Editor says, what if Gustav Streseman had lived to stop Hitler's Rise to Power (but with disasterous consequences)? Please note that the opinions expressed in this post do not necessarily reflect the views of the author(s). This story was published in the November 2012 edition of Changing the Times Magazine.

Share this Article on:

Facebook

Twitter

Editor says, in reality Papen and his allies were quickly marginalized by Hitler and he left the government after the Night of the Long Knives, during which some of his confidants were killed by the Nazis. Please note that we have re-purposed significant amounts of content from Wikipedia.

Jeff Provine commented on 2012-10-29 22:28:03 ~ Would that it were.

Scott Palter commented on 2012-10-30 01:38:16 ~ How quickly Adolph marginalized them is one of the less well told stories [at least among Anglophone historians]. In theory Papen and the old guard held all the caes. They had most of the ministries, the Army, the bureaucracy, industry and Hindenberg. In practice they simply failed to cope. They allowed Hitler to rule because he did so and they never summoned the will to push back [note - the one time they did, with Rhoem and the SA - it was Hitler who backed down and purged the radicals].

Jackie Rose commented on 2012-10-30 14:31:42 ~ True, Scott...and when von Stauffenberg came along, it was much too late.

Eric Oppen commented on 2012-10-30 17:40:54 ~ So what happened to Poland? Was it absorbed (resorbed?) by the USSR?

Editor says, what if Conradin had won the Battle of Tagliacozzo? Please note that the opinions expressed in this post do not necessarily reflect the views of the author(s). This story was published in the November 2012 edition of Changing the Times Magazine.

Share this Article on:

Facebook

Twitter

Editor says, inn reality his multi-national army of Italian, Spanish, Roman, Arab and German troops encountered that of Charles at Tagliacozzo, in a hilly area of central Italy. The eagerness of Conradin's Spanish knights under Infante Henry of Castile in the most successful first charge, and the error to obtaining plunder in the enemy's camp after that momentary victorious assault gave the final victory to the reinforced French. Escaping from the field of battle, Conradin reached Rome, but acting on advice to leave the city he proceeded to Astura in an attempt to sail for Sicily: but here he was arrested and handed over to Charles, who imprisoned him in the Castel dell'Ovo in Naples, together with the inseparable Frederick of Baden. He was tried as a traitor, and on 29 October 1268 he and Frederick were beheaded.
Dirk Puehl.

Mike McIlvain commented on 2012-10-30 14:19:17 ~ One of the most interesting possibilities, or things, here is how did they get such a multi-national army together then? Plenty of modern people might have a hard time believing it.

Eric Oppen commented on 2012-10-30 18:37:26 ~ Modern-style nationalism didn't exist as such back then; Simon de Montfort was a Frenchman who made his career in England and he was by no means unique.

Jackie Rose commented on 2012-10-31 12:08:15 ~ True, Eric...Richard the Lion-Hearted, that iconic British hero, was in fact a Frenchman who did not speak a word of English and is buried in France. No one seemed to care.

Jeff Provine commented on 2012-11-05 18:19:48 ~ That's right. Get that epic sense of persona out there, and anybody would follow. Heck, look at all the Gauls backing Caesar back in the day.

Editor says, what if Goebbels had got a job at the Berlin Daily and spent the Nazi era slinging sarcastic insults at Hitler? muses Steve Kudlak. Please note that the opinions expressed in this post do not necessarily reflect the views of the author(s). This story was published in the May 2012 edition of Changing the Times Magazine.

Share this Article on:

Facebook

Twitter

Editor says, in preparing this post with Scott Palter and Steve Kudlak we have repurposed content from Wikipedia.

Comment from Steve Kudlak on Facebook: there are many branching scenarios to explore

Scott Palter commented on 2012-04-27 08:49:04 ~ Take this in the style of Spinrad's Iron Dream as a way of showing just how contingent much of Nazi history was.

Please click hyperlink for Yahoo! Groups Discussion comments.

Please click hyperlink for Google Groups Discussion comments.

