Alternative History:Hinge moments

From Alternative History

Jump to: navigation, search

Following are a few possible Points of Departure. These represent specific events without prior certainty as to their resolution ("hinge moments") and avoid those which would require ABS (which is why the justification is included for each) or those which are based on alternate trends.

The ramifications are meant to represent various possibilities, not a group of related results.

These are posted to give ideas to others so feel free to contribute your own to this page.

Contents

[edit] Ancient World

  • Egypt and the Hittites Unite
Justification: After Tutankhamen died his widow sent letters to the Hittite king Dahamunzu asking if he had any sons available for a marriage and political union ["My husband has died, a son I have not. But to thee, they say, the sons are many. If thou wouldst give me one son of thine, he would become my husband. Never shall I pick out a servant of mine and make him my husband. I am afraid!"]. Dahamunzu's son Zannanza was chosen and traveled to Egypt, but he was murdered at the border (1327BC). If he survived the journey he would have been the Pharaoh.
Ramifications: The united kingdoms would have been even stronger. They would not have wasted energies warring against each other and would have been able to pose a serious threat to the Assyrians. Also a unified Hittite/Egyptian nation may been able to withstand the invasion by the "Sea Peoples".
It could also be argued that the combined kingdoms would be more susceptible to attack from the Sea Peoples. The Egyptian+Hittite empire would be able to put down the people in the mountains to the north of Hittite portion of the empire. And the Egypt part would have easy access to horses and wood. So both portions would have a reduced infantry and would rely more on chariots. The Sea People had a way to neutralize chariots and could be better able to topple the combined empire. This timeline could be "What if Egypt/Hittite survived intact deep into the iron age?" or it could be the opposite: "What if Egypt was destroyed in the 13th century bc". The path would be up to the creator of the timeline.
  • Early Rome Destroyed
Justification: According to historians, there were two events which could have easily wiped out early Rome:
- In the early Fourth Century BCE, Celtic tribes invaded Rome and burned much of the town in retaliation for treaty-breaking. Legendarily, all of Rome was holed up in the Citadel, and a nighttime attack by the Celts was foiled only by Vesta's holy "watch geese". One could imagine that a single Celt with some ideas on taking fortifications could have ended Rome.
- At the end of Hannibal's first push toward Rome he was actually within a day's march of an undefended Rome but turned aside due to misinformation about the Roman forces. Had he believed his Roman spy instead of his aides, he could have sacked Rome, leading to an eventual, permanent, Cathegenian victory.
Ramifications:
- It's hard to imagine what Western History would be like without Rome.
- No Christianity, since Jesus of Nazareth's movement was rebelling against Roman tyrrany in Judea.
- Jesus might've rebelled against Parthian oppresion or some other conqueror. Thus, Christianity would still exist, but its initial spread would be eastwards rather than westwards. Europe might be rather late to Christianization, if it's Christinized at all, while the Middle East would be the center of Christianity. No Islam in that case - Nik 08:57, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Jesus is a reform movement into Judaism, he never opposed Roman power (not, at least, according to the ghospels). Of course, a POD affecting the rulers of Judea and Nazareth by 1st century BCE, would affect the existance of any historical character (assuming Jesus is) and how the movement would later spread (i.e. no Paul as Roman citizen). -- Carlos Th
If England was late christinazed,, then oppression might've been a bit more bearable to the Americans, and, it's possible, America never seperates from Britain!
Well, this is about history, albeit alternate. What the gospels (= religious propaganda) say tells us very little about what actually happened. Michael riber 21:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Possibly the Celts would have formed a powerful kingdom under Vercingetorix?
- Possibly the Parthian Empire would have conquered Palestine, Egypt and the Near East?
- Maybe Zorastrianism would be a major world religion?
  • Rome Falls to Radicals
Justification: The Zealots were a Jewish terrorist group during the Roman era. If they had absorbed Christianity (which was very possible), then it would have taken on a much more radical tone.
Ramifications: As Christianity spread, a weakened and more politically divided Rome may have fallen to invaders very quickly and been completely lost.
- No Rennaisance (Roman culture would be destroyed by Christians and barbarians).
  • Athens Wins the Pelopenesian Wars
Justification: Athens was on the verge of a lasting victory in the Pelopenesian wars when they embroiled themselves in a war with Syracuse, which they prosecuted very badly and lost disasterously. If the Syracuse expedition had been confined to its original scope, or if it had been better led, the Athenian Empire would have ended the era supreme over all the Greeks.
Ramifications:
- A united Greece might not have fallen so easily to Philip of Macedon, or indeed fallen at all. This would have meant a very different career (and personality) for Alexander of Macedon.
- The Pelopenesian Wars were seen by many in the Eastern Mediterranean as a litmus test of democracy vs. ogliarchy. Had Athens won, Athenian-style democracy might have caught on through much of the Middle East, and even the Middle Ages might have been different, with constitutional monarcy arising much earlier than it did.
- The collapse of Greek hegemony following the Spartan victory and Alexander's rise and fall cleared the way for Rome and Carthage. Had the Greeks held on Medditeranean dominance for even another century, one or both of these empires might have been quite different.
- Aristotle's career, and his teachings, would presumably have been substantially different.

