NationStates Jolt Archive

In this thread, I hope to spark discussion of how history would be different if one event had gone differently. And not insane things like "What if that asteroid hadn't killed off the dinosaurs?" These have to be things affected by human beings, as we expect that nature and space will take their own course independent of humanity.

So the rules for this thread are as follows:

1. The change in history has to be a change in HUMAN history.

2. The change has to be plausible (so things like "What if the Roman Empire had been overrun by small barely-armed African tribes?" are out.)

3. Because there were lots of threads on this in the past, the question of "What if the South had won the Civil War?" is out.

I will get the ball started by asking what would have happened if the operation shortly after the Bolshevik Revolution to kick out Lenin's regime had been successful.

The attack was led by the Americans and British and only sent around a thousand troops who didn't have a prayer, but had they sent around, I don't know, 10,000 troops, or maybe a couple of divisions, they would have turned the Bolsheviks into hamburger meat and the Russian Republic would have been restored. From here, there are two possibilities.

First, the democratic tradition actually takes hold, Russia becomes a valuable ally to the U.S. and Britain, and when the Nazis take hold in Germany, as do the Fascists in Italy and the Black Dragon regime or whatever the hell they called themselves in Japan, the Russians may be less inclined to cut deals with the Nazis. Sure, they will be ready to ignore the problem right up to the point when the Nazis invade Poland, but at that point, they join the war effort alongside the British and French. The French don't last long, but the British hold their own, and the Germans are forced to fight the British and Russians on their own because the Italians still don't give much assistance.

Not entirely trusting the Nazis, the Japanese go through with the bombing of Pearl Harbor rather than aiding the Germans in an attack on Russia. The Americans enter the war, the Allies kick the tar out of Hitler, Mussolini, and Tojo, and not only is World War II a success, but there's no Cold War. Korea is liberated and reunited, probably under occupation for some time but independent and on the road to democracy after some time. The occupation of Germany and Japan is an issue however; there are, as usual, two possibilities - will they be rebuilt or left to rot? One might argue that they would try to rebuild them and turn them into stronger, democratic nations in order to keep them from turning into fascists again. However, there's no "Red Menace" or "Capitalist Enemy" to fear, so strong allies are not as pressing of an issue, so the Marshall Plan, the division of Germany, etc. are not necessarily going to happen. So Europe may be left in shambles, America becomes the sole superpower earlier than they actually did, and it's hard to say what would have happened at that point. Maybe they would revert to isolationism again, joining the rest of the world only when there's a crisis or an opportunity.

Russia could fall to turmoil, however, as their alliance with the British and French breaks down. Worst-case scenario, they turn fascist and align with the Nazis and Japanese. A four-pointed axis - Germany, Russia, Japan, Italy - would be unbeatable in Europe, conquer most of the Eastern Hemisphere, and if they have the strength left, they would defeat the Americans. More likely they would deadlock, however, taking some land in the Western Hemisphere that the U.S.-Canada coalition takes back. The world becomes a struggle between the East and West - the four-pointed Axis of Germany, Russia, Japan, and Italy against the U.S. and Canada, who likely can't put aside their egos enough to become one nation but are strong enough to take control of pretty much all of the Americas.

On the Axis side, Italy is eventually swallowed up by the Nazi regime, Japan takes over almost all of East Asia, and Russia is split in half between Germany and Japan. This inner strife distracts the Axis enough for the U.S.-Canada coalition, which includes occupied Latin America and the Caribbean, to forge their independence entirely from the Axis. The Eastern hemisphere is a divided land between the Germans and Japanese, and the Western hemisphere is a coalition of the dominant U.S. and their chief ally Canada. In the West, any land outside the mainland U.S. and Canada turns into an occupied, authoritarian land used primarily for defense and raw material production while the U.S. and Canada are the only large lands that are remotely free. Even those lands are spiraling toward authoritarianism, and the world turns into something out of George Orwell's "1984".

What if it hadnt been a moth in the Mark 1 computer that caused a malfunction? What word would we use instead of "debug"?

what if Lee followed up on the right side instead of sending pickett up the middle at the battle of gettysberg?
THE SOUTH WILL RISE AGAIN!

Well done, very well thought out. Here's another one:

680 AD. The real historical King Arthur, a Celtic king, mangages to defeat the Anglo-saxons. But rather than just go back home to Cornwall, he keeps the Celts united and over a series of sucessful military campaigns, he drives the Anglo-saxons out of Britain. You now have England without the english. Celtic culture is never overun. Gaelic is the dominant language, and Celtic Christianity is the dominant religion. Arthur's attempt to consolidate the 5 Celtic nations; Ireland, Scotland, Britain, Wales, and Brittany, eventually fails, but the Celts learn that to survive they must stick together. As the various nations grow and develop unified governments, they form a close confederation. However, they still have many enemies, both the old Germanic and Norse raiders, as well as the newer Roman Catholic church, which condemned Celtic Christianty as heresy. The Celtic states manage to remain a power, through reintroduction of old Roman knowledge kept safe in the monastaries of Ireland, and a fierce nationlist, independent spirit.

As of now I've worked this scenerio up to around the 14th century. Who knows what could come next. An early protestant reformation, aided by the Celts, or an early rennisance. Celtic colonies in the americas, perhaps, founded by the Monks of St. Brendan the Navigator. Who knows where this could end up.

Another one for all of you...

What if the U.S. had actually decided to win the Vietnam War rather than play for a draw? What if LBJ had decided we don't need to worry about the Chinese and that a domino effect of Communism in southeast Asia is a bigger deal? Theoretically they could have lost still, but a more likely scenario, given the U.S. military's stubborn refusal to use special ops correctly, is another draw and a divided Vietnam, likely to this day. Ho Chi Minh, a North Vietnamese hero, runs a Communist government in the North while the U.S. picks someone more likeable than Diem in the South. Cambodia and Laos may or may not fall to the Khmer Rouge-type folks, and the purges of anythign Western either don't happen or happen on a smaller scale. Aside from that, the U.S. has a stronger ally in southeast Asia, which, under their influence, starts on their own path toward democracy and more free enterprise even if the U.S. initially supports a dictator. (Basically, I picture something similar to South Korea. South Vietnam would be a couple of decades behind, but they would be now where the South Koreans were in the early-to-mid-1980s, only maybe without the terrible line of cars that later become decent.) North Vietnam doesn't go the way of North Korea, though, instead going the way Vietnam actually did without the involvement in Cambodia.

what if Lee followed up on the right side instead of sending pickett up the middle at the battle of gettysberg?
THE SOUTH WILL RISE AGAIN!

