What are /r/HistoryWhatIf's favorite Products & Services?

From 3.5 billion Reddit comments

By the time he died Alexander Hamilton had lost a lot of political respect, mostly due to his confession of an adulterous affair and the letter he wrote denouncing John Adams. Additionally, the Federalist Party as a whole was finished and would never again hold prominence on a national level. With this in mind, I don't think he would have been able to have a strong impact on the future of American politics. This is reinforced by the fact that he had become enemies with Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, the next two presidents.

I think he would have spent the rest of his life at his estate with his family, and probably continued efforts to free the slaves in America. He may have produced some more important essays, but it's hard for me to see him having much more of an impact on American history.

Source: Alexander Hamilton by Ron Chernow

Contrary to The Last Samurai, the samurai had no problem adopting advanced technology and tactics as this painting shows. Even in the Satsuma Rebellion, Saigo Takamori and his army used modern weapons and only used their traditional weapons out of necessity when they ran out of ammunition.

Merely preserve the Calmar Union; your proposed historical scenario was fact for over a century. If you wish, the Union eventually loses its crown in the course of time, though how is unclear, as Sweden, Denmark and Norway all yet retain their monarchs to this day.

For a short guess, I assume that border between Canada and a Soviet Alaska would be similar to the situation in Korea at the 38th parallel.

I think it would have ultimately worked out the same as it did, it doesn't change how much either side had to lose.

More to the point: Apple had MS (and Intel) red-handed with some of the source code for desktop PC video (through a common 3rd party software contractor) coming directly from QuickTime. Apple's case was very strong. Jobs's price for forbearance on asserting a lawsuit and potentially tying up desktop video on the PC in a legal knot was the investment.

Source: http://www.zdnet.com/article/stop-the-lies-the-day-that-microsoft-saved-apple/

Well I'm not a historian to give in-depth details but some argue that Operation Barbarossa was a pre-emptive strike by Hitler but this claim is not generally accepted.

https://www.quora.com/Was-Operation-Barbarossa-a-pre-emptive-strike-by-the-Nazis-against-the-Soviets

On why you are downvoted, I would say your last statement is incorrect. Even if Germany and SU split Europe, in the SU native language is promoted than Russian so anyone on the SU side would not be speaking Russian.

We would have avoided MILLIONS of dead civilians had everyone listened to Khomeini when he warned the Kuwaitis and Saudis that Saddam would turn on them too.

"For in order to defend Islam, this tumour must be removed . . . otherwise this country will never experience peace; neither our country nor Iraq, nor all the Gulf states. These Gulf states do not realize what Saddam would do to them." (Chubin & Tripp, p. 161)

But they chose wrong. and suffered.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1310&dat=19860315&id=NdxVAAAAIBAJ&sjid=LeEDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6645,3962323

More death. Period. End of story.

The nuclear bomb won WW2. I know that there are people who disagree, but most boots on the ground agree that the invasion of Japan would've been a long brutal affair with millions more dead. And, without nuclear deterrence, the US may have gone to war against the USSR because conventional wars seem far less of a losing proposition than mutually assured destruction and a potential extinction levelevent.

Nuclear energy, is actually the safest and cleanest energy production method we have. (I highly recommend you check out: this book by Michael Shallenberger for a more thorough treatise on the benefits of nuclear power. In his book, he outlines how oil, gas, and coal are responsible for a LOT of pollution and the shortening of the lifespans of many people due to air pollution-related illnesses. In a world without nuclear power, we move from energy-dense matter-poor energy production techniques to more matter-dense materials. These materials create pollution and are more prone to environmental catastrophes like oil spills, fires, etc.

Now, you may be saying "yeah, but what about wind and solar?" Wind and solar are causing extinction issues in birds and bats, and are woefully inadequate at this time to solve our energy problems. Developing nations are actively lobbying against renewables like wind and solar because they are so unreliable.

So, in summary: Nuclear weapons make the cost of war heavier than conventional warfare. A world without nuclear weapons sees more war in the 20th century and more war-related death. Nuclear energy provides clean electricity and a world without it becomes far more polluted, leading to more deaths and shorter lives.

