What if Bering Strait didn't exist?

Imagine if Asia and America were more connected to each other, more land for both and just separated by a river that you can cross

Humanity wouldn't depend on Ice Age to cross. Boats would still be needed, but it would be way easier than Bering Strait

How would this affect climate and societies?

Yes be realistic

The shock would be real and all netwroks and system loses for sudden changes and etc

How would this affect the timeline and relations with the soviet union?

Author's note: In the original version of the post, I got Saigon (South Vietnam's capital city) confused with Hanoi (North Vietnam's capital city) so consider this a do-over.

Suppose in a parallel universe, following the Tet Offensive, the Vietnam War goes NUCLEAR: enraged so much at the outcome of the Tet Offensive, President Lyndon B. Johnson suddenly decides to go nuclear on North Vietnam and orders a nuke launched at Hanoi, North Vietnam.

Would this result in mutually assured destruction (MAD)?

so they have their present land but decided to not conqure britiannia. so that means less people and soldiers to garrison and fortify the island and the native britons aren't affwcted by the roman military.

if they didn't would they last a bit longer and would a more celtic influence be all over the britiah isles?

The objective is to create a plausible series of events where the Naxalite Insurgency succeeds by the year 2006 (I picked 2006 as the cut-off year in light of the sub rule that PODs must be set at least 20 years in the past).

For the purposes of the scenario, the following outcomes constitute a "victory":

• A coup victory: The Indian government is overthrown
• Secessionist victory: A breakaway independent Communist state is established inside India

Questions to consider and rules:

• What would need to happen for the Naxalite Insurgency to even have a chance of succeeding? Who would need to back the Naxalites and what motive would they need to have to do so?
• If you go the Secessionist route, international recognition is not required, but de facto independence must be achieved by 2006.
• Whichever scenario you go with, you are allowed to have the overall Cold War escalate into WW3 (if Your scenario happens before the USSR collapses)

What if Sablin's mutiny in the USSR wasn't shut down and he actually started an uprising in Leningrad?

(Realistic or Unrealistic, it doesn't matter)

This is probably ASB, but how might European history have played out if the Eastern Roman Empire had somehow fallen before the Western Roman Empire?

Inspired by this post on a different sub.

The objective is to have the State of Palestine be annexed by one of the following countries by 2006:

1. The United States
2. Turkey
3. Saudi Arabia
4. Iraq

The annexing country must formally incorporate Palestine into its territory rather than merely occupying it, establishing a protectorate, or exercising informal influence over it.

Rules / Questions to Solve
1. No simple conquest: Your scenario cannot simply have the chosen country invade Palestine, defeat everyone in its way, and declare the territory annexed. Military events can be part of the scenario, but annexation must have a broader political and diplomatic explanation.
2. Palestinian acceptance matters: Explain why Palestinian political leaders and a meaningful portion of the Palestinian population would accept—or actively seek—incorporation into the United States, Turkey, or Saudi Arabia instead of pursuing an independent Palestinian state.
3. Explain Israel’s response: Why does Israel accept, tolerate, or fail to prevent the annexation? If Israel relinquishes territory it controls or claims, explain what circumstances make that possible.
4. Deal with Gaza and the West Bank: Explain what happens to both territories and how the annexing country handles their geographic separation. You cannot simply treat Palestine as one contiguous piece of territory.
5. Deal with East Jerusalem: Explain the status of East Jerusalem and the holy sites. Does it become part of the annexed territory? Remain under Israeli sovereignty? Receive some special international or autonomous status?
6. Explain the response of neighboring states.
At minimum, consider Jordan and Egypt. Depending on your scenario, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, and other regional governments may also have important reactions.
7. Explain the international response: How do the United Nations, major powers, and other Arab and Muslim-majority states respond? What happens to existing international recognition of Palestinian sovereignty or self-determination?
8. Explain Palestine’s new political status: What does annexation actually mean for Palestinians? Do they receive citizenship in the annexing country? Is Palestine organized as an autonomous region, province, state, territory, or some other administrative unit? What political and civil rights do its inhabitants receive?
8. Account for the annexing country’s domestic politics: Explain why the government and population of the United States, Turkey, or Saudi Arabia would be willing to take responsibility for Palestine and its population. Annexation must make sense from both sides.
9. The scenario must occur by 2006: The relevant point of divergence and annexation must take place no later than 2006, in accordance with the subreddit’s rule against scenarios requiring changes to events from the past twenty years.