As a Civil War buff, I'd love to answer this.

1. Lee's army should have disengaged after the first day. They could have found a better field of engagement had they done so. That being said, Pickett's charge was hardly the war altering change its made out to be in the movies. Had Lee advanced on the right, he would have faced fresh troops in a strategically sound position. While the losses wouldn't have been as severe, it is extremely likely they still would have been turned back.

2. Had Lee by some chance won at Gettysburg, the war would have extended for perhaps a year. The bottom line is that the Union held dominant control over the Mississippi River by this time with Grant's capture of Vickburg. Sheridan was already beginning his campaign into the Shenandoah. I believe Lincoln would have sent Grant from Mississippi into Alabama to take control of some of the remaining industry the south possessed had Meade lost in Pa. Sheridan's troops would have been recalled from the Shenandoah to attack Lee's rear while the heavy infantry surrounding Washington more than likely would have been called out to reinforce Meade's army. Lee would have had no choice but to move back into Virginia. And with the deep south cut off, his army would not be able to fight a war from all fronts. No, the Confederacy lost the war the minute they lost at Antietam and Shiloh. Both were battles they should have won given the logistics. Both would have dramatically altered the course of the war.

Here's my what if: What if Ferdinand hadn't been assassinated in Sarajevo? Would there even have been a World War I or World War II?

Alt-hist is always interesting, and since we're going with discussion, until such time as we break all these up into separate topics, I'm going to shoot off a quick response to all so far.

1. In actual history, Russia and Japan fought some battles in the 1930s which Russia won decisively, which is why Japan never attacked Russia in WWII, so unless we changet that too, there would be no reason for them to want to attack Russia anyway.

2. Vietnam: The question here is: how would we have won, and what would be considered a victory? The US could have troops there to this day, the way I see it.

3. I would say that no assassination means no WWI, and thus no WWII, but there would have been a war, I'm almost certain of that. The way Europe was at that point in time, things were almost certain to go up in flames no matter what.

1. In actual history, Russia and Japan fought some battles in the 1930s which Russia won decisively, which is why Japan never attacked Russia in WWII, so unless we changet that too, there would be no reason for them to want to attack Russia anyway.

If they had managed to secure China and not attacked the US, Japan could have focused on Russia more. An attack Russia in conjuction with Barbarossa and instead of the US later in 1941, would have delayed the entry of the US, and given the Axis a much better chance against Russia, regardless of the situation in China.[/quote]

2. Vietnam: The question here is: how would we have won, and what would be considered a victory? The US could have troops there to this day, the way I see it.

Proper application of of the SFs, backing someone other than Diem, and turning to an all volunteer force instead of the draft would have gone a long way towards winning Vietnam.

3. I would say that no assassination means no WWI, and thus no WWII, but there would have been a war, I'm almost certain of that. The way Europe was at that point in time, things were almost certain to go up in flames no matter what.

WWI would most likely have been sparked by something else. WWII would depend of the outcome of WWI.

One of my favorites is the survival of Rome through various unsundry means (certain reforms to government being a big one). I have this great image of the first world war consisting of the Mongol empire invading Roman Europe....

What if we stopped bringing back old threads?

:P

What if we stopped bringing back old threads?

:P

Ice Hockey Players
Posted: Mon May 24, 2004 4:39 pm Post subject: Alternate History: The "What If?" Thread

Nice to see you consider a post less than 24 hours old to be "old"....

:roll:

What if we stopped bringing back old threads?

:P

Ice Hockey Players
Posted: Mon May 24, 2004 4:39 pm Post subject: Alternate History: The "What If?" Thread

Nice to see you consider a post less than 24 hours old to be "old"....

:roll:

Uh no... I remember a similar thread last year. That's what I meant.

What if we stopped bringing back old threads?

:P

Ice Hockey Players
Posted: Mon May 24, 2004 4:39 pm Post subject: Alternate History: The "What If?" Thread

Nice to see you consider a post less than 24 hours old to be "old"....

:roll:

Uh no... I remember a similar thread last year. That's what I meant.

Last year...seems pretty old to me...so that means that by bringing up the subject only every so often, it doesn't get too stale. If you don't want to talk about it, don't; there are a thousand other threads in this forum.

My next question is: What if the Vienna art school had accepted Hitler?

In this alternate world, Hitler is known as an artistic designer who was an anti-Semite on the side. His artwork doesn't quite measure up to that of Winston Churchill, but he gets more recognition for his work because Churchill's too busy being Prime Minister of Great Britain. As for Germany, the Weimar republic still falls apart, but in a different way - most likely Communism. Japan still turns fascist, as does Italy, but no one really gives a damn about the Italians, and the overly ambitious Mussolini is smacked into next century by any takers. Italy gives up and turns either democratic or communist depending on who does the smacking around - probably the Soviets and Germans, so I pin it as a communist nation.

Japan, on the other end, is faced with two choices - invade the Soviet Union or pick a fight with the U.S. Assuming things go as normal and they attack the U.S., the Americans start the island-hopping one-on-one naval war with Japan that they anticipated. The Americans win and turn Japan into their chief anti-communist ally in the Pacific, and with no agreement with the Russians over Korea, they put Syngman Rhee in charge of all of Korea, not just the South. I'll assume that China still falls to Mao and Co., though North Korea remains Western. China's main focus is southeast Asia in this case, so while the Korean War never happens, the Vietnam War does. Fearing the Chinese, the U.S. blows it in Vietnam and the domino effect takes place in southeast Asia.

In Europe, the U.S. seeks alliance with western Europe to counterbalance the communists in Germany, Italy, and eastern Europe, not to mention their other nemesis, the Soviet Union. The alliance is less strong, though, so Britain, France, and Spain go it alone in large part on the fight with the East. Their economies end up being the class of Europe, however, and they form a close-knit group that is the foundation of today's European Union, which competes with a Warsaw Pact-esque group in the East. The Eastern nations slowly but surely join the EU as many of them modernize, though at different paces. Russia is put in much the same situation as it is now, and only Cuba, China, and Vietnam remain Communist.

Fauquier: I have difficulty with the basic premise that with a unified Britain that Celtic Christianity would have been declared a heresy by the RCC, instead I think a polite distance would have been maintained similar to the RCC and the Byzantine (Orthodox) Churchs. The RCC was so reluctant to declare heresies were there wasn't a good strong RC ruler to put down the heresy for them (and darn near made a mistake with the Albigesians which could have destroyed the RCC).