Chris Oakley commented on 2012-04-27 15:05:56 ~ I agree with Scott.

Jeff Provine commented on 2012-04-27 16:22:58 ~ If lefty Goebbels had seen the return to conservatism post-WWII, it would've tarnished his image as a Red... unless he managed to make pinkism more palatable to the masses.

Eric Oppen commented on 2012-04-27 18:02:47 ~ This reminds me of my friend Jean Lamb's alt-hist story (not published yet, but who knows?) called "What Makes Joey Run?" where Goebbels split after the Night of Long Knives and wound up in Hollyweird as one of the biggest shots in the biz. During the war, he made broadcasts to Germany telling them the truth about Hitler and what a wanker he was.

Eric Oppen commented on 2012-04-28 02:03:46 ~ This is Jean Lamb, and I also covered the later career of Senor Ernesto, Dear Leader of Bolivia for about five years or so, till the Catholic Church and the landowners finally did him him (Joey made some 'special' movies for his old friend in the late 1930's to help obtain financing for some of his other films. They apparently included some interesting football locker room scenes that Gov. Reagan swore he wasn't in during his time as an actor). But oh, those radio broacasts! In my story he survived WWII, and actually made a visit to Berlin during the Airlift--he had to explain that Santa had to be really small that year because of the weight restrictions. A tip o' the hat to Eric Oppen, who told me about this site. And you would not _believe_ what Joey called Sen. McCarthy during the hearings...fortunately he kept it in German, though the Yiddish speakers in the audience all fell over laughing.

Editor says, what if the Statue of Liberty had been submerged? Please note that the opinions expressed in this post do not necessarily reflect the views of the author(s).

Share this Article on:

Facebook

Twitter

Editor says, this article is not intended to cause offense to the victims of Hurricane Sandy. [1] instead of New Jersey Governor Chris Christie.

Jackie Rose commented on 2012-11-04 18:48:38 ~ I must say, I don't see how that picture would effect the election...especially since both candidates would rush to express their horror and determination to rescue or rebuild the famed sculpture.

Stan Brin commented on 2012-11-05 01:15:14 ~ But that is one of those "Waterworld" fantasies -- it can't happen because there isn't enough water. The floods caused by Sandy were a storm surge. laws of physics would prevent a surge that high. Greenland and Antarctica would have to melt.

Chris Oakley commented on 2012-11-05 22:24:49 ~ No Comment

Eric Oppen commented on 2012-11-05 23:22:27 ~ The water wouldn't have gotten nearly that high. OTOH, if the Statue fell down due to the winds and possible un-noticed weak points, that would have been seen as a national catastrophe.

Eric Lipps commented on 2012-11-06 13:32:51 ~ As Stan Brin and Eric Oppen remark, this is impossihle. A more plausible scenario would have the statue damaged in some way--say by having some of its copper sheath ripped away. Of course, that's much less dramatic.

Jackie Rose commented on 2012-11-06 13:42:00 ~ And what if terrorists succeeded in blowing it up, with tourists inside? That should cause a burst of patriotic feeling that would make 9/11 look like a mild annoyance.

Editor says, what if the Wall Street Crash of 1929 was averted? muses Jeff Provine on the This Day in Alternate History web site. Please note that the opinions expressed in this post do not necessarily reflect the views of the author(s). This story was published in the August 2011 edition of Changing the Times Magazine.

Share this Article on:

Facebook

Twitter

Editor says, in reality, the bottom of the market fell out on Black Tuesday, the worst day in the Stock Market Crash with sixteen million shares traded, a record that would hold until 1968. Whitney's plan of using "blue chip" stocks was too little much too late. Though he was considered a Wall Street guru for much of his life, it would be proven in 1938 that his company was insolvent and he was an embezzler. Whitney would plead guilty and was sentenced to Sing Sing, where he served as a model prisoner and afterward became a successful small businessman. Despite a petition signed by 1028 economists, President Hoover did not veto the Smooth-Hawley Tariff after it was approved in the Senate in March of 1930.

