Argentina will still have it's diehard (diplomatic) supporters who would tout whatever excuse Argentina puts out for this.What would be the impact if Argentina expelled Falk Islanders during their occupation ?
Based on the prevailing tendencies here to force OTL at all costs... probably either the US or Britain would have tried to provoke a new war, or at least sabotage them, to try and prevent this Germany from ever again eclipsing them culturally, in the same way that it looked like they were going to eclipse them industrially before WW1.What would the pop culture of a stable Weimar Republic looks like? As we all know Weimar Germany has a huge cinema industries, cabaret and liberal values in 1920s. What if Nazi never came to power and WW2 never happened ? Could the cultural influence of Germany have reached the level as the OTL US or Britain ?
In my frank opinion, yes. FDR gave the go-ahead for the firebombing of Japan, and there's no reason to suspect he wouldn't have given it for the nukes. He might be willing to drop it somewhere else, but honestly Japan gets nuked regardless.1. Would FDR have dropped the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Again, also yes. Henry Wallace probably had the same internal justifications for it as Roosevelt and Truman (this ends the war quicker and saves both American and Japanese lives from brutal fighting in the home islands), but depending on how he handles the USSR and plans for Japanese occupation, there might only be one bombing.2. If Roosevelt had been more forceful in keeping Henry A. Wallace on the ticket, would Wallace have dropped the bomb?
FDR and Wallace probably don't respond the same way Truman did, but I would guess that they consider themselves to have the blood on their hands, not Oppenheimer; in the case of Wallace becoming president, Oppy probably wouldn't get kicked out for previously affiliating with Communists.And in both cases, I would assume Oppenheimer would have the same statement of "I have blood on my hands." and so it leads me to wonder how either man would've responded to Oppenheimer? I feel like Roosevelt and Wallace would've been more personable with Oppenheimer, but maybe that's just my own biases coming out.
Well, from what I know, the Goebbels children were very close to their father and Adolf Hitler, looking up to him. Himmler's daughter, Gudrun Himmler, similarly devoted and close to both Hitler and her father, went on to stalwartly defend her father after the war. It's possible, if the Goebbels children survived they may also defend their father and be involved in post war neo-nazi and far right movements.What would be the fate of the Goebbels children if, despite Magda and Joseph committing suicide, they manage to not get murdered and survive the Battle of Berlin?
More likely, it would make conspiracy theories flourish about how Soviet sabotage botched the moon landing, and it would make the insistence more zealous "because we're not going to let the communists beat us with dirty tricks." We can also see that the CIA focuses its efforts on sabotaging the Soviet space program because "we must avenge the guys from Apollo 11."If Soviet landed on the moon first, or worse- Apollo 11 exploded while it was launching, American moon landing plan is a completely failure. How would it affected the Sci fi culture in US, would it have killed the American people's interest in sci fi?
Enver Hoxha is one. He isolated Albania, entirely because he viewed other all other communists countries making concessions as revisionism and cut ties with them.I think a lot about the tension between pragmatism and ideological purity, and how politicians and other people abandon their promises and morals in hopes of staying in power or achieving greater power. This got me wondering, who would you say are the most interesting examples of anti-pragmatic rulers or public figures - people for whom "winning" is a fairly low priority? You know, the kinds if folks who stay true to their code - even if it's a morally depraved code, and even if it doesn't help them stay in power. You might think they would never get anywhere near a position of power, but they could still inherit it, or get elected because they make some promises that sound nice, or because the other candidates are seen as much worse. They don't even have to be rulers, they could be philosophers who advocate for this kind of approach.
This is very likely what becomes of them in the longterm.Well, from what I know, the Goebbels children were very close to their father and Adolf Hitler, looking up to him. Himmler's daughter, Gudrun Himmler, similarly devoted and close to both Hitler and her father, went on to stalwartly defend her father after the war. It's possible, if the Goebbels children survived they may also defend their father and be involved in post war neo-nazi and far right movements.
As an additional detail to mention, Harald Quandt, step son of Goebbels did survive the war and would go onto be one of the richest men in west Germany inheriting his father, Günther Quandt's industrial empire.
I can see capture and supervision by the allies as the most likely scenario. I'm not smart enough to tell you about the quality of care they might experience but I believe that in this scenario it would be likely that the children are taken by the western allies rather than the soviets.Secondly, both Edda Goering and Gudrun Himmler were detained by the Allies after the war for months. Could the same apply here? This partially solves the "who looks after them" issue but it would pop up again if they are released and no relative is able to show up.
If the Goebbels Children are to survive the Führerbunker, a possible scenario would be Goebbels allowing Karl Franz Gebhardt to try and escape the city and bring the children to safety. I don't think its very likely that Gebhardt escapes allied persecution after the war, there is also the possibility that he, with the children are able to somehow escape the country.Thirdly, the Allies who might be possibly be detaining the Goebbels children would be the Soviets.