Without England, where would the Anglo-Saxons have gone? Would they have pushed past the Alans into Spain and established an anglo-Saxon kingdom in Spain, keeping the Arabs out of Spain? Would they have moved into Italy? Kept france from being united under Pepin? I like the idea, but I have to wonder where the Germans went when they were being pushed hard out of Germany and couldn't go to britain.

If Spain were not to fall to the Arabs (because of it becoming home to either an Anglos-Saxon or Frankish kingdom) it would have significant effects, and if the Franks were too weak to stop the Arabs it would also have had a significant effect. Without a Morish Spain bound by a Frankish kingdom the rediscovery of Aristotilian knowledge (preserved in Spain) would have been possible / and without the Aristotilian rediscovery the renainsance would have been very different or possibly impossible. Even if the Greek knowledge were preserved in the Roman knowledge in Ireland (unlikely), there would have been no inspiration of the sudden revelation of the knowledge of the ancients which was so much a part of/cause of the renaissance.

To go back to religion, without a strong Frankish government and without England securely under the RCC, I cannot see the First Crusade even starting (much less suceding, especially if Celtic Britain were willing to intervene). This would leave Albigesianism as a viable alternative to the problems Protestants had with the RCC. I could see Albigesianism becoming the equivalent to protestantism about the 11th century, but against a much weaker RCC without the crusades. Unless the RCC put the effort into bringing the Albigesians into doctrinial alignment with Rome that they had otherwise put into the Celtic Churchs, in which case there was no First Crusade. The alternaitve to coincide with your outline would be the First Crusade being against the Celtic Church in Northern France.

If the Arabs were unable to go to Spain, would they have pushed down the West coast of Africa and bringing Islam to all of Africa? Perhaps the Muslims woud have traded with the Americas from the West coast of Africa?


I like the idea and there is a lot of material to work with.

What if Il Duce never was never lynched by the Communists?

what if Mary had given birth to a girl?

If Russia had become a democratic state in 1917, it is likely that the Nazis would have won the Second World War. Without the Bolshevik revolution, there would be no massive industrialisation scheme under Stalin and the Russian army would have remained backward and even more ill-equipped. The German Tanks would have easily steamrolled Russia then, weather or no.....

In this thread, I hope to spark discussion of how history would be different if one event had gone differently. And not insane things like "What if that asteroid hadn't killed off the dinosaurs?" These have to be things affected by human beings, as we expect that nature and space will take their own course independent of humanity.

So the rules for this thread are as follows:

...

I like the idea behind this thread, so I may return with something detailed as soon as I have time to work it out. (BTW I like the way you took time to answer, and not just to ask, the question.)

But for now, I have been asking myself a "what if...?" question for about a year now: what if our politicians had learned from the Viet Nam war, and had decided to learn from it? Dubya might have learned from the criminal career of Nixon that half-truths and outright lies would only win public opinion in the short-term, until we found out the truth. He might have realized also that unjust wars aren't an effective way to bring about a just peace, and they do not enhance the good of our country in the long run. Then he would have resisted the urge to perform his elaborate deception of trying to persuade anyone who would listen that somehow invading Iraq could ever be relevant to bringing down Osama bin Laden and his squads of murderers. Instead, he might have decided to do the diffficult but right thing, and really go after the terrorists who committed 9/11, patiently, carefully --- finding the genuinely guilty parties, wisely understanding the problems faced by any outsider trying to understand the network of Islam-based cultures in the Muslim-oriented nations, and acting justly and correctly in bringing the murderers to justice.

Meanwhile, Congress might have learned from Viet Nam not to be so quick to pour money into every hawkish scheme presented by a president who is bent on pursuing his personal political goals by flexing our military muscles against a foreign nation. They might have said to him, "No" and required him to make good on his promise to carry out a hunt for the international terrorists, instead of diverting that effort into a war against a country he wanted to invade. At the least, they might be holding Bush accountable for his shortsightedness and lack of comprehension of the probable outcome of his plans in Iraq and the Middle East, instead of just continuing to sign the checks so he can carry on.

Who knows? If that had happened, we could even be enjoying a new respect and appreciation from the Muslim-oriented world, instead of looking at a future most probably marred by an amplified distrust of our motives and intentions.

As it is, we're left with the re-incarnation of Tricky Dick, leading us into the re-incarnation of the Viet Nam fiasco, and doing it with no more wisdom or understanding of the consequences than Nixon showed.

But what if...?

PT

A series of "What ifs"....(1)Columbus's fleet never makes it to the New World, (2)landings in the New World are successfully repelled by the indigenous peoples, and (3) Spain/Portugal give up on colonizing the New World.

The Mayan Empire in Peru might have successfully flourished and swallowed up South America...the Aztecs the same with Central America, in the North the various tribes might have gone onto wars of consolidation....my people the Cherokee who were already a regional power would have extended much farther to the east and the North Carolina Coast, and south thru present day Mississippi/Alabama, we would have made a longer lasting relationship with the Iroquis Confederacy, perhaps as we have many similiarities we might have made an alliance and in time merged our tribes...thereby extending Cherokee/Iroquis influence thruout most of the southeast, east coast and midwest.

What if the Catholic Church had failed to organise a crusade against the Cather Heresy in Southern France and the Cathers had flourished to the point where they break away from France completly to form their own country and set about competiting for souls with the Catholics.

I read a book about the cathers and they were a great deal more popular and christian than the corrupt catholic priests of the day, so there could have been a change in power with people converting to Catherism.

"Kill them all and let God decide" a reply given to crusaders from a priest, when asking how they identified heretics from catholics.

A new country, a new power and a new history.

:twisted:

Re: What if Mary had given birth to a girl?

In fact, this is the only conceivable (aha) thing that she could have done, had she in fact been a virgin. In incredibly rare circumstances, during the production of gametes, chromosomes do not seperate, producing an ovum with twice the normal compliment of genetic material, ie. the same as a fertilised egg. This can implant into the lining of the uterus and develop into what is effectively a clone of the mother. Since Jesus was apparently male, his mother must have recieved another set of genetic material from somewhere (i.e. someone with an Y chromosome), thereby accounting for the development of Jesus' sexual characteristics.
Either God has genetic material, therefore physical substance, and is therefore corporeal and subject to the second law of thermodynamics, or we have to translate 'virgin' (more accurately) as 'unmarried woman'.

If she had in fact given birth to a girl she probably would have been ignored, even if she was just as competent a prophet as he was. Maybe excecuted for blasphemy, if anyone could be bothered to listen to her. Women have weak minds and are prone to hysteria, you see. :x

Thus she becomes a blip on the page of religious history, perhaps a minor Jewish figure.

Re Cathars: Ooh, I think I read that book too! (or a similar one. The one I read was called 'The Perfect Heresy') That was a great book!

