| September 11 |  |
Editor says, what if the Scots lost the Battle of Stirling Bridge? muses Emperor Barbarossa (below). Please note that the opinions expressed in this post do not necessarily reflect the views of the author(s).
"What implications would this have had on the future world? If the Scots lost this battle, would there have been a King Robert the Bruce? Would Scotland have given any aid to France? Would the English have later been able to conquer France without a constant Scottish threat? Would there ever have been a Stuart monarchy, or the famous Jacobite Rebellions? How would Ireland have been subdued? Would it have been easily conquered by a combined Anglo-Scottish force? What of America, how would it have been colonized? Would there have been a larger British Empire? All of these scenarios could have played through had Andrew de Moray not appeared at Stirling Bridge".
| Share this Article on: |  Facebook |  Twitter |
In 1297, on this day Andrew de Moray's Scottish rebel army of the North arrived too late to prevent the heavily outnumbered forces of William Wallace from crashing to defeat at the Battle of Stirling Bridge.
Battle of Stirling Bridge Before the rebel Scottish armies could combine forces, the English Commander John de Warenne pre-emptively ordered a devastating direct attack across the bridge. This strategem was fraught with risk because the small bridge was only broad enough to allow two horsemen to cross abreast, the very reason why de Moray had advised Wallace to fight in this location.
Sir Richard Lundie, a Scots knight who joined the English after the capitulation at Irvine, offered to outflank the enemy by leading a cavalry force over a nearby ford, where sixty horsemen could cross at the same time. But de Warenne was persuaded by the King Edward's treasurer in Scotland (Hugh Cressingham) who urged the English Commander to seize the oppportunity to end the War of Scottish Independence. In fact the Earl of Surrey's military calculations were falsely based on the disorderly Scottish army of 1296 and in the event Wallace's men put up a determined, but ultimately unsuccessful attempt to seize control of the English bridgehead.
Entry posted by Todayinah Editor
© Alternate Historian, 2004-.Story Tags
Permalinks: Post, Day. Browse Thread: Generals Source: Wikipedia Labels: Stirling Bridge, William Wallace, Andrew de Moray, Hugh de Cressingham, Scottish Rebellion. Editor says, in reality Andrew de Moray arrived before the battle with his troops to help Wallace fight the English army advancing on Stirling. The article repurposes content from both All Empires and also Wikipedia.
~ Wallace (assuming he survived) would probably have taken to the Highlands (alongside Moray) to fight a war of attrition against Warenne and Cressingham. It would have been a hard loss, but by no means an end to the war, especially if both Wallace and Moray survived. I could see Wallace drawing Warrene into a trap in the Highlands and destroying the English there, perhaps uniting the Highland clans against Edward in the process.
~ A more Highland-centric and Gaelic Scotland may result from this; the Lowlands, which would be lost to England, were the Scots-speaking areas.
~ It might end this war sooner, and much messier for the Scottish, but they would always rebel another time.
~ Union centuries earlier,with luckand more success against the French!
Editor says, what if Franklin D. Roosevelt had died in 1939 before he could deceive America into abandoning neutrality? 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 September 2011 edition of Changing the Times Magazine.
| Share this Article on: | Facebook | Twitter |
In 1941, in a controversial speech in Des Moines, Iowa on this day the 33rd President of the United States Charles A. Lindbergh accused British and Jewish "war agitators" of seeking to force a change of the isolationist government policy laid down by the Neutrality Acts signed into law by the late Franklin D. Roosevelt.
America FirstThe America First Party had high hopes that September 11th would go down in history as the day when America refused to be terrorized into war. But despite his broad agreement with these sentiments, his Press Secretary John T. Flynn had resigned the day before, being deeply troubled by the pointed anti-semitism contained in the speech.
Ironically, another individual who had no hesitation in blaming the Jews for the World Crisis was Lindbergh's chief antagonist. Because the British Prime Minister Winston Churchill was confidently predicting that America would be dragged into the "gathering storm" - willing or not. Just in case they were not, Churchill had already formed British Security Co-ordination, sending three thousand British agents across the Atlantic to infiltrate Washington Society and reverse the US policy of isolationism.
This article is a continuation of the Inteprid thread.
Entry posted by Todayinah Editor
© Alternate Historian, 2004-.Story Tags
Permalinks: Post, Day. Browse Thread: Intrepid Source: Wikipedia Labels: Roosevelt, Lindbergh, Isolationism, Second World War, America. Editor says, in reality the events of Pearl Harbour stigmatized the Japanese as war agitators. Lindbergh called General Wood, who said of the president, "Well, he got us in [the war] through the back door. ..."
~ it took every ounce of influence FDR had to get lend lease and the peacetime draft through congress. Lend lease was pretty much what kept england and the USSR fighting past 1941. Lindbergh elected in 1940 pretty much kills both of those. Probably no oil embargo against the Japanese either, which at least delays pearl harbor for a year or two-probably. Japanese army was spoiling for a fight against the US (with absolutely no reason for confidence) and Japanese navy didn't feel safe taking out Malaysia, Singapore and the East Indies with a US-held Phillipines on their flank. Whenever war came, the US would have been even more unready than it was, and might be short of allies as well.
~ What Timothy said. However, Lindbergh's comments' alleged "anti-Semitism" does not address the question of were they true, or not?
~ Of course we were trying to get America into the war.Consider the alternative.I'd have sent aid to Britain but not Russia and not had a peacetime draft.
~ The Japanese did not particularly want to fight the USA so much as they wanted SE Asia to be all theirs and the USA presence in the Philippines made that problematic. The USA was scheduled to leave the P.I. soon after and let it develop as an 'independent' country under the same model used for Cuba, however FDR did everything he could to keep this from happening. If President Lindbergh withdraws the USA from the P.I. and lets the Japanese have the islands without a fight then they have no reason to go to war with the USA, especially if we are continuing to sell them scrap metal and petroleum.
~ The question is, how far and wide can Germany go before it self-destructs?
~ What if Roosevelt had died before he could DECEIVE America into abandoning neutrality?
Surely "persuade" would be a better term--and in then end, Pearl Harbor did that job for FDR. Or is the idea that in this timeline FDR was complicit in the the "day of infamy"?
Re Mark Taylor's remarks: if we hadn't aided Russia, very likely it would have fallen to the Nazis in 1942 or at the latest '43, leaving Hitler free to concentrate on England. And if we hadn't had a peacetime draft, we'd have had even less of an army when our turn came than we actually did. We might have ended up being forced to accept a peace with the Axis in 1945 or '46 which left Japan entrenched in mainland Asia and the South Pacific and the Nazis ruling Europe from the Channel to the Urals.
Editor says, what if the Unambomber was the architect of the 911 Terrorist Attacks? muses Jeff Provine on This Day in Alternate History 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 September 2010 edition of Changing the Times Magazine.
| Share this Article on: | Facebook | Twitter |
In 1987, President Ronald Reagan declared the upcoming September 11 as "Emergency Number Day" in recognition of the emergency workers of America as well as the success of the 9 - 1 - 1 phone system. In his proclamation, he called "upon the people of the United States to observe this day with appropriate ceremonies and activities".
9/11 Terrorist Attacks While most citizens made no more plans than an office party or a "thank you" to local firefighters or police, a lone man living in a cabin in Montana made note of the important date.
Theodore Kaczynski was a Harvard graduate in mathematics with a Ph.D. from University of Michigan. He had served two years as an assistant professor at Berkeley from the age of 25, but resigned to take up a self-sufficient lifestyle using survival techniques. Though bright and promising, Kaczynski had been distant with everyone through his life. As a child and young man, he had been through several studies related to autism or impotent rage, but Kaczynski seemed a normal, if quiet, intelligent guy.
A new story by Jeff ProvineWhile in his cabin, Kaczynski worked to study ways to become autonomous. The very little money he needed he made by working odd jobs such as at his father and brother's foam rubber plant, where he would be subsequently fired for harassing an ex-girlfriend fellow employee. As his life-experiment continued, it became obvious to him that he could not live this way with the increasing encroachment of modernity all around. In 1983, he walked to one of his favorite spots of wilderness to find that it had become a paved road. Later, he said, "You just can't imagine how upset I was. It was from that point on I decided that, rather than trying to acquire further wilderness skills, I would work on getting back at the system. Revenge".
Kaczynski studied sociology, political philosophy, and began a career of sabotage even before the road. When he came upon that, Kaczynski knew reform for the modern industrial, technological world was impossible. He decided that society needed to be woken up; the alarm would be bombs. In 1978 and '79, he had mailed explosive devices to Northwestern University and American Airlines, though none had been injurious. As the FBI took over the case from the US Postal Inspectors, they dubbed him UNABOMB for UNiversity and Airline BOMber. More universities and a computer rental store were added to his list of victims, culminating in 1985 with four attacks and the death of Hugh Scrutton, the computer store owner. In 1987, he struck again at a Utah computer store, then decided to settle in hiding for a moment. However, upon word of Reagan's Emergency Day, Kaczynski decided to show the world the real emergency: itself.
Lining up over a dozen simultaneous attacks, many of which were delivered through the mail, Kaczynski also hand-delivered several packages in the early morning from a re-painted rental truck. Near noon, he drove the truck to the Stanford Research Park in Palo Alto, CA. Kaczynski left the truck loaded with homemade explosives on a timer, which exploded in the early afternoon, killing 28 and destroying research in the resulting electromagnetic pulse and fire. He disappeared into San Francisco and made his way back to his cabin while the country descended into panic.
As news coverage swallowed the networks and bolstered the ratings of the new Cable News Network, people looked for leadership. President Reagan addressed the nation that evening and again on September 20, putting forth the Homeland Security Act and the often-questioned Patriot Act for Congress that next year. Kaczynski would remain quiet, writing his manifesto, but his cabin would be raided by FBI in April, tipped off by his brother David recalling letters and clippings from Ted about the dangers of technology. Given a highly publicized trial, Kaczynski would give his ideas of the problems with modern society, but his argument was drowned out by the horrors of his attack. Kaczynski would be specially executed in 1989, just after his unfinished manuscript was published but scarcely read.
Security became a prime issue for Americans, suddenly seeing it everywhere in post offices, lines with guards at all museums, monuments, and public buildings, and, especially, at airports. Reagan's VP Bush would handily win the 1988 and 1992 elections riding on the support of government during this time. CIA and FBI investigations would develop new techniques of watching for suspicious activities, such as deporting Ramzi Yousef in 1992 who had entered on questionable credentials and ordered chemicals in New York, arresting anarchist Timothy McVeigh in 1995 after buying inordinate amounts of fertilizer in Kansas, and deporting a number of Arabic men in 2000 that had taken flight lessons after CIA warnings of an airborne attack.
While many critics note that America has become something of a police state, secure feelings and a call for change gradually filtered into the public, evidenced by the 1996 election of Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton. After being blamed for the Recession, the Democrats would fall to a Republican takeover in 2002, leading to the landslide election of George W. Bush in 2004.
