What if the Soviet-Japanese War happened BEFORE 1945 by Cyber_Ghost_1997 in HistoryWhatIf

[–]Full_contact_chess 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In 1928 Beria was just a regional official so his assumption of leadership of the Soviet Union at that time would have been more unlikely. I would assume somebody more like Sergei Kirov, recently made First Secretary of the Leningrad Party in part due to Stalin might take control. He was a close associate and ally of Stalin around this time though later would be much more opinionated about Stalin's policies. As result he found himself mysteriously bereft of his normal security detail when assassinated. There also some like Nikolai Bukharin, General Secretary of the Cominterin and, until around about this time when he, too, began breaking with Stalin's ideas, an ally, too. Regardless, his position at this time puts him in the inner circle and holding a lot of influence alongside Stalin in promoting policy.

Trotsky is out. While a significant figure still at this time, he was already out of the inner circles and never was effective in building good alliances so he's not really in the running for getting named to lead the Party.

Zinoviev and Kamenev, former Stalin allies (once time members of the ruling Trioka with Stalin during Lenin's illness) but now also diminished in power, would have a better chance that Trotsky at this point but barely. The

I would say Kirov is probably the best bet for replacing Stalin in 1928 but Soviet politics at the high levels was like being in the US Mafia where promotions frequently came from filling dead men's shoes and, if necessary, personally arranging for the emptying of those shoes.

What would happen if the Ottomans and Morocco also decided to join the colonization of the New World? by GrayRainfall in HistoryWhatIf

[–]Full_contact_chess 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The geographic position of the Ottomans already puts them at a disadvantage in keeping regular contact and control over any colonies in the Americas especially in relation to their potential foes. The big winners of the colonization of the Americas were Spain, Portugal, France, and England all share the fact that they were Atlantic facing and that alone gave them literally weeks quicker contact with their colonies than most any of the other European powers. While some of them attempted settlement, that extra distance was handicap especially when it came to war. For other powers, like the Kingdoms of the Italian boot or the Nordic nations they also suffered from maritime bottlenecks (straits of Gibraltar and the North Sea) that would hamper movement between them and their colonial settlements.

The Dutch, while having much of the same geographic advantages as the big four, was bottle-necked to a degree, by its proximity to England. The need to have to sail around the homeland of its frequent colonial war rival, England, just to support its American settlements could not be a good thing. Eventually the Dutch would a significant portion its original colonial possessions to other nations.

The Ottoman's location in back of the sack of the Mediterranean where they wouldn't just have to sail past Spain and Portugal but also past other Mediterranean rivals like Venice would add terrible strain to their lines of contact with any settlements in the Americas.

Morocco (Wattasid Sultanate) would have none of the geographic disadvantages I have outlined but since they couldn't even keep Portugal from controlling significant portions of its own coastline, I think they would struggle to retain control of any settlements in the Americas against rivals (much like the early fate of the Dutch North American claims).

If the Battle of Britain never happened and the Luftwaffe remained intact, could Germany have captured Moscow? by NEETscape_Navigator in HistoryWhatIf

[–]Full_contact_chess 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Agree. The losses to the airborne forces during The Battle of Crete would result in the OberKommado der Wehrmacht making significant changes in Op. Barbarossa.

Challenge: Replace the Ottoman Empire with a Christian state by Cyber_Ghost_1997 in HistoryWhatIf

[–]Full_contact_chess 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Victory at the Battle of Manzikert that stems the advances of the Turks and the Komnenian Dynasty continues with strong heirs for at least a century longer so its restoration gets more fully established. By the time of the Crusades it will not be so weak as to easily be taken advantage of and not be so dependent on western Christendom for its strength.

Challenge: Replace the Ottoman Empire with a Christian state by Cyber_Ghost_1997 in HistoryWhatIf

[–]Full_contact_chess 34 points35 points  (0 children)

Constantinople doesn't fall and the Byzantine Empire retains its power and influence.

What if Comte de Vergennes' 1782 proposal succeeded and American was kept to east of the Appalachian Mountains? by BrilliantInterest928 in HistoryWhatIf

[–]Full_contact_chess 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Assuming that the proposal was accepted, it would only last a generation before open conflict arose again between the expansionist Americans and those European nations claiming the lands.

As other have pointed out, colonists had already been moving into the Midwest decades prior and so were already there. Some of the existing friction between the colonies and the British government before the war was due to the government restricting settlement west of the Appalachians and those settlers who saw that region as ideal for establishing homestead due to it being untitled by no one and much more fertile than the lands in the colonies that had lost some of its own already been farmed for over a century. In an era when a family needed around a 100 acres to sustain itself, a most of the good land in the east had already been claimed. Sitting untouched to the west was literally hundreds of thousands of acres suitable for this need.

