Miscellaneous >1900 (Alternate) History Thread
- Thread starter RMcD94
- Start date
it would probably be 50/50 across the nation. Some would want revenge, some would want peace, and some would just want things to stop and for France to turn inward and fix itself before looking outward.
would anyone be interested in helping me co-author my President Haig in 1972 Dystopia TL?
If Robert Marion "Fighting Bob" La Follette Sr. of Wisconsin became a Progressive Party President in 1920 (say the Bull Moose Party survives and does decently in 1916 with Hearst as its nominee, costing Wilson the election, allowing for the Party to survive as a major force in US Politics into the 1920s and Hughes and Wilson), would businessmen and generals attempts a coup against him led by Pershing/L. Wood/R. Wood/Moseley in the 1920s should his administration become too extreme, as many felt about the man?
Last edited:
I don't know if this is the place to ask, but it seems a bit silly to start a whole thread for it -
Are there any Mexican Revolution timelines? Anything do with that whole period, whatever the changepoint - from Diaz arranging successful succession, to Madero surviving the ten tragic days, the Conventionists winning, Huerta winning, Carranza stepping down peacefully - anything and everything?
Are there any Mexican Revolution timelines? Anything do with that whole period, whatever the changepoint - from Diaz arranging successful succession, to Madero surviving the ten tragic days, the Conventionists winning, Huerta winning, Carranza stepping down peacefully - anything and everything?
It would not be very practical, elephants are incredibly expensive not only do you have to pay to raise them for several years you also have to continually care for them for years to come. They need massive quantities of food and take a number of workers to care for them. So in a battle where a few bullets would be enough to take down one elephant means they would almost never be practical for anything other then perhaps supporting supply convoys and a few other edge case uses outside of the frontlines.
Bytor
Monthly Donor
Well, first you need a reason why it would not happen.
The way to get that to happen is either an Afghan victory in the Second Anglo-Afghan War, or no Second Anglo-Afghan War. The first of those is highly unlikely because unlike the First Anglo-Afghan war which was an unmitigated shit-show for the British, the two British campaigns of the second were well planned with much larger armies than the Afghans had.
But the only way that you're going to make the Second Anglo-Afghan War go away is if you change the very nature of The Great Game between the British and Russians in 19th century Central Asia.
In the last 1830s/early 1840s Russian and britain both had very embrarassing military failures in Central Asia. The already mentioned First Anglo-Afghan war for the British, and the 1839 Khivan Campaign, an equal disaster for the Russians. After those failed campaigns, Russian and British diplomats discussed but never implemented a buffer agreement that would have included Khiva, Bukhara, Kokand, Kalat, the Sikh state, Sindh, and Persia. The agreement would have required those states be left whole and independent and not invaded or made protectorates of, and that neither side would oppose or obstruct trade agreements with the other.
Now, obviously that never happened, but in my estimation it's most plausible way to prevent the Third Anglo-Afghan War.
It is one of these ideas that arise periodically in a discussion format (among the proposed places I have seen East Prussia, Bavaria, the Saarland or the territory that fell to the DDR in OTL), I think I have seen it on a map, but apparently no one has dared to write the shit show that it would undoubtedly be.
So, what if instead the British victory in the Third War is more decisive?
Grey Wolf
Donor
How about as a stand-off weapons platform, such as a way of getting rocket launchers deep into the jungle where no vehicle can go?
West Germany is only informally aligned with the West rather than a part of NATO. This gives the West Germans a degree of flexibility in their Cold War policy. Gunter Guillaume never gets exposed and Stasi agents continue infliltrating the West German government. Willy Brandt's career term as Chancellor ends(probably engineered by said Stasi). In Brandt's place, a person from the left wing of the SPD. Under this leadership, West Germany begins distancing itself from the NATO and socialists are invited into government.
However the socialists and the Stasi agents become aware of the possibility that there has been a leak and that the existence of Stasi agents in government can be outed.
They view the only way to prevent this is with a coup.
The socialists members of the government, the Stasi and the KGB start working quickly to formulate a plan. The first stage would be that socialist members of government would organize for the distribution of weapons to socialists militant groups. The militants would then lead a coup after their sympathizers clear the path for them to do so. They would form a provisional government. The last step of this plan is the intervention of Soviet troops who would be waiting in East German at the request of the provisional government to proceed. The underlaying principle of the coup is that they can last long enough and cause enough confusion that the Soviets can mount a successful intervention and prop up the socialist government.
The plan succeeds and within 2 days, Soviet tanks are in Bonn. The Bundeswehr, taken aback by the coup and facing an invasion, surrenders to the Soviets. With Soviet troops in the country and the security forces surrendered, West Germany begins its transition to socialism.
Last edited:
Wouldn't this result in US forces in Germany organizing a counter-coup? Or alternatively that they start issuing war threats as soon as they detect the buildup of Soviet troops in East Germany? Or that they are desperate and launch the missiles?
You think if Bill Clinton got killed in a terrorist incident, VP turned President Gore could ride the national fervor to a 21st century presidency?
I guess two versions of this, pre and post Lewinsky.
I guess two versions of this, pre and post Lewinsky.