u/Cyber_Ghost_1997

Lore:

• Sergei Kirov is NOT assassinated in 1934 by Leonid Nikolaev. Therefore, the Great Purge does not happen in the USSR.

The POD for this starts six months after Hitler took power in Germany in 1933. An assassination attempt against Hitler is launched, but fails. Hitler suffers a nervous breakdown as a result and begins ordering a a series of show trials (which in this timeline are called the Berlin Trials) to remove suspected dissenters from the Third Reich.

This leads to a significant deterioration in manpower amongst the German military.

What we're looking at here is a Third Reich version of Stalin's Great Purge.

Assuming Hitler still tries to invade Poland in 1939, how does this affect the rest of WW2 (assuming it even happens in the first place)?

Assumptions:

• Japan still invades Manchuria in 1931.

Apparently the original challenge asking for a scenario where India was split in two was lost in translation because people kept thinking, “Didn’t that already happen in 1947 with India and Pakistan?”

Here’s a do-over post: You have to Start with the territory of modern-day India and devise an alternate-history divergence that results in two successor countries occupying that territory.

Rules:

1. Pakistan and Bangladesh are outside the scope of this challenge. The territory belonging to modern-day India must itself be divided between two sovereign states
2. I’m looking for a SPECIFIC result: One of the two countries must be named HINDUSTAN and the other must be named Deccan.

This is both an expansion and a sequel of the following FWI: Two weeks before this fall's midterm elections, as an October surprise, Trump fully ends all relations with Israel because of frustration with their impediments to a resolution in the Middle East” by u/TF-Fanfic-Resident.

Two weeks before this fall’s midterm elections, Trump explicitly states that he believes that a Jewish-majority Israel can exist, but it must be drastically cut down in size and needs to withdraw from the West Bank, Gaza, Golan, cease any military intervention outside of its pre-1967 borders, and fully compensate Palestinian descendants. Trump also uses executive orders to impose an arms embargo, a ban on AIPAC, and a plan to resettle Israelis throughout Europe, Asia, and Africa if Israel does not withdraw from international politics.

Netanyahu retaliates by pressing the Epstein button. There are calls for Trump’s arrest and removal from office and his followers mocked and ridiculed worldwide.

What happens to the rest of the world with the US effectively a pariah state?

Author’s note: I am disturbed by Epstein’s crimes so if Netanyahu presses the button, it will be a reckoning I will celebrate over, and I say this as a U.S. citizen.

Suppose in a parallel universe, the events of the Splinter Cell games actually happened.

For context (and in light of the rule requiring PODs being be set at least 20 years in the past), Splinter Cell takes place in 2004-2005

Because Splinter Cell games Chaos Theory through Blacklist happen from 2006 to 2013, assume that for the purposes of this post, the events of those games DO NOT happen in my parallel universe.

How would world change if the events of Splinter Cell (which was released in 2002 in the OTL) actually happened?

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)?

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)

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.

What would need to happen in order for the US to achieve independence...through England deciding to abandon them altogether?

Victory condition: The British must voluntarily relinquish, renounce, or terminate its sovereignty over the Thirteen Colonies without being militarily defeated by those colonies into doing so.

Rules:

• The 13 Colonies must be Independent
• The British MUST give them up. The objective is to create a scenario where England decides, "Keeping these colonies simply isn't worth it anymore."
• You are allowed to have unrest, riots, political violence, rebellions, militia confrontations, or even limited armed conflict.
• The motive for abandonment MUST be an identifiable (and plausible) cause
• The POD is allowed to predate 1775.
• The 13 Colonies are not required to form a new version of the United States of America
• Foreign intervention is allowed but it cannot defeat the purpose of the challenge itself!

In a parallel universe, the events of Resident Evil 5 never happen and Chris Redfield is sent to Barcelona, Spain, to deal with a possible outbreak in Spain, instead of the outbreak in Africa. In Spain, Redfield meets Angela Vidal, and the firefighters who are canonically sent to the apartment building in REC. He also comes across Tristana Madeiros, AKA Patient Zero.

How long would he last in the film?

Imagine the following events on 9/11 happening in a parallel universe:

1. United Airlines Flight 93 is delayed not by 40 minutes but by an hour.
2. American Airlines Flight 11 hits the WTC North Tower.
3. All flights are cancelled, leading to the terrorists on Flight 93 being unable to hijack the aircraft in the first place (In the OTL, all flights were grounded after the 1st plane hit its target).

End result: Not only is the Capitol Building and/or White House saved but everybody on Flight 93 lives.

Is the horror of 9/11 minimized with EVERYONE on Flight 93 surviving? What happens to Ziad Jarrah and the three muscle hijackers in this timeline?