Editor says, what if the Ayatollah had won the Iran-Iraq War? 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

David Atwell commented on 2010-01-19 03:39:08 ~ The USA, under Reagan, wouldn't tolerate it as this would mean a large amount of the world's reserves of oil would be under the control of Islamic Iran. So expect war within weeks, if not days, of such a surrender...

Eric Oppen commented on 2010-01-19 06:14:38 ~ We'd have been pumping help into Iraq a long time before it got this bad.

Eric Lipps commented on 2010-01-19 15:39:09 ~ We actually were--but as would leter be revealee, we were also peddling arms to Iran. And what "remaining force"? If Saddam had surrendered, his army would have disintegrated and he'd have had to flee for his life as Iran took Baghdad and established a Shi'ite fundamentalist regime there. If the U.S. had then intervened, the whole region might have exploded. Inevitably, Israel would have been drawn in, and there's a good chance the regional conflict would have gone nuclear.

Chris Oakley commented on 2010-01-19 15:41:54 ~ Weeks? Days? Try hours, Dave.

Andrew Beane commented on 2010-01-19 20:51:08 ~ Crazy, crazy possibilities

Editor says, what if President William King died after forty-five days in office? muses Andrew Beane. 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

Stan Brin commented on 2010-01-05 04:57:48 ~ Sorry, the amendment that allowed presidents to appoint a new vice president was adopted during the 1960s. The Northern states would never have accepted two new pro-slavery states.

Scott Palter commented on 2010-01-05 05:03:45 ~ Sucession after President is by act of Congress. In the 1850's that would have been the Secretary of State. . Zero chance Kansas and Nebreska get admitted as slave states - never passes the House. Zero chance they stay slave states - Northerners move in and vote the change. There simply wasn't enough good bottom land worth slave agriculture.

Eric Lipps commented on 2010-01-05 15:43:08 ~ No--if I recall correctly, in the 1850s, succession would have passed to the president pro tem of the Senate and, after him, to the Speaker ofthe House, before reaching the Secretary of State. Late in the nineteenth century the rules were changed to allow the House Speaker to assume the presidency, bypassing the Senate's president pro tem. In the 1960s, facing the prospect that a nuclear attack on Washington, D.C. could wipe out much of the government instantly, legislation was passed specifying that, after the House Speaker, Cabinet secretaries are in the line of presidential succession in the order in which their departments were established.

Andrew Beane commented on 2010-01-05 17:38:24 ~ I stand firm on the succession aspect but admit that the slave state bit was far fetched

Jeff Provine commented on 2011-04-05 17:19:55 ~ If the transcontinental rail is built early, that'll give us nice butterfly effects on western settlement.

Editor says, what if the Romanov Duchess Anastasia survived the Russian Revolution? 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

Eric Lipps commented on 2010-01-22 00:36:00 ~ I find it difficult to believe that a woman, even one of royal blood--or perhaps especially one of royal blood--could have become PM of a democratic Russia in 1941. Despite the Soviets' ostentatious efforts at presenting a facade of gender equality, the USSR remained dominated by men throughout its existence, and a "constitutional democratic" Russia would have been less likely even to put up a front on this issue. Despite his hemophilia, her brother Alexei would make a likelier candidate, if he were still alive and not an invalid.

Stan Brin commented on 2010-01-22 01:54:58 ~ Actually former King Simeon II of Bulgaria was elected prime minister of his country a few years ago. And, of course, Louis Napoleon was elected President of the Second Republic.

Eric Lipps commented on 2010-01-22 02:04:48 ~ Point taken, though, again, I think it'd be dicier for a woman in 1941 Russia.

Eric Oppen commented on 2010-01-22 06:31:32 ~ Without Communism as a boogeyman in Russia, Hitler'd have had a much harder time coming to power, and I don't see any Russian government other than that idiot Stalin's being caught with its pants as far down around its ankles and as bereft of local allies and friends as Stalin's was. Also, as Eric Lipps pointed out, Russians are male-chauvinist and would not be happy at a woman ruler _unless_ she was crowned Empress. Hmmm...Napoleon III did something of the sort, now didn't he? *scheming*

Andrew Beane commented on 2010-01-22 14:08:43 ~ After years of unending conflict, and without a brutal strongman like Stalin to lead the massive inductrialization of the country, I simply put Russia in the same condition as Poland in 1939. The period also made Russians nostalgic for the comparatively unifying image of the royal family, and Romanova's election was to satisfy that longing for Russia's more golden times.

Andrew Beane commented on 2010-01-22 14:10:15 ~ And Hitler didn't need the USSR so much as the Great Depression, which was felt in Germany worse than other nations, and the humiliation of defeat in the Great War.

Andrew Beane commented on 2010-01-22 14:10:23 ~ And Hitler didn't need the USSR so much as the Great Depression, which was felt in Germany worse than other nations, and the humiliation of defeat in the Great War.