I was thinking among the lines of The Prince, 1984, Animal Farm or The Art of Warfare.

A more logical and historical book, which is plausible for someone to endorse and follow.

-

I'm not talking about a commander reading Harry Potter and giving all the soldiers wands and shouting out spells, thinking he will win, you know?

Temperate in the sense that it has average highs of the 70s in the height of summer, and Lows in the single digits in the winter[Source]. "Temperate" seems a little misleading.

Well, lessee. . . . The Lewis, Maxim, and Browning M1895 could all fire 500-600 rounds per minute -- in theory. That rate of fire was never a real-world thing, though. The Hotchkiss and the Vickers could each do ~450 rpm. Those four made up probably a majority of Allied heavy machine guns.

The "Old West" Gatling gun could theoretically manage ~200 rounds per minute in optimum conditions. But, again, the real world is never "optimum." And each Gatling gun magazine held only 20 rounds, so you'd be doing a LOT of magazine-changing. The Gatling didn't have anything like the long-range accuracy of WWI machine guns, either -- especially the German models. (It always struck me as more f a "terror" weapon, especially against the Indians.) And it was also a lot bigger and heavier, and therefore less manageable and less easily transported and shifted around than the WWI weapons noted above.

There's also this: "Machine guns were responsible for just 20% of all WW1 casualties, as the vast majority were caused by artillery. However, over 90% of "over the top" casualties were caused by machine gun fire. As the guns were terribly accurate and gruesomely effective, many soldiers chose to rout rather than face these monsters.?.

All of which means the effectiveness of heavy automatic weapons in a Gatling gun world war would be considerably less than in our world. Which I think means there might not have been so much of a trench stalemate as we actually had. The trenches would also have been able to be (safely) closer together, right? So perhaps more successful assaults over a shorter distance? All of which suggests that trench warfare might not have played such a large part.

Remember that there were plenty of trenches in the Civil War, too, especially at places like Petersburg -- but only as a temporary tactic. They didn't dig in and live there for months.

Here is a link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Victory (wikipedia article listing all the books and the overarching plot) http://www.amazon.com/How-Few-Remain-Southern-Victory/dp/0345406141 (amazon for the first book)

Orson Scott Card actually wrote a Science Fiction book about time travel that had this premise

https://www.amazon.com/Pastwatch-Christopher-Orson-Scott-Card/dp/0812508645?ref_=d6k_applink_bb_dls&dplnkId=f4736f88-68b5-47e4-8e9a-697364f4de66

Midwar seems to be the most likely time this would occur, as that when Churchill seems to have gotten this idea into his head.

I am partially basing this off of ([this book]https://www.amazon.com/Commander-Chief-FDRs-Battle-Churchill-ebook/dp/B011H55OG6), which mentions the idea of Churchill thinking the Balkans were some kind of vulnerable point for Germany and portrays Roosevelt as having to steer him away from it. I am somewhat skeptical of how accurate it may or may not be though.

British Prime Minister Spencer Percival was a hardliner. He was murdered, and his replacement, Lord Liverpool, was prepared to make concessions. The British grain harvest had been poor, so the country required U.S. food for its troops, who were fighting Napoleon (who had a small penis). President Madison commented that had he known of Percival's demise, there would have been no war. So to prevent the War of 1812, all you need is for the telegraph to be invented 20 years sooner.

Read a book recently that touched on this . The landings failed, invasion was canceled. The war ended when Berlin was nuked instead of Hiroshima/Nagasaki . It’s a good read if you like alt-history books. Actually found this book from a fellow Reddit user! Delivered to Hell’s Doorstep

Here's a few excerpts from author Cecelia Holland for What If? II

Future conflicts are ever only vaguely like past conflicts. Given the ongoing cyber cold war the US is currently engaged in with China (and Russia), expect forces to strive to incapacitate communications and electronics. Both are striving to militarize space, to knock out satellites. Both will deploy EMPs to disrupt the battlefield. If they’re cleaver enough, they’ll strive to take command and control of the enemy’s electronics. Expect the war to go along the lines of

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1984881256/

As a result of the speed of the conflict, there won’t be a need to produce war machines - the conflict will be over almost as soon as it began.