Entry posted by
Jeff Provine
© Jeff Provine, 2010-.Story Tags
Permalinks: Post, Day. Browse Thread: Jeff Provine Blog Source: Jeff Provine’s Blog Labels: 911, Terrorism, Unabomber, Kaczynski, Ronald Reagan. Editor says, in reality Ted Kaczynski would not attack again until 1993 after the 1987 murder of Hugh Scrutton. In 1995, he would ask that his completed, 35,000-word manifesto, "Industrial Society and Its Future", be published, promising that doing so would put an end to his terrorism. In 1996, aided by comparisons in writing style with essays supplied by his brother David, the Unabomber would be arrested and sentenced to life imprisonment. Terrorism, both domestic and international, continue to haunt modern America.
Comment from Dianne Castillo on Facebook: By mailing flights fast to the persons offices. Makes sense! :P
~ "Electromagnetic pulse"? From conventional explosives?
And I suspect a powerful explosion and subsequent fire would do quite enough damage.
I doubt, also. that a heightened xoncern for internal security due to the Unabomber would survive his death long enough to lock up the '92 election for Bush the elder, let alone to result in the deportation of the men who in opur history became the 9-11 hijackers. (Most likely, in any event, the Sept. 11 plot would have taken the prevailing security measures into accoount. Nothing is foolproof.)
~ Interesting! What if Aum Shinrikyo (the Tokyo sarin-gas guys) had decided to strike instead of Al-Qaeda? I bet that whereever he is, Shoko Asahara's kicking himself hard for not thinking of using jet aircraft as bombs, instead of tiddling around with tricky-to-make nerve gases.
~ All explosions give an EMP, though usually very small ones.
~ If enough of the victims and families became activists it could have a cascade effect. This is more plausible than most realize.
Editor says, what if a master manipulator ensured that the September 11th attacks backfired on al-Qaeda? 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 |
In 2001, passengers finally overpower the hijackers of American Airlines Flight 11, forcing their way into the cockpit at 8.43 am local time. The pilot, an al-Qaeda terrorist by the name of Mohamed Atta, loses control of the Boeing aircraft which glances off the North Tower of the World Trade Centre and crashes into the Mosque at 45-47 Park Place in Lower Manhattan (pictured).
September 11th attacks backfireMeanwhile onboard United Airlines Flight 93 the passengers are unable to prevent the terrorists from crashing the aircraft into the White House, killing the forty-third President, Al Gore.
By mid morning, the Executive Office is relocated to the residence of the Vice President, Number One Observatory Circle on the north-east grounds of the US Naval Observatory. The current holder of that auspicious office is a former trial lawyer perfectly familiar with the protocols established for succession under section one of the Twenty-fifth amendment to the US Constitution. And yet the secret of his remarkable success in achieving verdicts and settlements of more than $60m for his clients is much more than his professional mastery of Federal Law. A natural showman blessed with a winning smile and boyish good looks, John Edwards built a career upon his genius for winning over skeptical juries. Without delay, he is sworn in as the forty-fourth President, becoming the third office holder in less than nine months.
Sensing a one-off opportunity to charismatically redefine the crisis on his own terms, Edwards boards the Presidential helicopter known as Marine One and lands in Lower Manhattan just after 2pm local time. Pressed by New Yorkers for details of the government's response, he chooses to categorize the primary September 11th attack as the start of an internal Muslim feud rather than the direct result of an Islamic attack on the United States. To be continued..
Entry posted by Todayinah Editor
© Alternate Historian, 2006-.Story Tags
Permalinks: Post, Day. Browse Thread: Politicians Source: Wikipedia Labels: September 11th, Al-Qaeda, John Edwards, Al Gore, Osama Bin Laden. ~ yeah, I'd like to know what happens next. Does the US still get involved in Afghanistan? Is Iraq still invaded?
~ Now that can be just as plausible, I imagine, as the theory by a newscaster, of the Government staging the Commercial Jet that crashed into the Pentagon by stating the hole left was not large enough for the plane to have done so, coupled with the assumption was that it was a cruise missile: not bad but my advise is... Why not ask Bin Laden to become the next President because you have now put Al Gore in the hot seat and killed him off this may be a way to get rid of him too!!!!... John Balikoff
~ "President Al Gore killed." You sure know how to make my day, don't you?
~ Doubt this would fly, given that the NYC attack bounced off a much more obvioua target, but noting the harm done to Muslims may help on the PR front. Failure to attack Afghanistan would be a political impossibility (although Iraq was wholly avoidable).
~ I would've bought the evilness of John Edwards more if it was the psychic rather than the politician...
~ First off, the hardliners would either view the destruction of the American mosque as righteous because those American Molsems are ~liberal~ (not subscribing to Sharia) or claim that Atta was trying to stop the insane, Israeli-backed agents from destroying the mosque and was blamed for the incident for his troubles.
Second, there is no way on God's green Earth that the Secret Service would allow the President with 500 miles of Ground Zero within six hours of the attack. He would remain at the "undisclosed location" and give periodic statements.
Within a year the Republicans would be trying to smear him for his extra-marital affairs.
~ It should give a more united take on extremism rather than the simplistic anti-Islamic feeling on the ole Patriotic days.
~ There are too many indsependent divergences here for me. In calendar order, we have Gore's choice of Edwards rather than Lieberman as a running-mate; Gore's victory in the fall election (with or without controversy); and finally the planes hitting the mosque oin New York and the White House.
Re Eric Oppen's comment: Are you sure you'd have been happier with a President Edwards? (By the way, imagine how the far right would have reacted if it had been Lieberman rather than Edwards. Ah, the possibioities for conspiracy theorists.)
Editor says, what if the British had triumphed at Lake Champlain in 1814? 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 |
In 1814, on this day the American troops of Brigadier General Alexander Macomb (pictured) abandoned Lake Champlain. It was a decisive victory for the newly arrived British Army of Lieutenant General Sir George Prévost who split the New England states from the rest of the Union.
Disaster at Lake ChamplainTwo years before, the US Congress had been falsely informed that America was fighting the War of 1812 to secure her boundaries, namely "freedom of the seas" and relief from the incitement of native americans on its western frontier. Of course both war aims were objectives that could only be achieved by a forceful expression of military authority.
In reality, President James Madison had launched America's first war of expansion with the unrealistic expectation of annexing Canada. Such a decisive move would likely end the triangular security struggles in the north-east by forcing the British to finally accept the United States as a sovereign nation. Ironically, Benedict Arnold had come within a whisker of conquering Canada in 1775 when he had almost defeated a bigger British fleet to a standstill at the same location, on Lake Champlain. But the war had taken longer than expected and Madison's window of opportunity had been firmly closed now that America's long-term allies the French had been utterly crushed at Waterloo. Not only were the British surging with victory, they were able to release fresh forces to secure British North America. In Washington, it was even rumoured that none other than the victor of Waterloo, Duke of Wellington himself would be appointed Supreme Commander of British Forces in North America.
Had the outcome of the Battle of Lake Champlain been reversed, it was very possible that Great Britain might have finally accepted the United States as a sovereign nation. The trouble for Madison was that the British negotiators at Ghent could leverage Macomb's defeat to demand territorial claims against the United States on the basis of Uti possidetis by retaining territory they held at the end of hostilities. The second War of Independence had left America isolated, and at the mercy of a resurgent British Empire.
Entry posted by Todayinah Editor
© Ian Bickerton and Kenneth J. Hagan, "The US and the Unintended Consequences of War" published in History Today Magazine, January 2008 EditionStory Tags
Permalinks: Post, Day. Browse Thread: Alternate Nations Source: Wikipedia Labels: Plattsburgh, Lake Champlain, America, France, Britain. ~ So does Wellington become the butcher of Washington?
~ The thing was, the British had come to the conclusion that the US wasn't a bad deal for them---they had a lot of the same bennies they'd had with the colonies, but without having to spend money to defend them. This probably wouldn't change things a lot in the long run.
~ Agree with Eric for sure, the imperialists chief concern was payback hence France's chief concern upon the loss of Quebec was retaining fishing grounds off Newfoundland. My thoughts now are a) If Britain had won the War of 1812, could a more antagonist America havr arised under Andrew Jackson to seize Canada thus ending the British threat for all time b) what if Germany had been formed two centuries before, and the Anglo-French rivalry was non existent by the 1750s so that they kept their respective colonies in check as they did in Africa (spheres of influence arrangement in a sold of eighteenth century Cold War)? c) Britain was weakened and the respective forces of Spain, Holland and France were more equally matched?
~ In the event of a British victory in the War of 1812, I suspect the U.S. would have devoted a lot of effort to strengthening its military, perhaps developing a large standing army (and navy) in the first half of the 19th century, rather than in the 20th. This might well have had unfortunate effects on the development of democracy--imagine a "Prussianized" America dedicated to military might in the name of avenging its defeat and making itself fully secure against England and other European powers.
~ Agreed, a Congressional-Military-Industrial Complex appearing in the 1830s rather than displacing the British at the first time of asking, Americans rush to imperialism would have been brought forward perhaps by a century.
~ How does a small british force at Ticonderoga make the march past there to Albany and from there down the Hudson to NYC garrisoning it along the way? The idea is absurd in the context of how big an effort the UK was willing to make. Most of the New York militia was not willing to mobilize/fight in an invasion of Canada. Different thing if what is being invaded is New York state. As for splitting off New England - British probably could have done it had they been motivated to bother. New England had repented of a new nation now ruled by a Jeffersonian South + west coalition. See the Hartford Convention.
~ I think the suggestion of this ATL is not that Britain reconquers the United States, nor the stalemate of OTL, but rather in a reversal of sorts for James Madison because the war ends with a stronger British presence in North America even if that presence is not fatally threatening per se to Americas existence. The point about Wellington is as is says just a baseless rumour running around Washington.
Editor says, what if in the aftermath of 9/11 the goals of the administration were given such a narrow focus as to guarantee an immediate, successful outcome to move forward with the domestic agenda?
| Share this Article on: | Facebook | Twitter |
In 2001, during a masterful evening address to the American people from the Oval Office, and surrounded by multi-faith representatives, US President Jesse Jackson firmly ruled out a unilateral military response to 9/11 by contextualising the attacks as a criminal matter for international law enforcement.
Jackson's Quick Win Strategy by Todayinah Ed. & Eric OppenFirst reports intelligence clearly indicated that al Qaida was behind the operation, a Sunni Muslim terrorist group provided with a safe haven by Afghanistan's Taliban regime. Accordingly, the government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia had agreed to issue extradition orders for Osama Bin Laden, the chief suspect and an exiled Saudi national. Not only had Bin Laden founded the group, but also he was classified as a terrorist associated with numerous other mass casualty attacks against civilian targets. Yet Jackson wisely chose to label Bin Laden a criminal, rather than a terrorist.
By defining "the enemy" in such a short, clear formulation, the President provoked the incandescent fury of war-mongering neo-conservatives who sought a broader "War on Terror". Yet the party of war was wrong footed by the presentation of a single, but vital fact that the President articulated brilliantly during his address and would subsequently use as the doctrinal anchor point of his "Quick Win Strategy". The list of countries formally designated by the Office of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism (OCC) as sponsors of terrorism did include Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Sudan and Syria - but excluded Afghanistan. Bin Laden's command team were based at Tora Bora inside the cave complex along Afghanistan's mountainous eastern border. The extraction mission favoured by the Party of War was both "out of OCC scope" and also highly risky in such a challenging geography.