Jared Myers commented on 2011-08-14 02:57:07 ~ If one were to ask Murray Rothbard and Milton Friedman, the Federal Reserve is to blame for the Crash of '29. As an American, it's WAY past time to audit (and then abolish) the Federal Reserve. This is a scary AH edition, haha. :-)

Matthew Dattilo commented on 2011-08-14 03:41:03 ~ Great AH! Interestingly enough, something close to the business oligarchy mentioned in the writeup was almost established in the United States during FDR's first term. A group of businessmen sought to essentially unseat the President and run the country through someone they controlled. They approached Smedley Butler, a retired Marine Corps general and the man who wrote the book "War is a Racket". Butler alerted some contacts in the FBI and the entire thing went away in short order. It seems far-fetched today, but you have to remember that people were desperate.

Eric Oppen commented on 2011-08-14 05:09:23 ~ Interesting AH, but I'm not versed enough in either economics or that particular period in the US to comment very well.

Eric Lipps commented on 2011-08-14 13:18:10 ~ Of *course* Milton Friedman blames the Fed? It's part of the gummint, isn't it? And we all know the "wisdom of the market" is far superior to that of government bureaucrats, don't we? Just look at 1987, or 2008! Friedman is very articulate, but capitalism is his religion. He's made it plain over the years that he can't bear to think that there may be times when government is part of the solution, not the problem.

David Tenner commented on 2011-08-14 13:18:10 ~ *Pace* the late Jude Wanniski, the notion that the Smoot-Hawley debate was responsible for the Crash has been rejected by most economists.

See Douglas A. Irwin, *Peddling Protectionism: Smoot-Hawley and the Great Depression*, (Princeton University Press 2011), pp. 56-59. http://books.google.com/books?id=MIDsnT3Ze0YC&pg=PA56

"The fact that the October stock market crash coincided with the Senate tariff debate has led some to sugggest a link between the two...

"Wanniski argues that the prospect of a high tariff bill passing spooked the forward-looking stock market. But in October, 1929 the [anti- protectionist] coalition was generally successful in reducing tariff rates on industrial goods, which raised the likelihood that the bill would in fact be defeated. As Sumner (1992, 303) notes, 'it is hard to reconcile Wanniski's views with the widespread contemporaneous interpretation that the four weeks from mid-October to mid-November had been a major setback for the protectionist wing of the Republican party.' [Protectionist writer] Alfred Eckes (1998) countered Wanniski by suggesting that the coalition's efforts to reduce industrial tariffs may have led to the stock market crash because business wanted higher duties. Although this is also improbable, it is more consistent with the events of October 1929.

"In fact, it is unlikely that the debate over the tariff bill had any impact on the overall stock market. The run-up and subsequent crash in stock prices was not broadly based, but almost entirely concentrated in public utilities companies, a sector of the economy perhaps least affected by import duties...Utitlity holding companies and investment trusts were highly leveraged and used large amounts of debt and preferred stock to make their purchases. The sector was vulnerable to any bad news regarding utility regulation. In October 1929, the bad news arrived: a series of regulatory decisions that were adverse to the public utilities triggered a decline in the price of utility stocks. Investors who had bought on margin were forced to sell, leading to panic selling of all stocks. In addition, the Federal Reserve Board had been tightening credit since February 1928 in an effort to reign in surging stock prices, and that effort was bound to succeed at some point.

"Economic historian Eugene White...finds 'no evidence to support the view that the Smoot Hawley Tariff contributed significantly to the crash.' If the tariff was an important factor influencing stock prices, one would expect the stock of firms in industries affected by trade to move differently from other industires. This did not happen...

"As a result, it is unlikely that the Senate's deliberations over the tariff had much to do with the October 1929 stock market crash."

Steven Fisher commented on 2011-08-14 18:56:18 ~ Oh dear. As glad as I am that they stopped the Crash, and the Depression, I think that I prefer my true democracy too much to give it up like that.

