Search results

This wouldn't happen without a direct order from Moscow. So it's really the USSR invading West Germany, in which case they just started WWIII.

Just have it retain control of the area that is now the UAE and/or Canada. That wouldn't be enough to make it a "superpower" by any stretch of the imagination, but it would have more than enough oil to be completely self-sufficient.

Nope. "Assuming a successful Barbarossa" also means "Assuming that Generalplan Ost is initiated". The Germans will be far too busy with that to throw all those forces at the Allies. And of course, even a successful Barbarossa would involve enormous losses for the Germans. What makes you say...

Germany is screwed either way, but I'd give them a better chance against the Soviets, just because there's a possibility of Stalin going even crazier than he did in OTL and committing some absurdly stupid error that leads to a Soviet defeat, and the additional supplies and manpower that were...

Wait, Anglo-French as in both of them together? Wouldn't this be hilariously one-sided? Two of the world's strongest naval powers against what is at best the world's 4th-strongest navy at this point isn't exactly a fair fight.

Absolutely not. If Roosevelt was a fascist, then so was just about every popular leader of a major power in the 19th and early 20th centuries.

Fighting on the same side would be a great way to get into an alliance, but I don't think that the US would attack France out of the blue just to pick up some islands. Especially in 1870, when the US is exhausted and still recovering from the Civil War. You don't lose 3% of your population in...

That seems a little far-fetched. Imperial Germany and Russia never showed any interest in annexing the UK.

The Yugoslav Wars don't count?

Deep down inside every Brit is a gun-toting Johnny Reb anxious to stick it to those damnyankees. How on earth is the US Navy going to pull that off in 1870? It didn't have that kind of power until the 1890s at the earliest.

No. The term superpower was used specifically to describe the unprecedented level of power wielded by the US, USSR, and UK immediately after World War II. It doesn't make much sense to apply it to the pre-WWII world.

I'd say most Cold War-era Presidents. In general, they had a tremendous amount of military power at their disposal and it was a lot easier for them to handle domestic opposition than it is for modern presidents. >implying that the guy who drove his country into the ground so hard it split in...

It depends on a few things: 1. Has the Great Depression still happened? 2. Has the Washington Naval Treaty happened? 3. Is the US sticking to War Plan Red (aka a defensive war)? 4. Are all other countries just going to sit back and watch? If all of those things are true, I think the US "wins"...

Oh great, another "Notzi" thread.

Use GIMP 2. You can open one image, expand the canvas size, copy paste the second image next to the first, and then just drag the second image around until it's lined up the way you want it.

I'm not sure how this would work. Manning was a top football prospect pretty much his entire life, that was always the direction he was going in. Maybe if he got injured as a kid, that could stop it, but that still doesn't get him to Canada.

My god, that second map is beautiful. How did you make it?

The Democrats would get destroyed in 2010 and in 2012 for pursuing a socialist policy. Say hello to President Romney with a majority in both houses of Congress.

With a PoD any time after 1900, make the Catholic Church split a second time (preferably into European and Pan-American branches).

Germany has a higher chance of beating the USSR. It's incredibly unlikely, but it's still a higher probability than their chance of beating the USA+CANZUK (which is basically 0%).