Yay the Cathars! Boo the Albigensian Crusade! Yay a less materialistic, more pacifist Western society!

Thus probably no New World gold grabbing missions, Salishe!

Everybody wins!!!

Oh, and
What if Alexander had not died in Babylon but had instead recovered from his illness and pursued his (rumoured) plans to conquer the Celtic West?
:)

If they had managed to secure China and not attacked the US, Japan could have focused on Russia more. An attack Russia in conjuction with Barbarossa and instead of the US later in 1941, would have delayed the entry of the US, and given the Axis a much better chance against Russia, regardless of the situation in China.
Of course, the key factor there was that Japan had NOT secured China by June 1941, and that the U.S. had been consistently trying to impede Japanese advance in China & SE Asia during the 1930s, finally imposing a steel and oil export embargo on Japan in 1940 and 1941, respectively. Hence, the Japanese army saw America as the biggest threat to their expansion plans. The interesting WHAT IF question (even though I hate 'em) is what would have happened if Japan simply ignored the U.S. embargo and pressed on against the British and Dutch possessions in SE Asia, instead of attacking Pearl Harbour.

Here's an interesting article on the role of the oil issue in pushing Japan to
attack the U.S.:
http://articles.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1373/is_12_50/ai_68147614/pg_1

Proper application of of the SFs, backing someone other than Diem, and turning to an all volunteer force instead of the draft would have gone a long way towards winning Vietnam.
Really? Better SF and an all-volunteer army are doing so well in Iraq, eh? :twisted:


I will get the ball started by asking what would have happened if the operation shortly after the Bolshevik Revolution to kick out Lenin's regime had been successful.

The attack was led by the Americans and British and only sent around a thousand troops who didn't have a prayer, but had they sent around, I don't know, 10,000 troops, or maybe a couple of divisions, they would have turned the Bolsheviks into hamburger meat and the Russian Republic would have been restored. From here, there are two possibilities.

Foreign invasion forces (deployed to: Arkhangelsk & Murmansk, Odessa & Crimea, Vladivostok, Transcaucasia):
peak forces
Britain 1,073
Canada 4,000
France n/a
United States 12,858
Japan 74,000
Czech Legion 100,000
foreign subtotal 200,000
http://www.regiments.org/milhist/wars/ww1/russia.htm

Ergo, ~100,000 Allied troops. And you know what, sweetcakes? -- You still got your ar$e kicked. :twisted: :twisted:

I will get the ball started by asking what would have happened if the operation shortly after the Bolshevik Revolution to kick out Lenin's regime had been successful.

The attack was led by the Americans and British and only sent around a thousand troops who didn't have a prayer, but had they sent around, I don't know, 10,000 troops, or maybe a couple of divisions, they would have turned the Bolsheviks into hamburger meat and the Russian Republic would have been restored. From here, there are two possibilities.

Foreign invasion forces (deployed to: Arkhangelsk & Murmansk, Odessa & Crimea, Vladivostok, Transcaucasia):
peak forces
Britain 1,073
Canada 4,000
France n/a
United States 12,858
Japan 74,000
Czech Legion 100,000
foreign subtotal 200,000
http://www.regiments.org/milhist/wars/ww1/russia.htm

Ergo, ~100,000 Allied troops. And you know what, sweetcakes? -- You still got your ar$e kicked. :twisted: :twisted:

Looks to me as though that was referring to the Russian Civil War, not the post-WWI effort to kick out the Bolsheviks. The post-WWI effort is less well-known and only included a couple thousand troops or so. With more power, it might have been successful.

Also, who's to say that a republic in Russia wouldn't have pushed for modernization? All I know is that the tsars probably wouldn't have, and therefore a tsarist Russia would definitely have fallen to the Germans. A democratic Russia may have had a rougher go of it, but given how ill-prepared the Germans were for the Russian winter, there's a pretty good chance the Russians would have held them off. Not to mention the Soviet Union wouldn't have existed and all those nations between Poland and Russia would have fought the Nazis instead of trying to aid them. That plus a slightly-less modernized Russia would have spelled certain doom for Hitler.

What if we stopped bringing back old threads?

:P

Ice Hockey Players
Posted: Mon May 24, 2004 4:39 pm Post subject: Alternate History: The "What If?" Thread

Nice to see you consider a post less than 24 hours old to be "old"....

:roll:

Uh no... I remember a similar thread last year. That's what I meant.

Last year...seems pretty old to me...so that means that by bringing up the subject only every so often, it doesn't get too stale. If you don't want to talk about it, don't; there are a thousand other threads in this forum.


Loosen up man. Did you not notice the :P face? That would be a playful face, meaning that was a joke.

What if the Reds were beaten by the Whites in Russia?[\b]
Wouldn't it be more plausible to hypothesize that Bolshevik coup fails? Kerensky and the Mensheviks would stay in power, the war would continue. Maybe there wouldn't be more revolts, but it's likely they would.

Best case scenario: Russia sticks with the war and is a victor or makes peace with Germany. Russia begins a march on the road to modern democracy.

Worst case: more rebellion, attempted coups, assassinations, Russia is defeated by Germany or becomes a basket case.

Anyway, in the fight between the Reds and the Whites, the Whites were very divided. If they won, you'd likely see more civil war after that. I don't know what the British and Americans would have done then.

[B]What if it hadnt been a moth in the Mark 1 computer that caused a malfunction?
Probably something like 'retubing'. Or maybe just error checking and correcting.

A series of "What ifs"....(1)Columbus's fleet never makes it to the New World, (2)landings in the New World are successfully repelled by the indigenous peoples, and (3) Spain/Portugal give up on colonizing the New World.
Well, (1) Vespucci would still explore. (2) That's extremely unlikely, and the diseases that the Spanish and Portuguese were carrying would likely have made a second landing more likely.

I think a better possibility is that repeated explorer expeditions in the Atlantic fail do to bad weather. If they ever make it, they never get back. Then (3) could happen. Europe's focus turns to Africa and Asia.

The secondary powers (France, England and Netherlands) still replace the Spanish and Portuguese, but because colonization in Asia and Africa is so much harder (due to more disease risistance among the populaces, as well as better technology in Asia and less resources in Africa and Asia), and so Europe advances more slowly.

The Europeans squabble over bits of Africa and Asia and Australia is discovered earlier. England still ends up being more successful because of its maritime focus.

Eventually the Americas are discovered from the East (but called something else), and because the Inca have had more time to develop, they're much more entrenched, as are the other tribes. They still all get devastated by plagues from the Europeans and the Europeans move in.

