Did help. Thanks!That I would assume would be more like Austria joining Germany then them being equal partners in a union. Austria is a lot smaller and ethnically, linguisticly, and historically German. So they would more than likely keep the name Germany going forward. Hope that helps!
Miscellaneous >1900 (Alternate) History Thread
- Thread starter RMcD94
- Start date
'AHC: More Chinese War Dead in Second Sino-Japanese War'.
For context, I recall OTL China suffered somewhere shy of 20 million dead (at least, according to the "official" stats).
However, that's still a few million less than the Soviet Union (26 million dead), which actually kinda' surprises me. With a country as overpopulated as China and a ferocious invader like Japan, you'd expect them to have more war dead than everyone else (rather than "merely" coming in a close second).
For context, I recall OTL China suffered somewhere shy of 20 million dead (at least, according to the "official" stats).
However, that's still a few million less than the Soviet Union (26 million dead), which actually kinda' surprises me. With a country as overpopulated as China and a ferocious invader like Japan, you'd expect them to have more war dead than everyone else (rather than "merely" coming in a close second).
Natural Events/Plate Tectonics are in the ASB section, I'm sorry.
Considering how Japan was behaving in China...I honestly can't think of any way to increase the death toll. Think of any outrageous thing you can think of, they were doing it.
I would say the only way to do that is to give them greater industrial capacity (so they can make more equipment to kill more people more efficiently) but that would require such a large POD that it would be overly deterministic to assume we would get anyway a Japanese government like the one from OTL.
What if a 737 MAX from an American carrier crashed between the space of Lion Air 610 and Ethiopian 302?
Many people designate the the Parliamentary Era of Chilean history as a so-called "pseudo-parliamentary" system, because it seemingly differed a lot from the Westminster model.
However, having read History of Chile during the Parliamentary Era (1891–1925) multiple times, asking ChatGPT to simplify it multiple times, and googling "pseudo-parliamentary", I still don't really get what the difference between parliamentary and pseudo-parliamentary is. How did Chile's parliamentary system differ from, say, what we now have in Germany, India, Italy, Greece, and so on and forth?
However, having read History of Chile during the Parliamentary Era (1891–1925) multiple times, asking ChatGPT to simplify it multiple times, and googling "pseudo-parliamentary", I still don't really get what the difference between parliamentary and pseudo-parliamentary is. How did Chile's parliamentary system differ from, say, what we now have in Germany, India, Italy, Greece, and so on and forth?
Last edited:
Can anyone give me a list of realistically probable Gaitskellite successors if Hugh Gaitskell lived slightly longer and was PM from say 1964 to 1971
who would his next 2 successors be?
Hugh Gaitskell (Labour): 1964-1971
1st successor?
2nd successors?
I know the next PM will likely be conservative but still who will be Gaitskell's realistic successors?
Will it still be Harold Wilson or will it be someone else?
@Fenrisúlfr @TheFederalist @Mynock and all others please help 🥹
who would his next 2 successors be?
Hugh Gaitskell (Labour): 1964-1971
1st successor?
2nd successors?
I know the next PM will likely be conservative but still who will be Gaitskell's realistic successors?
Will it still be Harold Wilson or will it be someone else?
@Fenrisúlfr @TheFederalist @Mynock and all others please help 🥹
My knowledge of internal party politics from the 1950s-1970s is limited but I would guess your choices are:
James Callaghan (enough said)
Anthony Crosland (leader of the right wing faction, ambitious, intellectual heavyweight but possibly not popular enough within the party)
Roy Jenkins (this largely depends on Britain's relationship with Europe. He's too pro-Europe to become leader in OTL)
Douglas Jay (his star wained in OTL because he was too anti-Europe. I'd put him at a very outside chance)
Patrick Gordon Walker (he probably wasn't popular or charismatic enough to make it to the very top. In OTL losing his seat in a nasty campaign did him in)
Lurker putting a festering alt-hist idea into the wind.
After WW1, the US emerged as a victorious power and in a prime position to establish a strong influence over global affairs and the economy... but it didn't, and went into isolationism.
There's plenty of stories about what-if the US continued to be isolationist before WW1/2 and didn't intervene, or became isolationist after WW2, but I was wondering if anyone had written about what-if the US became interventionist after WW1, investing more heavily into global affairs and the League of Nations. I want to start a thread on this subject eventually, and I haven't seen any like it yet, so I was wondering if you guys know of any existing althist books/threads on this or have any comments.