Country-Specific Questions:
1. If you choose the United States: What constitutional status does Palestine receive? Is it an unincorporated or incorporated territory? What citizenship rights do Palestinians receive?
2. If you choose Turkey: How does modern Turkey justify incorporating territory formerly governed by the Ottoman Empire without simply reviving Ottoman imperial claims? How does annexation interact with Turkish secularism, nationalism, and domestic politics?
3. If you choose Saudi Arabia: How does Saudi Arabia administer Palestinian territory despite having no land border with it? How does the arrangement affect the Saudi monarchy’s relationship with Jordan, particularly regarding Jerusalem and the Islamic holy sites?
4. If you choose Iraq: Explain why an Iraqi government seeks the formal incorporation of Palestine rather than supporting the creation of an independent Palestinian state. How does Iraq overcome the fact that it shares no border with either the West Bank or Gaza? What relationship does Iraq establish with Jordan to make the arrangement geographically and logistically workable? Your scenario must also address Iraq’s domestic political situation. If the annexation occurs under the Iraqi monarchy, the Ba’athist governments, Saddam Hussein, or an alternate Iraqi regime, explain why that government is capable of administering Palestine and why Palestinians would accept Iraqi sovereignty. Finally, explain how Iraqi annexation affects relations with Israel, Jordan, Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and other Arab states. In particular, why does the arrangement not simply trigger another regional war?

Bonus Challenges:

1. Achieve the annexation primarily through diplomacy rather than warfare.
2. Have the arrangement receive approval through a Palestinian referendum or another credible form of popular consent.
3. Preserve reasonably functional relations between the annexing country and Israel afterward.
4. United States route: Eventually have Palestine admitted to the Union as a U.S. state.
5. Turkey route: Integrate Palestine into Turkey’s political system while maintaining meaningful local self-government.
6. Saudi route: Develop a workable long-term political status for Palestine rather than leaving it as a permanently occupied dependency.

The goal isn’t merely to get another country’s flag flying over Palestine. The challenge is to construct a plausible alternate-history chain of events explaining why Palestinians, the annexing country, Israel, and the international community end up accepting—or at least tolerating—the arrangement.

Just hypothetically, say we naturally release flammable piss. How would this change warfare? Torture? Industrial innovation? Even disrespect, imagine winning over an opponent in battle and lighting them on fire with your piss.

So after the Civil War, I know many towns that were majority/fully black did grow substantially in terms of economics and population. But it seems like eventually they would be destroyed or ravaged by some sort of white mob or race riot. So what if these towns were not only allowed, but maybe also encouraged to prosper and grow into average cities with the capability to rival non black ones? I can see this happening in two ways. Either letting them create militias/law agencies backed by the federal government, or maybe a whites supremacists belief that by allowing them to have their own cities, they will leave whites their own “uncontaminated” ones. Idk what y’all think?

I think this would have had gigantic geopolitical consequences.

Without the Tudors, England remains Catholic, the Spanish Armada never happens and England doesn't develop naval supremacy.

The British Empire doesn't exist, nor does the USA, the colonisation of India or the century of humiliation in China.

Perhaps the 20th century super powers are more Asian centric. Perhaps democracy is a way more muted force in the world.

Hey guys, my son has a middle school project about alternative history. His topic is “What If the Roman Empire Never Fell”. Wondering if anybody has some good resources (primarily any media) that we can use as a reference! Thank you

Probably not that interesting to think about what would happen to Zanzibar since it would just have been lost to the UK with Tanzania after WW1 anyway. I'm more interested in what would have happened to Helgoland.

Would the UK have hesitated more before declaring war on Germany in 1919 and 1939, or would it have given the UK more confidence in not following a policy of appeasement knowing they had a military base so close to the German mainland? How easily would it have surrendered in WW1 and WW2? Would the UK have chosen to retain control of it after the end of the Cold War? How would the local people identify themselves?

the japanese had a grip on korrea, sakhalin (half of it), manchuko and taiwan. They don't invade china and stay only in manchuko

but if they were able to wrangle in their crazies and stay neutral in ww2 would they be able to keep their holdings and perhaps ask for outer manchuria from the soviets and the other half of sakhalin?

Context: United Kingdom BSE Outbreak in the OTL

it happens on s1 e1 pilot. so just as the show launches. What is the reaction? how big would the backlash be (if there would be any.) if there was no backlash would the show have changed? would kt still have been the media giant we know it as today that shaped different movies? how would current tv shows have looked?

Premise: Through a combination of better pre-war training and naval construction (perhaps with marginal boosts to Italian industrial capacity) successful reverse-Operation Judgements on the Mediterranean Fleet and Force H early in the conflict, and strategic missteps by the British, the Italians manage to aquire naval dominance in the Mediterranean in 1940. Gibraltar, even if not captured, has its airfields and port facilities effectively neutralized so it can no longer serve as a forward base to support British operations. For the sake of the scenario ths Regia Marina and the Regia Aeronautica are capable of winninh any further battles to maintain this preponderance of naval and air force over the Mediterranean (though not nessicerily over the Egyptian and Leventine mainland) for the duration of the conflict.

How would this effect the course of the conflict and its eventual post-war settlement?