Or the Chinese, feeling threatened by the English return to their maratime past and discover the Americas. Since they lack the resources and technology of the Europeans, the Chinese form more friendly relations with the Americas, and the Americas gain even more advantage. I still think they'd be decimated by plagues though.

What if the Reds were beaten by the Whites in Russia?
Wouldn't it be more plausible to hypothesize that Bolshevik coup fails? Kerensky and the Mensheviks would stay in power, the war would continue. Maybe there wouldn't be more revolts, but it's likely they would.

Best case scenario: Russia sticks with the war and is a victor or makes peace with Germany. Russia begins a march on the road to modern democracy.

Worst case: more rebellion, attempted coups, assassinations, Russia is defeated by Germany or becomes a basket case.

Anyway, in the fight between the Reds and the Whites, the Whites were very divided. If they won, you'd likely see more civil war after that. I don't know what the British and Americans would have done then.

What if it hadnt been a moth in the Mark 1 computer that caused a malfunction?
Probably something like 'retubing'. Or maybe just error checking and correcting.

A series of "What ifs"....(1)Columbus's fleet never makes it to the New World, (2)landings in the New World are successfully repelled by the indigenous peoples, and (3) Spain/Portugal give up on colonizing the New World.
Well, (1) Vespucci would still explore. (2) That's extremely unlikely, and the diseases that the Spanish and Portuguese were carrying would likely have made a second landing more likely.

I think a better possibility is that repeated explorer expeditions in the Atlantic fail do to bad weather. If they ever make it, they never get back. Then (3) could happen. Europe's focus turns to Africa and Asia.

The secondary powers (France, England and Netherlands) still replace the Spanish and Portuguese, but because colonization in Asia and Africa is so much harder (due to more disease risistance among the populaces, as well as better technology in Asia and less resources in Africa and Asia), and so Europe advances more slowly.

The Europeans squabble over bits of Africa and Asia and Australia is discovered earlier. England still ends up being more successful because of its maritime focus.

Eventually the Americas are discovered from the East (but called something else), and because the Inca have had more time to develop, they're much more entrenched, as are the other tribes. They still all get devastated by plagues from the Europeans and the Europeans move in.

Or the Chinese, feeling threatened by the English return to their maratime past and discover the Americas. Since they lack the resources and technology of the Europeans, the Chinese form more friendly relations with the Americas, and the Americas gain even more advantage. I still think they'd be decimated by plagues though.

I will get the ball started by asking what would have happened if the operation shortly after the Bolshevik Revolution to kick out Lenin's regime had been successful.

The attack was led by the Americans and British and only sent around a thousand troops who didn't have a prayer, but had they sent around, I don't know, 10,000 troops, or maybe a couple of divisions, they would have turned the Bolsheviks into hamburger meat and the Russian Republic would have been restored. From here, there are two possibilities.

Foreign invasion forces (deployed to: Arkhangelsk & Murmansk, Odessa & Crimea, Vladivostok, Transcaucasia):
peak forces
Britain 1,073
Canada 4,000
France n/a
United States 12,858
Japan 74,000
Czech Legion 100,000
foreign subtotal 200,000
http://www.regiments.org/milhist/wars/ww1/russia.htm

Ergo, ~100,000 Allied troops. And you know what, sweetcakes? -- You still got your ar$e kicked. :twisted: :twisted:

Looks to me as though that was referring to the Russian Civil War, not the post-WWI effort to kick out the Bolsheviks. The post-WWI effort is less well-known and only included a couple thousand troops or so. With more power, it might have been successful.

...

* sigh *

I stronly suggest that you click on the link I've posted and at least get the chronology right:

1917.11.07 Bolshevik revolution (October Revolution); Provisional Government arrested
1917.12.09 Civil War begins with revolt of Don Cossacks
...
1917.12.30 Japanese forces land at Vladivostok, beginning Allied intervention in Siberia and eastern Russia
1918.01.18 Bolsheviks disband Constituent Assembly; whereupon anti-Bolshevik movements begin to take shape
1918.02 Red Army founded
...
1918.03.03 Treaty of Brest-Litovsk: Russia makes separate peace with Central Powers, freeing German troops for Western Front, but much of Byelorussia, Ukraine and the Baltics remains under German occupation until Nov. 1918
1918.06 Czech Legion revolts and seizes Trans-Siberian Railway
...
1918.06.23 British, French and Americans land at Murmansk with Bolshevik permission, beginning Allied intervention in northern Russia

Thus, Britain, France and the U.S. sent troops to Russia after the Civil War had already begun, but while the WWI was still in progress on the Western Front. Thus, Allied intervention in Russia cannot be described as "post-WWI", nor can it separated from the Civil War.

1. In actual history, Russia and Japan fought some battles in the 1930s which Russia won decisively, which is why Japan never attacked Russia in WWII, so unless we changet that too, there would be no reason for them to want to attack Russia anyway.

If they had managed to secure China and not attacked the US, Japan could have focused on Russia more. An attack Russia in conjuction with Barbarossa and instead of the US later in 1941, would have delayed the entry of the US, and given the Axis a much better chance against Russia, regardless of the situation in China.

One of my favorites is the survival of Rome through various unsundry means (certain reforms to government being a big one). I have this great image of the first world war consisting of the Mongol empire invading Roman Europe....[/quote]

I seriously doubt that Japan could have secured China in any scenario-anyway, I suppose that's possible.

As far as the second part, that is interesting-suppose the Roman Empire had never fallen, what would the world be like today? Of course, had they fought the Mongols, the outcome of that I would say largely is dependent on where they fought at.

One scenario I discussed with my friends about a week or so ago involves WWII Germany, having secured its grip on Europe, invading the US. Now I say this is rather implausible, but does anyone have a good argument of how it could have been pulled off?

This one has percolated up to the surface: what if ancient China with their early technological development already well underway by the beginning of the Common Era, had chosen to continue developing scientifically instead of sublimating their technology into ever more philosophical and magical interpretations about the nature of things? And then, what if ancient China (which had already become a sea-going power, launching large and sophisticated ships several centuries before Europe, and then for political and philosophical reasons became insular and ceased travel and trade) had decided instead to explore further and further? What might have happened, not only in the Pacific basin but also in the Americas and perhaps Europe, if we had been confronted with a politically assertive and technologically competent and confident China, instead of the inward-looking empire we found?

PT, the glorious and sunny region of California

Now here’s and interesting question for ya’ll
What would happen if the English colonist didn’t get pissed of with Britain and stayed unified?
Now ya’ll might not think it’s all that important of a question but it is.

Now for me a question ya’ll should all be asking is what would of happened if Jesus had a son and named him Roy?

