Even if I was among the very followers of Sébastien Chabal, I don't plan on being as exhaustive about rugby, but there was a world cup earlier ITTL, so it'll happen.Anything on rugby yet ? ^^
Why would countries need that many nuclear warheads in a world where the cold war never happened?
Perhaps they’re almost all “tactical” and just considered an acceptable if severe choice in war? Or as a serious deterrent, but with nobody threatening global annihilation.
Deterrents for regional conflicts and proxy wars most likely. After Germany got her hands on them, the rest of the world cautiously followed her.
There was some sort of multipolar Cold War after the World War, here known as the Greater Game, where Germany, USA, Japan, Russia, Italy and the United Kingdom competed for expanding their spheres of influence. To summarize it, Germany was very trigger-happy to use their nuclear weapons against their own personal revolts, considering the atom as the ultimate deterrent. Russia, which were directly stepping into the German sphere, soon acquired the atomic weapon, as did the major powers, and amassed massive stockpiles with respect to mutually assured destruction, so that no one would be the first to shoot first. A lack of treaties of non-proliferation, other interstate rivalries (such as Argentina vs. Brazil), national prestige or just as a way to protect itself (such as Switzerland) led to nuclear weapons being much more stockpiled and still watched after by major powers. these nuclear weapons were used in massive projects or military endeavours, mostly against other countries that couldn't retaliate. As a matter of fact, chemical, bacteriological or thermobaric weapons are also much stockpiled by major powers.Countries didn't stockpile chemical weapons before WW1, so I don't see why they would stockpile nukes. Great Powers didn't see other powers as existential threats the way NATO and the Warsaw pact did.
Even if I was among the very followers of Sébastien Chabal, I don't plan on being as exhaustive about rugby, but there was a world cup earlier ITTL, so it'll happen.
Making an Infobox for an Austrian private killed during the Great European War, with the funny name of Adolf Schicklgruber, would be a bit of a stretch, but I can see how I can do that.And now for the elephant in the room: what was Adolf Hitler's fate on this eclectic Earth?
Let's do an alternate history Grand Chelem !
We beat New Zealand... twice ?! Wait, no, four times...
Yeah, in this world, a little chauvinism can't be helped... A French fan would say that a timeline without Craig Joubert is the best timeline.So, New Zealand first with 5 cups, France second with 4, England and Australia ex aequo on third place with three wins each, Wales in fourth with two wins, and South Africa as one time winner.
Still, I note that in this list, New Zealand only won 5 out of 13 finales (2.6 finales per win) it contested which is pretty low compared to other nations, even last. England has won 3 out of 4 finales (1.3 finales per win), France 4 out of 6 (1.5), Wales 2 out of 4 (2), Australia with 3 out of 7 (2.3). They are quite unlucky in this regard, but at the same time, with 13 finales contested out of 18, they remain at the top of international rugby, followed by Australia, France, England and Wales.
Also, how has evolved rugby in France, particularly league rugby? IOTL, it was expanding fast in the interwar period and was seriously contesting the supremacy of union rugby before the Vichy regime liquidated it. What's the syndicalists' stance on it?
Don't forget the New Zealand wikibox.
Thank you X_X for answering it better than I could do !Already up.