The Great and Grand Alternative History Discussion Thread.

Well... We'd have a new World Trade Center. Some people would say "too soon", some would say "those are actually mosques in disguise ! Thanks Obama". There would be business in it, but not as much as before. Aaaand, that's about it.

I think the accusations of disrespecting 9/11 victims would be the most frequent.

Anyone else got alternate history ideas of their own?

Sure. "What would have happened if France won the Franco-Prussian War" and "What would have happened if the Qing won the First Sino-Japanese War" immediately spring to mind.

Edited by AzurePaladin on Jun 24th 2019 at 5:03:37 AM

About the Franco/Prussian war : The second French empire survives, but can't stop German unification. It's string of military success stopped, the Second Reich is less jingoistic, and probably more stable in it's diplomacy. Napoleon III keep making France more liberal, allowing a new, Commune-like revolution to happen during the 70's, establishing the Third Republic. This republic is not as possessed by revanchism as the one in our timeline, and probably isn't as much interested in glory-seeking colonialism. With Germany not being a major powerhouse able to pose as an arbiter, the Berlin conference doesn't happen. France and Germany get some colonies, but not as much. Britain is supreme in the African theatre. As such, despite a lasting rivalry, France and Germany are forced to ally as mid-level power compared to Britain and Russia. While the Belle Entente (French/British alliance) remains, continental Europe is probably more unified. In 1914, Serbia is likely pushed under the Austrian bus to preserve European unity, and Britain is forced to take France and Germany's side against Russia. WWI is avoided, but the continuity of the central empires bolster nationalist sentiment across Europe. Socialism and fascism begin to boil, leading to unrest and civil war. WWII doesn't happen either, but is replaced by a long period of violent anarchy in many countries. France gets a new republic (more righ or left wing, hard to say) and Germany opt for a more liberal regime. America profit of the European's quagmire to take the lead. Despite hardships, Britain keep informal control of much of it's former empire, and is the rival of the USA instead of Russia, who's closer to the rest of Europe. The old continent, without as much colonies (and so resources) as in our timeline, is forced to work together economically and militarily to still matter against the great powers of the USA, Britain and Japan (nobody stopped Japan, btw). An European Union of some sort, if you will. It would be a more chaotic world, with nothing of the like of the UN, but not necessarily a worse one.

Minimize the amount of deaths as much as possible in South America during the Spanish colonization?

There were already loads of those accusations with 1 WTC. Lots of people wanted the towers to be put back up just the way they were before.

I don’t think that change could have realistically made any tangible different to the timeline, barring some “butterfly flaps its wings” scenario.

Yep. Unfortunately George "Assface" Pataki decided that HIS ideals were more important than that of the people and went ahead with what we have now. Hell, not even the victims' families were allowed to have any input.

Think of all the time and money we could've saved if we just rebuilt the Twin Towers.

The savings (time or money) would not have been significant in any way. It’s not like they could just reuse the old blueprints or something.

Edited by archonspeaks on Jun 29th 2019 at 6:19:25 AM

You said lots of people wanted the original WTC rebuilt, right? Well check out the results of this survey taken by the New York Post.◊

If it was half and half that means no matter what they did half the city would have been unhappy. Which supports the point that it didn’t really make a difference.

It’s like asking whether WW 2 would have gone differently if Eisenhower’s office was painted a different color. It’s not a particularly important detail.

Considering 9/11 was still very fresh in people's minds at the time, I think that's still a pretty impressive number.

I've got a good one that pertains to the previous topic: what-if Hurricane Erin had come close enough to the US Atlantic coast to cancel the flights of the 9/11 terrorists.

Hmm! On one hand, the INS had already arrested Zacarias Moussaui in August, which probably could've led law enforcement agencies to the rest of the cell... but on the other hand, there's no telling if the attack's postponement would've solved the systemic intelligence-sharing failure that prevented them from responding effectively IRL.

What if Arthur Bremer assassinated Nixon while he was running against McGovern in 1972, after the primaries but before the election is called?

Well, I think the GOP would've been very quick to call an emergency (possibly semi-private) convention. Now: nobody liked VP Agnew, but they might well have nominated him anyway. That's mostly from the desire to show continuity, and to thwart the assassin from getting to change the course of things more than he already had. The highest-profile alternatives at that time, guys like Ronald Reagan and John Lindsey, would've split the party, and a squabble would've profited nobody.

Regardless, the Republican nominee would've certainly won—McGovern was McGovern, and he didn't get blown out in our timeline just because Dick Nixon was such a charmer! So in January 1973, odds are that President Agnew is sworn in ... just in time for some fun.

Early in that year, the Baltimore County corruption investigations begin. The D.A. wasn't gunning for Agnew, and didn't expect to find him tangled up in it, but damned if he wasn't! We've basically got Watergate, but with a brand-new president who hasn't even finished the leftovers from his inauguration banquet. And he's already toast.

So the big question now is: whom did Agnew pick—or have thrust upon him—as his VP running mate in '72?! The party would probably have insisted on a moderate counterweight to set beside "Nixon's Nixon." Someone whom nobody disliked, who could appeal to Midwestern or Western voters, and would look like a force of stability next to a guy like Agnew. Someone a lot like ... House Minority Leader GERALD R. FORD!