The World Community breathed a hugh, collective sigh of relief that cool heads had prevailed in Washington. By demonising Bin Laden as an "easy hate figure" Jackson had prevented religious anger being projected at the Islamic World by the Christian Right. And during the immediate aftermath of the attacks, massive international goodwill would be bolstered by support for this measured response from the Administration.
Moreover, with Bin Laden already considered an outlaw under sentence of death in Saudi Arabia, the Taliban would be left with absolutely no choice other than to grant what was universally considered a reasonable request from the principle's birth country. And in keeping with historic precedent. Because before the rise of terrorism, and as far back as the 1920s, the Saudis had worked successfully with the law enforcement agencies of fellow Middle Eastern States such as Jordan in order to apprehend such criminals.
Entry posted by Todayinah Editor
© War and Decision, Inside the Pentagon at the Dawn of the War on Terrorism by Douglas J. Feith, Under Secretary of Defence for PolicyStory Tags
Permalinks: Post, Day. Browse Thread: Politicians Source: Wikipedia Labels: Douglas Feith, Jesse Jackson, 911, America, War on Terror. Editor says, In the biography, Feith recounts ~ The President dealt with [the problem] by coining the term " war on terror", declaring in effect that the enemy was not a list of organisations and staes but certain inherently evil activities that included both terrorism and state support for terrorism. Though the term was imperfect, many commentators have noted the perculiarity of declaring war against a method of attack - I considered it an intelligent and useful stopgap that acknowledged the unprecented nature of the challenge represented by 9/11.
~ Emphasizing that Osama was already an outlaw under sentence of death in Saudi Arabia wouldn't have hurt, either. FWIW, the Saudis had problems with what we call "Islamists" as far back as the 1920s---Ibn Saud and the Jordanians had to collaborate to put them down.
~ I'm a tad confused... if Afghanistan are still under control of the Taliban, in this scenario, why would they hand over Bin Laden just because he is declared a "criminal" instead of a terrorist?
~ I don't know if they would...
~ I suspect it would take more than that.
My understanding is that the Clinton asdministration had tried and failed to persuade the Kabul regime to hand over bin Laden, either to the U.S. or to the Saudis. I'd want more details on how, in this timeline, Jackson (or anyone) changed their minds.
Comment from Jamie Driscoll on Facebook: There would be mass rioting in the streets across America that would make the LA riots look like a block party. To leave retaliation up to international law when the USA was attacked would be inexcusable. In my opinion.
Comment from Yul Tolbert on Facebook: As I often say about such things, that's just one of an infinite number of possibilities.
Comment from J Michael Antoniewicz II on Facebook: Considering Al Qaida interperted the U.S. pulling out of Somlia after a Blackhawk got knocked down by twanging the ever vulnerable tail rotor with a RPG as a failure of nerve of the U.S. Military and Government as a go for a major strike against the Great Satan that became 9/11.
A response like the one described here would have emboldend Al Qaida (with or without Bin Laden still in charge or even alive) to make an even larger and more devastating strike against the Great Satan and the Western World as a whole. Remember that by late 2001 Al Qaida had become diversifide across the world *and* had introduced the concept of "franchising" to Stateless Groups. Weather Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan could (or would) have apprehended Bin Laden and returned him to Saudi Arabia for beheading is very much up for question since by the time the 9/11 strike happened he had reloacated to Tora Bora and the odds of apprehending him were down in the single digits.
Plus, Jackson as Presedent?!?"
Comment from Brian Wall on Facebook: Shortly afterwards Congress begins impeachment proceedings.
In 2001, a United Airlines Boeing 757 jetliner designated Flight 93, bound from Newark International Airport to Tokyo by way of San Francisco, is hijacked by several members of the terrorist group Al Qaeda and diverted toward Washington, D.C. Cell phone calls from the passengers to loved ones indicate that the terrorists plan to deliberately crash the plane into the White House or the Capitol. The plane never reaches Washington. Instead, it crashes in an empty field just outside the town of Shanksville, Pennsylvania, 150 miles northwest of the U.S. capital. Investigators will later determine that the passengers and crew of the doomed plane had attempted to seize control of it from the terrorists, and that their captors had crashed the plane in Pennsylvania to prevent that from occurring. All 44 passengers are killed, along with the hijackers.Flight 93 by Eric LippsThe government will also learn, through interrogation of the Al Qaeda operatives arrested prior to the hijacking, that the seizure of Flight 93 was part of a much larger plan targeting not only the White House or Capitol but also the Pentagon and both towers of New York City's World Trade Center. The other planned hijackings had been aborted when airport security was tightened in August in response to warnings from intelligence operatives; the decision to proceed with what became the Flight 93 hijacking had been made only at the last minute, when Qaeda operatives found a hole in Newark International's newly tightened security screening.
President Gore, who had been visiting a school in Florida when news of the terrorist takeover and crash of Flight 93 reached him, cuts short his trip and returns immediately to Washington. FAA and FBI investigators are immediately dispatched to the crash site. Based on reports of what passengers had said via cell phone about the terrorists' objective, the Secret Service details of both the President and the Vice-President are placed on heightened alert, as part of a general security alert in Washington. Suggestions that the nation's two top elected officials go into hiding for their protection are, however, rejected. 'I cannot lead this nation from some fortress hidden in some undisclosed location,' explains the President. 'That's not how we do things in America. And if the day comes when that's how we have to do things, this country won't be America anymore.'
In New York, Mayor Rudolph Giuliani is not yet aware that his city was being targeted by the same people who brought down Flight 93. However, business operations in the World Trade Center and throughout the five boroughs slow down as distracted workers listen for fresh news of the tragedy.
Entry posted by
Eric Lipps
© Eric Lipps,2007-.Story Tags
Permalinks: Post, Day. Browse Thread: Gore Wins Source: Wikipedia Labels: Al Gore, Al Quaeda, 2000 Presidential Election, America, Politics.| United Nations Building | On this day in 1971, a group of New Yorkers desperate to escape the dying city attempted to fly a jet airliner out of the now-abandoned Kennedy Airport only to lose control of their plane somewhere over Manhattan and crash into the deserted United Nations headquarters. |
 | |
| New York City |
Entry posted by
Chris Oakley
© Chris Oakley,2008-.Story Tags
Permalinks: Post, Day. Browse Thread: Omega71 Source: Wikipedia Labels: Charlton Heston, Richard Nixon, Bioweapon, America, Cold War.In 1948, on this day the British stooge Muhammed Ali Jinnah Karachi died in Sind, Pakistan. | British Stooge |
 | |
| Muhammed Jinnah |
In his first visit to East Pakistan, Jinnah stressed that Urdu alone should be the national language; a policy that was strongly opposed. Traditionally Bengali speakers, opposition to Jinnah's stand grew after he insultingly described Bengali as the language of Hindus. |
Few individuals significantly alter the course of history. Fewer still modify the map of the world. Hardly anyone can be credited with destroying a nation-state. Mohammad Ali Jinnah did all three. 
Entry posted by Todayinah Editor
© Today in Alternate History, 2004-.Story Tags
Permalinks: Post, Day. Browse Thread: Religion Source: Wikipedia Labels: Urdu, Bengali, Pakistan, India, Subcontinent.In 2007, with the head-line 'Nigeria Deports Ojukwu' the BBC World Service reported ~ former Biafran Head of State Chukwuemeka Odumegwu Ojukwu has been deported within hours of returning from exile. | |
 | |
| Olusegun Obasanjo |
Mr Ojuwku says he wants to challenge the Caretaker Government of General Martin Luther Agwai. Mr Ojukwu had travelled to Nigeria weeks after the country's Supreme Court affirmed his right to return. On board the plane which flew him to Lagos from Abidjan, Mr Ojuwku told the BBC he wanted to help restore the rule of law. It's democracy versus dictatorship,' he said. |
Entry posted by Todayinah Editor
© Nigeria / Pakistan Military Government Crossover', Today in Alternate History, 2008.Story Tags
Permalinks: Post, Day. Browse Thread: Generals Source: BBC World Service Labels: Olusegun Obasanjo, Federal Republic of Nigeria, Martin Luther Agwai, Annulment, Military Government.
Entry posted by Todayinah Editor
© Today in Alternate History, 2004-.Story Tags
Permalinks: Post, Day. Browse Thread: Society Source: Wikipedia Labels: Social Opportunities, Reclusive Behaviour, Regression, Hidden Person, Geeks.'This is a milestone because it is the first time that these documents are being released by the Vatican, which gives a stamp of authority to the entire project,' said Professor Barbara Frale, a medievalist at the Vatican's Secret Archives.
'Nothing before this offered scholars original documents of the trials of the Templars,' she told Reuters in a telephone interview ahead of the official presentation of the work on October 25.
The epic comes in a soft leather case that includes a large-format book including scholarly commentary, reproductions of original parchments in Latin, and -- to tantalise Templar buffs -- replicas of the wax seals used by 14th-century inquisitors.
Speculation has arisen of a historic visit to Malta from Pope Benedict. An invitation from the Grand Master is yet to be issued, but there are understood to be no pre-conditions for such a visit.
Entry posted by Todayinah Editor
© Today in Alternate History, 2004-.Story Tags
Permalinks: Post, Day. Browse Thread: Religion Source: UK News Labels: Knights Templar, Papacy, Misconduct, Heresy, Disgrace.Entry posted by Todayinah Editor
© Today in Alternate History, 2004-.Story Tags
Permalinks: Post, Day. Browse Thread: Beasts Source: Today in Alternate History Labels: Lyncanthropy, Werewolves, Third Reich, Allied Invasion, Sadism.Entry posted by Todayinah Editor
© Today in Alternate History, 2004-.Story Tags
Permalinks: Post, Day. Browse Thread: Generals Source: Wikipedia Labels: Il Duce, Pietro Badoglio, Axis Powers Plus, Stresa Front, Fascist Italy.September 10
Editor says, in July, 751, both the Tang troops and the Abbasid troops met in the valley of the Talas River to fight for the mastery of Central Asia. What if the Karluk mercenaries had not switched to the Arab side in the middle of the battle? 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 February 2011 edition of Changing the Times Magazine.
| Share this Article on: | Facebook | Twitter |
In 751 AD, after three months of indirect encounters between the combatants, the Chinese Tang Dynasty in combination with their Ferghana allies and Karluk mercenaries finally prevailed over the Abbasid army at the Battle of Talas.
Gao Xianzhi captures Central AsiaEven though the mighty clash of civilizations halted Islamic expansion, the Chinese force was little more than a large raiding party. Two thirds of the Army was comprised of coalition forces under the supreme leadership of commander Gao Xianzhi (pictured).
Their opponents were the Abbasid Caliphate. After a revolt against the Umayyad Caliphate, largely centered in Khurasan, not too far from Talas, they decisevely defeated their rivals at the Battle of the Zab. This victory freed up their armies for other purposes, one of which would be challenge the Tang expansion into the region.