Thanks!
After WW1, the US emerged as a victorious power and in a prime position to establish a strong influence over global affairs and the economy... but it didn't, and went into isolationism.
There's plenty of stories about what-if the US continued to be isolationist before WW1/2 and didn't intervene, or became isolationist after WW2, but I was wondering if anyone had written about what-if the US became interventionist after WW1, investing more heavily into global affairs and the League of Nations. I want to start a thread on this subject eventually, and I haven't seen any like it yet, so I was wondering if you guys know of any existing althist books/threads on this or have any comments.
Thanks!
I think you need a different set of US presidents to make that happen, as well as business types wanting to invest globally rather than just in America’s doorstep.
Very true. A few things I think need to happen:
- Titanic either doesn't sink or the sinking doesn't become as publicized as it was in our timeline. Financiers like J.P. Morgan, who was heavily invested in the Titanic, lost a significant amount of capital in the loss of the ship which severely impacted international commerce and trade.
- J.P. Morgan either lives to see the beginning of WW1 or his son, J.P. Morgan Jr., becomes more interested and invested in European affairs.
- Woodrow Wilson has more bipartisan support or the Republican party is weakened during his terms and has more public support near the end of the Great War. Had Wilson possessed more support at the end of and during the aftermath of WW1 and the peace process, his Fourteen Points may have been more successfully implemented and Wilson may have been more willing to compromise regarding the regulations of the League of Nations, ie Article X, the collective security system.
- I think Wilson could still be president in this timeline- I can't think of a different possible candidate who'd be that interested in foreign affairs.
How about Roosevelt as 1912 President? He is in charge for all of WW1 which America will get invovled with earlier. Teddy was more of an internationalist as I recall, so I could see him not allowing the USA to go back into isolation. Esp if there are capitalists/investors around to nudge him into military reforms/investments?
That's a good idea- while he believed strongly in term limits, I believe he could be convinced to run again following Wilson in 1916... although I just don't know how well a third Teddy term would be received. I believe a stronger Wilson at the end of WW1 would be more realistic than a returning Roosevelt. Thoughts?
I am not a Wilson fan due to the segregation he introduced into the American Federal Government. The USA would have been better off without him as President imho.
Taft 1909 -1913
Roosevelt 1913 - 1921
?? Coolidge 1921 -
??
I understand- I suppose I didn't want to deviate too far regarding events before the end of WW1. I can't really anticipate how much Roosevelt's presidency throughout the entirety of WW1 would change things... I doubt he'd be keen to run for another 2 terms, either. I think it'd be better to look for candidates at the time who held his views or were close to him, because a Teddy presidency over WW1 is an interesting enough scenario on its own.
Thank you for the discussion! I think Wilson loosing to Teddy in 1916 (meaning Teddy didn't die at 60 in 1913) could be a more realistic scenario... thoughts?
Personally, I think that instead of resorting to the nonsense of "intertwining economies will force the United States to acquire international commitments and get involved in global security," I would focus efforts on convincing the American population that what is happening in Eurasia is not "the problem of another person."
That is, in OTL the approach of "intertwining economies" was attempted (the main reason the USA entered World War I was because the bankers started screaming in fear because, if Germany won, they would lose all the money they had been given). lent to the Entente) and the result we got was isolationism and the Great Depression spreading to Europe when those bankers demanded the money back NOW.
In addition, of course, to the growing belief that the American population had been dragged into a stupid European war solely by the greed and desire for economic benefits of a handful of very rich bankers.
That is why it would be necessary for the people themselves to commit to that direction, instead of something imposed by a handful of unelected bankers.
That is, in OTL the approach of "intertwining economies" was attempted (the main reason the USA entered World War I was because the bankers started screaming in fear because, if Germany won, they would lose all the money they had been given). lent to the Entente) and the result we got was isolationism and the Great Depression spreading to Europe when those bankers demanded the money back NOW.
In addition, of course, to the growing belief that the American population had been dragged into a stupid European war solely by the greed and desire for economic benefits of a handful of very rich bankers.
That is why it would be necessary for the people themselves to commit to that direction, instead of something imposed by a handful of unelected bankers.
I’ve been looking for Huey Long’s 15 hour speech for a while for my timeline, but I can‘t seem to find the exact excerpts for the speech. Any luck finding any?