[edit] Medieval Era

  • Scandinavia Stays Pagan
Justification: The Nordic countries adopting Christianity was to a large extent a result of individual rulers trying to fortify their position by becoming part of the "Big European Family". Had other kings and chieftains been in charge, they might very well have rejected Christianity and stuck with the old religion.
Ramifications:
- The Norsemen might not have given up on Vinland so easily. Denmark-Norway might have become a major player in European politics with American colonies to back them up.
- Had the Vikings in Britain, Normandy, and Russia maintained their own religion, they might have fortified their position as a ruling class instead of being assimilated into the local population so quickly, creating a Scandinavian Empire in large parts of Northern Europe and preventing the rise of England - and possibly France, at least as we know it.
  • Henry II Conquers France
Justification: Henry II had already taken most of France, when he was killed by a chance arrow from the forces of his son, Richard in an ill-conceived 1189 revolt against his father. If Henry had been luckier or a slightly better father and husband to Eleanor, he might have lasted the remaining ten years necessary to find a pretext to conquer Louis' tiny remaining kingdom.
Ramifications:
- A united Angevin France and England would have been the most powerful kingdom in Europe by a wide margin and might have held an empire for centuries (see the works of Randal Garrett for an excellent example of this).
- The Hundred Years War and resulting social chaos is seen by many historians as a major contributor to the breakdown of the Feudal System and the rise of Capitalism. Without that war, might Feudalism have lasted another few centuries?
- The misrule of Henry's son, John Lackland, gave rise to the Magna Carta which was an precedent for constitutional governments everywhere, the British Parliament, and the American Revolution. With a strong Angevin Empire, constitutionalism and republican government might have remained confined to Italy for much longer.
- Without French help, it is unlikely that Scotland would ever have resisted England.
- A Kingdom of France and England would have had both the incentive and the cash to have financed the voyage of Italian expatriate Christopher Columbus.
- An Angevin Empire might have also become the Holy Roman Empire and moved the Holy See permanently to Avignon. This would have kept England a primarily Catholic country, yet paradoxically reduced the power of the Church. Taken together, the Protestant Reformation might have been much smaller and less bloody.

[edit] Renaissance/Enlightenment

  • Jacobite Britain
Justification: According to some historians, the Jacobite Rising of 1745 came close to succeeding at two points, either of which could have gone a different way. If the French invading force in 1744 hadn't been stopped by bad weather, they've have lent 10,000 troops to the cause. Later, in 1745 the Jacobites were within striking distance of London and could have seized it but their intelligence was bad and Murray believed the Jacobites to have more enemies and less friends than they in fact did. If either event had gone a different way, Stuart could have seized the English throne, at least temporarily.
Ramifications:
- Might have triggered another fifty years of religious warfare in England
- Seems unlikely that Charles could have actually held on to the throne
- May have led to a less democratic Britain by removing power from the parliament.

[edit] French Revolution Era

  • Louis XVI manage to escape to Belgium
Justification: No one knew where he was until he got out of the coach and was seen by a civil servant who recognised him and warned the Gendarmes.
Ramifications:
- The king serves as a unifying symbol for the royalists who do not become fractioned and manage with foreign help to regain the throne. No napoleonic Era.
- He stays in exile until the restoration when he comes back to the throne.