China had moved bodily westwards. But the great victory on the banks of the Talas river proved more significant than territorial expansion to the west by the Tang. The long term economic importance was control over this strategic region along the Silk Road.
Entry posted by Todayinah Editor
© Alternate Historian, 2004-.Story Tags
Permalinks: Post, Day. Browse Thread: Generals Source: Wikipedia Labels: Battle of Talas, China, Islam, Arab, Central Asia. Editor says, in this article we explore an idea from the Discussion Groups and repurpose content from Wikipedia which reports that "The Karluk forces deserted the Chinese coalition and changed to the Abbasid side during the course of the battle. With Karluk troops attacking the Tang army from close quarters and the main Abbasid forces attacking from the front, the Tang army was subjected to a devastating defeat. The Tang dynasty's defeat was due to the defection of Karluk mercenaries and the retreat of Ferghana allies who originally supported the Chinese".
~ Stronger Chinese influence in central Asia is quite probable, but I really doubt a state centered in the Han Chinese heartland could hold any actual control over lands any farther west at that point. And unless the Silk Road is redirected northward the Muslim world will continue to share in the profits.
Might be interesting if Buddhist missionaries make it to the Rus or points west and gain converts.
~ We'd definitely have a lot of cultural shift, but the Mongol surge down the road (unless wiped out by a Butterfly Effect) would scrub away a lot of political change.
Editor says, what if the Roman Republic had lost the Battle of Alesia? (in our timeline, the battle marking the end of Celtic dominance in France, Belgium, Switzerland and Northern Italy). 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 |
In 52 BC, on this day at the Battle of Alesia the Gallic tribes united under the leadership of Vercingetorix of the Averni defeated an army of the Roman Republic commanded by Gaius Julius Caesar.
Battle of AlesiaBad weather conditions had seriously delayed the crossing of the Alps allowing the Gallic Tribes extra time to reinforce the oppidum. These additional troops were decisive, because at the climax of the battle, Caesar attempted to attack the relief army from the rear. He was killed as his Cavalry charge failed, and Commander Mark Antony lead the survivors back to the comparative tranquility of Transalpine Gaul.
The defeat accelerated the collapse of the Republic. The clear winner of the ensuing civil war was Mark Anthony, who as dictator/consul refocused Roman ambition on the invasion of Parthia.
Entry posted by Todayinah Editor
© Alternate Historian, 2004-.Story Tags
Permalinks: Post, Day. Browse Thread: Generals Source: Wikipedia Labels: Battle of Alesia, Rome, Gaul, Vercingetorix , Caesar. Editor says, in reality Caesar launched a desperate attack from the rear on the relief army measure and took 13 cavalry cohorts (about 6,000 men). The article repurposes content from both Alternate History and also Wikipedia.
~ I think you mean "comparative tranquility of *Cisalpine* Gaul." Fixed - thanks. Ed Wars against Parthia were financed with gold taken from the Gauls. The Romans would have been back to Transalpine Gaul very quickly. They had been invaded by the Gauls too many times to allow that threat to rest. perhaps Pompey or Agripa would have done it, or both. In any case, Judea would have been left alone until long after the job was finished, perhaps for more than another century, which means...
~ The Gauls would shortly have been fighting among themselves. They had all sorts of gifts, but the gift of getting along with each other was one they did lack.
~ However, a defeat like this one for Caesar might have sapped his political support, perhaps enough to prevent his becoming emperor-which would have had all sorts of repercussions, since even the calendar we use today is a modified version of one Caesar imposed.
~ Having Caesar killed in battle would have definately sapped his political support. And as he didn't impose his calendar until 45 BC, we might not see anything like a Julian Calendar for several centuries - maybe not until a Gregorian calendar 1500 years later.
~ I heartily agree it would hasten the fall of the Republic. Mark Antony and Brutus and Cato and the lot might try to hold things together, but the petty factionalism and bureaucracy made too much room for legal corruption. They needed a Caesar (and in many ways a revolutionary civil war) to clear out the cogs. Good thing modern powers aren't set with massive debts, inconsequential promises on treaties, lopsided economies, more politicking than leadership, and needless red tape... right?
Editor says, what if Hitler had conquered Britain in a mirror universe? 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 March 2012 edition of Changing the Times Magazine.
| Share this Article on: | Facebook | Twitter |
In 1942, while walking home to the Surrey village of Foxton after visiting a longtime friend, retired British tradesman James Blunt was startled to find a weatherbeaten-looking diary book in the woods near his backyard.
Chance Encounter Part #1He was further surprised to find the diary contained dozens of entries made in a handwriting eerily resembling his own; what truly shocked him, however, was that the content of these entries described the life of another James Blunt living in a Britain under Nazi occupation and were dated September of 1944 through March of 1945. Convinced he was having a mental breakdown, Blunt immediately sought psychiatric help.
But in reality Blunt had come briefly in contact with a parallel world in which the Nazis had succeeded in invading and conquering Great Britain in 1940. British journalist and author H.V. Morton, intrigued by Blunt's experiences, began to investigate further; his inquiries led to the publication of the biography I, James Blunt in 1943. Morton's book was an instant bestseller in Great Britain and also enjoyed considerable popularity in the United States and Canada. Hollywood mogul Louis B. Mayer bought the film rights to Morton's book in 1945; in 1948 MGM's movie adaptation of Blunt would play to packed audiences at movie theaters worldwide.
The discovery of the diary by Blunt's counterpart in the Nazi-occupied parallel Britain would serve as the chief catalyst for a global surge of interest in the subject of alternate history and the concept of parallel (or "mirror") universes; by 1954 some four dozen government, academic, and corporate agencies were actively researching ways to make contact with these alternate worlds. James Blunt would serve as a consultant to one such project at Oxford until he died in 1965 at the age of eighty-two. In 1983, as part of ceremonies marking the centennial of Blunt's birthday, Oxford would rechristen its main physics laboratory Blunt Hall.
Entry posted by
Chris Oakley
© Chris Oakley,2008-.Story Tags
Permalinks: Post, Day. Browse Thread: Chance Encounter Source: Wikipedia Labels: Nazi, Great Britain, Adolf Hitler, James Blunt, England. ~ This would make things very interesting indeed. I wonder how it would go for OTL people who were named in the Blunt Diary as collaborators in the other world?
~ I believe that scary AH is scary because the scenario is so plausible. A fascist America? Very possible, even now.
~ But brace yourself for a flood of complaints that Hitler's conquest of Britain was NOT plausible, that neither Operation Sea Lion nor anything like it could possibly have succeeded because the Reich simply did not have the resources. I don't agree, but I've heard this sort of thing.
~ The economic benefits of contacting alternate worlds would be enormous, selling iPads to billions instead of millions. Could be problematic if we came across a world wishing to invade.
Editor says, what if Adam and Eve had condemned evil to death? 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 September 2011 edition of Changing the Times Magazine.
| Share this Article on: | Facebook | Twitter |
In 4003 BC, on this day in the Garden of Eden God discovered the strangled body of the accursed snake laying dead at the feet of the wide-eyed humans, Adam and Eve.
Guilt TripSpeaking with new-found confidence that bordered on dismissiveness, Adam quickly explained that he had arrived just in time to prevent Eve tasting fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Although unspoken, both God and Adam were aware that such an act of disobedience surely would have caused mankind to fall from Grace.
Feeling the parental urge to impress his authority upon his children, but keen to avoid a senseless argument, God decided it was best to temporarily withdraw from the situation with a low-key reminder of his seniority - by ordering the burial of the snake.
"Dont wait for God, save yourself" ~ Johnny RottenStepping outside, God summoned Uriah and ordered him to defend the Garden. Lighting up a cigarette on the flaming sword, God deeply thought the matter over with the clarity of mind that only tobacco can bring. In his mind he could hear the humans talking about him with little sense of respect. Flushed with rage, he realised his ears were burning. Stamping out the butt, now beginning to feel the first stirrings of furious wrath, he returned to inform Adam and Eve that they had gone too far. However, he discovered that they had already departed, heading East.
Some time later that evening, the orchard burnt down. God suspected that the humans were the culprits, although it was quite possible Uriah had accidentally done so with his flaming sword. Uriah remained quiet, although he held his own private suspicion that the fire had been caused by the unextinguished butt. Carefree, Adam and Eve watched the sun go down, and made out. HARD.
Entry posted by Todayinah Editor
© Alternate Historian, 2004-.Story Tags
Permalinks: Post, Day. Browse Thread: Religion Source: Wikipedia Labels: Adam, Eve, Satan, Tree of Life, Tree of Knowledge. ~ Theologically, they're still in a state of grace having not eaten the fruit and thusly immortal, but on their own. Cain & Abel won't have to fight over jealousy of God's preference, at least.
~ And the snake died how? Strangled, I changed the text to cover this gap - thanks. Ed
~ What will the preachers find to make people feel guilty about, without Original Sin? Burning the Orchard down, I guess?
~ The fat broad smacked her with her club. Don't you read B.C.?
Adam and Eve decide since they live in an untainted world and can't die, who needs God? 400 years later, as the surface of the planet seethes with starving, undying descendents (AND Adam AND Eve) it doesn't seem so clever.
~ This was a funny one LOL
~ But, these humans would find their own solutions - they've already proved more self-sufficient than the mainline Adam & Eve...
Editor says, what if Quentin Tarantino's movie was banned in Germany? 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 |
In 2009, on this day the German board of censors banned the screening of Quentin Tarantino's Jewish revenge movie "Once upon a Time in Nazi-Occupied Europe".
Watch the Youtube Clip 
Once upon a TimeThe censor's decision was just one of a series of obstructive measures taken by German authorities who sought to prevent the making of the movie. In fact, they nearly succeeded.
During casting, Tarantino had been prevented from hiring German actors.
"What a tremendously hostile world that a rat must endure. Yet not only does he survive, he thrives. Because our little foe has an instinct for survival and preservation second to none... And that Monsieur is what a Jew shares with a rat".As a result, the film featured Daniel Cesar Martin Bruhl Gonzalez Domingo, Christoph Waltz and Michael Fassbender, respectively a Spanish-born German, an Austrian and an Anglo-Irish born in Heidleberg.
Because a decade after the Fall of the Third Reich, the true extent of the Jewish Holocaust is still a matter of bitter controversy in Germany.
Entry posted by Todayinah Editor
© "Inglorious Basterds", Quentin Tarantino (2009).Story Tags
Permalinks: Post, Day. Browse Thread: Movies Source: Wikipedia Labels: Quentin Tarantino, Christoph Waltz, Brad Pitt, Inglorious Basterds, A Band Apart. Editor says, Universal Pictures's German publicity site was censored as the display of Nazi iconography is illegal in Germany. The title has the German Swastika removed and the Stahlhelm helmet has a bullet hole instead of the Nazi symbol. The download section of the German site was also revised to exclude wallpaper downloads that feature the Swastika openly.
~ If the Reich had only fallen in 1999 or thenabouts, evidence of the Holocaust would be difficult to find.
~ Kind of like in Fatherland...
