I started to learn about American history, and now I am on the civil war chapter and I almost finished it. But I had a question for a long moment since I learned it, would the Confederate States have cartel issues if they existed today? I mean, they are literally opened to Mexico, and I'll hardly believe they would survey the borders 24/7 like the USA.
In OTL, the UK made a 99 year lease on Hong Kong in 1898 following the second Opium war. This deal was made with the Ching dynasty, but the lease still carried over to the UK's recognized successor state to the Ching. In 1997 this was the People's Republic of China, but before 1971 it was the Republic of China (AKA Taiwan).
So, let's say that for some reason or another a skilled Chinese diplomat or an incompetent British one results in the UK getting a lease that lasts half as long as in OTL. Fast forward to 1958. The (at the time) internationally recognized government of China had fled over a decade ago with no practical means to hold Hong Kong. When the lease is set to expire, what does the UK do in this position?
Keep in mind that the sino-soviet split has not occurred yet and while China does not possess nuclear weapons, the soviets very much do. Not that anyone would throw nukes over Hong Kong, but the power at play would certainly affect negotiations. Additionally remember that the Korean war would have been just a few years ago before this point.
I’m building a speculative history project imaging a world where Barry Goldwater won the 1964 election against LBJ (Don’t ask how he won). In this timeline I assume he’s only in the White House for one term (Losing re-election against Hubert Humphrey in 1968).
I just wanted to ask people who are perhaps more knowledgeable in this topic than I am how he would’ve gone about the Vietnam War in the this world? Also, how would he have responded specifically to the Tet Offensive in 1968? And finally, what would he have done about (or reacted to) the American Anti-war and counterculture movements in the mid-late 1960s (Circa. 1965-68)?
I understand that Goldwater was a notorious war hawk, but I just wanted to make sure that my assumptions on what his policies in Vietnam would’ve/could’ve been are not wildly unrealistic.
Thank you!
For example, the medical concept of humours, which regulated a persons temperament and were tied to certain fluids in the body, or phlogiston, a substance that existed in objects and made them more likely to burn, which was disproved when it was determined that burning objects gained mass.
These theories were all, of course, eventually disproven, but how cool would it be if radio waves and light actually traveled through an omnipresent substance?
What other theories do you think would be cool if they were real, and how would they change the world today?
Basically Churchill reaches an agreement with the joint chiefs of staff to launch operation unthinkable with the UK-US forces getting organised for July 1st 1945, they also draw up plans for any strikes in france and Italy as well as any mutinies: deploy neo freikorps and let them take over the situation in those factories and divisions, with propaganda presenting them as the successors of the brave prussian army; which will be used in homefront propaganda to show Russia as weak by showing their military defeats over the centuries, how would the war go?
Brazil's coffee and sugar industries were largely enabled by huge amounts of slave labour, and following the abolition of slavery in 1888, plantation owners lost a significant amount of their sway over the nation, and thus began "milk coffee politics", wherein dairy and coffee oligarchies -- less reliant on enslaved labour than the sugar industry -- dominated the country's local governance.
My answer to my own question is that Uruguay (aka Cisplatina, which historically had a small slave population, would have made it so that Brazil's economy was proportionally more reliant on free dairy farmers, and less reliant on subtropical sugar and coffee production, thus hastening the disenfranchisement of slaveholding plantation owners. It probably wouldn't have had a profound effect on the abolition of slavery, but I imagine that it wouldn't have been nothing.
The best counterpoint that I could raise is that landowners in Uruguay would have taken advantage of the availability of slave labour in Brazil, compared to Uruguay (or rather, the region which is now recognised as Uruguay) which was already in the process of gradual abolition prior to the Cisplatine War. Hence, the territory would not have remained low on slaves; eventually reaching a similar slave-per-head ratio to Minas Gerais, Brazil's largest dairy-producing state historically.
I've been wondering since I've started watching videos on the world wars. Is the reason switzerland has such a strong economy despite being in the middle of Europe because they somehow managed to avoid both wars? If so then if the world wars didn't happen would Europe's economy as a whole potentially be even stronger than the usa economy? Or would the world wars not happening make Americas economy worse than Europe's since we wouldn't be able to take advantage of the war not damaging our country but damaging others? Just curious on your thoughts on this
I know France in 1938, was deeply divided to make a coherent foreign policy and dealing with economic problems but imagine for since 1933 they actually doubled their defense spending and thus in this one instance the entire French Republic agreed that Germany was up to no good thus encouraged Czechoslovakia to fight against Germany and prepared for war mobilization regardless of what Britain said. How would this changed the trajectory of the War? Would Britain quickly follow suit and how the Soviets would react as they are tepidly allied with Czechslovakia even though Poland is not allowing Soviet troops to pass
George W. Bush was serving his second term as governor of Texas when he decided to run for the Republican presidential nomination in the 2000 presidential election.
Bush 43's presidency was defined by the Global War on Terror and the Iraq War even though George W. Bush began his first term of office making good on his pledge to implement his policies of compassionate conservatism.
Would the US have bothered going to war in Iraq if a non-Bush rather than Bush 43 had won the GOP presidential nomination in the 2000 election?
When China arrested 2 Michael for espionage the narrative is that to retaliate lawful arrest of Meng Wanzhou implying that 2 Michael is innocent. Later, China released 2 Michael after Meng was released and Michael Spavor sue for being used for intelligence operation without his consent implying other Michael was indeed spy. What if he refuse to settle and forcing Canada admit Beijing arrest was right and ruin all narrative it has built so far?
Sweden lost the territory of Finland to russia after the disasterous war of 1809. Before this Finland was a integral part of Sweden and finnish people were represented in the government and all offical documents were translated to finnish.
What if Sweden won the war in 1809 and Finland remained a part of Sweden. Would Finland eventually be independent or would it contaiune to be Swedish?
Irl it was a pretty close run, Sparta won mainly thanks to plague and Persian money. Without either of these factors, if Athenes won, how much history of Ancient Greece would have changed? Could it unite in this scenario?