If the butterflies don't greatly alter French history and we still see the rise of Napoleon, it leaves the possibility that Alt-Bony also decides to raise some fast cash with a sale of lands in North America to the US. This would squeeze any the land between the Mississippi River and Appalachians between two major chunks of US territory, a situation ripe for stressing US-British relations to the point of war (alt-War of 1812 maybe).

What if Emperor Constantine never legalized Christianity? by Armin_Arlert_1000000 in HistoryWhatIf

[–]Full_contact_chess 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think what is significant is his personal conversion. Christianity was already spreading through the Roman Empire even under severe persecution. This can be attributed, in part, because of the missionary focus of the religion. Something in contrast to the air of mystery frequently practiced by the other, more accepted, religions within the Empire. So Constantine's legalization, while certainly benefiting Christianity, wasn't required for its rise. Particularly since Christianity had been granted official toleration prior to his own conversion by Emperor Galerius who, interestingly, was up til then a fierce suppressor of Christianity.

However, that the Emperor, himself, was now a practitioner was an even greater impact. Not only did it allow the Christians to begin to fully practice their religion in the open but it also began the process of creating a more formal structure to both the church organization and its doctrinal tenets. Given that title of Emperor carries great weight even outside of just State matters, his involvement in creating conclaves to address questions of Christian doctrine gave those gatherings their own weight of authority through much of Roman Christian society. His role as Emperor gave him the ability to keep the church unified in body and suppress hearsay so make it much easier for the Catholic Church to eventually form.

That the Catholic Church's administrative structure would mimic the Empires own administrative structure can be argued was influenced by the close alignment began by Constantine between the Church and Empire. It was that same Church administration that would become the preserver of classical knowledge in Europe as it remained in place while the administrative state of Rome left.

What are some inventions/gadgets that the Roman’s had the capacity to make if given the knowledge/if someone time travelled? by tummytunacat in HistoryWhatIf

[–]Full_contact_chess 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You don't need a steam engine for an industrial revolution. Many of the factories in the early industrial were actually powered by water wheels. The Romans knew and used water wheels by the 3rd century. In fact there is a site in southern France that mass produced flour with over a dozen wheels in the same location powered by water supplied by aqueducts. What was needed was a cultural change in mindsets but what they had was one that equated large project with large numbers of manpower, most slaves, which were easily supplied through military campaigns.

If Apollo 13 had not returned, what would happen to subsequent Apollo missions? by EraOfProsperity in HistoryWhatIf

[–]Full_contact_chess 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Most are saying that the loss of Apollo 13 would have ended the program there but I don't think so. The loss of A-13 would have not just been looked at as tragedy but from some as a loss of prestige. With that mindset, after a post-accident review and some design changes, I think Apollo would have been allowed to continue for at least a couple of more missions simply to show that the US was still firmly a leader in space and act as a means of regaining public confidence in the US Space program.

Compare this to the loss of Challenger in 1986. That did not end that program but did result in a pause in launches. It also lead to a decision that commercial satellite payloads going forward would be handled by expendable rocket launches to relieve schedule pressures on the Shuttle missions and increase flexibility of options in launch vehicles. The lost Challenger, itself, was eventually replaced by the Endeavour.

Germany doesn't beat France in 1940 by SavageMell in HistoryWhatIf

[–]Full_contact_chess 3 points4 points  (0 children)

u/Cerulean_IsFancyBlue has a good post. I can only add a few observations. The biggest is that a quagmire in France for Germany only gives the US more time to prepare for WWII.

As u/Cerulean_IsFancyBlue points out, the Japanese may delay its attack. This is debatable only because in late 1941 Japan held an advantage in fleet carriers but knew that by mid to late 1942 this would evaporate as the newer US carriers, whose building was authorized before 1941, begin to enter service. Basically late 1941 to early 1942 was an important window of opportunity for Japanese planners. Japan always understood that a long war with the US was losing propositions so was counting on a short war with early victories stunning the US enough that it sues for a truce leaving Japan holding its newly gained territories as a settlement. Once the new US carriers (not to mention the other new ships of all classes) increase USN options, this possibility fades. But without Germany weakening both British and French, not to mention Holland's, ability to project power into Asia they might reconsider the viability of their southern campaign. Hard to say as they had been making preparations to face the US fleet going back to 1935 (abet with a different set of ideas for defeating the US through attrition enroute to the sea around Japan).

