Search results

Did it really benefit Britain to conquer the US after decades of independence, though? And Yeah, theoretically Mexico could hold onto Texas. As for an earlier or more successful secession, where exactly? New England?

Does it actually strike you as being extremely unlikely/unrealistic, though? I mean, Americans did elect Polk in 1844 and even before that Texas successfully broke away from Mexico, the US acquired Florida from Spain, and the US acquired Louisiana from France. And fighting against Mexico was...

What did Britain do? Bomb the Romanian oil fields during WWI? That was a part of it, but AFAIK it was also combined with the relative success of the Brusilov offensive against A-H and Romania's entry into the war contrary to Falkenhayn's predictions. In other words, it was a perfect storm...

No, it wouldn't. At least not if this would have resulted in Falkenhayn keeping his job rather than him being replaced with Hindy and Luddy. Falkenhayn was much less likely to support USW, to my knowledge. This means no US entry into WWI and no unsecured loans for the Entente, which would mean...

That's what really matters here since if Falkenhayn stays on, there very likely is no USW resumption in early 1917 and thus no subsequent US entry into WWI.

Would this still result in Falkenhayn getting replaced in Germany?

The former is very similar to the Megali Idea that I mentioned above, with the exception that Bulgaria would also become a part of the Neo-Byzantine Empire.

Poland built the early history behind these lands. That gave Stalin the justification to do what he did. They weren't that unrealistic, though. These countries fantasized about this even before World War I...

Which additional realistic cases could there have been of seemingly extremely unrealistic nationalist territorial ambitions ultimately came to pass? In real life, we had the success of the Zionist movement in reviving Jews' 2,000-year-old claim to Palestine and the success of the Poles acquiring...