Miscellaneous >1900 (Alternate) History Thread

Russia won't care about Chinese refugees in the Far East? India cared about East Pakistani refugees fleeing to India in huge numbers in 1970-1971, hence it militarily intervening to secure East Pakistan's independence in 1971.
  1. My point was that the Russian leadership in Moscow or Petrograd would not be that influenced by refugees on the other side of the world, especially as the Chinese would have an easier time emigrating in other parts of China or somewhere else as Manchuria is literally the first thing that will be conquered by the Japanese.
  2. India had other reasons to want East Pakistan's independence, I doubt the refugee crisis was THE reason they intervened.
Would Russia be willing to intervene in China for humanitarian reasons, either with a direct military intervention or through a large-scale Lend-Lease program?
Lend-Lease probably, war would be more difficult.
The draft question is relevant because WWII draft cards are a great source of genealogical information and are helpful in verifying the ages of people who have lived to extremely high ages (107+ and especially 110+) later on.
 

Kalakali

Kicked
  1. My point was that the Russian leadership in Moscow or Petrograd would not be that influenced by refugees on the other side of the world, especially as the Chinese would have an easier time emigrating in other parts of China or somewhere else as Manchuria is literally the first thing that will be conquered by the Japanese.
  2. India had other reasons to want East Pakistan's independence, I doubt the refugee crisis was THE reason they intervened.

Lend-Lease probably, war would be more difficult.
Fair point.

Yeah, wanting to weaken Pakistan was also likely very significant.

Would Lend-Lease be enough for the Chinese to win by themselves?
 

Kalakali

Kicked
Radical PoD, but how do we make Anwar al-Awlaki convert to Christianity, reject radical Islam, move back to the US (he was a US citizen), and become an Evangelical Christian preacher in the US, preaching the Gospel to flocks of faithful Christians? He might need a new name as a part of this process.

It's not impossible:

 
Russia won't care about Chinese refugees in the Far East? India cared about East Pakistani refugees fleeing to India in huge numbers in 1970-1971, hence it militarily intervening to secure East Pakistan's independence in 1971.
You're projecting 1970s attitudes onto 1930s. A 1930s country faced with an influx of refugees it considers racially inferior is more likely to place machine guns on the border, and employ them, than to decide to go to war against a neighbor because "we're worried, and a lot, what you do with these people who we hate anyway."

And how were all those people supposed to move to Russia anyway? most likely they are moving into China
 
Anybody know what happens if an outgoing US President dies in office after an election, but before the incoming President has been inaugurated? Does the VP take over until the inauguration or would it just be moved up? Specifically asking about the 1940s/50s time period if it makes a difference.
 
In spite of Stalin getting smarter throughout WWII, a whole lot of Soviet men still died in WWII. Millions of these Soviet men were born in the 1910s and 1920s. Surely there were a couple of them, maybe even a bit more, who would have had a lot of leadership potential in the 1980s had they lived? Just by virtue of the sheer number of such men whom the USSR lost in WWII.

Would that have prevented the USSR's collapse and break up?
It's not just the loss of life, but also the destruction and economic losses. So yes, the USSR could last longer, because economically their situation would most likely be better.
 
The Giants would perform better and the Reds would perform worse than otl.
In 1971, "as part of one of the worst trades in San Francisco Giants history", they traded George Foster for Frank Duffy.

Foster would go on to be a feared hitter with the Reds.

WI Giants' management had shown more sense?

How would the team's fortunes in the '70s have changed?

How much would the Reds have been affected without Foster?

Where might Duffy have ended up? (Selling used cars?)

Would this have changed who won a Pennant in the '70s? (Not that the Giants necessarily would, but a stronger Giants squad means losses for whoever did...)

Any other musings?
 
Ok, I just came across something very interesting.

And this is the Plzeň Uprising of 1953, this uprising, in case you didn't know, was because the workers of the city of Plzeň rebelled in a protest, (from May 31 to June 2), against the monetary reforms of the state party of Czechoslovakia.

Causing as a consequence that:

  • That the revolt was harshly repressed and took away several rights from the workers.
  • That several members suspected of "social democratism" or low loyalty were purged as a result.


So I asked myself the question and I ask it to you... What would have happened and what would have to happen so that the Plzeň Uprising would never happen?
 
just a take i recently thought off: many would say that western allies would still beat off even if soviet is beaten, the thing is, i don't think they "wanted" to.

the west can bully both china and korea if they want to with nukes, america can still push into north vietnam if they wanted to, hell they didn't even need nukes or the soviets to beat japan: just send one million men dude! we would win!

i think it is most likely that sooner or later the populace would get fed up with the war and demand a peace deal. it would be unpopular to "send our men to foreign war in north africa" in america instead of focusing into japan(especially if the soviet is beaten before pearl harbour). germany can focus more with one front closed off, and if they got egypt, i think it would be "camel breaking" to britain.

also, i don't think it would be popular among the populace to "take the europe back" and start the war again without big pressure like an insane nuclear germany start to drop nukes or a german civil war, and even with civil war i think they would only care with liberating western europe, not much bothering with german heartland.
 
Anybody know what happens if an outgoing US President dies in office after an election, but before the incoming President has been inaugurated? Does the VP take over until the inauguration or would it just be moved up? Specifically asking about the 1940s/50s time period if it makes a difference.
I would guess the VP would be sworn in and rule/admin the changeover until the President-Elect takes over.
 
Anybody know what happens if an outgoing US President dies in office after an election, but before the incoming President has been inaugurated? Does the VP take over until the inauguration or would it just be moved up? Specifically asking about the 1940s/50s time period if it makes a difference.
The incumbent VP would take over in the event of a vacancy during the lame-duck period, just like at any other point in the term. There's no mechanism to bring the start of the next term any earlier, though I've heard Woodrow Wilson had a plan, in the event that he lost re-election to Charles Evans Hughes, to appoint Hughes to his cabinet and thereby put him in the line of succession, then resign (along with his vice-president) to get the transition over with ASAP.
 
The incumbent VP would take over in the event of a vacancy during the lame-duck period, just like at any other point in the term. There's no mechanism to bring the start of the next term any earlier, though I've heard Woodrow Wilson had a plan, in the event that he lost re-election to Charles Evans Hughes, to appoint Hughes to his cabinet and thereby put him in the line of succession, then resign (along with his vice-president) to get the transition over with ASAP.
Wouldn't it go to the Speaker of the House and the President pro tempore of the Senate before going to the Cabinet though?
 
Top