~ TL needs to be fleshed out. How did it fall? How big was it? The game the Nazis played from Barbarossa onwards was rule or ruin. Kind of hard to see a detente. So the POD has to be earlier which gets to how much earlier and which POD.
~ A flippant answer to Scott's question would be the PODs explored by Harry Turtledove and Robert Harris (see Davids point above) however, I did note that Heinrich Himmler was not present at the premiere, so perhaps the war doesnt end, Himmler seizes the leadership. Obviously this would assume no Barbarossa as Scott says, which is tricky since Nations Pride shows fighting in Italy i.e. after the Invasion of Sicily. Consequently, the POD I have in mind is Nations Pride takes place during the Fall of France, and the movie is made before the summer of 1941.
On this day in 2011, representatives of the Bournmouth Meteor Disaster Historical Center presented New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg (pictured) with a plaque dedicated by the citizens of Bournemouth to the victims of the World Trade Center attacks; from there, the delegation traveled to Washington to give a similar plaque to U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta in memory of those killed at the Pentagon on 9/11.. | |
 | |
Since 9/11 a "sister city" relationship had existed between Bournemouth and New York, started by a December 2001 fundraising drive among Bournemouth schoolchildren to help the survivors of the attacks and solidified in May of 2003 when Bloomberg's predecessor as New York mayor, Rudy Giuliani, visited Bournemouth to attend memorial services commemorating the 35th anniversary of the 1968 meteor strike. |
Entry posted by
Chris Oakley
© Chris Oakley,2008-.Story Tags
Permalinks: Post, Day. Browse Thread: Bournmouth 1968 Source: Wikipedia Labels: Michael Bloomberg, Bournemouth Meteor Disaster Historical Center, New York, Major, Rudy Giuliani. ~ Sorry to be a pest, but shouldn't the above post be included in this thread?: http://www.todayinah.co.uk/index.php?userid=guest@todayinah.co.uk&thread=Bournmouth_1968
On this day in 1968, representatives from the United States and Russia met in Paris to begin negotiations on an agreement for the reduction and eventual elimination of nuclear weapons stockpiles by the two world powers. | |
 | |
The proposed accord, formally known as the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty (SALT), would be ratified by both countries in the summer of 1969 and signed by Great Britain and France in 1970; China would sign the pact following the death of Mao Zedong in 1976. |
Entry posted by
Chris Oakley
© Chris Oakley,2008-.Story Tags
Permalinks: Post, Day. Browse Thread: Ground Zero Murmansk Source: Wikipedia Labels: Russia, Great Britain, America, Soviet Union, Lech Walesa.In 1951, on this day the Golden Gate Bridge, weakened by the seismic disturbances which had been plaguing northern California since the Bellus-Zyra collision, collapsed into San Francisco Bay; the death toll was 27 people, mostly federal relief workers delivering food and fuel to Oakland, and the body count might have been much higher had it not been for Governor Earl Warren's executive order barring non-essential civilian traffic from the bridge. | Governor |
 | |
| Earl Warren |
Variant entry posted by
Chris Oakley
original content has been repurposed to celebrate the author's genius © "When World's Collide" (1932), Philip Gordon Wylie and Edwin BalmerStory Tags
Permalinks: Post, Day. Browse Thread: Worlds Collide Source: Wikipedia Labels: Worlds Collide, Harry Truman, Israel, America, Disaster.| USAF B-29 | On this day in 1953, US Air Force B-29s bombed Soviet military bases in East Germany as the NATO-Soviet war in Europe intensified. |
 | |
| Superfortress |
Entry posted by
Chris Oakley
© Chris Oakley,2008-.Story Tags
Permalinks: Post, Day. Browse Thread: Korea53 Source: Wikipedia Labels: Korean War, Cold War, Korea, Communism, America."God, don't let me die. I have so much to do". ~ Huey Long, fearing for his life after a bodyguard shot him by accident. | The Kingfish |
 | |
| Huey Long |
Long had called for a third special session of the Louisiana State Legislature, and he travelled from Washington to Baton Rouge to oversee its progress. On September 8, 1935 Carl Austin Weiss attempted to punch Long in the Capitol building at Baton Rouge. Weiss was immediately shot some thirty times by Long's bodyguards and police on the scene, and a bullet from one of the bodyguards inflicted a non-fatal wound on the Senator. |
Variant entry posted by Todayinah Editor
original content has been repurposed to celebrate the author's genius © Barry N. Malzberg, 'Kingfish'.Story Tags
Permalinks: Post, Day. Browse Thread: Personalities Source: Wikipedia Labels: Huey Long, Kingfish, Every man a king, Louisiana, Premature Death.Long had called for a third special session of the Louisiana State Legislature, and he travelled from Washington to Baton Rouge to oversee its progress. On September 8, 1935 Carl Austin Weiss attempted to punch Long in the Capitol building at Baton Rouge. Weiss was immediately shot some thirty times by Long's bodyguards and police on the scene, and a bullet from one of the bodyguards inflicted a non-fatal wound on the Senator.
Fearing for his life, Long was quoted as saying "God, don't let me die. I have so much to do".
In Kingfish, journalist Barry N. Malzberg describes how Long became president in 1936 by stealing away FDR's vice-president.
Transcripts of interviews of are included in which John Nance Gardner tells how he struck a deal with the Kingfish, and then how they dealt with Hitler by inviting him to America and then murdering him. A synopsis of Weiss's assault is described at Wikipedia
Variant entry posted by
Barry Malzberg
original content has been repurposed to celebrate the author's genius © Barry N. Malzberg, 'Kingfish'.Story Tags
Permalinks: Post, Day. Browse Thread: Generals Source: Uchronia Labels: Huey Long, Kingfish, John Nance Gardner, Assassination, Premature Death.Entry posted by
Padraigh ProAmerica
© Padraigh ProAmerica , 2007.Story Tags
Permalinks: Post, Day. Browse Thread: Generals Source: Google Discussion Group Labels: Richard Nixon, Robert MacNamara, John F Kennedy, 1964 Election, America.The caretaker government of General Martin Luther Agwai was put into place by General Olusegun Obasanjo. The action follows Obasanjo's annulment of the 24th April elections. The election was won by state governor Umaru Yar'Adua, who was declared the winner, with more than 70 per cent of the vote causing a massive popular uproar. The official results of Nigeria's election came as a surprise to no one.
This is the second annulment in fourteen years, ironically Obasanjo was himself a victim of the 1993 annulment by Sani Abacha.
Entry posted by Todayinah Editor
© Nigeria / Pakistan Military Government Crossover', Today in Alternate History, 2008.Story Tags
Permalinks: Post, Day. Browse Thread: Generals Source: BBC World Service Labels: Olusegun Obasanjo, Federal Republic of Nigeria, Martin Luther Agwai, Annulment, Military Government.Entry posted by Todayinah Editor
© Today in Alternate History, 2004-.Story Tags
Permalinks: Post, Day. Browse Thread: Crises Source: Wikipedia Labels: U.S. Homeland Security Advisory System, Homeland Security , High Condition, Korean, 911.Entry posted by Todayinah Editor
© Richard M. Langworth, 'If Chamberlain had not lost the Battle for Britain', 1995.Story Tags
Permalinks: Post, Day. Browse Thread: Generals Source: Wikipedia Labels: New France, Robert Taschereau, British Empire, British Canada, World War 2.Entry posted by Todayinah Editor
© Today in Alternate History, 2004-.Story Tags
Permalinks: Post, Day. Browse Thread: Generals Source: Wikipedia Labels: Il Duce, Pietro Badoglio, Axis Powers Plus, Stresa Front, Fascist Italy.Entry posted by Todayinah Editor
© Today in Alternate History, 2004-.Story Tags
Permalinks: Post, Day. Browse Thread: Zionism Source: Wikipedia Labels: Colonia Lapin, Jewish Homeland, Palestine, Baron Maurice de Hirsch, Jewish Colonization Association .Entry posted by Todayinah Editor
© Today in Alternate History, 2004-.Story Tags
Permalinks: Post, Day. Browse Thread: Generals Source: Google Answers Labels: British Mandate in Palestine, Balfour Declaration, Zionism, Israel, Palestine.September 9
Editor says, what if the Danes had failed to gain control of Norway? 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 2012 edition of Changing the Times Magazine.
| Share this Article on: | Facebook | Twitter |
In 999, on this day King Olaf Tryggvason consolidated the unification of Norway into a single state by defeating an alliance of enemies at a naval battle fought in the western Baltic Sea.
Glorious Norwegian Victory at the Naval Battle of SvolderSvein Forkbeard, King of Denmark, Olof Skötkonung, King of Sweden, and Eirik H´konarson, Jarl of Lade had ambushed the Norwegians at they sailed home from an expedition to Wendland. Although heavily outnumbered, the un-coordinated commands of the allies had caused confusion and Olaf managed to exploit this weakness, taking a fast moving offensive approach1 to inflict significant damage before pulling off a masterful escape. This tactic was a complete break with the traditional system of thinking; the allies had expected him to adopt a defensive posture, lashing his ships together to form a floating fort.
Entry posted by Todayinah Editor
© Alternate Historian, 2004-.Story Tags
Permalinks: Post, Day. Browse Thread: Generals Source: Wikipedia Labels: Svolder, Olaf Tryggvason, Norway, Denmark, Viking. Editor says, in reality he did adopt a defensive approach [1], they were defeated and the victorious leaders split Norway into areas of control. In authoring this post, we have repurposed content from Wikipedia.
~ I always thought "lash the ships together" was insane. A longship's strengths were speed and agility.
~ A whole shift in the formation of northern Europe. Who knows how it could impact the formation of England 67 years later?
Editor says, what if Rome had been spared the agony of the five successors? 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 September 2012 edition of Changing the Times Magazine.
| Share this Article on: | Facebook | Twitter |
In 337 AD, on this day Flavius Julius Crispus succeeded his late father Constantine the Great (pictured) as Roman Emperor.
Roman Emperor Flavius Julius CrispusAnd Constantine II, Constantius II and Constans, Delmatius and Hannibalianus fully assumed their senior "collegiate" leadership positions within the Hexarchy. This succession plans for the new power structure of the Dominate had been carefully laid since 326 when the intrigue of his mother Helena Augusta had been exposed by his wife Fausta Flavia Maxima.
Although it was a refinement of the Diocletian System that Constantine I had helped destroy, the accomodation of four siblings and two nephews had present a mighty challenge for him. In practice it was even more totalitarian in nature, and by accident rather than design, he had installed a future-proofed governance structure which substituted rivalry for nepotism. Needless to say, at the cost the memory of freedom and liberty in the minds of the Roman citizens.
Entry posted by Todayinah Editor
© Alternate Historian, 2004-.Story Tags
Permalinks: Post, Day. Browse Thread: Politicians Source: Wikipedia Labels: Constantine, Crispus, Fausta, Helena, Rome. Editor says, in reality Constantine II, Constantius II, and Constans I succeed their father Constantine I as co-emperors and the Roman Empire was divided between the three Augusti.. In authoring this post, we have repurposed content from Wikipedia.
~ Was he a Christian, and if so, of what flavor? It would be a bit of a hoot if he turned out to be a secret closet pagan like the later Julian.