Re Cathars: Ooh, I think I read that book too! (or a similar one. The one I read was called 'The Perfect Heresy') That was a great book!

Yay the Cathars! Boo the Albigensian Crusade! Yay a less materialistic, more pacifist Western society!

Thus probably no New World gold grabbing missions, Salishe!

Everybody wins!!!



Was that the one by Stephen Shea? I've read it, it is quite good but, iirc he lays all the blame at the feet of the Catholic Church (not saying they are blameless, but the weren't the only ones). Although Jeem is right, they were far more Christian that the Church (although they had odd beliefs, but they were harmless).

Another good one to read is "The Albigensian Crusade" (I forget the authoress' name but it is a translation from French which should narrow the field down).

I reckon the Languedoc (sp?) would have remained autonomous, similar to Brittany (until the C16th). But I reckon ultimatly would become either part of France, Spain, or Italy. But I would put my bets on France, which could possibly lead to problems (similar to the Basque region in Spain). I also don't think it would have stopped/postponed the enlightenment (it may have made it come sooner) or the French Revolution (which imo was fated to finish with a dictator, if not NB than someone like him).

You guys are all talking about WWII and stuff, but heres one. What if WWI had never happened?

You guys are all talking about WWII and stuff, but heres one. What if WWI had never happened?

Here's a question: Let's assume that the Poles had not been invaded by both Russia and Germany, and therefore were able to destroy the German attack. Would Hitler have lost already, thus making the conflict short, or would he not be defeated, the Allies considering him weak? And would the atom bomb have been developed then?

Thanks for the info, Sqi. This post was very helpful.

In anwser to question number 1: Heresy really isn't the right word. I imagined more of a Schism similar to the one between the RC and Eastern orthodox. The RC has much less power in this scenerio.
Number 2: the Anglos instead end up fighting with the Norse, triggering a few more waves of Nordic imigration to the New world, and giving them a better foot hold. However, some do immigrate to Britain, and eventually are assimilated.

Number 3: To be honest, I had mostly forgotten about the Cathars. I'm still not quite sure how I will adress this, but I probably will use one of your solutions, or possibly a combination.



It's an enormous amount of matieral, and I'm attempting to condense it into a novel, Albion. Coming to a book store near you.- :)

What if the Huns had never sacked Baghdad. What would have been the effect on the world if the Arabs had continued increasing in power and influence as they were prior to this act?

What if in 1991, the western nations of the coalition ignored the warnings and concerns of the Arab nations of the coalition and occupied Iraqi and over threw Saddam then. Would George H.W. Bush still be voted out? If so, how would Clinton handle the occupation and rebuilding of Iraq assuming he was elected. What state would Iraqi be in now? Would Al Qaida be recognized as a threat earlier? I could go on and on. I think the Gulf War '91 was a crucial moment for the U.S. in the Middle East. That is what really began our strong military presence over there and that is what pissed them all off. Interested to hear your thoughts.

What if in 1991, the western nations of the coalition ignored the warnings and concerns of the Arab nations of the coalition and occupied Iraqi and over threw Saddam then. Would George H.W. Bush still be voted out? If so, how would Clinton handle the occupation and rebuilding of Iraq assuming he was elected. What state would Iraqi be in now? Would Al Qaida be recognized as a threat earlier? I could go on and on. I think the Gulf War '91 was a crucial moment for the U.S. in the Middle East. That is what really began our strong military presence over there and that is what pissed them all off. Interested to hear your thoughts.

What if in 1991, the western nations of the coalition ignored the warnings and concerns of the Arab nations of the coalition and occupied Iraqi and over threw Saddam then. Would George H.W. Bush still be voted out? If so, how would Clinton handle the occupation and rebuilding of Iraq assuming he was elected. What state would Iraqi be in now? Would Al Qaida be recognized as a threat earlier? I could go on and on. I think the Gulf War '91 was a crucial moment for the U.S. in the Middle East. That is what really began our strong military presence over there and that is what pissed them all off. Interested to hear your thoughts.

What if...

The wind had changed sooner, and Harold Godwinsson had had to fight William the Conquerer's army BEFORE that of Tostig and Harald Hardraade. If Godwinsson's army had been fresh, he might have defeated William, and then had to forced-march his troops to THE OTHER end of the country, and been defeated by Harald Hardraade?

Sorry for the multiple posts; my computer burped. :oops:

Well done, very well thought out. Here's another one:

680 AD. The real historical King Arthur, a Celtic king, mangages to defeat the Anglo-saxons. But rather than just go back home to Cornwall, he keeps the Celts united and over a series of sucessful military campaigns, he drives the Anglo-saxons out of Britain. You now have England without the english. Celtic culture is never overun. Gaelic is the dominant language, and Celtic Christianity is the dominant religion. Arthur's attempt to consolidate the 5 Celtic nations; Ireland, Scotland, Britain, Wales, and Brittany, eventually fails, but the Celts learn that to survive they must stick together. As the various nations grow and develop unified governments, they form a close confederation. However, they still have many enemies, both the old Germanic and Norse raiders, as well as the newer Roman Catholic church, which condemned Celtic Christianty as heresy. The Celtic states manage to remain a power, through reintroduction of old Roman knowledge kept safe in the monastaries of Ireland, and a fierce nationlist, independent spirit.

As of now I've worked this scenerio up to around the 14th century. Who knows what could come next. An early protestant reformation, aided by the Celts, or an early rennisance. Celtic colonies in the americas, perhaps, founded by the Monks of St. Brendan the Navigator. Who knows where this could end up.

Rome never condemned "Celtic Christianity" as a heresy, because there was no such thing as "Celtic Christianity", I'm afraid. It's a myth invented by post-Reformation Protestant churchmen trying to find a non-Catholic early Western Christian church. The whole fraud is based around a deliberate misreading of Bede, and a misunderstanding of the Synod of Whitby. There were disagreements between the various centres of Christian thought, especially with regard to calculating the date of Easter: but these were not regional and the disagreements were generally worked out by discussion, for example, at the Synod of Whitby -- where numerous "Celtic" churchmen were on both sides of the debate. The "Roman" view didn't always prevail, either.

Irish churchmen had a significant impact on Christianity across Europe, being the first to seriously attempt conversion of the pagans. Mainstream Christians regarded their religion as predominantly Roman (i.e. of the Empire) and urban; the Christian Gauls, for example, like the Christian Britons, were largely uninterested in converting the pagan Angles, Saxons and Franks who had recently moved in. The Irish, from outside the Empire, were the most evangelical and were largely responsible for developing the idea of Christian missionaries. Their influence prevailed and altered the Romanocentric view of the Christian west, prompting others to go out and convert their pagan neighbours (and, also, to sometimes actively seek martyrdom). I also feel that both the Renaissance and the Reformation owed their existence to the wealth and luxury of the later medieval Catholic church. No massive wealth and luxury = no patronage of the arts; no massive wealth and luxury (and corruption) = nothing to be Reformed.

