Miscellaneous >1900 (Alternate) History Thread

‘Which Post-1900 Presidents Could’ve Surpass LBJ’s Popular Vote Margin’? That tally stands at about 61.1%, by the way—an even higher proportion than FDR ever received, though not by too much.

The only likely contenders I can think of at the moment include an incumbent FDR, 1972 Richard Nixon and 1984 Ronald Reagan. Maybe also Warren G. Harding in 1920, though I know less about him than post-World War Two POTUS’s?
 
‘Which Post-1900 Presidents Could’ve Surpass LBJ’s Popular Vote Margin’? That tally stands at about 61.1%, by the way—an even higher proportion than FDR ever received, though not by too much.

The only likely contenders I can think of at the moment include an incumbent FDR, 1972 Richard Nixon and 1984 Ronald Reagan. Maybe also Warren G. Harding in 1920, though I know less about him than post-World War Two POTUS’s?
A third term Clinton?
 
A third term Clinton?
That...seems pretty excessive to me. Still, I don't know as much about those election cycles or the particulars of Bill Clinton's public image aside from him being generally well-received prior to the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

As another post-1900 PoD, 'Keynesian Economics Doesn't Become Mainstream'.
 
That...seems pretty excessive to me. Still, I don't know as much about those election cycles or the particulars of Bill Clinton's public image aside from him being generally well-received prior to the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

As another post-1900 PoD, 'Keynesian Economics Doesn't Become Mainstream'.
@Zyobot why I see the word Keynesian that often? I see people on the internet either lovingly excedingly or hate it with burning passion.
 
@Zyobot why I see the word Keynesian that often? I see people on the internet either lovingly excedingly or hate it with burning passion.
I don’t know for sure. If I hazarded a guess, I’d say that it’s because Keynesian economics is one of the main, historically significant ones that supposedly remedied the excesses of laissez-faire back in the day. And that other, less government-friendly approaches are also prominent within the economics community (i.e. neoclassical economics), which results in proponents of each butting heads at pretty much every turn. But I’m no economist or other ultra-knowledgeable professional when it comes to that field, so it’s only my best guess.

As it pertains to my proposed PoD, I was curious as to how a world where a defining element of twentieth century economics never gained the prominence that it actually did. Which, I assume, would leave classical economics dominant for a while, but later contested by Marxist central planning, with no Keynesian approach to temper the two extremes. What exact form this dichotomous clash would take, however, I don’t know (hence why I offered it up for discussion so that people could bounce around ideas).
 
how much longer, 5 or 6 more years.
That sounds like the most realistic timeframe to me, though I’d still be interested in his commentary on, say, Ronald Reagan becoming president and driving the GOP in a more right-leaning direction than the New Deal paradigm of Ike’s presidency. Assuming that electoral history proceeds in largely the same manner, that is.
 
That sounds like the most realistic timeframe to me, though I’d still be interested in his commentary on, say, Ronald Reagan becoming president and driving the GOP in a more right-leaning direction than the New Deal paradigm of Ike’s presidency. Assuming that electoral history proceeds in largely the same manner, that is.
and Vietnam and Watergate too.
 
and Vietnam and Watergate too.
Yeah. Assuming that both of those turn out roughly as they did IOTL (which is no sure guarantee), Ike would be real disappointed in Nixon for his role in Watergate. What he'd think of America's withdrawal from Vietnam, I'm less sure.
 
I'm reading Castles of Steel, and I'm wondering if anyone's done a decent "What if Ingenhol had destroyed Warrender & Beatty's force after the Scarborough raid?"

That would seem to be a huge POD - the HSF was literally ten miles from stumbling across an incredibly isolated chunk of the British battlefleet, and could've very likely destroyed six battleships and four battlecruisers, almost certainly taking far fewer losses.
 
I’ve been brainstorming a scenario in which Hitler enlists into the Austro-Hungarian Army in 1913/1914 and fights in WW1, both in Italy and in Russia.

Then in the 1920s and 1930s he builds up his Nazi-like party into a major force and takes over Austria.

The WW2 that follows in the 1940s is somewhat different and less widespread.

I’ve been trying to figure out why this Alt-Hitler would join the Austrian Army and not leave for Germany and join the Bavarian Army instead. Would love some help on this one.

As for names for this Alt-Nazi Party I’ve thought of the Österreichische Sozialnationalistische Partei (OSNP), or may just go with the Fatherland Front.

I envision that many Austrian fascists/right-wing clerics and the like would join this party. It would take on a more pro-Catholic, pro-Austrian German rather than pan-German. I’ve been researching Austrian fascists, both those who joined the Nazis and those who opposed them. Very interesting stuff.

It would be a beast, a party of bigots, racists, fascists and the like, but a very different beast than OTL Nazis. I would try and make it a middle ground between German Nazism and Italian Fascism.

Thoughts?
 
Basically I am doing a post-WW2 more relevant Italy. Some people live longer and don't mysteriously die.
Short of summoning some ASB's you'd better set the POD WAY earlier than WWII... Italy crushed between de Gaulle's France and Tito's Yugoslavia is all I can see coming from that one... and Malta? Malta being a Commonwealth nation would bring the UK in as well. Better introduce some major butterflies pre-1972 or this could turn into a short and inglorious curb-stomp :)
 
Short of summoning some ASB's you'd better set the POD WAY earlier than WWII... Italy crushed between de Gaulle's France and Tito's Yugoslavia is all I can see coming from that one... and Malta? Malta being a Commonwealth nation would bring the UK in as well. Better introduce some major butterflies pre-1972 or this could turn into a short and inglorious curb-stomp :)
@Aghasverov so what do you suggest?
 
Top