Zyobot
Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
'Mickey Mouse Protection Act Doesn't Pass'.
'Mickey Mouse Protection Act Doesn't Pass'.
Because clearly, Germany hasn't suffered enough in real life....
If he start purging earlier germans could lost earlier,too.In that case,they,actually,could suffer less.Or more.Depend on date - if he start purging after Stalingrad or during Bagration,german state could cease to exist and entire Europe would live in worker paradise.
I hope,that in that case survivors would at least not belive in commie shit.
Yes, very much so.Judging by the emoji, I take it you think that's a good thing (which is where I lean myself)?
Yes, very much so.
Judging by the emoji, I take it you think that's a good thing (which is where I lean myself)?
Even if they don't buy in to it, they'd be forced to tow the line for survival purposes. And giving the Soviet puppet governments' a few generations to indoctrinate their kids means that, in time, it'd hardly matter what their ex-Nazi elders think.
Can't speak as to the second point, but for your first: I thought Richard III winning at Bosworth wouldn't extend the Plantagenet dynasty's rule over England that much longer. His wife and son have already died by then, considered ill omens for his controversial reign. IIRC he wasn't trying to marry his niece at the time of his death, but to instead secure a Portuguese marriage - unfortunately for him, the princess he chose was extremely pious to the point of being pretty much celibate and had rejected multiple suitors beforehand.No comments on this? Anyone?
This would have to be after the Battle of Nieman River in the autumn. Was there much of Wrangel left by then?Back to topic - Poland in 1920 do not made peace with soviets,but made alliance with Wrangel and attacked with romanians /they promised to join/ and french material support.What next ?
This would have to be after the Battle of Nieman River in the autumn. Was there much of Wrangel left by then?
All the fighting would have to be by Polish and Romanian troops. Was there political will? Would the troops be enthusiastic? What exactly would they be fighting for, anyway?
What would be the political ends? Resurrection of the PLC? Don't make me laff ...
With hindsight an extra push to kill the marxist monster in the crib seems sensible, but I don't see the politics of this happening. First and most important question - what is the objective? Overthrow bolsheviks? And impose a Russian Government dedicated to the idea of Russia in 1914 borders?
Push Polish border to the Dneper and add to apathetic/hostile population?
I'm mixed on the French being interested - they do have a long lasting love affair with the idea of a Russia being a counterweight to Germany. Hence reinstalling a friendly regime in Moscow/Sankt Peterburg would be a viable objective. But on the other hand there are the useful idiots in France who'd protest, such a Russia would have to pass through Poland to get to Germany anyway - a mess, in short.
To the Powers that Be - thanks for cleanup!
This would have to be after the Battle of Nieman River in the autumn. Was there much of Wrangel left by then?
All the fighting would have to be by Polish and Romanian troops. Was there political will? Would the troops be enthusiastic? What exactly would they be fighting for, anyway?
What would be the political ends? Resurrection of the PLC? Don't make me laff ...
With hindsight an extra push to kill the marxist monster in the crib seems sensible, but I don't see the politics of this happening. First and most important question - what is the objective? Overthrow bolsheviks? And impose a Russian Government dedicated to the idea of Russia in 1914 borders?
Push Polish border to the Dneper and add to apathetic/hostile population?
I'm mixed on the French being interested - they do have a long lasting love affair with the idea of a Russia being a counterweight to Germany. Hence reinstalling a friendly regime in Moscow/Sankt Peterburg would be a viable objective. But on the other hand there are the useful idiots in France who'd protest, such a Russia would have to pass through Poland to get to Germany anyway - a mess, in short.
To the Powers that Be - thanks for cleanup!
So, during the Banana Wars, the US invaded Honduras about six times, occupied Haiti for almost two decades and the Dominican Republic for over one, invaded Cuba, etc. Basically, a majority of the Caribbean and a decent chunk of South America were invaded and controlled by the US for the purpose of keeping the profits of fruit companies in the black.
Suppose that instead of just invading and protecting banana plantations, the US made all those various nations into official US territory and made them additional states soon after? Obviously, the history of South America would be affected but what about the rest? How would world history change if the US captured all those territories and incorporated them into itself before WW1?
