Highly implausible, but earlier development of guided missiles and later development of aircraft might do it, if battleships were turned into huge missile carriers. How that could happen, I've got no idea...
Miscellaneous >1900 (Alternate) History Thread
- Thread starter RMcD94
- Start date
I guess something like missile cruisers but battleship sized might work? Or am I misunderstanding why cruisers survived while battleships didn't? Agree with FriendlyGhost.
Realistically the Battle ships still had use post WWII, the USN, RN, and French would all keep some around, some longer than others. The war had shown that they were vulnerable to aircraft, but that could be largely negated if battleships were escorted by their own aircraft from carriers or land. The real reason they went away is that there just wasnt any use for them after the second world war. The Soviet navy never built any battleships, once that became clear the western navies found the ones they had to be way to expensive to keep around with the exception of the USN which kept some just in case.
Cruisers and carriers on the other hand stuck around because they were still useful. The Soviets built alot of cruisers so keeping some of your own was a good idea until the missile age came along, and while the USSR would only build a handful of carriers late in the cold war a carrier was still a very useful tool. Capable of delivering lots of destruction very far away as well as providing recce and ASW capability.
In a scenario where the Soviet Union completes some battleships or battlecruisers the type probably sticks around for a bit longer. Though eventually the type will be rendered obsolete with the introduction of practical ship launched missiles early in the cold war. Maybe they last about a decade more with the USN retaining more than just the four Iowa's, maybe completing the final two or a Montana, Britain probably retains Vanguard and maybe a KGV or two longer while France keeps Jean Bart around as well.
Ike dies from his heart attack in 1955, Nixon wins reelection twice, and is President for almost a decade. With this as the premise, I have a few foreign policy questions:
1. The immediate things on the table are Suez and Hungary. Maybe he could have had some agreement with Khrushchev to give him free reign in Hungary in exchange for toppling Nasser if he sees fit and installing a western puppet.
2. Next up would be Cuba, and I’m fairly convinced he would have tried to woo Castro until after his second reelection and then do his own Bay of Pigs once it’s clear that Castro is on track to declare Cuba communist. If he can provide full support to the endeavor, he should be able to succeed unlike Kennedy.
3. And here’s the big one, what happens with Vietnam? I fear it going down the same trajectory as much as I’d hope for it not to involve US troops.
4. What other conflicts/quandaries am I missing?
Any thoughts on the above?
1. The immediate things on the table are Suez and Hungary. Maybe he could have had some agreement with Khrushchev to give him free reign in Hungary in exchange for toppling Nasser if he sees fit and installing a western puppet.
2. Next up would be Cuba, and I’m fairly convinced he would have tried to woo Castro until after his second reelection and then do his own Bay of Pigs once it’s clear that Castro is on track to declare Cuba communist. If he can provide full support to the endeavor, he should be able to succeed unlike Kennedy.
3. And here’s the big one, what happens with Vietnam? I fear it going down the same trajectory as much as I’d hope for it not to involve US troops.
4. What other conflicts/quandaries am I missing?
Any thoughts on the above?
"once it’s clear that Castro is on track to declare Cuba communist." - was he? Or did Castro only go that way due to American hostility? Would Nixon be able to woo him to stay in the Western camp? Would the business and mob communities allow Nixon to woo Castro after he kicked their corrupt butts off his island?
Personally I would say this is a case of rewriting history where the Americans tried to pressure Castro into accepting being Batista 2 and, when that didn't work, they tried to rewrite the story to make it seem like it was actually Castro, not the USA, who refused to give in.
Has there ever been a war that ended because one side or the other ran out of resources (other than political will)? Usually wars end because one side or the other runs out of political will, so I'm curious if there are any wars that don't fit that trend.
Triple Alliance War? I mean, Paraguay literally lose 90% of his men. And better not talk about the rest of the resources. I can't think better example of "one sid ends ran out of resources".
But why was that war so bad? Was the Triple Alliance War genocidal and that's why Paraguay almost ran out of manpower? Usually sides don't literally run out of manpower unless they are being genocided. Usually, sides run out of manpower since people don't want to fight anymore--not actually losing 90% of your male population.
Uh, World War II in Europe?
Technically the Germans had only lost 80% or whatever of their fighting power and territory instead of 100% when Donitz surrendered , but it was essentially a complete debellation.
Basically due to a combination of particularly stubborn leadership and terrible conditions on the front (lack of supplies, lack of practically everything, hostile environmental environment) all of this piled on top of a population that was already very small to begin with (apparently not even half a million). of inhabitants before the war, and at the end of it it was around 120,000 inhabitants).
The pacific theater probably counts as well. Most of the Japanese surface fleet, merchant marine, air forces, industrial output, and access to natural resources was gone by their surrender even if they still had a lot of manpower and an active army in china.
People should not have sit through a 10+ minute video to understand the question being asked.
So, earlier this morning I watched a 1994 Spanish movie set in Catalonia, The Tit and the Moon, where the kid protagonist daydreams about flying to the Moon: an independent Catalonia that is a prominent member of a super-charged ESA?
Considering that you probably need Catalonia to become independent before the 20th century to consolidate itself, and be stable and rich enough to be able to contribute to a space program, I would say that being pre-1900 might be more appropriate.
As for why they would send a Catalan astronaut, it is probably a consensus measure: since neither France nor Germany nor the UK nor Spain wanted to give in to sending THEIR astronaut (and the rocket does not have room for everyone) they ended up choosing a Catalan astronaut as a compromise
Were West Berlin citizens allowed to cross the wall and come in East Germany for hospital care in case of medical emergencies?
Unsure if this is quite the right place but I can’t see the place for it - does anyone have recommendations for timelines that include a focus on trains/high speed rail? I have tried searching but I’m only seeing locomotive models if anything comes up and I’m more interested in trains as a transportation system than in the individual models.
I’m fairly certain that the border was almost entirely closed from both sides if someone had a medical emergency that could not be cured in the city they would probably have to be air lifted to a hospital in West Germany.