Search results

Yeah, I think that was my two points...

Uhm... according to the UN itself, we joined in 1946.

Not that differently unless there has been time enough since its widespread military adoption to have enough notably wars (which might be just one) to realise the practical differences from muzzle-loading muskets and change tactics accordingly. Not at the start, anyway. (Voices at the back of...

Has somebody mentioned the Norwegian Police Troops and the Danish Brigade (and the Danish Flotilla) yet?

Or you could rephrase to just extending it. Having the dust bowl last well into the forties or even the fifties could be enough to bring back the concept of the Great American Desert (i.e. "this area is unsuitable for farming, look at what happened in the thirties"). As far as I know the big...

Would, as in "under the OTL circumstances" (e.g. the size of standing armies and trained reserves, level of training and state of equipment, which I believe has been extensively discussed here very recently), or could, as in "if it had taken the time to build and equp a proportionally sized army...

Again, there is evidently a school of thought that believes Americans are just like the Boers, but more so.

DAMN! TYPO! (now fixed) That should read "no starting assumption of British-Canadian ignorance". You know, as in implied by OP's phrase "Lets say a path towards war has been building up for a 6-9 months. This the US can build up slightly yet the Empire much more so." The starting assumption in...

Uhm... What the author of the thread wrote, and my bold: So, no clear/proper POD but also no starting assumption of British-Canadian ignorance and inaction and even less of bowing down to the mighty Americans. Sidenote: I have not gone through the thread to check when somebody began arguing...

What was its strength in 1898? It also wasn't a war that was begun by, or even involved, someone invading British territory... ETA: Correction, it does appear to have involved pre-emptive strikes but, as far as I can tell, no invasion with intent to annex.

And yet it is an argument that always seems to lie just under the surface in these discussions... :biggrin:

You forget that every American citizen is an expert marksperson, master outdoorsman and fanatically loyal. At the first sign of invasion, the entire population will melt into the wilderness and wage an undefeatable guerilla war until/unless every square foot of U.S. soil has been taken and...

A POD set at any point after 1991 gives us fifteen pre-Borat the movie years (and five pre-proto-Borat* ones and nine pre-movie-Borat ones). *Who was not from Central Asia.

Thanks, but what I said was "make Central Asian (or specific -stan) action movies a Thing the way Hong Kong action movies are a Thing, and specifically ones set in the mid-19th to early 20th century".

Western pop culture discovers Osterns like like White Sun of the Desert and The Sixth when Ivan Woofordyev revives, revitalises and revisionises* the genre. *i.e. revisionist Osterns, the eqiuivalent of revisionist westerns.

The fantasy fiction success/wave/resurgence of the sixties began a decade before Dungeons & Dragons was published, but once both existed they fed into each other.

That's why I specified the paperback editions of both. You'll note that it was with the paperback editions of the mid-sixties that LOTR started picking up, and it's the Lancer/Ace paperbacks (and Frazetta covers), starting after that, that are given the credit for introducing Conan into popular...

Post-LOTR fantasy did look much more like Sword and Sorcery than the original question and Tolkien's stature implies. Not to mention that "the first comprehensive paperback edition" of Conan began publication after the American LOTR paperback editions and, eventually, by the same publisher that...

The nit-picker, of course, notes that they did draw from them (and that Clash of the Titans came nine years after Mazes & Minotaurs). Wasn't it "specifically/primarily Greek mythology rather than Harryhausen"?

D'oh!