"Arthur", to the extent that he can be said to have existed, would have been very unlikely to "consolidate the 5 Celtic nations", since neither Wales, Ireland, Scotland, Britain or Brittany existed as identifiable nations at the time. Wales never united, and owes its existence as a geographical unit to the English; Ireland briefly enjoyed the occasional High King, but never for long; Britain (i.e. a pre-Anglo-Saxon England) was split into numerous petty kingdoms such as Gore, Cornwall, Lothian and Rheged, and remained disunited under the Anglo-Saxons until the 10th century; Scotland at the time was known as Dalriada, and consisted of little more than Argyll, Ulster and a few islands, with most of what would later become mainland Scotland being split into various Pictish kingdoms such as Fib, Cait, Atholl and Fortriu. And Gaelic was only spoken in Ireland and Dalriada; the British kingdoms, Wales and Brittany spoke a variety of Welsh, and so (probably) did the Picts.

A better British "what if" would be: "what if Alexander III of Scotland hadn't died childless?" Scotland and England might well have avoided three hundred years of border warfare, and there might conceivably have been a Union of the Crowns centuries before 1603. There's also "what if Margaret, the Maid of Norway, hadn't died on her sea voyage but had lived to inherit the Scottish throne, married to the future Edward II of England?" A united Scotland and England in the early 14th century, just in time for the Hundred Years War -- and no Scotland available to run interference for the French. A restored Angevin Empire, but including Scotland and Wales, stretching from Caithness to the Mediterrainean?

Anyone else can build on this if they wish.

What if Joseph Stalin's parents had never met. Would Trotsky have taken over after Lenin? Would Russia have committed so much to WW2? Would Hitler have held Russia? Would there have been a cold war? Would Vietnam and Korea have happened?

Personally, I think a more commpassionate ruler would have taken over after Stalin (probably Trotsky). This would mean that the Gulags and death camps in Siberia would have never happened. Russia would have been less willing to commit as many men as they did, and some of the majors defeats Hitler faced in Russia may not have happened. This would have made the german position stronger. Now, lets assume the allies would still have won the war. Russia, having been occupied, would not have built up it's militairy to the relative pairity with the US. They would not have developped, if they did at all, such a large nuclear weapons program, thus not provoking the US and starting the Cold War. This would mean that the situation with North and South Korea would not have happened, and the same with Vietnam. Russia would not have thrown it's support behind Castro, and the US would not have placed sanctions against Cuba. Berlin would not have been split in two and the wall would never have gone up. Also, with no fear of Soviet aggression, The US would not have tried so hard to overthrow russian communism, and it would perhaps still be in place today.

Anyone who has a better knowledge of this period, or the temperments and ideals of the men who could have succeded Lenin can feel free to correct me or expand my ideas.

Celtic Christianity never did exist as an official denomination, but the foundation was there. In many ways the Irish brand of christianity was very different from Roman Christianity. It was naturalistic, henotheistic, frugal(mostly monastically based) and supported saving secular classical works. A good portion of our knowledge from the Classical world comes from monastaries in Ireland. (For a primer on early Irish chrisitianity, I suggest How the Irish saved Civilization, by Thomas Cahill. It's a little short, but it gives you a good place to start.)



I never said that Arthur consolidated the celtic kingdoms, as they did not exist yet. However, given time and left well enough alone, unified governments would emerge, especially after being threatened with cultural annilation. When people have been threatened with something as great as that, they tend to seek safety in numbers. It's an occurance that can be seen althrough out history.

Gaelic is a langauge *group*, as is the related Goldiec group, which Welsh is descended from. However, they are both closely related.

Finally, relax. This is just an exercise in creative thinking and manipulating history.

Jali:

If the Russian Republic had survived (which is a near impossibility, since the provisional government insisted on remaining involved in WWI while the majority of Russians wanted to withdraw) the outcome for the Nazis in WWII would have been the same. When the deal concering the Baltic republics was made between Hitler and Stalin the latter was just buying time. The reason he had to do that was because by the end of the 1930s he had purged every decent general he had. The Soviet military was practically rebuilt from scratch.

Also Stalin had a bad habit of imprisoning any returning POWs as well as not providing support for those held in German camps (the Germans required the home countries to supply food and clothing for POWs - the British and Americans got through it while most of the Russians starved). The Russians were inflamed with a patriotism to protect their home country. The Soviet army had to be rebuilt from scratch, and this was possible due to the people wanting to protect Mother Russia regardless of who was in power.

The truth is that the Russians had better tanks and aircraft than the Germans, although communications equipment was quite primitive. If Russia had gone democratic, the purges would not have happened and the famines could have been avoided. Returning POWs would have been repatriated or put back into the army. Russian fighting tactics and communications equipment would have been improved since Britain and the U.S. would have been more willing to supply what we had. Not to mention other factors as a lack of tensions with Ukraine and Byelorussia which were exploited (albeit badly in the end due to Hitler's interference due to his own racial prejudices) against the Moscow government.

If anything their may never have been a Nazi invasion of Russia as Germany would have been facing a U.S.-backed power that had much improved its fighting techniques since WWI. Even without U.S. backing Russian technology would still have been ahead of Germany in the 1930s if a madman like Stalin had not been in power (we do have to take into account our reluctance to join the European front until after Hitler made his declaration of war against the U.S.). We would probably have also had a truly strong ally in our fight against the Japanese.

Celtic Christianity never did exist as an official denomination, but the foundation was there. In many ways the Irish brand of christianity was very different from Roman Christianity. It was naturalistic, henotheistic, frugal(mostly monastically based) and supported saving secular classical works. A good portion of our knowledge from the Classical world comes from monastaries in Ireland. (For a primer on early Irish chrisitianity, I suggest How the Irish saved Civilization, by Thomas Cahill. It's a little short, but it gives you a good place to start.)

In some ways the Irish practice of Christianity was different from the Christianity of the Roman world, mostly because Irish culture was different. But there was nothing to mark it out as anything special, and there was no alternative organisation or significant differences in theology. Irish monks were happy to accept the Pope as the central figure of their religion in the west. Irish monks were widespread across Europe, and had a major impact on European religion. Some did their bit to help preserve some classical works -- although most classical writing was transmitted to the West during the 12th century via Islamic Spain. How the Irish Saved Civilisation is entertaining, but it's not really much use as history. Cahill, it has to be said, is a bit of a crank, and he's definitely not a medieval historian. A vastly better, properly researched introduction to early European Christianity can be found in Richard Fletcher's The Conversion of Europe.