H. Torrance Griffin commented on 2010-01-22 17:02:32 ~ I have to concur with Eric. Even assuming there is no successful Red Revolution without the specter of Leninist Russia the Nazis are rather weaker.

Andrew Beane commented on 2010-01-27 23:43:12 ~ Hitler was battling a failed economy and national humiliation at the hands of the Western allies. Russia was at best a back-burner issue. I see no evidence that Hitler relied on the existance of the USSR for strength.

Andrew Beane commented on 2010-01-27 23:43:13 ~ Hitler was battling a failed economy and national humiliation at the hands of the Western allies. Russia was at best a back-burner issue. I see no evidence that Hitler relied on the existance of the USSR for strength.

Editor says, what if the 1991 coup plotters had executed Gorbachev? Please note that the opinions expressed in this post do not necessarily reflect the views of the author(s).

Share this Article on:

Facebook

Twitter

Editor says, I hope that the significance of the actual day was not lost, that's when Gorbachev dissolved the USSR.

Scott Palter commented on 2009-12-26 19:09:53 ~ Gorby dead or alive doesn't matter. The KGB Alpha commandos defecting to Yeltsin instead of executing him was key. The coup plotters had lost the mandate of heaven and were too out of it to be aware of it.

Editor says, what if Fidel Castro and JFK were allies muses Andrew Beane? 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

David Atwell commented on 2010-01-26 03:13:48 ~ Love the irony :)

Eric Oppen commented on 2010-01-26 05:27:19 ~ An independent CSA would have had "gobble up Cuba" as the top thing on their "to-do list" from the minute they acheived independence. Did they do that in this TL?

Andrew Beane commented on 2010-01-26 12:50:52 ~ Eric that might be grounds for another article, as things could have stood in the CSA's way of militarily taking over Cuba, such as their weak manufacturing base and a possible US/Spain alliance. The assumption is that the CSA dominated through trade and Cuba simply threw the yoke.

Chris Oakley commented on 2010-01-26 15:34:51 ~ Freaky deaky...

Eric Lipps commented on 2010-01-26 16:04:34 ~ One has to wonder how slavery survived to 1963 in the CSA. While Confederate independence would surely have delayed abolition (perhaps even in what remained of the USA, since abolitionists and blacks might have been blamed for secession), it's hard to see it surviving another cenury. This is especially true if the Confederacy hoped to industrialize on a large scale rather than remaining a "cotton republic." Southerners had refused to industrialize because they feared doing so would undermine the "peculiar institution," which depended on the continued perception of blacks as, basically, domestic animals incapable of performing sophisticated tasks. But a CSA which remained a Jeffersonian agrarian society would have become a Third World nation and likely an economic (and eventually political) dependency of the United States, a danger Southern leaders would surely have seen coming long before the mid-twentieth century.

Andrew Beane commented on 2010-01-27 01:41:50 ~ Eric I love that perception, and admit I am not yet able to think these things out completely.

H. Torrance Griffin commented on 2010-01-27 15:33:06 ~ I agree with Lipps' observation on the results of retaining slavery, but am somewhat dubious about the assumption that the ruling classes of a CSA that remained together (and I would give it 50:50 odds on it coming apart) would see this coming or having the ability to emancipate.

Jeff Provine commented on 2010-11-28 22:09:04 ~ Should be enough to spark a war, but with the CSA in such a slump, it might not be in the position to stand up to its old enemy. Then again, nothing stimulates the economy like popular war.

Editor says, what if America had respected the principles of the Atlantic Charter? 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

Eric Oppen commented on 2010-01-27 07:41:05 ~ The French would be MAJORLY PO'd...and the British probably wouldn't be happy either.

Scott Palter commented on 2010-01-27 08:46:41 ~ French spite wrecks teh Marshal Plan and prevents the formation of both West Germany and NATO. Anyone still think the trade is worth it? Us colonial policy was made by the Europe desk at State. Europe was more important.

Eric Lipps commented on 2010-01-27 14:07:36 ~ One wonders whether the French (or the British) would be in a position to let "spite" ruin the Marshall Plan, considering the dire economic straits in which they found themselves after WWII. The Plan was in much greater danger from conservatives in the U.S. Congress.

H. Torrance Griffin commented on 2010-01-27 15:35:46 ~ IOW losing Indochina would matter less than dealing with another Paris Commune. Makes sense on a rational level but on a knee-jerk one it would be a gamble.

Comment from Scott and Karol Becker on Facebook: we might not have had the Vietnam war?...I have a question mark at the end of my statement because if we are going to be an international power we are going to be involved in this crap ...like it or not...it's unfortunate

Comment from Mary Ann on Facebook: it's all been lies, right from the beginning....but the true believer's have never fell into the lies..ty

Comment from Edwinna C Staten on Facebook: Appears that many someones failed to remember this advice.