So even though we get an earlier version of Watergate and an earlier transition to the Ford Administration, shockingly little ends up changing. Except maybe that in the present day, Bob Woodward & Carl Bernstein are anonymous retirees no more famous than you or I.

Edited by Jhimmibhob on Sep 16th 2019 at 10:05:38 AM

Speaking of Nixon, reading Austin Grossman's Crooked has me speculating. What if Nixon had won in '60? Contrariwise what if he had lost the nomination in '68 to Reagan, Romney (George, Mitt's dad) or Nelson Rockefeller?

Heres a time travel novel I would like to see: someone goes back to Nixon's young adulthood, befriends him, provides appropriate emotional support, and helps him work through his personal issues.

And he becomes a nobody

I'd have to agree. Nixon was a brilliant man with considerable virtues ... but they were pretty much a package deal with his vices. Without his dark side, he'd never have clawed his way to the heights that he eventually fell from.

"

This is something glossed over (heh) in the discussion of "what if Japan decided to keep fighting": America couldn't have nuked them again immediately. Those two nukes were simply the only ones we had at the time; I'm not sure how long it would have taken to make more, but probably longer than it would to raze Japan the old-fashioned way. Certainly we didn't have the resources to turn the island into a radioactive rock.

Of course, Japan didn't know that we didn't have more bombs, but that's besides the point- had they decided to dig in, the allies would have had to either invade the mainland or wait however long it takes to make more nukes."

Interesting. By later in 1945, you'd have had Bomber Command of the RAF coming over in some numbers to stir the rubble a bit. Lots of practice over Germany, and by then the first reports were coming out as to how British prisoners had been treated by the Japs. (The first British planes, carrier-borne fighter bombers, were already strafing mainland Japan and dedicating themselves to totalling everything that moved: the aircrews had seen the first news films of the conditions in liberated camps and what they did to the Po W's. Therefore, no mercy. If it was Japanese and moving, it was a target.) While we'd contributed to designing the nukes, we had no control over using them; but then again, a couple of Grand Slam bombs over Osaka Castle, for instance, would have had the same sort of localised effect.

So, I had a question about a timeline I was working on, and after considering whether this post went here or in Writers Block decided here would be a good place to ask.

In the timeline, the Russian Crisis of 1993 ends when Rutskoy convinces an (as yet undetermined) military officer to arrest Yeltsin and takes control of the country. I haven't determined a whole lot of the details of the aftermath besides NATO distrusting Rutskoy as a (maybe) Communist, and the feeling being mutual.

That's not the question. The real question comes when the 1995 Black Brant Scare is planned to go un-butterflied away. Considering the heightened tensions, my question is twofold:

1. What type of response would Russia/CTSO/Union of Sovereign States/Whatever it ends up being undertake if Rutskoy believed it to be a genuine first strike?

2. Is there any chance of a limited response, or would any type of hostile action of Rutskoy's part inevitably turn the timeline into Protect and Survive with 90s flavor?

Thank you for your time!

Edited by AzurePaladin on Apr 6th 2020 at 6:11:54 AM

A few posts in the US Politics thread that veered into the question of Ireland and anti-Catholic sentiment in England reminded me of the question, how much better off do you think the Irish would have been without that anti-Catholic angle being rendered moot (by for example Henry VIII never founding the Church of England)?

At the very least this could have meant no specific laws listing the jobs Catholic couldn't have (and forbidding them from going to college and similar), if I am right, no?

Also this attitude, lacking in the Old World, might not have been "exported" to the US, if I count well.

I think it would've been a bit better for the Irish. That's at least one club a Catholic England wouldn't have wielded against them. I'd predict their positions would have been more like the Scots and Welsh: subject to varying indignities—especially when it came to their language!—but less likely to chafe under the sheer degree of them. (Also, Ulster probably wouldn't have been seeded with Scottish unionists, heading off another sore point for the locals.)

My guess is: as with 21st-century Scotland, enough Irishmen might've been content enough with their lot not to have gone independent in the 20th century, and the U.K. would still comprise the entire British Isles.

Though if I recall correctly a big reason for why Wales and Scotland were off comparatively better compared to Ireland was also due to changes in management.

The Welsh were originally treated very badly by the English crown and it was only after Henry Tudor - a Welshman - and later his son took the throne that this ended for the most part.

Similarly, Scotland first became part of the same political entity when the Scottish monarch also inherited the English throne.

Scotland might have actually had to deal with similar shit like Ireland and early Wales, had Edward Longshanks succeeded at taking it by force.

Long story short: It gets slightly more difficult to treat a people like shit when your own ruler is one of them.

Edited by DrunkenNordmann on May 4th 2020 at 11:52:49 AM

The Scots got their share of shit after Culloden and The '45, especially in the Highlands.

Which brings me to wonder what would have happened if Prince Charlie had been content with being King of Scotland and not tried to invade England? Or if the Scots had won at Culloden?