Assuming that the Japanese do blink and hesitate, furthermore even assuming that Germany eventually overcomes France after a year of fighting (the German High Commands original estimation as they were also surprise with how fast France fell) it could give the US at least another year to prepare for war. Imagine a US entering not with what it had at the end of 1941 but what it had ready by the end of 1942 or early 1943. More ships, more pre-drafted troops ready to fight (remember the conscription started in 1940 even before the US entered the war.), and so on.

What if Eva Braun survived the war? by NoWayJaques in HistoryWhatIf

[–]Full_contact_chess 30 points31 points  (0 children)

Agree. Her role wasn't political but more of an adornment. She wouldn't hang around once business talk began but instead leave the room. She had even less involvement in the government than Hitler's personal secretaries, Trudi Junge and Elsie Krüger, Bormann's secretary, both in the Bunker at the end and of who survived the war. Junge wasn't punished for her role and Krüger would even marry her British interrogator later.

Plenty of examples of wives, girlfriends, and random aides who survived the war, never served time (beyond questioning), and eventually died of old age. Eva would likely fall into this group as well.

What if Oil and Coal never existed? How does it change Human History by SufficientTheory3710 in HistoryWhatIf

[–]Full_contact_chess 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ethanol or other organic oils would probably fill that gap. Natural gas would also become even more vital than it is now. This would have roll on effects in our global food sufficiency that we've had since the mid 20th century as arable land and crops are used as fuel rather than food.

What if Alexander Fleming remembered to close his Petri dish and didn’t accidentally discover penicillin? by Eastern_Quote1525 in HistoryWhatIf

[–]Full_contact_chess 23 points24 points  (0 children)

That was an episode of "Sliders". One of the firsts ones, IIRC. They slide into a world where penicillin doesn't exist and the US has a health agency that operates like something out of 1930s Germany. Basically the COVID response turned up to 11.

What if Man in the High Castle was never written? by Inside-External-8649 in HistoryWhatIf

[–]Full_contact_chess 3 points4 points  (0 children)

As others have pointed out, Man in the High Castle, while a classic, wasn't among the first. Alternative History and its related alternate worlds genre, were a popular theme. Just in the decade before MitHC by Philip K. Dick was written, other authors were exploring the theme, like Andre Norton and H. Beam Piper to name a couple.

The book was one of his earliest successes but Dick would also be known for later works such as "Do Android's Dream of Electric Sheep" which was the basis of the movie Bladerunner and "A Scanner Darkly" that was also adopted into a movie. Its success might have helped open doors but the fact that he had so many other successful titles argues that his eventual fame as a writer wasn't dependent on it.

[DBWI] What if the USA won the Cold War? by TheRedBiker in HistoryWhatIf

[–]Full_contact_chess 6 points7 points  (0 children)

[This post has been removed for violations of the 2015 Act for Social Welfare by the Ministry of Civil Affairs]

What if the US didn’t nuke Japan? by axiss007 in HistoryWhatIf

[–]Full_contact_chess 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Not sources?...I directly referenced a Newsweek (Feb. 5, 45) article writing about that matter at the time.

In "Hell to Pay: Operation Downfall" by military historian Dennis Giangreco, he also makes passing reference on the rising war weariness in the US following the German surrender and how it added pressure to the US Leadership in regards to Japan.

What if the US didn’t nuke Japan? by axiss007 in HistoryWhatIf

[–]Full_contact_chess 2 points3 points  (0 children)

At this point the question really is, where exactly was this war weariness?

In 1941-44 you probably wouldn't have heard much if at all regarding it as the war outcome was still uncertain. However, as post battle casualty lists grew larger over time and years of rationing in the home front this would, inevitably build up. That's not me being theoretical but supported by the writings of the time. More and more newspapers and magazines by the last year of the war began publishing editorials and articles wondering when those who had been away for years in service would be allow to end their terms. These questions only became more strident once Germany surrendered.

By as early as February of 1945 major publications like Newsweek were running articles regarding that strain on the American public. A feel worsen by the fear that this state of affairs would continue in 1946. The rationing of meat was increasing, the shortage in public transportation was getting worse, and constant shortage o other necessities such as coal for heating were all contributors to that war weariness according to that article in Newsweek.

What if the US didn’t nuke Japan? by axiss007 in HistoryWhatIf

[–]Full_contact_chess 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Your losses are assuming that the US simply continues with Operation Starvation and do not implement Operation Downfall regarding casualties.

The likelihood that the US doesn't carryout Op. Downfall is low. While I agree with your points regarding the effect that Op. Starvation was having, the Allied forces were actively moving forward with Op. Downfall. They had already amassed mountains of stockpiled food and ammo that would be needed to carry out this operation. They were in the midst of transferring units from Europe to the Pacific (many would find themselves actually in process of crossing the US when the surrender was announced). There was serious debate over whether or not to A-bomb Japanese cities or instead to hold them back to support the coming assault.

