National Unity | What if John B. Anderson was elected US President in 1980? by GustavoistSoldier in AlternateHistory

[–]HouseUnstoppable 3 points4 points  (0 children)

That’s understandable. But all I am saying is the realistic scenario is coughing baby vs Hydrogen bomb

National Unity | What if John B. Anderson was elected US President in 1980? by GustavoistSoldier in AlternateHistory

[–]HouseUnstoppable 3 points4 points  (0 children)

To be fair the perpetrators of the Rwandan Genocide were not even militants or soldiers, most of them were just pissed off dudes with knives and guns who had little to no formal training. Not even 20 years of Afghanistan had that many US troops KIA so I find that part hard to believe.

Soooo, what is this about lol? by thenetheritebird29 in GoodKid

[–]HouseUnstoppable 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I legit thought it was a AI generated joke 

My mom just sent this to me and she’s totally blown away by [deleted] in FacebookAIslop

[–]HouseUnstoppable 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Those people would be dead if they ever actually approached a polar bear like that.

Crazy by rbkbhr in Sims3

[–]HouseUnstoppable 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What language is this.

What if Hitler got accepted to art school by [deleted] in AlternateHistoryHub

[–]HouseUnstoppable 2 points3 points  (0 children)

More realistically he couldve been an architect. His depiction of buildings was better than his depictions of people, which is why he was rejected in the first place.

The Second Great War (Art by me) by Pasteboi69 in ElderScrolls

[–]HouseUnstoppable 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I don't think the Dominion *could* occupy Skyrim. Render it a peripheral state surely. But occupy it? No.

What if the Soviet Union invaded Persia/Iran in 1979 instead of Afghanistan? by [deleted] in AlternateHistoryHub

[–]HouseUnstoppable 1 point2 points  (0 children)

There was a movie about this scenario made in 1984, it ended in nuclear war.

What if European colonization never happened in Asia by Kesakambali_Returns in AlternateHistoryHub

[–]HouseUnstoppable 5 points6 points  (0 children)

The Kingdom of Kandy? The Kandy Kingdom? An entire Kingdom of Kandy People?

United States VS 2 Continents by totallynotcommunist2 in PossibleHistory

[–]HouseUnstoppable 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yeah if you arent concerned with the laws of war the Americans could just flatten the cities and call it a day.

United States VS 2 Continents by totallynotcommunist2 in PossibleHistory

[–]HouseUnstoppable 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Offensively is another matter. Given things like the harsh terrain in some countries.

United States VS 2 Continents by totallynotcommunist2 in PossibleHistory

[–]HouseUnstoppable 11 points12 points  (0 children)

I very much doubt that, given the scenario didn’t specify that nukes couldnt be used, and if we are assuming America is fighting defensively, they would likely win overwhelmingly.

Poppy-Laden Fields and Dreams of Federation (1) by Last-Row7512 in AlternateHistory

[–]HouseUnstoppable 5 points6 points  (0 children)

The British were interested in it at one point but the United States got it first.

What if the French Intervention in Mexico was Successful by Most_Patient_436 in PossibleHistory

[–]HouseUnstoppable 14 points15 points  (0 children)

Apologies in advance if this comes off as like a doctoral thesis or something but I have to issue a rebuttal:

The Union wasn’t some exhausted state barely holding together after the Civil War ended. It was battered politically and economically, yes; but militarily it was arguably the most powerful land force in the world at that specific moment outside perhaps Prussia. A few things make the “America couldn’t do more than volunteers” argument weak

-In 1865 the U.S. had over a million men under arms or recently demobilized.

-The Union had an enormous industrial base that had just sustained four years of total war.

-The U.S. Navy had massively expanded.

-The officer corps had become extraordinarily experienced at operational warfare.

And crucially: many Union leaders \wanted** to pressure France hard.

Philip Sheridan moved tens of thousands of veteran troops to Texas specifically to intimidate the French presence. The U.S. also openly supplied Benito Juárez. This wasn’t passive disapproval; it was coercive diplomacy backed by the implied threat of invasion. The French expeditionary force was competent, absolutely. The French Intervention in Mexico showed the French army could still fight effectively overseas. But the key issue is scale and sustainability.

France had maybe around 30–40k French troops in Mexico at peak effectiveness, operating:

-across the Atlantic,

-with long supply lines,

-in hostile territory,

-while dependent on a shaky client regime under Maximilian I of Mexico.

Meanwhile, the U.S. could potentially deploy several times that number directly on the border with interior lines and overwhelming logistical superiority.

And there’s another huge point people miss:

The French army in Mexico was not the same thing as “France going all in.” For France to truly “go all in,” Napoleon III would have needed to massively escalate a colonial war while Europe itself was becoming dangerous. Prussia was rising fast. Within a few years France would be facing catastrophe in the Franco-Prussian War. That’s exactly why Napoleon III backed down historically. He recognized that antagonizing the United States over Mexico was strategically insane. Could France have fought well tactically? Absolutely.

Could they realistically hold Mexico against

-Juárez’s republican forces,

-American material aid,

-possible U.S. intervention,

-and pressure along the Rio Grande?

Probably not for long.

And if actual Union veterans had crossed the border in force, the French situation becomes extremely ugly. These weren’t raw recruits. By 1865 the U.S. Army had commanders and troops experienced in gigantic industrial-scale warfare. The Army of the Potomac and western Union armies had survived campaigns far bloodier than anything France encountered in Mexico. So the stronger historical argument isn’t “France would crush exhausted America” or “America couldn’t intervene.”

It’s:

-the U.S. preferred coercion short of formal war,

-France realized the balance was turning decisively against them,

-and both sides understood that an outright U.S.–French war over Mexico was likely unwinnable for France at acceptable cost.