Jackie Rose commented on 2012-10-30 15:15:32 ~ The question is...would the Depression still have struck Germany? No Depression, no Hitler. But if Hitler had come to power but Roosevelt had not,, because there was no Depression in America, then there would be no Lend Lease to save Britain. Quite a dilemma!

Editor says, what if organized crime was considered an opportunity rather than a threat? Please note that the opinions expressed in this post do not necessarily reflect the views of the author(s). This story was published in the November 2010 edition of Changing the Times Magazine.

Share this Article on:

Facebook

Twitter

Editor says, in reality the hearings were held fifteen years later and chaired by C. Estes Kefauver. Many thanks to Scott Palter and Jeff Provine for their suggestions in developing this post.

Eric Oppen commented on 2010-11-05 04:15:28 ~ Not too different from OTL; a lot of restaurant and entertainment fortunes got their start as gangsters.

Scott Palter commented on 2010-11-05 09:29:28 ~ Essentially the Mob pays a one time penalty, gets an amnesty and brings their liquor and gambling businesses out of the shadows. It requires a somewhat different politics than the actual US of the 30's but weirder things happened in that era.

Eric Lipps commented on 2010-11-05 12:11:21 ~ Er . . . wasn't it "Meyer" Lansky?

Jeff Provine commented on 2010-11-05 15:26:50 ~ Curious what this would do to Italian relations leading up to WW2.

Editor says, what if the secession crisis of 1860 was just the beginning of the balkanisation of North America? Please note that the opinions expressed in this post do not necessarily reflect the views of the author(s).

Share this Article on:

Facebook

Twitter

Scott Palter commented on 2009-10-28 18:17:46 ~ Totally do not understand the Texas reference. Lincoln would have done a deal with Alexander Stephens who he knew from Whig Party days. The deal would have been ratification of the 13th Amendment and the ten states return to Congress [make it 11 fast as Texas had no power to fight on its own and not much interest]. Radicals in Congress have a fit. What happens after depends on if / when Booth kills Lincoln.

Eric Lipps commented on 2009-10-28 18:21:02 ~ How did the secession happen so quickly? I think it's clear that President Lincoln wouldn't have calmly allowed it--and President Buchanaan, who would still have been in office through the end of 1860 (and until March 4, 1861) probably wouldn't either, once the secessionists moved from talk to action. Details?

Todayinah Ed. commented on 2009-10-28 22:20:42 ~ The secession did happen fast - the arrangements at the Confederate Conference were agreed in a single day. Resistance to Richmond started immediately. Broadly, though this is a snapshot story which has some familiarity with OTL but sufficient changes to make the reader (hopefully) wonder what kinds of PODs might have caused these butterflies. One is that an independent Texas is a a focal point for a third governance model (independent states), the second is the intervention of the side-switching British and French with the suggestion that their de-stabilising influences in North America here are intentional. Regarding the personalities theres no suggestion in the story that the same individuals are involved. Which is somewhat weak, I'm confessing its a flight of fancy. Basically - how would Jefferson David succumb if the South survived, is the tale.

Comment from Adrian Cook on Facebook: readers might find this link of interest - it takes the idea to its extreme..: http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/misc/balkanus.htm

Eric Oppen commented on 2011-06-29 18:53:08 ~ So in this TL Texas never joined the Federal Union? That would have removed one bone of contention between the sections---a lot of Northern states weren't happy at all that the fruits of the Mexican War (did that happen in this TL?) were mainly going to the Southerners...who, to be fair, had done the majority of fighting.

Jeff Provine commented on 2011-07-01 14:46:47 ~ With a right of nullification, it'd reduce the US to a military and loose economic alliance. Surprising it would last even that long.

Editor says, in this thread the left-wing Al Smith becomes President in 1928.

Share this Article on:

Facebook

Twitter

Editor says, please note we have taken at least one liberty with this post because we have moved the stock market crash forward by a year with no explanation. Ho-hum. Also, 1) instead of Black Friday we have Red Friday as it launched the socialist revolution in America you see.

