Search results

No tuck rule break for the Patriots? I'm in. Seriously though, thread looks pretty good so far. Nice to see how things unfold without that happening.

Sure, it could have gone worse. Germany isn't stopped, managing some manner of peace in the east that isn't fatal to the Soviets (such as BL 2.0) and stalemate in the west. Cue three way Cold War with more nukes, more instability and more shenanigans world wide. Not to mention a surviving Nazi...

https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/pay-the-bonus.434550/ I wouldn't call this one realistic, it takes a few too many liberties (in my opinion, anyway) for my tastes, but it has a certain power to it. Like when the text says This Old Bell Still Rings? It really feels like a slogan...

That's such a tough question, since even the best bets to be a President are a toss of the dice. Sometimes even a good potential President is simply the wrong man at the wrong time, too. I'd say Mitt Romney, followed by John McCain in 2000. (I actually think Bush II was alright but McCain in...

Let's say for the sake of argument that the UK continues to stay out of it, since that seems like the OP's intent. Most likely by supporting the Soviets and jockeying for position. Without the African front the US doesn't have a lot it can directly do. No reasonably nearby bases to launch an...

Not much. Maybe mining or forestry in any places where that makes sense. Camps, nuclear testing, missile launches, tossing industrial waste. There's not much use to the land besides having it. There might be a few attempts to colonize parts of it, but really, they'd have more than enough land...

Well, obviously Kennedy isn't around to finish his one term and quietly pass away in '67. That's not a huge deal since Lyndon Johnson won in '64 anyway, so that's not a huge change on the Presidential level. We know now that Kennedy was never in good health and the wounds he received from Oswald...

I'd say the '42 option is inherently flawed. Germany wouldn't be surrendering in '42, they'd be at near the apex of their strength and looking for favorable peace settlements. I don't think a January '42 government can actually surrender without instantly being seen as illegitimate and possibly...

That's a really tough question, because it's going to impact troop deployments in the West and political moves, which could radically change the Eastern Front. On paper the Japanese probably get stomped by Russia, but Russia has the Germans going full tilt at them right now. Do the Japanese pin...

The Wehrmacht did about as well as they could with the situation they were given by politics. They came reasonably close to knocking out the Soviets and possibly winning WW2, which is remarkable to even consider. I mean, I'm glad they failed to do so in the end, but I have to admit they...

Well, you have to remember that what happened was essentially a perfect storm of bad luck. Reagan's gambit was exposed - which honestly he probably gets away with 99 out of 100 times back then, it wasn't the internet age or anything. Not only that, it explodes into a bigger and bigger scandal...

Did Reagan win the Cold War himself? Of course not. There were far too many factors in play for one man to win it by himself. If nothing else, he worked and stood atop the labor of 35 years to finish the job. However, the role he did play can't be underestimated. He was willing to push the...

Okay, how would those four walking into the same bar at that time meaningfully change the course of history? The OP didn't say anything else, just that they happen to be in a bar together.

Probably very little. They were just normal people back then, by and large.

I'm not sure there's a lot they could have done. Knocking the UK out of the war is possible, but requires some luck or a political collapse by the Brits. I mean...even at best, let's say they take Egypt and spill into the Middle East after focusing on the Med. Then what? India's far beyond the...

It's hard, since it's basically handing the Republicans a turkey shoot. There's a few legitimate reasons to oppose Hillary, let alone the fact that her likely rejection is a big ol' rebuke to President Clinton. The headlines and counter arguments basically write themselves, and could easily get...

The problem is with that is that it requires a fundamental change how evangelicals view abortion. Trying to frame it as reducing abortions is missing the point of the argument to them - there's still baby killing going on. Merely reducing it isn't the goal, the goal is stopping it altogether...

I think the main change is adjustments to the evangelical movement and no rise of a pro life side. There's far less need for a pro life side if abortion isn't legalized by RvW, so no one side feeling that baby murder is now common and legal in the US. Being pro life is usually an evangelical...

There's a few ways. The simplest is to have Nazi Germany fall before the war starts. Maybe one of the assassination attempts on Hitler gets lucky, maybe Hitler dies from whatever malady. Without Hitler the Germans lose so much and probably don't repeat their winning ways. Various revisionist...

Depends on how they survive WW2.