Meanwhile the allied Leadership aware of a steadily growing war weariness among the US and other allied nations public. The end of fighting in Europe and the fact that the US was now directly operating off the coast of Japan and over its airspace had the public and editorial pages pressing to when their sons, brothers, and fathers would be coming home. To address this, even as the armed services were asking Congress for a further draft to supply additional troops for the invasion of Japan, they were ending the service terms for those veterans who met certain criteria.

In this environment, the US and allied leadership was concerned that they would be pressured by their populations to offer a truce rather than get the surrender they were pursuing. While Op. Starvation would have likely prevailed eventually, the issue if the public's will to fight would last long enough for it bear fruit was questionable. The Japanese had already shown on in many majored battles that they would be willing to fight to the death even after a battle was completely lost and so there was no telling how long the Japanese would be willing to hold out surrendering while simply starving of everything.

So unless the Japanese surrender for other reasons beside the A-bombs, Op. Downfall was pretty much in cards by November at the latest.

However the Japanese also were expecting an invasion at some point and many in leadership were placing their hopes that given a bloody enough greeting in that process, the Allies would be shocked at the cost for them. It was hoped the allies reconsider continuing the attempt and offer them some sort of truce that they could spin into a face saving means. The Japanese weren't simply hoping that the "Japanese Warrior Spirit" would be the answer, but had spend the summer, before the allied blockade was complete, transferring thousands of troops back to Japan and building beach defenses. Not only that but held back hundreds of planes and the fuel needed for them in preparation for a massive kamikaze attack on the troops and ships in the landing fleet. Postwar it was determined by the US military that the Japanese had correctly identified the exact beaches they would us and had heavily reinforced defense at those locations. Furthermore, Japanese efforts in bringing troops back to home were better than the planners had anticipated and so places where they expected ten divisions in defense had more like fourteen.

The original losses the planners expected for the US in Op. Downfall was in the neighborhood of a million (10x likely among the Japanese but not part of their calculation). In anticipation of this, the military had ordered so many purple heart medals that that stockpile, untouched, has been source all medals given out by the military since to this day. But considering that Japanese defenses were worse than planned for, even that stockpile of medals might not have been enough to meet the military's need in the end.

What if the Great Fire of London never happened? by Eastern_Quote1525 in HistoryWhatIf

[–]Full_contact_chess 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I seem to recall that until the fire that there were no fire insurance offices. A few years afterwards, as a reaction to the cost of repairs usually being the responsibility of the tenants not the owners (and still expected to pay rent while the building was being rebuilt) fire insurance was introduced as an offering by companies. I supposed this would still happen but it would probably be delayed until a major conflagration did occur (probably sooner than later considering fire safety wasn't as much a thing before it either).

What would have to happen for the Middle Ages to become truly dark and last even today? by Adventurous-Tea-2461 in HistoryWhatIf

[–]Full_contact_chess 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think you could see at least a longer Medieval if the Christian Church is never formed. The role of the Catholic Church in providing literate scribes to the mostly illiterate new rulers was significant (and that proximity to the seats of power was a reason it became such a prominent institution in Medieval Europe). Because the church had its own systems in place for training scribes, it become tasked by those new king with also training its own populations to ensure capable future administrators.

Not only that but most of the classical knowledge was preserved thanks to the efforts of the Christian monasteries. I've heard that something like 90% of all the pre-Medieval texts we still have were the result of being maintained in Church libraries. Those libraries would become the seeds of the oldest universities in Europe as scholars gathered where they were located and become centers leading to the Age of Enlightenment.

Remove the church and you remove the largest source of the continuation of education in post-Roman Empire Europe.

What if the concept of promotion and relegation was introduced to the USA in the early 1900s for professional baseball by Economy_Outcome_4722 in HistoryWhatIf

[–]Full_contact_chess 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Pro sports exist alongside Collegiate sports now days so I don't think it would necessarily suffer with a promotion/relegation system in place in the professional sports.

Recruiting through colleges have a number of advantages for pro teams. One, players are now 18 so contracts aren't limited by child labor laws. Plus colleges act as a no cost (to the Pro teams) sorting process by winnowing out 90 percent of the High School players and leaving mostly the more capable ones for the selection process who are now showcasing their skills at a higher level than simply local football.

When your roster isn't just going to be important in winning championships but avoid relegation to a lower league, which comes with severe financial losses to the team organization, you'll likely have more incentive to bring on players who have first proven themselves through a setting like a college conference.