I never said that Arthur consolidated the celtic kingdoms, as they did not exist yet. However, given time and left well enough alone, unified governments would emerge, especially after being threatened with cultural annilation. When people have been threatened with something as great as that, they tend to seek safety in numbers. It's an occurance that can be seen althrough out history.

The Celtic population of Britain was not faced with cultural annihilation. Celtic culture had already been massively influenced by the Roman empire. The conversion of the Anglo-Saxons to Christianity is an indication that it was primarily their culture which was transformed. The Celtic kingdoms, and the incoming Anglo-Saxon tribes, were just as likely to fight among themselves as they were to fight each other.

The Roman legions took over a century to create a more-or-less unified province in Britain south of Hadrian's wall. Apart from the expedition of Agricola and the battle of Mons Graupius, and a brief period of occupation up to the Forth-Clyde valley, they never made any impact on the Caledonian tribes. The formation of England, and of Scotland, took several more centuries. It would have been incredibly difficult for any one leader of any one small part of Britain to create a united kingdom in one lifetime, let alone one which would have remained united after his death.

Gaelic is a langauge *group*, as is the related Goldiec group, which Welsh is descended from. However, they are both closely related.

Finally, relax. This is just an exercise in creative thinking and manipulating history.

No, Gaelic is a subset of the Goidelic, or Q-Celtic language group. Welsh is a subset of the Brythonic, or P-Celtic language group. Goidelic languages are Scots Gaelic, Irish Gaelic, and Manx. Brythonic languages are Welsh, Breton and Cornish. The two groups, although distantly related, are significantly different.

I've got no objections to creative thinking and alternative histories, but if you start with erroneous information you might as well just call it fantasy.

Here's my what if: What if Ferdinand hadn't been assassinated in Sarajevo? Would there even have been a World War I or World War II?

yes it was just the immidiate cause

If China won the Opium War...

it's not possible given the circumstances, but if China won the Opium War I doubt that I'm on here typing this now. :roll:

My next question is: What if the Vienna art school had accepted Hitler?

In this alternate world, Hitler is known as an artistic designer who was an anti-Semite on the side. His artwork doesn't quite measure up to that of Winston Churchill, but he gets more recognition for his work because Churchill's too busy being Prime Minister of Great Britain . . .

No Hitler as head of state, no Churchill as head of state. Churchill only got the nod in response to Hitler. You would probably still have to have Chamberlain as PM.

SHL

I posted this one earlier, but everyone was all caught up in anarcho-communism. . .

What if George W. Bush was president during the Cold War?

I posted this one earlier, but everyone was all caught up in anarcho-communism. . .

What if George W. Bush was president during the Cold War?

He might have responded tto Krushchev's shoe-banging in the UN with an idiotic, macho-speech of his own ending with the challenge, "Bring it on" to the Soviet bloc. This would have been followed by WW III and the end of civilization as we (almost) know it... :shock:

Sure proof that things could be even worse...

:twisted:

PT

Here's a question: Let's assume that the Poles had not been invaded by both Russia and Germany, and therefore were able to destroy the German attack. Would Hitler have lost already, thus making the conflict short, or would he not be defeated, the Allies considering him weak? And would the atom bomb have been developed then?

Hitler would have moved on to some other country, severely weakened. The Allies would have invaded Hitler over that other country, and Poland would have joined them. The war would have been over soon. The Soviet Union would have been defeated, and there would be no atom bomb.

What if the U.S.A. had gained their independence peacefully from Britain about 100 years later, or the same time as Canada?

I'd guess if at the same time as Canada we'd then be the same country, with Alaska still being part of Russia unless the British bought it from Russia. The western US (Former Mexican Regions/Lousinia Purchase) would not be British unless the British invaded them. Mexico would then be more powerful, Texas might try to secede from Mexico but with no American contraband the Green Flag Republic is smacked down.

I'd guess if at the same time as Canada we'd then be the same country, with Alaska still being part of Russia unless the British bought it from Russia. The western US (Former Mexican Regions/Lousinia Purchase) would not be British unless the British invaded them. Mexico would then be more powerful, Texas might try to secede from Mexico but with no American contraband the Green Flag Republic is smacked down.

What if the USA fell instead of the Soviet Union?

What if the USA fell instead of the Soviet Union?

What if after the death of Chairman Mao the radical communists lead by Mao's widow Madame Jiang Qing Mao defeated the moderates lead by Hua Guofeng and took over China?

If you want to consider the Polish not being invaded by Russia then you have to go back a lot further than World War II. It was only after WWI that Poland gained independence for the first time in about 150-200 years. They had been annexed by Russia, along with Lithuania, because both Poland and Lithuania had waged a number of destructive wars against Russia throughout the 17th and 18th centuries. Russia wanted to make sure it didn't happen again.

The only way that Poland could have won in its post-WWI state is if Britain and France had lived up to their mutual defense treaty and sent military aid to Poland. The political layout of Europe by that time made this next to impossible strategically and both countries were still hoping to come to some sort of understanding with Hitler.

On the question of Bush being president during the Cold War, I don't think he would have been the one to end it, but taking the example of a response against the Krushchev administration, I do not think he would have done anything different than what Kennedy did. We knew that Krushchev was loud and boisterous, but when push came to shove (the Cuban missile crisis) he backed down because he wasn't stupid. The only person wanting a nuclear war at that point was Castro. In truth Bush would have fit in better at that period in history than he does now with everyone second-guessing and questioning his every move simply because of misguided party loyalty.

Finally, if we had become peacefully separated from Britain, we would probably be one continuous nation that included Canada, New England, the Mid-Atlantic, the southern states and the northwest. Mexico would probably be in control of the southwest on up to Colorado unless that area had decided to become independent. I do not know if the Texas independence movement would have happened. Louisiana, and most likely the plain states along with it, would also be part of the country because the area would have been seized by Britain after the victory of Napoleon. Alaska would still be Russian since they only sold it to us because Britain was a mutual enemy in the 19th century. If we were still a British colony at the time Russia would have held on to that land to make sure there was no chance of an invasion on their eastern frontier. I don't think many, if any of the native tribes would have become independent nations because we are assuming that we gain independence after much of the genocide has already occurred (think of the situation with aboriginal Australians, which is much worse than what we as an independent nation did to our natives - not that it justifies our actual historical actions).