you could do something with the US owning a more russian alaska and more mexican South-West, in general that area would be the place for a country of these to exist
Miscellaneous >1900 (Alternate) History Thread
- Thread starter RMcD94
- Start date
Grey Wolf
Donor
Russian claims in the West of America
1) went way into Oregon
2) potentially included the Russian American Company bases in California
Driftless
Donor
Admiral Thomas C. Hart was the commander of the US Asiatic fleet at the time of Pearl Harbor and the attack on the Philippines. He had the misfortune of commanding what was largely a backwater (up to that point) for both US fighting ships and command personnel, prior to the start of hostilities (for the US). On this AH site, he's generally given credit for making the best out of a crap hand.
In early '42 he was relieved of command and soon retired (he was 63 at the time). He was later recalled to serve on the US Navy's General Board.
Had he been 4-5 years younger, might Hart have been given another fleet command assingment?
In early '42 he was relieved of command and soon retired (he was 63 at the time). He was later recalled to serve on the US Navy's General Board.
Had he been 4-5 years younger, might Hart have been given another fleet command assingment?
Two questions.
What if Germany bought Kaliningrad from the USSR/Russia after the fall of the Soviet Union.
What if a country other than Germany bought Kaliningrad? Like Sweden, Britain, the US, Japan. Just to get a Baltic exclave.
What if Germany bought Kaliningrad from the USSR/Russia after the fall of the Soviet Union.
What if a country other than Germany bought Kaliningrad? Like Sweden, Britain, the US, Japan. Just to get a Baltic exclave.
For the first one...why would Germany do so?
And for the second one...US/Britain would have no interest....Japan is maybe possible but it would depend on economy at the time
For what reason any country will want to obtain a Baltic exclave full of Russians? Maybe if the territory has people of the country who bought the territory. But that's not the case...
So, I was wondering about some case of a 'Rhodesia' situation but where it happens in Asia instead of Africa and how could that shape the history of Asia after its downfall.
Grey Wolf
Donor
Interesting!
Malaya as a white ruled country
Vietnam as a French settler country
Maybe the Dutch East Indies don't hold together and you see something like an independent Dutch settler ruled Java?
Well, there is just a few issues. The Japanese reeeeeeeaaaaaallly damaged most of the European grip in Asia, so either the Japanese didn't manage to go that far or one of the colonies became self governing and sufficient.
Issue is...why would they claim independence? The British before WW2 weren't exactly anti apartheid schemes.
Absolutely impossible to answer without seeing other timelines play out. I just say it's awfully weird a bunch of random horsemen in a forgotten region of the world basically conquered Eurasia. It's weird one continent was able to colonize and conquer most of the world. It's unbelievable that a bunch of random backwater colonies were able to design a novel government that would eventually become the world's largest economy within one hundred years and the undisputed most powerful nation by far in just over two hundred years.
The terrible things that have happened, like the Holocaust don't really surprise me. I don't think people have even the desire to grasp the potential for evil all of humanity has within them. It just needs to be unlocked. In my opinion I think these things could have happened far more often and I'm surprised it hasn't.
I think our society values life and abhors violence, and I think that wasn't necessarily inevitable. Say a global religion began in Sparta which was basically proto-social darwinism and the moral thing was to kill off the weakest and enslave the rest of the weak for the catapultation of the strong. Doesn't seem very far fetched to me.
I also think we're just starting to understand generational trauma and how it influences entire societies and the zeitgeist. At least I'm starting to understand it a little more, especially after the last few years, and that's strongly affecting my view of history and the decisions that were made, as well as the decisions currently being made.
I don't know what I'd rate our timeline, but I'm not certain things could have better much better, which makes me feel rather fortunate.
I don't know about the pre-1900 stuff, but if someone in 2013 had written a future timeline with all the OTL events between 2016 and now, I would have declared it ASB
Deleted member 6086
If the US hadn't entered the war, would the USSR and the British Empire have succeeded in defeating Germany in WW2? Assume no Lend-Lease, either.
Opinions differ. There are several threads about it, for instance:
WI US tried to be a neutral merchant during world wars?
The general idea is that US will not provide lend lease or any other benefits for free to any side in the conflict but at the same time it will sell anything to anyone be they British, Germans, Russians/Soviets Japanese etc and will insist to maintain trade with each of the warring nations...
www.alternatehistory.com
WI: the US stayed totally neutral in WW2 (Binkov's Battlegrounds)
So the military strategy channel Binkov's Battlegrounds uploaded a few days ago a video in which the US was isolationist in its totality (that means no Lend Lease and no sanctions to Japan). So let me give you a brief rundown of the video: * The UK would be safe from a German invasion, since the...
www.alternatehistory.com
It has also been discussed in other threads. IMO it's nearly impossible for the US to stay neutral and not provide aid to the UK (providing aid doesn't necessarily mean lend-lease), just staying neutral is not very likely.
What if (or could have) Madagascar turned into a settler colony like Australia and New Zealand by either the French or the British?