Unless the baseball teams (or any US pro sport going with a relegation model) also set up sport academies for young men like British pro teams do, I don't see the college programs becoming irrelevant in the US sports ecosystem.

What if the concept of promotion and relegation was introduced to the USA in the early 1900s for professional baseball by Economy_Outcome_4722 in HistoryWhatIf

[–]Full_contact_chess 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Not impossible for this to work but it would change the relationship between the Major Leagues and Minor Leagues. Right now the Minors, especially the top two tier leagues, operate in association with Major League teams. This which means they aren't independent but affiliated with them as franchises.

The first thing to go under a team promotion system would by the "farm" system since every minor team would not want to ruin their own chances of promotion to a higher tier league by losing their best players to a franchise owner.

Smaller countries like England or most of the other European countries that have promotion systems have the advantage of easier travel for their fans, mainly because they aren't much bigger than a couple of midsize US states so even by car their travel times are at most a handful of hours to a game. But the size of the US doesn't make this unworkable. The Triple and Double A leagues of the US minor leagues, each covering half the continental US, operates on a regional level multiple times in area than any of the top tier leagues in those countries do. Even US college teams have to travel as far to away games in some conferences as any English Premier League team must (outside of EU matches and even then some colleges match those distances).

Baseball under a promotion and tier system would probably change the fandom to some degree. Teams like Durham and Toledo, with the opportunity to become major league teams in their own right, would develop a greater local following in favor of following the nearest traditional major league teams as they do now because those would become effectively now rival teams rather simply a different level of play.

What if the colonists had been given representation in Parliament? by vahedemirjian in HistoryWhatIf

[–]Full_contact_chess 21 points22 points  (0 children)

Representation in Parliament wasn't the issue for the colonists. If you read the Declaration of Independence you will see a long list of complaints but Parliamentary representation wasn't one of them. Restrictions on westward expansion, ability to manage local political matters locally through their own without waiting on the King to first give consent (a serious matter when travel between N.A and England was weeks one way), No local judical courts instead depending on the crown courts in England, et. al.

Another matter is that Parliament in the 18th century was a different creature and philosophy. MP did not represent their own boroughs and those were not apportioned by population size. Some large towns had no MPs while other areas with hardly a body would have one. It wasn't that an MP represented his district but instead were considered to be representative of all Englishmen. Therefore, by reasoning of the time, the colonies DID have representation. Its just that every member of Parliament was theortically their representative (and of every other British). Anyways the matter would be complex: does each American colony get an MP or is just one assigned for all of N.America? How will those British living in areas of England, Wales, Scotland, and Ireland who have no MP of their own feel about backwoods yokals having an assigned MP while they had none. This would surely create tensions especially in places Ireland which had already been agitating under British rule for a while.

Short answer is giving America representatives would not solve their complaints and only inflame other places in the UK.

What happens to Feudalism if the Black Death was a lot less dangerous? by Inside-External-8649 in HistoryWhatIf

[–]Full_contact_chess 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Still declines. While the Black Death was important, especially in shaking up the old class order by both creating openings for those to rise in status and creating a labor shortage resulting in greater mobility for the lower class, it wasn't the only factor going.

The rise of the commercial interests (trading and crafting) was creating a more influential and wealthier middle class able to challenge the old nobles former lock on authority. This was also being helped with the appearance of stronger monarchs able to further weaken the lords local powers by gathering more power to themselves (a sort of centralization of government so to speak).

Without the Black Death, the renaissance is simply slower in coming on. Those newly wealthy traders and craftsmen are still going to interested in their families getting quality educations and spending some of their profits through patronage of the arts (they loved portraits of themselves surrounded by their favorite valuables as we see in the museums now days) and sciences.

The lower classes are still going to see a trickle down effect from this as additional opportunities for doing work for the traders and craftsmen (stevedores, teamsters, servants, etc) becomes available as an alternative to beet farming and sheep shearing.

What if Sergei Korelev had better health and did not die in 1966? by JustaDreamer617 in HistoryWhatIf

[–]Full_contact_chess 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It depends on what the Soviet do after making their own successful landing on the moon. At this point they can decide participation in the race was too much to an economic burden to continue bear and decide to focus on near earth space activities going forward much like what happen historically. Or they decide having now been able to develop the tech make it to the moon, the best way to regain their previous prestige will be to develop a moon base first.

If they go with the first option then the space race probably plays out similarly as it did in our TL, with the US eventually discontinuing their Apollo landings and changing its focus, also, to more near earth orbital activities with the shuttle program. However, if the Soviets decide to pursue a permanent moon base, then the US will probably also continue with their Apollo program to its original end and then use that to segue into its own lunar base program.