Geraldine Ferraro refuses to release her family's tax returns and her husband's financial scandal (for which he was historically fined $1,000) blows up a year early, when the spotlight is on the couple much more intensely and Lee Atwater still cares enough to go nuclear on them over it. Whatever razor-thin chance Mondale had gets blown up with it, the election is an even bigger curbstomp for Reagan and in addition to increasing his popular vote share to somewhere between FDR in 1936 & James Monroe in 1816, the incumbent's gains are enough to give him Minnesota (which he lost by fewer than 4000 votes IRL).'Ronald Reagan Wins Over 60% Of The 1984 Popular Vote'.
Geraldine Ferraro refuses to release her family's tax returns and her husband's financial scandal (for which he was historically fined $1,000) blows up a year early, when the spotlight is on the couple much more intensely and Lee Atwater still cares enough to go nuclear on them over it. Whatever razor-thin chance Mondale had gets blown up with it, the election is an even bigger curbstomp for Reagan and in addition to increasing his popular vote share to somewhere between FDR in 1936 & James Monroe in 1816, the incumbent's gains are enough to give him Minnesota (which he lost by fewer than 4000 votes IRL).
Mondale must now endure the added humiliation of being the only major-party presidential candidate in American history to not have won any state on the electoral map, ranking him below even the likes of Alf Landon, Herbert Hoover and Rufus King. I guess he'll still have DC (where there was a 70% gap between him & Reagan historically) but that only sorta-kinda counts.
My guess is they'd be shocked speechless. A Republican has won the single most crushing victory in American political history, greater than FDR at the height of his popularity, and it's a rather unorthodox one at that - an old actor who managed to get even the working class, unionized, 'white ethnic' voters of the cities (a longtime reliable Democratic voting bloc) on board with his platform even though it includes free trade, spending cuts and welfare cuts. I daresay it'd be downright incomprehensible to a New Deal Coalition Democrat visitor, even.Thanks, man. Didn't see your reply until just now (the Alerts system must've acted up for me again), but definitely looks more original than other "Reagan wins over 60%" scenarios I've seen, which require switching out Mondale for someone even less electable (like Jesse Jackson).
Not trying to justify an Appeal to the Middle fallacy here, but just to have a more concrete figure, I'll take the average of the difference between King 1816 and FDR 1936, then add it to 60% to give Reagan 1984 about 63.7% of the popular vote (and all fifty states along with it!). As you say, it's too much of a long shot that he wins D.C., but 535 electoral votes is still a crushing defeat for Mondale and a sweeping victory for Reagan. In which case, I'm interested in how pre-1972 downtimers who're featured IATL time-travel scenarios would react to a Republican president winning this massively (due to how they only have Democratic candidates to look to for blowout reelection bids at or around the US's current size).
My guess is they'd be shocked speechless. A Republican has won the single most crushing victory in American political history, greater than FDR at the height of his popularity, and it's a rather unorthodox one at that - an old actor who managed to get even the working class, unionized, 'white ethnic' voters of the cities (a longtime reliable Democratic voting bloc) on board with his platform even though it includes free trade, spending cuts and welfare cuts. I daresay it'd be downright incomprehensible to a New Deal Coalition Democrat visitor, even.
1) What if Richard the 3rd had won?
2) I've had various ideas for how the USA could have joined the Central Powers. With the idea being that we get a bunch of small POD's prior to World War 1 that keep nudging the USA away from Great Britan-slash-keep the distrust between the two countries going. The first POD that I came up with would be a slightly hotter version of the Trent Affair.
Trent Affair - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
While war is averted, it comes closer than it does in the OTL. Throw in a handful of further minor divergences here and there in the late 1800s (such as more of a kerfuffle over the UK selling warships to the Confederacy; perhaps the CSS Stonewall actually makes it to Confederate hands?) and/. or 1900s and you'd be set.
The USA would be much warier towards the British and, while still isolationist, would be more along the lines of 'armed isolationism', meaning a more substantial US Army and navy than in OTL.
1) The de la Poles would ultimately become the next reigning dynasty, but then there is also Edward Plantagenet, 17th Earl of Warwick as the next potential heir, but then again he might have already been attainted due to his father's previous treason against Edward IV.