Search results

I guess it depends how much infighting goes on in the USSR until someone consolidates power. If it takes awhile that gives a lot of countries the chance to stand themselves up without Uncle Joe looking over their shoulder. That could lead to a less severe Cold War.

This probably gives the people of Eastern Europe a better chance for freedom. The USSR leaders probably work together well enough to still help defeat Germany. But maybe they don't go as far and the US/UK wind up in Berlin first and then after the war if there is fighting for power in the USSR...

Instead of just incorporating half of it and only kicking out half the Germans like they did OTL? Would the USSR think Inner Mongolia had worthwhile natural resources or strategic value to go through all the work of driving all the Chinese out of the area?

The amount of nukes used on China might lead to other actions, if China gets hit really hard maybe Chiang Kai-shek decides it's a good time to try to invade the mainland?

Logically the stance on that seems ridiculous to me. If the would-be mother cannot afford birth control then she certainly can't afford to raise a child, so rather than just pay the cost of the birth control the taxpayers instead would wind up paying government assistance for years to take care...

The US/UK have no way to force Stalin to do anything, if he thinks the USSR and his grip on power is in serious trouble and thinks the US/UK is making the USSR do the brunt of the fighting he might consider a separate peace with Germany to give himself some breathing room. Hitler would probably...

If the majority of the people are content in their lives they wouldn't have any real reason to try to overthrow Nazi rule. I think a lot of the people would just ignore the bad things Hitler did, or try to rationalize them somehow.

I personally work less than I could due to the progressive tax system and I am no where near the top brackets. In my opinion it is better to go enjoy life than work more if most of the money is just getting taken away anyway.

I find it interesting people say there should be term limits for congress, but keep voting the same people in over and over again. I think a percentage of the people are either hardcore right or left and get out to vote, but there is also a large portion in the middle who think both sides suck...

Most people would work to a point, but then stop. For example; starting one successful store would be good since you would still reap the rewards, but opening a chain of stores would be pointless since you would lose most of them. So no Walmart, McDonald's, etc.

Maybe a more robust marketing campaign? I don't recall any commercials for it.

I second this one!

One of them would still win, it's a two party system

I wonder how his presidency would have gone? Reagan seemed much more charismatic. "Mr Gorbachev tear down this wall!" is remembered much more favorably than "Read my lips, no new taxes"

That's an easy question, less nukes and no ICBMs is the best if you have to choose.

The USSR probably comes out stronger in this scenario. By the time the US had their nukes ready Germany might be surrendering to the Soviets anyway.

Freak landing of large asteroid in English Channel causing a huge Tsunami which sinks all the ships.

How will the American media react when a squadron of police breaks up a protest by charging in swinging swords at everyone?

Sounds interesting so far

An interesting scenario would be if the USSR joining with Germany drove Germany and Japan apart. The British feel overwhelmed and wind up making peace with Germany/USSR. Japan continues down its original path and winds up at war with the US and UK in the Pacific. Meanwhile Hitler still goes...