if anyone there is especially active who knows there stuff.
 
Even more AHC: Don't let this lead to them becoming the Japanese Empire with a coat of red paint, a Japanese version of North Korea, or the United States launching Downfall.

Yes, I would like something along the lines of OTL Yugoslavia(without the collapse) or the Kaiserreich version of Britain & France
 
Assuming victory at Quebec City, the Patriots managed to seize control of Lower Canada and maintain it throughout the war. In the event that the Canadiens weren't willing to work with the Patriots, how would they respond? Would they compel them to join the Union, or would they take the hint and let them be?
 
Assuming victory at Quebec City, the Patriots managed to seize control of Lower Canada and maintain it throughout the war. In the event that the Canadiens weren't willing to work with the Patriots, how would they respond? Would they compel them to join the Union, or would they take the hint and let them be?
The first, and then they would do something like annex them to some fiercely Patriotic State that outnumbers them, only in order to ensure they can say something like "the majority of the population of the State of Greater New York supports being part of the United States of America. The fight continues against Francophone bandits in the service of the British, whose criminal acts are absolutely devoid of any political significance..."
 
I wonder if the reason why Somaliland is more developed than Somalia or why Libya is less developed than Algeria relates to how the Italians were terrible colonial overlords.
 
I wonder if the reason why Somaliland is more developed than Somalia or why Libya is less developed than Algeria relates to how the Italians were terrible colonial overlords.
In 2010 Libya's HDI was higher than Algeria's. Then some stuff relayed to current politics happened and now Libya's HDI is decreasing every year. Libya did have an easier time gaining independence.
 
Top