David Atwell commented on 2009-04-04 04:15:35 ~ Now this makes for a very interesting impact on WWII, not to mention the post war period. It'd be interesting to see how a socialist USA deals with the communist USSR...

Chris Oakley commented on 2009-04-04 15:45:43 ~ White Friday?

Eric Lipps commented on 2009-04-06 16:43:40 ~ I don't see a stock market cfrash thata close to the election as being enough to tip the vote to Smith. A lot of the opposition to him was based on his being Catholic (as would be true even 32 years slater with John F. Kennedy), and it would have taken some time for the economic crash on Wall Street to have had consequences on Main Street grave enough to overcome this prejudice, if indeed that could have happened.

Eric Lipps commented on 2009-04-06 16:48:59 ~ And oh, yes, a "socialist" USA? Al Smith was no socialist. Indeed, he became a bitter opponent, from the right, of FDR's New Deal., which he denounced as socialist. Merely campaigning as a "man of the people" is a long way from socialism.

H. Torrance Griffin commented on 2010-10-29 15:57:39 ~ The question here is if we are looking at Social Democracy(tm) or a Stalinist Train Wreck complete with Totalitarianism.

Jeff Provine commented on 2010-10-29 17:40:37 ~ I concur with Griffin, this could go either way. I'd imagine civil war sparking up somewhere.

Editor says, Daniel 2: 31-40 introduced the theological term feet of clay to mean "a weakness or hidden flaw in the character of a greatly admired or respected person". What if the Pope had admitted to his own feet of clay by empathising with Mother Theresa's own spiritual crisis? This story was published in the March 2009 edition of Changing the Times Magazine.

Share this Article on:

Facebook

Twitter

Editor says, the book Mother Theresa: Come Be My Light, is a collection of letters compiled by an advocate for her sainthood, published a decade after her death in 1997. The book depicts Mother Theresa as a mystic who experienced visions of Jesus speaking to her early in her ministry, only to lose that connection and long for it like an unrequited love for most of her last four decades. Because Mother Theresa asked for the private confessions to be destroyed, many have criticised the church. Yet in this post, we imagine a more empathetic response to these distressing revelations, from the Pope himself.

Eric Oppen commented on 2009-02-14 07:26:46 ~ Interesting, but I'm not up enough on Catholicism to comment very intelligently.

H. Torrance Griffin commented on 2009-02-14 11:11:39 ~ Nor am I, but a lot who claim that catholicism is not the true path to god may be emboldened by this.

Chris Oakley commented on 2009-02-14 14:48:49 ~ If nothing else this should inspire some lively debate about Benedict's tenure as pontiff to date.

Jeff Provine commented on 2010-10-29 17:38:18 ~ John the Baptist and Satin Paul both struggled, so why not Mother Theresa, too? It might work as a posthumous ministry, showing people that great saints are just as human as the rest of us.

Stan Brin commented on 2010-10-29 05:17:28 ~ Russian-born Yacob Smirnoff is a famous comedian whom I intensely disliked back in the day. I loved this line of his about parties: "I love America! You can always find a party. In Russia, the party always finds YOU."

Eric Lipps commented on 2010-10-29 12:31:31 ~ I suspect a constitutional amendment banning political parties would have been ignored in practice, as did Prohibition, also inserted into the Constitution to protect society's virtue. If it survived, rather than ensuring the absence of parties it would likely have set the stage for increasingly autocratic one-party rule.

Jeff Provine commented on 2010-10-29 19:16:04 ~ If only! Ah, one can dream...

Eric Oppen commented on 2010-10-30 02:18:45 ~ Parties of some sort would have existed, even if only as _ad hoc_ organizations designed to promote a particular agenda or candidate's chances.

Editor says, what if WW3 had started on 28th October 1962? Please note that the opinions expressed in this post do not necessarily reflect the views of the author(s). This story was published in the November 2012 edition of Changing the Times Magazine.