~ I suspect that by this timr, "freedom and liberty" (such as they had ever been in Rome) were more legends than memories in the mnds of Roman citizens. The ascension of Juliis Caesar and then Octavian/Augustus to the emperorship pretty well destroyed them in practice in the first century BCE, and they ever recovered.
~ Jefferson wrote of needing to have a revolution every generation. Could the framework survive and revolutions in economics, technology, or arts be more happily performed?
Editor says, what if FDR had lost his re-election bid in 1936? The Point of Divergence for this article is the earlier failure of his plan to pack the US Supreme Court with pro-New Deal Justices. 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 December 2011 edition of Changing the Times Magazine.
| Share this Article on: | Facebook | Twitter |
In 1887, on this day the thirty-third President of the United States Alfred Mossman ("Alf") Landon was born in West Middlesex, Pennsylvania.
President Landon BornHe grew up in Marietta, Ohio before moving with his family to Kansas at age seventeen. After graduating from the University of Kansas in 1908, he first pursued a career in banking, but in 1912 he became an independent petroleum producer in Independence, Kansas. During World War I, Landon served in the Army as a first lieutenant in chemical warfare. By 1929 the oil industry had made him a millionaire.
Elected 26th Governor of Kansas in 1932, he gained a reputation for reducing taxes and balancing the budget. Because of his willingness to address the needs of his Depression-battered state while still advancing the Party, he was the only Republican governor in the nation to be re-elected in 1934. This standout achievement enabled Landon to rise to the leading position as the Presidential Candidate despite the opposition of a faction led by Herbert Hoover. And sure enough Landon won the nomination on the first ballot (the convention selected Chicago newspaper publisher Frank Knox as his running mate).
His frustrated opponent Franklin D. Roosevelt had endured a torrid time since assuming office in 1932. Instead of launching an ambitious one hundred day programme, he had been drawn into a dirty political fight with the US Supreme Court who had overturned the majority of his "New Deal" legislation. Obviously, his lack of results made FDR acutely vulnerable to Landon's candidature. However the event that really swung the election was the embarrassing spectacle of the very public failure of his plan to pack the Court with pro-New Deal Justices.
Entry posted by Todayinah Editor
© Alternate Historian, 2004-.Story Tags
Permalinks: Post, Day. Browse Thread: Politicians Source: Wikipedia Labels: Alf Landon, FDR, Thirties, Presidency, America. Editor says, in this post we explore an article on the Alternate History Discussion Board and repurpose content from Wikipedia.
~ How would he have handled the Second World War, I'd like to know?
~ Isolationism is my first guess. Even war with Japan might not bring us into European connections post-war.
~ Not sure even the then deeply conservative Supreme Court would have been eager to pick a fight with FDR so early--and even if so, they'd have had to wait until appropriate cases came before them, just as in our history.
Editor says, what if Varus had won the Battle of the Teutoburg Forest? 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 December 2011 edition of Changing the Times Magazine.
| Share this Article on: | Facebook | Twitter |
In 9 CE, on this day three legions under the command of Legatus Augusti pro praetore Publius Quinctilius Varus narrowly escaped destruction in an ambush set by an alliance of Germanic tribes led by the treacherous Arminius of the Cherusci.
Roman Legions escape the Teutoburg AmbushArminius had lived in Rome as a hostage in his youth, where he had received a military education, and even been given the rank of Equestrian. After his return he became a trusted advisor to Varus, but in secret he forged an alliance of Germanic tribes that had been defeated by Caesar at the Battle of Vosges.
While Varus was on his way to the winter headquarters near the Rhine, he heard reports of a local rebellion, fabricated by Arminius. Varus decided to quell this uprising immediately and take a detour through territory unfamiliar to the Romans. Arminius, who accompanied Varus, directed him along a route that would facilitate an ambush.
Fortunately, a Cheruscan nobleman, Segestes, father of Arminius' wife, and opposed to the marriage, warned Varus the night before the departure of the Roman forces. Initially dismissed as the result of a personal feud, Arminius wisely decided to raise friendly Germanic forces before entering the forest.
Nevertheless, Arminius had succeeded in ending the Roman ambition for expansion into northern Europe. And therefore the long-term consequence of this hard-fought Roman victory was the establishment of a natural boundary between Latin- and Germanic-speaking area of Western Europe.
Entry posted by Todayinah Editor
© Alternate Historian, 2004-.Story Tags
Permalinks: Post, Day. Browse Thread: Generals Source: Wikipedia Labels: Romans, Germans, Teutoburg Forest, Latin, Arminius. Editor says, in this article we explore an original idea on the Total War Forums and repurpose significant amounts of content from the Wikipedia web site which concludes ~ "Despite numerous successful campaigns and raids by the Roman army over the Rhine in the years after the battle, the Romans were to make no more concerted attempts to conquer and permanently hold Germania beyond the river".
~ I think that in many ways this would make many real differences. Firstly I doubt that anyone would attach any significance to the event now, it would be totally insignificant, some jumped up German tried an ambush. It is only important now because it did succeed and the consequences it caused.
Firstly the Romans had some control over Germany by this time, they were putting in place the infrastructure of rule, client kings, etc. What held them back was the terrain, the forested territory was the least effective theatre for Roman troops. They needed time to clear this forest and found sufficient cities, roads, etc to get Germany under control. The Varus disaster occured as this process was in its infancy and therefore strangled Roman rule at birth. The loss of the legions was not only a huge loss of about 10% of the entire Roman legionary establishment, but also shattered the idea of Roman invincibility built up over decades of Roman victories in Gaul and Germany. The Germans learned that they could beat the Romans in wooded terrain and thus the Romans became unlikely to ever conquer Germany.
With no disaster in 9AD the Romans would likely have time to develop their control. With Arminius dead a powerful message would be sent to turncoats that they could not simply abandon Roman service and live. Other potential rebels might flee or decide to cast their lot in with Rome. The time gained would allow the Romans to really get into the Rhineland and establish a Romanised zone of sufficient depth and size to influence the whole of Germany. Land clearance would turn this region into something not unlike Gaul and the message could go out to Germans that Roman rule had significant advantages in material terms. The Romans would probably have been able to extend their rule east to the enxt significant line, the Elbe, or even to the Oder or Vistula. Of course as things got further east the same issues would appear again.
The Romans showed their ability to realise when they had overextended themselves and set sensible borders. They could do so at the Elbe and greatly shorten their own internal lines and create a far easier and more manageable border in eastern Europe. The Rhine, whilst a large river proved no obstacle to the barbarians once they decided to breach it in the 3rd century.
This shorter border would allow the Roman military to stretch further, with a shorter line to defend. They could possibly conquer all of Britain and Ireland, which they should have been able to do anyway but did not do. The extra availability of forces would make this more possible and the conquest of Germany would give them added confidence in far-flung barbarian regions. Once achieved this conquest would require few troops to maintain as long as the natives were Romanised.
Another benefit would be that the Germans would be split and weakened, the great tribal confederations of later centuries would be impossible as so many Germans would be under German rule. There would be no great linguistic bloc to cause a thorn to Rome in the east. The steppe people to the east would be too spread out and the Scandinavians too few in number and also subsumed to some extent by the ROman conquest of Germany. Later movements of Huns, Avars, etc would not have a large populace to displace into Roman lands and would be easier to oppose.
All in all I think a successful Roman conquest of Germany would have resulted in a stronger and more durable Roman empire that might have achieved what the Chinese empire did and become more or less a permanent fixture.
~ In general I agree with Christopher Lee, the loss of the legions was a major blow to Roman prestige and social order, before then they appeared to be unstoppable. With a win at the ambush there is no way that they would have retreated from Germany as they did OTL, if anything extra forces would have been deployed to subjugate the territory up to the Rhine completely for a generation, clear what forests needed to be cleared for intensive Roman style agriculture and build the infrastructure needed to lock Germania into the Empire for good. Once they proved out the methods on how to add dense forestland to the Empire nothing would stop further expansion eastward except for the climate change which takes place from Maritime to Continental climate. Roman crops and techniques from the Mediterranean region work well enough in Gaul and Britain and even in Denmark because the sea moderates thew northern climate a great deal. Once you get as far as the Oder river the maritime effect grows weak and further east it ceases completely. The climate zone differences would hamper expansion further eastward from the Oder until such time as the Romans developed other crops and techniques for their agricultural system.
~ Respectfully you folk missed a few key pieces. Absent Varus's defeat Tiberius does not squeeze as hard in Pannonia. Absent that you do not get the Pannonian Revolt,
~ Would the Romans really have wanted to conquer Germania even if Arminius' ambush hadn't worked so very well? There was no gold there.
~ According to at least two of my Classics profs, Augustus would go around banging his head and saying, "Varus, give me back my legions!" So many military headaches could have been solved with these legions able. I concur on the idea of a much longer lasting Empire. While Germany didn't have much in natural wealth at the time, the Romans would do well with a buffer-state. The question on the other side, however, is how much influence of German culture would come into Rome?
Please click hyperlink for Yahoo! Groups Discussion comments.
Editor says, what if America had refused to buy the territory of Louisiana? 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 September 2011 edition of Changing the Times Magazine.
| Share this Article on: | Facebook | Twitter |
In 1803, on this day the US Senate began the impeachment trial of President Samuel Adams as a result of irreconcilable disagreement over the future of the Republic that had been forced into the open by the "Louisiana Question".
Louisiana Question By Ed, Jeff Provine & Scott PalterThe party of opposition was led by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison who had been broadly committed to the counter-intuitive argument for a "larger republic" since the publication of the Federalist Papers. Privately, they held misgivings that the acquisition would erode states' rights by increasing federal executive power. Perhaps their position would have been different had the Democratic-Republicans won the 1800 Presidential Election but in the event partisan interest tipped the balance and they decided to oppose the Executive.
The President had many sound reasons for refusing to purchase the territory, not the least being that the legal interpretation of the treaties between France and Spain was of the opinion that Louisiana was not Napoleon's to sell. Moreover politicians were concerned that the acquisition would take power away from the seaboard. And finally, there was the spectre of a continental empire, a sinister reflection of the larger republic welcomed by Jefferson and Madison.
Entry posted by Todayinah Editor
© Alternate Historian, 2004-.Story Tags
Permalinks: Post, Day. Browse Thread: Religion Source: Wikipedia Labels: Louisiana, James Madison, Napoleon, Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Adams. Editor says, in reality the Louisiana Purchase encompassed all or part of fifteen current U.S. states and two Canadian provinces. The land purchased contained all of present-day Arkansas, Missouri, Iowa, Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, parts of Minnesota that were west of the Mississippi River, most of North Dakota, nearly all of South Dakota, northeastern New Mexico, northern Texas, the portions of Montana, Wyoming, and Colorado east of the Continental Divide, and Louisiana west of the Mississippi River, including the city of New Orleans. In addition, the Purchase contained small portions of land that would eventually become part of the Canadian provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan. The purchase, which doubled the size of the United States, comprises around twenty-three percent of current U.S. Territory.
~ Any POTUS at the time would have leaped at the chance to purchase the Territory. Even without that, the pressure of settlement would have made it American, in much the way Texas was, later on.