At present, the US is positioned to lose the next great global conflict because of its hubris (the mindset that led the US to get its chain yanked in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq remains - our military isn’t as capable as we think) and it’s focus on the wrong instruments of war (e.g., recent naval war games showed how easy it is for submarines to remove surface ships from the battlefield).

U.S. goals were to end impressment and conquer Canada. Impressment ended because it wasn't needed, so I wouldn't boast about accomplishing a goal. British goals were to retain impressment and Canada and establish a country of Native Americans, scoring two out of three.

Iraq under Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait and was kicked out but didn't lose territory. Do you call that a victory? Or even a draw?

Yonder is an article named The United States Lost the War of 1812.

If you look at the map below, I am not sure it would have changed anything other than not allowing Jackson to step on to the US stage, and use that success to become president. With the treaty already signed, basically it just reinforced the idea that Britain had lost the US lands forever and we never getting them back. https://www.sutori.com/item/treaty-of-ghent-1814-armistice-ceasefire-no-more-fighting-no-real-winner

I would check out this guys work. He describes what the world would be like without American power. It’s half warning/half prediction that the US will become isolationist over the next 20 years. He explains how bad it will be for everyone outside North America. In a world where the US does guarantee freedom of the seas and the free of movement of goods, by default strong powers will have to build empires. These empires willbe the resources and markets their modern economy need. That means skyrocketing food and energy costs at first, starvation second. Developing countries won’t be able to access the machinery, pesticides and fertilizers they need to maintain modern agriculture.

Disunited Nations: The Scramble for Power in an Ungoverned World https://www.amazon.com/dp/0062913689/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_glt_fabc_S142RWA6B0V3J676B23N

(he died from stroke, not heart attack but that's minor detail)

It doesn't answer your question but there is a book with similar premise.

As for your question, probably not much. If Politburo finds out they'll hush it up to avoid damage anyway. There would likely be a purge in security apparatus for failing to prevent it but publicly it will be something similar to what happened with Beria. If it's not discovered it will be assumed he died from stroke anyway.

It is well documented in highly regarded academic histories: https://www.amazon.com/Orphans-Versailles-Germans-Western-1918-1939/dp/0813156335

Polish chauvanism existed and still exists and is no less racist and nasty than any other version.

There’s a book with that very premise. I think I’ve still got it somewhere. We read this in my American Revolution class in college like 8 years ago.

https://www.amazon.com/Iron-Tears-Americas-Britains-1775-1783/dp/B004JZWW80

The Columbian Exchange where new World crops were brought to the old world and vice versa meant that formerly unsuitable land in Europe could now be farmed. This led to a massive increase in population. Perhaps most notable in Ireland where potatoes became the staple crop and certainly drove immigration to the new world.

The American Colonies by Alan Taylor goes into detail on this, among other things.

My pleasure! Alternate history supercharged my now obsession with history. If you’re interested in more alternate history I can’t recommend this enough: https://www.amazon.com/Collected-Eminent-Historians-Imagine-Might/dp/0399152385

>but in these hypotheticals the Germans are still stopped short in the winter of 41, well before american supplies start getting there, and my thinking at least is that that's decisive. After that, maybe it takes 8 years and a few million more lives, but the nazis still lose in the end

You'd be wrong, without LL explosives, steel, food, and aluminum the Soviet war effort would have imploded in 1942 or any year thereafter even with the recovery of territory (which was only possible with LL). Check out the books I linked they are absolute kill-shots to the idea that the Soviets could have survived 1942 without LL.