Stan Brin commented on 2011-08-01 03:06:33 ~ Not really an option at the time. The US was preoccupied with 12 million returning soldiers, inflation, housing shortages, and all sorts of social issues put off by the Depression and WWII. The French had similar problems, and the English... don't get me started. Truman had no need to start an international crisis while the communists were taking over French unions.

Jeff Provine commented on 2011-08-01 18:18:05 ~ He'd never win in '48 then.

Editor says, what if the United States lost the Battle of New Orleans in 1814 asks Andrew Beane? 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

Comment from Jeff Mayers on Facebook: Well, the only thing that I can say would have been diffrent is that Andrew Jackson would probably never been elected President in 1828, and all that entailed from that(no Jackson on the $20 bill, etc.). Other than that, it probably would not have changed much since the Treaty of Ghent was already signed that ended the War of 1812.

Comment from David Fowler on Facebook: That would have been bad.

Eric Lipps commented on 2010-01-02 22:54:16 ~ The S would have really hit the F if this had happened, since by 1815 even in our history the war had become deeply controversial because of earlier failures and widespread reports of mismanagement and corruption within the armed forces. There was even talk of secession in some Northeastern states. In the aftermath of a U.S. defeat, one could have expected the British to encourage sectional strife within the USA. The only way the British could have messed things up is by too obviously making a direct grab for control over one or more U.S. states or territories. Thst might have united U.S. popular opinion against them enough to make a "prolonged struggle" politically possible.

Scott Palter commented on 2010-01-02 23:22:32 ~ British had never recognized the Louisiana Purchase. So they would have had every right not to return New Orleans.

Eric Oppen commented on 2010-01-03 05:37:04 ~ What Scott said. However, no matter whose flag flew over New Orleans, in the long run the majority of the Purchase would be American. Too many people wanting it, and by 1815 there were too many Americans on the west side of the Mighty Miss, too deeply entrenched, for the British to bother getting rid of them. Probably we'd end up having to re-purchase New Orleans itself.

H. Torrance Griffin commented on 2010-01-03 14:19:19 ~ How attached were the trans-mississippi settlers to Washington. The factional strife mentioned as promotable could easily include a mid-continental republic....

Stan Brin commented on 2010-01-04 01:16:59 ~ It wouldn't nulify the Treaty of Ghent, any more than the American victory acquired Canada for the US. The British would be stuck in the city, unable to move, vastly outnumbered by the local population. Besides, by that time, the British were sick of war and just wanted to get back to the business of running their empire.

Stan Brin commented on 2010-01-04 01:27:18 ~ And as a reply to Jeff Mayers, without Andrew Jasckson in the White House, the Bank of the United States would have had its charter renewed, and the country would likely have been spared a century of bank panics. And the government of honest, pragmatic, philosophers and political scientists that the country enjoyed through the age of John Quincy Adams would have been extended, perhaps by another generation. Imagine, President Daniel Webster...

Michael N. Ryan commented on 2010-06-03 20:24:50 ~ And then since this happened after the signing of the treaty of Ghent, Britain would have to give it all back without anything in return unlike the deal in which Britain returned Louisbourg to the French after the Amercan colonials had taken it in 1745 . It is possible, since Jackson did not have most of his forces at New Orleans at the time, he could gather forces and drive the Brits from the port by time news of the Peace came. If he does not, his political career is dead.

Brian Hartman commented on 2011-04-03 02:26:02 ~ I have to agree with what Michael, Stan and Jeff said. It would've been awful for Jackson, and it certainly could've affected the Bank of the United States, but I don't think relations with Britain would've been much different.

Allen W. McDonnell commented on 2011-04-03 11:37:16 ~ I add my voice to the chorus, the treaty was already signed so the USA would quickly get the city back, the UK army would withdraw as soon as they got their orders. On the other hand Andrew Jackson would be on a quest to reclaim his 'good' name and is likely to do risky things in the future to try and prove himself as an able leader. Either he will succeed and be covered in glory, or he will be cashiered out of the military for picking fights and trying to precipitate a new war, probably over Florida or Cuba.

Jeff Provine commented on 2011-04-04 05:48:04 ~ Good points by Mr. Brin. Probably not too likely given the social norms, but a less anti-Indian president would have changed the course of Indian removal. Perhaps no removal at all?

Mike McIlvain commented on 2013-01-08 11:06:03 ~ An English twist on the Louisiana swamplands? Probably would have evolved into a great tourist attraction.

Mark Taylor commented on 2013-01-08 15:23:40 ~ No Comment

Brian Wall commented on 2013-01-08 17:25:33 ~ FYI the Chalmette Plantation is on the East Bank of the Mississippi River. I have been there. IMHO, a British victory would not necessarily mean a British New Orleans, but maybe a few years down the road a British Texas.

Sailorbarsoom commented on 2013-01-08 20:47:36 ~ I say, that's a cracking possibility, y'all.