Share this Article on:

Facebook

Twitter

Editor says, [1] she actually died shortly after his departure. In authoring this article, we have repurposed material from the BBC web site which reports - On 22 November 1962, during a tense, four-hour meeting, Mikoyan was forced to use the dark arts of diplomacy to convince Castro that despite Moscow's best intentions, it would be in breach of an unpublished Soviet law (which didn't actually exist) to transfer the missiles permanently into Cuban hands and provide them with an independent nuclear deterrent.

Eric Oppen commented on 2012-10-29 19:26:45 ~ I'm not at all sure that Krushy would have wanted to let a loose cannon like Castro start an all-out war with the US. After 1945, even the most warlike Soviets had had their fill and more than their fill of war. And Krushy also knew that the US was more than able to kick the Soviets' applecart right over once and for all.

Chris Oakley commented on 2012-10-30 15:09:34 ~ Cue REM...."It's the end of the world as we know it..."

Editor says, what if WW3 had started on 28th October 1962? Please note that the opinions expressed in this post do not necessarily reflect the views of the author(s). This story was published in the November 2012 edition of Changing the Times Magazine.

Share this Article on:

Facebook

Twitter

Editor says, based on an idea from Facebook Reader Joe Mwangi - thank you sir!

Scott Palter commented on 2012-10-28 16:35:58 ~ USSR circa 1962 did not have the launch facilities to destroy the US. They could have killed 10-40 million people depending mostly on luck. Western Europe and Japan would glow in the dark [Soviets had enough intermediate range missiles and theater range bombers to cancel out the effects of bad Soviet quality control]. Eastern Europe and the key urban areas of the SU would be toast.

Mike McIlvain commented on 2012-10-28 17:40:53 ~ None of us are alive to write this. I was killed under a small elementary school desk in a second grade classroom on the Central California coast. Unless Scott is right and a small miracle occurred. I hope he was.

Brian Wall commented on 2012-10-28 18:47:17 ~ Scott is right, the USSR's weapons capabilities were always way overrated. A lot of people would have died, but the idea of all human life dieing off is wrong.

Eric Lipps commented on 2012-10-28 18:52:05 ~ I'm not sure how many the USSR could have killed. Their ICBM fleet in 1962 was quite small, despite all the hype about a "missile gap" in the 1960 election, but they had their bomber fleet as well. (the missiles in Cuba were intermediate-range types.) However, an uinknown number on both sides would have died of starvatin, disease and othr factors after the war. Global extinction, though? No. More lkely,China would march west and seize much of the USSR (it had no nuclear weapons until 1964 and would have posed no threat to the U.S.).

Joe Mwangi commented on 2012-10-28 20:14:07 ~ I really do think that billions would have died and would have caused the near annihilation of the earth just like the dinosaur extinction 65 million years ago.This would not have been a limited nuclear war.By 1962,the Soviet Union had enough nuclear weapons to destory the world 3 times over and the United States had enough weapons to do the same 10 times over.Once nuclear war had started,all restaint by both nations would have thrown out of the door ad the sheer anger and need to revenge and the cracked nerves would have resulted in both nations unleashing all this destructive power.Cities like Washington and Moscow would have been hit at least 5 times to cause maximum damage so people not killed in the first blast would have been killed in subsequent blasts.True at this point the USSR ICBM fleet was small but they had plenty of bombers and subs to hit the US.in the confusion of the nuclear attack on the US,some bombers that could have been hit in a normal situation might get through and unleash unacceptable devastation.The fog of war could have resulted in billions of dead.

Scott Palter commented on 2012-10-28 21:59:56 ~ @Mike - Russian quality control was abysmal. This ceased to matter by the late 70's because they just built honking big missile and put huge warheads on them. Early 60's they could have hit LA but not any particular 10 square miles. @John - the 10-40 million includes radiation, starvation etc. Nuclear winter is quite premature for 1962 and anyway is quite discredited. US would have survived as an entity. It might have had martial law zones and would not have been pretty but better than say Germany or France in 1945. @Joe- Russians bombers [200 or so if they could get everyone off the ground [their norm was under 50%]] only had the range to reach the US one way. We had a more than decent air defense capability.