This is just on the food situation...even with LL the Soviets were still lose large numbers of factory workers to starvation in 1944! https://www.amazon.com/Hunger-War-Provisioning-Soviet-during/dp/0253017084

There is a book (well, a series) on a German Imperial pre-WW1 cruiser being transported to the late Roman empire Mediterranean.

https://www.amazon.com/Emperors-Men-1-Arrival/dp/3864023726

This book is all about that: Going to Tehran https://www.amazon.com/Going-Tehran-America-Islamic-Republic/dp/1250043530

When Nixon decided to "go to China", 1- The US had to dump Taiwan as an ally which until then was officially recognized as "China" by the US

2- Opening to China was meant to undermine the threat of the Soviet Union during the Cold War, which is over and no equivalent of the Soviet threat insists

So the policy continues to be driven by lobbyists and billionaires like Sheldon Adelson who buy senators

There's a book about this very topic! It's called Stonewall Goes West and is written by R. E. Thomas. I bought it on Amazon. Here's its description:

> Stonewall Jackson's death at the Battle of Chancellorsville is the great "what if" of the Civil War. In Stonewall Goes West, the fabled Jackson survives his wounding at Chancellorsville in 1863 to assume command of the South's Army of Tennessee. In a final bid to reverse the failing fortunes of the Confederacy, a maimed but unbowed General Jackson confronts not only Sherman's Union armies on the western front, but his own recalcitrant generals. Stonewall Goes West gives the classic "what if" a fresh, new answer in a fast-paced tale, rich with authentic detail, filled with battle and strategy, and populated by the Civil War's most colorful personalities.

So he does get injured but from the bit I've read of the book it seems to not play into things too much. It's been a while since I started it and I don't remember a whole lot but I enjoyed what parts I remember.

Hope this helps you out OP

Encircling Moscow alone would have severally disrupted Soviet logistics to the west. Lrnd-lease through would get rerouted to Vladivostok and later Basra, severally slowing the flow at a critical time.

It possibly would have caused Soviet troops who were holding ground to the north and south to start counter attacks on AG Centers flanks, similar to the piecemeal spoiler attacks of early June and July. All of these things work for the Germans.

Without the direct support of STAVKA at Leningrad, it is quite possible that the Germans take the city before '42. This not only frees AG North but the Finns as well.

Taking, or even encircling Moscow might be enough to get Japan to consider reneging on the non-agression pact. This kind of pressure would slow the withdrawal of the Siberia divisions. Possibly causing a less effective winter offensive.

Does Moscow win them the war, that's another question. I don't think so, but it puts the Soviets at a serious disadvantage.

Here's a good book that explores the question if your interested. I don't like some of the authors reasoning, mostly the spacial comparison of the French campaign to justify the same gains in Russia. He does a good job of exploring the question otherwise.

http://www.amazon.com/Hitlers-Panzers-East-World-Reinterpreted/dp/0806125810

http://www.viewsoftheworld.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/CroplandsMap_GriddedCartogram.jpg

Why exactly do you think that North America, Europe and Asia have so much more cropland than Africa and South America? What do you think people do when they are more fertile land which requires fewer farmers to keep them alive? They become more educated, develop more advanced infrastructure, create technology at a much faster pace, etc. Just as an example, about 2% of the US population works in agriculture, 15% of Brazilians do the same.

And since you seem to like books so much (despite not even linking one that backs up your statments): https://www.amazon.com/Guns-Germs-Steel-Fates-Societies/dp/0393317552/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1466407800&sr=8-1&keywords=guns+germs+and+steel

Anyway, I don't want to act like cultural factors don't make any difference in the economic development over long periods of time becaue they certainly do, but you should not ignore the fact that certain parts of the world (such as Europe and North America) have climates and natural resources that are much more conducive to economic development.

Harry Turtledove (famous alternate history author) wrote a book recently about this topic. Here is an Amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/Bombs-Away-The-Hot-War/dp/0553390708

(There is a sequel coming out over the summer)

Harry Turtledove (famous alternate history author) wrote a book recently about this topic. Here is an Amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/Bombs-Away-The-Hot-War/dp/0553390708

(There is a sequel coming out over the summer)

I recommend reading The Cold War: A New History by John Lewis Gaddis. It doesn't go into very much "what if history", but it definitely focuses on the reasons that the Soviet Union struggled so much. Readers can make their own conclusions from its analysis.

Remember the Black Death? Pretty much that.

Let me say that if you're interested in infectious diseases and history, check out Plagues and Peoples, it's an amazing, informative book that is also a great read.