~ And ifthe Purchase had been rejected, the U.S. would almost certainly have ended up taking the territory at gunpoint, perhaps a bit at a time, or purchasing some or all of it later.
~ It is probable that, without a formal purchase, US settlers would spread across the Mississippi. I just wonder if political control from Washington is inevitable or if various local republics would spring up....
~ An interesting question would be what led Samuel Adams to be elected and what would his temperament offer for such a job? I think he was more a revolutionary than a statesman.
~ No purchase would definitely not stop settlement, and we'd be looking at a war with France/Spain shortly thereafter. 1812, perhaps?
Editor says, what if the Imperial German Army captured Paris in 1914? muses Jeff Provine on This Day in Alternate History 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 September 2010 edition of Changing the Times Magazine.
| Share this Article on: | Facebook | Twitter |
In 1914, the opening battles of the World War had been sweeping victories for the German offensive. As they pressed past the Marne in early September, the British Expeditionary Force and the French Army fell back in covered retreats. Several of the German army commanders began to swerve to the southeast in pursuit of the Allies, but Chief of Staff Hulmuth von Moltke pushed them to aim directly for the war's goal: Paris.
Battle of Paris Begins Keeping lines tight, the Germans held the Eastern Flank and pressed west. The Allies launched a massive counter-attack on September 6 directly for General von Kluck's First Army. For two days, the Germans held and slaughtered oncoming Allied troops. On the 9th, the tide of battle turned, and von Kluck led fresh reinforcements in the press into Paris.
A new story by Jeff ProvineThe week-long battle of Paris would cost hundreds of thousands of lives on both sides with bloody and unpredictable urban warfare. The French government would flee along with many of the civilians to Orl?ans, protected by French soldiers ferried by the famous Parisian taxicabs as they had been since the days of the Marne. Once Paris was taken on the 17th, the Germans assumed the French would call for armistice as they had in the Franco-Prussian War. However, seeing German troops in Paris only caused French nationalism to soar and thousands new soldiers to surge to the battlefield.
As the German advance ended, a Race to the Sea began with battles and trenches moving northward through France until reaching Amiens and then following the Somme to the English Channel. By winter, the Germans had secured Belgium and both sides sat down for a stalemate. While the Allies calculated their moves in the spring, the Kaiser pondered the fact that the French had not surrendered as he had anticipated. Battles had been extremely costly on both sides, and he did not want to see Germany weakened by years of fruitless warfare. When consulting Moltke, the Chief of Staff told Wilhelm, "Your Majesty, this war cannot be won".
Wilhelm flew into a rage and fired Moltke for his lack of faith in Germany. He charged his replacement, von Falkenhayn, with determining a way to win the war. Falkenhayn battled with Generals Hindenburg and Ludendorff, eventually concocting a plan for a war of attrition. Recalling Moltke's warnings, Wilhelm rejected the plan.
The new German plan called for a defense in the West, using the new notions of trench warfare to keep the French and British at bay as well as combating numerous amphibious assaults on Belgian beaches. Falkenhayn conceded to the idea of pushing east, and the majority of the offense would be against Russia in 1915. Suffering terrible casualties, Russia would erupt into revolution and drop out of the war in 1916. Now turning back to focus on the Western Front, the Germans worked to break the British blockade, but their actions would only result in attacks upon American citizens, drawing the United States into the war.
In a massive Allied landing, Belgian liberation began and many of the German lines found themselves surrounded. The war turned against the Germans quickly, and American and British troops marched onto German soil while the French held much of their army in the trenches. Reeling, the German empire collapsed. At the Treaty of Versailles of 1919, the Allies would break up Germany into small states like they broke up the Austrian and Ottoman Empires.
Entry posted by
Jeff Provine
© Jeff Provine, 2010-.Story Tags
Permalinks: Post, Day. Browse Thread: Jeff Provine Blog Source: Jeff Provine’s Blog Labels: Great War, World War 1, Britain, France, Germany. Editor says, in reality the First and Second Armies of Germany did swing southeast, allowing the Allies to launch a successful push in the Battle of the Marne. Von Kluck moved the First army in a swinging defense, but the action formed a massive gap that the British Expeditionary Force and the French exploited. Moltke saw the disaster and broke down, retiring from the army and dying of ill health just two years later. Wilhelm believed the war was still winnable (even declaring victory in 1916), and his commander Falkenhayn began the battle plans for a war of attrition that would ultimately end with the surrender of Germany.
~ Talk about "Be careful what you wish for..."
~ Hmm...maybe this could have been 'the war to end all wars', at least in Europe. Unless Hitler somehow reunites Germany in the 30s or 40s.
~ I've often wondered why the Allies let Germany stay in one piece in 1918...the German Empire was very new then and quite a few people remembered when large chunks of it had been independent countries, like Bavaria.
Comment from Arlena Arteaga Kelly on Facebook: The Americans would have hustled earlier than 1917, the war would certainly be more of a legacy at least for the Americans than a mere forgotten war, and perhaps Germany's attention would have been focused more on political unity post WWI.
~ One would imagine that a Germany forcibly dvided by its foes would have been a hotbed of extremism, inless either held under tight control (as was East Germany after World War II) or essentially bribed with massive economic aid and political favors, as was West Germany in the same years.
Also, I find it hard to believe that a battle for Paris would cost "hundreds of thousands of lives." Tens of thousands, maybe.
~ How does Kluck penetrate the Paris fortifications? Also what reinforcements The entire right wing was out of supply and essentially out of communication with OKH. The potential reinforcements went east for Masurian Lakes.
~ What if the Germans had halted their advance on Paris, and instead raced to the sea at Dunkirk? They would have split the French and the British, forced the British to evacuate...
~ The trick here is keeping the right in communication with the rest. Kluck wheeled too far to meet the Allied advance, which was tactically the appropriate move but strategically disastrous. Although E Lipps is right about the life cost. I'll edit that as "casualties", which is along the right bounds with some half a million killed, wounded, captured, or missing in so many battles, like the Second of the Marne.
Comment from Norton James on Facebook: Historical assessments
Treaty of Versailles
"In his book The Economic Consequences of the Peace, Keynes referred to the Treaty of Versailles as a "Carthaginian peace", a misguided attempt to destroy Germany on behalf of French revanchism, rather than to follow the fairer principles for a lasting peace set out in President Woodrow Wilson's Fourteen Points, which Germany had accepted at the armistice. He stated: "I believe that the campaign for securing out of Germany the general costs of the war was one of the most serious acts of political unwisdom for which our statesmen have ever been responsible."[4] Keynes had been the principal representative of the British Treasury at the Paris Peace Conference, and used in his passionate book arguments that he and others (including some US officials) had used at Paris.[31] He believed the sums being asked of Germany in reparations were many times more than it was possible for Germany to pay, and that these would produce drastic instability.[32]
French Resistance economist Étienne Mantoux disputed that analysis. During the 1940s, Mantoux wrote a book titled, "The Carthaginian Peace, or the Economic Consequences of Mr. Keynes" in an attempt to rebut Keynes' claims; it was published after his death.
More recently it has been argued (for instance by historian Gerhard Weinberg in his book "A World At Arms"[33]) that the treaty was in fact quite advantageous to Germany. The Bismarckian Reich was maintained as a political unit instead of being broken up, and Germany largely escaped post-war military occupation (in contrast to the situation following World War II.)
The British military historian Correlli Barnett claimed that the Treaty of Versailles was "extremely lenient in comparison with the peace terms Germany herself, when she was expecting to win the war, had had in mind to impose on the Allies". Furthermore, he claimed, it was "hardly a slap on the wrist" when contrasted with the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk that Germany had imposed on a defeated Russia in March 1918, which had taken away a third of Russia's population (albeit of non-Russian ethnicity), one half of Russia's industrial undertakings and nine-tenths of Russia's coal mines, coupled with an indemnity of six billion Marks.[34] Eventually, even under the "cruel" terms of the Treaty of Versailles, Germany's economy had been restored to its pre-war status.
Barnett also claims that, in strategic terms, Germany was in fact in a superior position following the Treaty than she had been in 1914. Germany's eastern frontiers faced Russia and Austria, who had both in the past balanced German power. But Barnett asserts that, because the Austrian empire fractured after the war into smaller, weaker states and Russia was wracked by revolution and civil war, the newly restored Poland was no match for even a defeated Germany.
In the West, Germany was balanced only by France and Belgium, both of which were smaller in population and less economically vibrant than Germany. Barnett concludes by saying that instead of weakening Germany, the Treaty "much enhanced" German power.[35] Britain and France should have (according to Barnett) "divided and permanently weakened" Germany by undoing Bismarck's work and partitioning Germany into smaller, weaker states so it could never disrupt the peace of Europe again.[36] By failing to do this and therefore not solving the problem of German power and restoring the equilibrium of Europe, Britain "had failed in her main purpose in taking part in the Great War".[37]
Regardless of modern strategic or economic analysis, resentment caused by the treaty sowed fertile psychological ground for the eventual rise of the Nazi party. Indeed, on Nazi Germany's rise to power, Adolf Hitler resolved to overturn the remaining military and territorial provisions of the Treaty of Versailles. Military buildup began almost immediately in direct defiance of the Treaty, which, by then, had been destroyed by Hitler in front of a cheering crowd. "It was this treaty which caused a chain reaction leading to World War II," claimed historian Dan Rowling (1951). Various references to the treaty are found in many of Hitler's speeches and in pre-war Nazi propaganda.[citation needed]
French historian Raymond Cartier points out that millions of Germans in the Sudetenland and in Posen-West Prussia were placed under foreign rule in a hostile environment, where harassment and violation of rights by authorities are documented.[38] Cartier asserts that, out of 1,058,000 Germans in Posen-West Prussia in 1921, 758,867 fled their homelands within five years due to Polish harassment.[38] In 1926, the Polish Ministry of the Interior estimated the remaining number of Germans at less than 300,000.[citation needed] These sharpening ethnic conflicts would lead to public demands of reattaching the annexed territory in 1938 and become a pretext for Hitler's annexations of Czechoslovakia and parts of Poland.[38]" Wk
Comment from Margo Barotta on Facebook: the german and french had a long history of wars from the prussian empire until adolf hitler regime.and if paris was captured by the german army in 1914 i think she will had the same destiny of alsace &loraine region .
Comment from Arlena Arteaga Kelly on Facebook: The Americans would have hustled earlier than 1917, the war would certainly be more of a legacy at least for the Americans than a mere forgotten war, and perhaps Germany's attention would have been focused more on political unity post WWI.
Editor says, what if an embittered Mr 10% was transformed by tragedy into a national hero, a revolutionary Mr 100% for his brother Sindhis?
In this post we present a variant history with substantial content and ideas drawn from Nicholas Schmidle excellent article "The Black Widower". Please note that the views expressed in the post do not necessarily reflect the author's own opinions.
| Share this Article on: | Facebook | Twitter |
In 2008, a twenty-five year journey through tragedy and suffering finally ended on a high note of personal triumph for Benezir Bhutto's husband, the so-called "Black Widower" Asif Ali Zardari (pictured) who assumed office on this day as the first President of the newly independent state of Sindhistan.