Eric Oppen commented on 2012-10-28 23:55:13 ~ Was nuclear winter a real threat, or overrated?

Scott Palter commented on 2012-10-29 00:22:00 ~ Nuclear winter has been discredited but bear in mind that 1962 had an order of magnitude fewer warheads/bombs and two orders of magnitude less total megatonnes.

Joe Mwangi commented on 2012-10-29 05:52:13 ~ People forget that the West had always underestimated the USSRs capabilities only to be shocked when the Russian capability was unleashed.Recall that Nazi Germany,UK and USA felt the Soviet Union was weak militarily in 1941 encouraging the Germans to invade Russia thinking it would be easy victory.Even Russian allies Britain and USA thought the USSR would fall in 4 months of the German invasion but this was not to be.The USSR was to marshal vast resources and produced excellent weapons like the T-34 tank,Shturmovik and Yak fighters,Katyusha rockets and its the USSR that played the decisive role in defeating Nazi Germany and not the US.In the initial stages of the Korean war,the US thought the Soviet air-force had inferior planes yet the MiG-15 outclassed US fighters in all aspects.Also the USA assumed that naturally with their "technological superiority",they would automatically be the first nation to launch the first satellite and man to space yet the Soviet Union beat them to this.Extreme Soviet secrecy guaranteed that the West never appreciated the full capabilities of Russia and I suspect they also under-estimated the Soviet nuclear capabilities.Its most likely that the USSR had far more nukes and ICBMs than the USA knew about.Lest you forget that the USSR was the first country to develop a true ICBM the R-7 Semyorka when American long range rockets were "Flopniks and Kaputniks" blowing up into pieces on the launchpads.

Richard Roper commented on 2012-10-29 13:34:33 ~ Nuclear Winter was the great danger, unfortunately it was not recognised in the early '60's, otherwise the Kennedy administration and the Joint Chiefs would have shown more restraint and sacked "Bombs Away" Curtis LeMay like MacArthur. How the dynasaurs got extinct and "no summers" and extraordinary atmosphere events in historic times were not recognised in the '60's.. The Americans apparantly did not even suspect the presence of tactical nuclear weapons on Cuba, so you can imagine what would have happened. Set against all this was the "First SeaLord's Minute" as it was known in Britain, warnig that the Americans might start a nuclear war. Remember the Peter Sellars film "Dr. Strangelove or How I came to Love The Bomb". it would have been a pity it all started over a small country.

Editor says, what if Maxtenius Victorious had triumphed at the Battle of Milvian Bridge ? muses Jeff Provine on the This Day in Alternate History web site. Please note that the opinions expressed in this post do not necessarily reflect the views of the author(s). This story was published in the August 2011 edition of Changing the Times Magazine.

Share this Article on:

Facebook

Twitter

Editor says, in reality, Constantine was victorious at Milvian Bridge when his soldiers bearing the cross-symbol broke the defenses of Maxtenius. The bridge collapsed under the retreating army, and Maxtenius himself was among the drowned. Constantine took Rome and later conquered Licinius on grounds of harboring traitors, reuniting the Roman Empire and strengthening it with his new capital at Constantinople. Meanwhile, he would end the persecution of the Christians, himself convert, and codify Christianity into what would soon become the new state religion for Rome.

Scott Palter commented on 2011-08-12 11:18:11 ~ No Christian Empire fine but the loss of the Western Empire does not destroy the eastern.

Stan Brin commented on 2011-08-12 11:23:08 ~ Great yarn, but the last paragraph was superfluous. Actually, by the fourth century Christianity was hardly a Jewish sect, but a pagan fusion -- the trinity (Greek), Mary (Isis), etc.

Eric Oppen commented on 2011-08-12 17:50:04 ~ Among other things, the Praetorian Guard would have had a longer history---Milvian Bridge was their last hurrah in OTL; they were on M's side.