Miscellaneous >1900 (Alternate) History Thread

Sorry if this has been asked before, but what was point of no return for the Nazis from gaining power in 30s Germany/When was the rize of Nazism inevitable?
 
In a no Cold War scenario, what happens to socialism? It didn't take off in the US I think due to fears of the Soviet Union.
And was the Cold War/USSR the reason why the US safety net is inconsequential compared to most Western European countries?
Any resemblance between most of the Socialist political parties in Western Europ and the Communist Party as it existed in the Soviet Union is minimal if not non-existent. Totalitarianism trumps (not a pun!) any nominal ideology.

As for the safety net, by which I assume you mean Welfare systems and Health Care, I would think the difference is a function of the US Federal structure which gives states significant control even over federal functions - such as the election process for President and Congress etc. I know US politicians try to equate the ideas behind Western European welfare/health care systems with Communism but that's political rhetoric not reality.
 
Any resemblance between most of the Socialist political parties in Western Europe and the Communist Party as it existed in the Soviet Union is minimal if not non-existent. Totalitarianism trumps (not a pun!) any nominal ideology.

As for the safety net, by which I assume you mean Welfare systems and Health Care, I would think the difference is a function of the US Federal structure which gives states significant control even over federal functions - such as the election process for President and Congress etc. I know US politicians try to equate the ideas behind Western European welfare/health care systems with Communism but that's political rhetoric not reality.
Thanks for the explanation.
 
Question, has anyone estimated the population of the world and the countries inside without WWII? Just curious

I saw one or two threads about it a few years back, but I don't remember their names or the general consensus they reached. Sorry.

As it concerns other miscellaneous PoDs, though: '1972 Election If Hubert Humphrey Wins In 1968'. Preferably without Tricky Dick's sabotage being revealed, so that Humphrey can't keep riding on a tide of anger so that the GOP stands no chance for the next few election cycles.
 
Question, has anyone estimated the population of the world and the countries inside without WWII? Just curious
I saw one or two threads about it a few years back, but I don't remember their names or the general consensus they reached. Sorry.
There are quite a few threads about Europe's population without the 2WW (or without both WWs) but I can't find on about the world's population.
To find the former threads, Search for 'world population' in the After 1900 forum, with the 'search titles only' option on. You'll get 16 threads of various types.
I don't know if it's possible to share a search link, but I'll try: https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...odes]=1&c[nodes][0]=16&c[title_only]=1&o=date
 
2-part question about Russian democracy
1. In a no-Putin world, does/how long does Russian democracy survive?
2. If Zyuganov wins in 1996, does Russian democracy survive longer? If so, how long?
 
I've come across some very disturbing depiction of POW treatment in an AH story, and I would like to know about unilateral parole of POWs followed by execution. In short, a French character in 1940 executes German SS prisoners of war (from the SS Division Totenkopf) after having accepted their surrender. After an attack by German bombers which kill many of the POWs, he starts by executing their commanding officer by shooting him three times (claiming it is a "mercy killing" despite said CO begging not to be shot), then unilaterally declares that the remaining POW are freed/paroled. French cavalry then cut them down, while men too injured to move are run over by the vehicle. Character has ASB knowledge of SS atrocities fwiw, but it is not mentioned if those men were the same who executed 97 British POWs in the Le Paradis massacre.

I wish to specifically find which articles from the Hague Convention, 1929 Geneva Convention, and any relevant laws would be used to in an indictment of that French character during a war crimes trial.

To my knowledge, from the the Hague Convention of 1907 (specifically the Convention respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land), Article 11 states:
A prisoner of war cannot be compelled to accept his liberty on parole; similarly the hostile Government is not obliged to accede to the request of the prisoner to be set at liberty on parole.
Would this specifically mean that you cannot unilaterally release a POW then execute them?
 
Am I right in the assumption that steam turbines for ships are built to order, and not standardised? This would specifically be for a foreign ordered warship (one ordered, with two more in discussion) built in a British shipyard in the late 1920s. So not some Liberty ship or similar series production.

Or to put it different: Is there a way to tell if a ship will heave steam turbine X because that company produced only that version for those dimensions and performance at the time?
 
Am I right in the assumption that steam turbines for ships are built to order, and not standardised? This would specifically be for a foreign ordered warship (one ordered, with two more in discussion) built in a British shipyard in the late 1920s. So not some Liberty ship or similar series production.

Or to put it different: Is there a way to tell if a ship will heave steam turbine X because that company produced only that version for those dimensions and performance at the time?
I think you're right. Certainly all the pictures I've seen of turbines from that sort of time are labelled as being for specific ships; there are a few examples here: https://www.gracesguide.co.uk/Parsons_Marine_Steam_Turbine_Co
The requirement to have a specific set of turbines (HP turbine, IP turbine(s), LP turbine) to step down the rpm to the low rpm required for the propellers meant that off-the-shelf wouldn't be suitable for the turbines as complete units, though I'm sure the companies had parts which were common to lots of different turbines.
So... no, a ship wouldn't have 'steam turbine model X' but would have '4 × Parsons single-reduction geared steam turbines driving 4 shafts' or something like that (that example is from RMS Queen Mary).

At least, that's what I understand to be the case - happy to learn more if there's an expert in marine propulsion who contradicts me though.
 
What if the UN charter had a rule that allowed the override of a veto if a majority of the security council pushed for an issue?
Then it's not a veto, it's just a no vote.
The wording in Article 27 of the UN Charter is that decisions by the SC need 'an affirmative vote of nine members including the concurring votes of the permanent members' and was actually a reduction from the situation in the LoN where all members had veto power and which led to effective permanent deadlock. There was agreement that this should be avoided in the new organisation, but the great powers would never have agreed to a system which allowed other nations to over-rule them by majority votes, so the veto was retained for the permanent members - the great powers - and removed for all others.
Perhaps instead the Charter could give the General Assembly the power to overrule the SC, as exists now following UN GA Resolution 377. I suspect that if this were to be written in originally, it would probably require something like a two-thirds majority as well, for a similar reason to above, that the great powers wouldn't want to be over-ruled by a simple majority.
 
Then it's not a veto, it's just a no vote.
The wording in Article 27 of the UN Charter is that decisions by the SC need 'an affirmative vote of nine members including the concurring votes of the permanent members' and was actually a reduction from the situation in the LoN where all members had veto power and which led to effective permanent deadlock. There was agreement that this should be avoided in the new organisation, but the great powers would never have agreed to a system which allowed other nations to over-rule them by majority votes, so the veto was retained for the permanent members - the great powers - and removed for all others.
Perhaps instead the Charter could give the General Assembly the power to overrule the SC, as exists now following UN GA Resolution 377. I suspect that if this were to be written in originally, it would probably require something like a two-thirds majority as well, for a similar reason to above, that the great powers wouldn't want to be over-ruled by a simple majority.

Good point.

Okay, how about this?

Wilkie, somehow (I'm leaning towards FDR not running), wins 1940, whom would each party nominate in 1944? And if Willkie's death is pushed back, whom would be his new running mate?
 
Top