Miscellaneous >1900 (Alternate) History Thread

Realistically, how would the US government deal with a superpower who is technologically, economically, and influentially superior to it? I'm not sure whether to put it here, in Future, or in Chat. I don't think the US will go gentle into that good night, so what moves would it make to (try to) close those gaps?
 
Realistically, how would the US government deal with a superpower who is technologically, economically, and influentially superior to it? I'm not sure whether to put it here, in Future, or in Chat. I don't think the US will go gentle into that good night, so what moves would it make to (try to) close those gaps?
According to a TL I was following on Chat, the United States would immediately decide that this new superpower is an invaluable ally (because this Superpower hates China and Russia and is eager to have an excuse to attack them).

So they will put all their diplomatic efforts into doing everything in their power to be as accommodating and submissive to this power as they can, while they try to obtain its technology for themselves "because economics".

(Fortunately, even though this Superpower hated "their" United States immensely... they decided to forget about it and assume that OTL America is exactly what they want as a trusted ally.)

Plus, of course, the United States would immediately say to NATO members: "By the way, since I'm aligning myself with this superpower, you better not have any conflict with them. Because when money talks, alliances walks away. Then you're on your own. Sucks to be you."
 
Last edited:
If Kashmir was nipped in the bud through proper negotiations, and both Pakistan and India respected whatever compromise that was given, would there have been wars still between them?
 
If Kashmir was nipped in the bud through proper negotiations, and both Pakistan and India respected whatever compromise that was given, would there have been wars still between them?
One of the wars (1971-72) was fought over the East Pakistan issue, and wasn't directly connected with Kashmir, so that one is still likely to happen.
 
What if Yeltsin is successfully deposed?
You're talking the 1993 Constitutional Crisis?
I think this is very good for Russia. Yeltsin being gone in 1993 helps alleviate the Imperial Presidency concerns. There's still the issue of Vladimir Putin to worry about later (and even if stopped, other ex-Soviets might have similar ideas), but I think Yeltsin was completely incompetent at running Russia and the other side in 1993 was better. (Shock therapy economics was a disaster. Democracy-building failed so badly, it barely deserves the name.) Someone better than him rising from the ashes in 1993 would probably lead to a better recovery from the Soviet collapse and perhaps a more equitable or even a more democratic Russia, depending on the successors.
 
If this post is considered current politics, then I'll delete it.

Anyways, the first realistic chance of a Green Party taking power in Canada was the 2019 Prince Edward Island general election. Polls taken after the election was called had them with a narrow minority, with the PCs as the opposition. So, what if they won a minority government? I assume they would form a confidence and supply agreement with the Liberals. What would Peter Bevan-Baker as premier look like? Would the Greens be reelected?

What do you think?
 
You're talking the 1993 Constitutional Crisis?
I think this is very good for Russia. Yeltsin being gone in 1993 helps alleviate the Imperial Presidency concerns. There's still the issue of Vladimir Putin to worry about later (and even if stopped, other ex-Soviets might have similar ideas), but I think Yeltsin was completely incompetent at running Russia and the other side in 1993 was better. (Shock therapy economics was a disaster. Democracy-building failed so badly, it barely deserves the name.) Someone better than him rising from the ashes in 1993 would probably lead to a better recovery from the Soviet collapse and perhaps a more equitable or even a more democratic Russia, depending on the successors.
I am indeed talking about that, yes. I think Yeltsin inadvertently stymied Russian liberalization and democratization.
 
That's hilarious. Do you happen to recall when the next presidential election would have taken place before Yeltsin's new constitution?
Had Yeltsin lost, they probably would've gone with the one the Congress of Peoples Deputies favored, which would've led to a parliamentary democracy. In that case, I have no idea what would happen to the leadership as it's honestly kind of confusing to figure out who would be doing what, but the laws for the Supreme Soviet and the Presidential elections are as follows, respectively:
1707678716753.png

1707678719162.png

The election for the presidency would be in either 1995 (four years after 1991), 1996 (Yeltsin was elected for a five-year term), or 1997 (four years after the Crisis).
The legislative elections would also either be in 1993 or 1997 based on whether or not they wanted to confirm a new government immediately or four years after the constitution was confirmed.
 
what would happen if china had established an dynastic republic instead?
This could possibly happen if mao kept his stranglehold on power and arraigned for one of his children to succeed him however from what I found all of his children were either dead disinterested or too young/inexperienced to possibly become leader after his death and many with in the CCP bureaucracy itself would have wanted nothing to do with a second mao now that they had the opportunity to consolidate more power for themselves and their faction.
 
Top