ATL Nobel Prize Winners?

Assuming a POD after the establishment of the Nobel Prizes, who are some likely candidates for the Prize in various alternate scenarios? One example I can think of is President Wilson winning the Peace Prize for negotiating a compromise peace in WWI. Any others?

Also, another POD to do with the Prize itself; what if the Prize was given out posthumously? Say, someone could be awarded the prize for up to 10 years after their death. The main candidates that I can think of in this instance are Gandhi and Martin Luther King for the Peace Prize, maybe F. Scott Fitzgerald for the Prize in Literature, and Rosalind Franklin for the Prize in Medicine. Any others?
 
MLK Jr. did win the Nobel Peace Prize, in 1964.

Perhaps in an ATL Richard Nixon would get it for a successful end to the Vietnam War in 1972.

Also a big one that should've been in OTL but sadly wasn't, Jorge Luis Borges for the Nobel Prize in Literature.
 
Jeffrey Sachs receives the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences, for fundamental contributions to development theory pertaining to political economy transitions, laying the groundwork for clinical economics.
 
Tolstoy is often and justly mooted. Primo Levi perhaps or for the Peace Prize Charles Evans Hughes (Washington Naval treaty).
 
The main thing I would change about the Nobel Prizes if I could would be to include more categories. The Nobel science medals are for physics, chemistry, and medicine. That's it. No mathematics, no Earth sciences (geology, oceanography, meteorology), no astronomy, no non-medical technology.

My person list of 'prize-worthy' categories for math/science:

Mathematics
Physics
Chemistry
Astronomy
Earth sciences
Life sciences
Medicine
Technology
 
don't devalue the Nobel's

If you start introducing Nobel Prizes for every subdiscipline you devalue their worth. Astronomy is a branch of Physics and astronomers can be, and have been, awarded the Physics Nobel. Similarly Life Scientists perform research that is usually covered by the Chemistry and Medicine prize remits. The remits are quite broad, and the definitions of what is physics, chemistry or medicine are generous.

Technology would be an inappropriate category as that would involve application of a prior discovery, the Nobel would only be appropriate for the underlying scientific discovery and not how it was later engineered or packaged.

There are other scientific awards as well. Though the Nobels are the most well known and prestigious there are plenty of other gongs that are respected in their fields. Handing out Nobel prizes to an ever expanding list of categories would just devalue them. Scientists don't judge other scientists based purely on "do they have a Nobel?".

If you were to hand out Nobels posthumously then what's the point of some arbitrary 10 year limit? Why not 5 years or 50 years, there will always be hard luck cases based on some arbitrary time limit. Make it all or nothing, with the rules as is (i.e. the nominee must be alive) or anyone anytime, which would be a complete mess (let's give it to Archimedes!!). I know that this is an alternate history question but the Nobel committee has thought about these rules and procedures carefully, they're not based on a whim.
 
If you were to hand out Nobels posthumously then what's the point of some arbitrary 10 year limit? Why not 5 years or 50 years, there will always be hard luck cases based on some arbitrary time limit. Make it all or nothing, with the rules as is (i.e. the nominee must be alive) or anyone anytime, which would be a complete mess (let's give it to Archimedes!!). I know that this is an alternate history question but the Nobel committee has thought about these rules and procedures carefully, they're not based on a whim.

The point of the 10 year limit is to prevent precisely the situation you describe. It's supposed to take into account the fact that accidents happen and that people who die before their work can be recognized should be recognized anyway. The limit is supposed to make sure that only relatively recent work is recognized.
 
If you start introducing Nobel Prizes for every subdiscipline you devalue their worth. Astronomy is a branch of Physics and astronomers can be, and have been, awarded the Physics Nobel. Similarly Life Scientists perform research that is usually covered by the Chemistry and Medicine prize remits. The remits are quite broad, and the definitions of what is physics, chemistry or medicine are generous.

So by your definition there should only be one Nobel handed out in science? After all, biology is a branch of chemistry, which in turn is a branch of physics, so ultimately physics covers ALL of science.

I stand by my statement that in an ideal world, each major branch of science would be the domain of a specific Nobel prize, and the term 'major branch' includes Earth sciences as one branch, and astronomy/cosmology as another.
 
Actually the Peace prize was given in 1973 to Nixon, Kissinger and Le Duc Tho for the negotiated American retreat from Vietnam.
Also, the thing is that the Nobel not just a recognotion, rather a sum of money, and that would be little point to give it posthomously. The categories where thought of with regard of the main aim: giving money to whom benefits humanity, arguably in order to help them to go benefitting humanity with more work of theirs.
 
Actually the Peace prize was given in 1973 to Nixon, Kissinger and Le Duc Tho for the negotiated American retreat from Vietnam.
I think only Kissinger and Le Duc Tho got it then, and Le refused, so really only Kissinger got it.

EDIT: Also just found out that Tesla was never awarded a Nobel Prize.
 
Borges, who was one of the best writers of the last century IMO, was not considered one who benefitted humanity by his work. Of course, what is benefitting to humanity in this field is open to debate-but from I gather, the point is that he did accept or support the Argentinian junta, that was quite an heinous regime after all. That does not lessen a iota of the wonderful things he wrote - after all, Dostoevskij was a supporter of Tsardom in its most reactionary sense, and he's still one of the best writers ever. But the Nobel is not a prize given simply to very good writers - it is ideological in its foundation, since it impies a judgement on how the writer's work affects the good of humanity- i'm not so sure on how such a judgement can be done at all, but probably the people in Stockholm think they do know and, for what i can say, they may be right.
Were it for me, I'd choose Ursula Le Guin, Philip Roth, Amos Oz and Adonis. More or less in this order. For the past, I'd say Eric Remarque, Anna Achmatova, Tawfiq al-Hakim, Satsume Soseki, Aldous Huxley and Evgenij Zamjatin among others, could have deserved the prize on this respect.
 
Top