The War on Terror Plus, Part 1 ~ The Triumph of the Black WidowerResponding to criticism that she had married below her station, Prime Minister Bhutto had separated her personal and professional lives by indicating that "[Asif] will not be involved in my political career at all, and I have no intention of visiting his cement works in Karachi". Zardari himself recognised the even greater gulf in their leadership abilities with the Pakistani proverb that "The camel only finds out that there is something taller than him when he comes beneath a mountain".
Zarari served in his wife's cabinet as the Minister of Investment; accused of bribery and corruption he was unfairly labelled "Mr Ten Percent". And by the time Bhutto returned from exile in October 2007, Zardari had been incarcerated at Karachi Central Prison for eleven and a half of the previous eighteen years. Badly tortured, her husband had collected a sickle-like scar on his tongue, a slashing wound by his jugular vein and severe back injuries from being repeatedly struck by a rifle butt.
When Bhutto's family and supporters buried her, Sindhis chanted, "We don't need Pakistan! We don't need Pakistan!".And that political violence was hardly exceptional - the country that Bhutto returned to was already teetering on the edge of the abyss. Because American actions in Afghanistan had forced the Taliban to regroup over the border in Pakistan. Even worse was to follow. On 27th December, Bhutto herself was assassinated. 
Pakistan burned for days with the the worst rioting occurring in the couple's home province of Sindh.
When Bhutto's family and supporters buried her, Sindhis chanted, "We don't need Pakistan! We don't need Pakistan!". And this nationalist sentiment was clear from Bhutto's handwritten will "I would like my husband Asif Ali Zardari to lead my people in the interim period until you [the Sindhis] and he decide what is best. I say this because he is a man of courage and honour. He spent 11 1/2 years in prison without bending despite torture. He has the political stature to keep our people united".
At one of the most volatile and dangerous moments in the country's history, Zardari led a Sindhi revolt, pushing Pakistan over the brink and into the abyss of dissolution. Sixty years after he had founded the "Fortress of Islam", Mohammed Jinnah's national dream for Pakistan ended in a most frightful nightmare.
Entry posted by Todayinah Editor
© "The Black Widower" by Nicholas Schmidle, New America Foundation published in the The New Republic on March 18, 2009Story Tags
Permalinks: Post, Day. Browse Thread: War on Terror Plus Source: New Republic Labels: Asif Ali Zardari, Benezir Bhutto, Pakistan, Sindhis, Black Widower. Editor says, our point of divergence is Zardari's response to the funeral, in OTL he is said to have led Pakistan away from the brink of disaster.
According to the Pakistan People's Party (PPP), Bhutto's will allegedly said ~ "I would like my husband Asif Ali Zardari to lead you in the interim period until you and he decide what is best. I say this because he is a man of courage and honour. He spent 11 1/2 years in prison without bending despite torture. He has the political stature to keep our party united."
~ I wonder if it would be dissolution as I'd dare say it would be more like bloody civil war. Just a word play I know, but still... I do hope it never ends up that way for Pakistan
~ It would be interesting if both Pakistan and India dissolved into smaller states, wouldn't it?
Editor says, what if Donald Rumsfeld had exercised more robust leadership during the immediate aftermath of the invasion in 2003?
| Share this Article on: | Facebook | Twitter |
In 2003, on this day Paul Bremer's ill-fated tenure as the Head of the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) came to an abrupt end when he was fired for abrogating the terms of his Presidential appointment letter which instructed him to work under the "authority, direction and control of the Secretary of Defense".
Relieved
The tension of ill-defined reporting lines had finally snapped with the publication of Bremer's Seven Step Plan for the full path to Sovereignty in the Washington Post the previous day. The article, which had not been cleared by his boss Donald Rumsfeld, proposed an irrational change of mission from liberation to occupation that had absolutely no support whatsover at the Pentagon ~ "Elections are the obvious solution to restoring sovereignty. But at the present elections are simply not possible. There are no election rolls, no election law, no political parties law and no electoral districts". Bremer had created a paradox at the heart of American policy - the liberated nation was demanding democracy, and the United States appeared to be blocking early elections.
In War and Decision - Inside the Pentagon at Dawn of the War on Terrorism (2008), the former Under Secretary of Defence for Policy Douglas Feith recollects ~ " Readers may be puzzled that Bremer did not maintain a tigher connection between himself and Rumsfeld, .. Bremer however, had created elbow room for himself. Having been told by Rumsfeld that he could feel free to talk with the other Principals whenever he thought it would be useful, Bremer began frequent contacts with Rice, which evolved into the daily telephone calls that Bremer refers to repeatedly in his book. Rice came to play such a major role in managing the Administration's relations with the CPA that she obtained authority from President Bush to create a new apparatus called the Stabilization Group".
An article in the Washington Times would later report that "Inside the State Department and in some offices in the White House, the decision to create the Stablization Group has been interpreted as a direct effort to diminish the authority of the Pentagon and Mr Rumsfeld in the next phase of the occupation. A senior White House official remarked 'Don recognises that this is not what the Pentagon does best, and he is, in some ways, relieved to give up some of the authority here'".
Feith continued ~ "Yet Rumsfeld was not able to get the formal chain of command altered. On paper, Bremer continued to work for Rumsfeld, though in fact he never really did, and he did less and less over time. Bremer came to report to a number of people, which meant that he effectively had no boss. This, believed Rumsfeld, was not how the interagency process was supposed to work".
The recent news of sadistic prisoner absuses by US soldiers had hit Rumsfeld hard. Very hard. Far from feeling relieved of responsibility, and by nature a determined problem-solver, Rumsfeld took the only course of action readily available to him and relieved Bremer of duty.
Of course "Jerry" had a different perspective, a narrower disciplinary view - believing that a high level of autonomy was a prerequisite for crisis management to succeed. Before rejoining government in 2003, Bremer had been Chairman and CEO of Marsh Crisis Consulting and he had every intention of resuming this executive role upon his return. First however he would to set the record straight, and again via the media regardless of the Pentagon's wishes. His ungrateful bosses needed to be reminded why they had chosen a crisis management expert to head the CPA, and that could only be achieved by describing the crisis in the bleakest possible terms to justify his conviction that the country was not ready for elections. In so doing, Bremer would lay bare his own messianic complex.
So on the return flight, Bremer fired up his laptop and wrote the first sentences of what would later become the apocalyptically named Chapter One - "Chaos" of his testament, The Struggle to Build a Future of Hope which begins ~ "As the Air Force C-130 banked above the curve of the River, I twisted in the sling seat and stared out the circular window of the cargo bay. The capital stretched north between the right wing. Dark smoke colums rose in the afternoon sun. I counted three, five .. seven. Pyongyang was burning".
Entry posted by Todayinah Editor
© Dougas Feith, War and Decision - Inside the Pentagon at Dawn of the War on Terrorism (2008), L. Paul Bremer My Year in Iraq: The Struggle to Build a Future of Hope (2006) Story Tags
Permalinks: Post, Day. Browse Thread: Alternate Nations Source: PBS Labels: Paul Bremer, Condoleeza Rice, George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, War on Terror. Editor says, Feith's book takes the view that Bremer's initial refusal to hand over power to an appointed rather than elected authority after two years was a big mistake. Ultimately, Bremer did hand over power to an appointed authority that kept to the election timetable after all.
~ So this is an AH where we're at war with/in North Korea instead of Iraq? Interesting! I wonder what would happen if we got proof that Osama's strings were being pulled by the Norks?
~ My question is, how did we get there? Did we had, or think we have, proof that North Korea was amassing a WMD arsenal and was on the verge of attacking its neighbors? Was there some belief that Pyongyang was behind Sept. 11?
~ There's some pretty obvious collections of weapons in North Korea, probably more so than even Iraq's chemical warhead supply. Why not?
~ North Korea? Where did that come from? The invasion of 2003 was Iraq. ???
~ The key to my earlier comment was the phrase "and was on the verge of attacking its neighbors." Invading North Korea would have been a much tougher go than going into Iraq, whose army we already knew was a pushover for the U.S. military. We'd have had to have a major justification for making that sort of effort.
In 2001, Fox News Network reports that U.S. military planes are secretly landing at night in the Central Asian nations of Uzbekistan and Tajikistan.
Vice-President Joseph Lieberman, pressed to comment by reporters in the wake of the Fox report, will deny that President Al Gore is contemplating military action in Afghanistan. He goes on to say, "If we were planning an operation of that sort, Fox News would be irresponsible to report it. Doing so would compromise national security and risk American lives".Rumours by Eric LippsIt is a neat reversal, since in the wake of the downing of Flight 93 and the subsequent revelations that the doomed plane had been hijacked as part of a much broader planned Al Qaeda attack the Fox network has been loudly berating the Gore Administration for its alleged failure to protect U.S. national security. However, the Vice-President's words do nothing to quash the rumors. Denials from Tashkent and Dushanbe are no more effective than those being issued in Washington.
President Gore will privately call Fox News president Roger Ailes to complain about the report. However, Ailes, a hard-line conservative Republican who publicly stated in the wake of the Supreme Court's controversial 5-to-4 decision in Gore's favor in Bush v. Gore that he believed the Court had allowed the Democrats to "steal the White House", informs him that he stands by his employees. "Our job is to report the news, not help the government cover it up", he says self-righteously.
Gore is in a weak position to continue the argument because the Fox report is essentially correct. However, he is determined to ensure that there will be no further leaks of this kind.
Entry posted by
Eric Lipps
© Eric Lipps,2007-.Story Tags
Permalinks: Post, Day. Browse Thread: Gore Wins Source: Wikipedia Labels: Al Gore, Grand Mufti, Chairman of the Senior Ulama, September 11, War on Terror.On this day in 1953, Kim Il Sung testified in his own defense at his war crimes trial. | |
 | |
| Kim Il Sung |
Entry posted by
Chris Oakley
© Chris Oakley,2008-.Story Tags
Permalinks: Post, Day. Browse Thread: Korea53 Source: Wikipedia Labels: Korean War, Cold War, Korea, Communism, America.| US President | On this day in 1945, Colonel Francis Urquhart was honorably discharged from the US Army. |
 | |
| Francis Urquhart |
Variant entry posted by
Chris Oakley
original content has been repurposed to celebrate the author's genius © Chris Oakley,2008-.Story Tags
Permalinks: Post, Day. Browse Thread: The Francis Urquhart Story Source: Wikipedia Labels: Francis Urquhart, US President, America, Ian Richardson, Politics.On this day in 1960, the Boston Patriots lost to the Denver Broncos 14-10 in Weeb Ewbank's regular season debut as head coach. | Coach |
 | |
| Ewbank Weeb |
Entry posted by
Chris Oakley
© Chris Oakley,2008-.Story Tags
Permalinks: Post, Day. Browse Thread: Baltimore Colts Source: Wikipedia Labels: Baltimore Stallions, Sports, NFL, America, New York Giants.Older Posts 
© Today in Alternate History, 2013-. All characters appearing in this work are fictitious. Any resemblance to real persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental.