[edit] Napoleonic Era

  • The French landing in Ireland (1798) is a success
Justification: The only problem *here* was bad weather which damaged a few ships and dispersed the rest.
Ramifications:
- Ireland becomes one of the "sister republics" of France, and later becomes a kingdom under one of Napoleon's siblings
- No clear resolution is achieved by either side. British involvement in the defence of Ireland reduce its resources during later Napoleonic wars.
- Ireland becomes independent and declares neutrality during the French Imperial era (claiming that they have a debt of gratitude to the republic, not the empire). It manages to make a large profit as a neutral trader and eventually becomes a world power in the late 19th or early 20th century.
  • Napoleon dies in battle
Justification: Napoleon frequently fought on the front lines. It's quite plausible that a lucky bullet could've struck him
Ramifications:
Depends on when he was killed. Some possibilities
- Napoleon's successor negotiates a peace treaty. As France is in a position of power, he is able to keep many of France's conquests and sattelite states. Those satellites eventually break away.
Hmmmm ... I think that Imperial France would have collapsed very quickly without Napoleon after he had eliminated his rivals; his wars of conquest were to assuage the bankruptcy that France was in, after all. So if he had been killed, for example, in the invasion of Italy, I think France would have collapsed within weeks and been dismembered by the Austrians and Prussians. However, in his early years he had a number of rivals for rulership of France, a couple of whom were very capable and might have made successful Emperors themselves had he been killed in, say, 1804. --TheFuzzy 17:19, 7 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- Britian came quite late to the land war, and the victory over Napoleon established the British Army as (for a while) the premier military in the world. Had the French Empire fallen earlier, the British Empire might have had considerably more competition from the Austrians and Prussians.
- The deposition of the Spanish Royals by Napoleon, which happened late in the war, did a considerable amount to encourage the collapse of the Spanish Empire and inspire revolution in South America. Had Napoleon died before 1809, Simon de Boliviar might not have been successful.
Other thoughts?
  • Napoleon leads the Republic of (South) America
Justification: in 1821 a bunch of aristocratic rebels, British and American adventurers had a plan to spring Napoleon from St. Helena to lead a war of revolutionary conquest and create a united South America. The main reason for their failure to do so was arriving in St. Helena 3 months after Napoleon died. If Napoleon had not contracted stomach cancer (as is currently believed) South America might be very different.
Ramifications and Possibilities:
- The Republic of America survives Napoleon's death a few years later and becomes a power equal to the United States.
- Trans-American rivalry dominates politics in the Western Hemisphere for the next century. The Republic sends arms to exacerbate the devastation of the US Civil War, resulting in the collapse of North American power.
- By the 20th century, the Republic of America is a major world power. This results in a world dominated by South American culture instead of North American.
- Possibly the Catholic Church would scism, with a new Vatican in Latin America.

[edit] Victorian England

  • The pregnant Queen Victoria does not escape unscathed from the 29 May 1840 assassination attempt by Edward Oxford
Justification:
Victoria was lucky, plain and simple
  • Victoria is killed
Ramifications:
- Britain and Hanover are reunited under Ernest Augustus I of Hanover, Duke of Cumberland.
  • Victoria survives, but dies givng birth to Princess Victoria
Ramifications:
- Princess Victoria (1840-1901) becomes Victoria II (r. 1840-1901) and gives her name to the Victorian era.
- Victoria II of Britain does not marry the future Kaiser Wilhelm I.
  • Victoria survives, but suffers wounds (a stillbirth?) that make her barren
Ramifications:
- The John Brown scandal of OTL is much worse
- After 1866, George V, King of Hanover, agrees to renounce Hanover to become Prince of Wales.

[edit] Post-Napoleonic Europe

Justification:
- If Hungary became a state in personal-union with Austria, it would have reduced the non-German population in Austria proper.
Ramifications:
- Germany is (even) more contininentaly involved
- Lombardy-Venetia may be included in Germany, thus making Italy smaller
  • Karl Marx never comes up with Communism
Justification:
- If Marx had not come up with Communism, it would have drastically changed the history of the 20th Century
Ramifications:
- Income redistribution policies are never thought up.
- Russia becomes a Constitutional Monarchy?
- A far more prosperous world? The Internet invented much earlier?
- The nonexistence of Fascism?
- Far fewer wars?
- An Anarcho-Capitalist America?

[edit] Pre-Civil War US History

  • The 1787 Constitutional Convention breaks up
Justification:
It is not clear that Roger Sherman's small state/large state compromise would necessarily have been adopted. There were many conflicts between different states, and the convention could have broken up without adopting a unified constitution. Each state might then have either gone independent on its own or joined with one or two neighbors.
Ramifications:
- Possible boundary wars (New York vs. New England over Vermont, Virginia vs. other states over the "Northwest Territories")
- A weaker collection of nations along the East Coast, with some states (such as New England) looking toward England for protection, others (such as Virginia, given Jefferson's predilections) to France:
  • followers of Franklin (who by 1787 was an old man, but with much prestige) would make Pennsylvania among the pro-French states
  • as mentioned above, Virginia would also be among the pro-French
  • Maryland, squeezed between these two large pro-French states, would look to England for protection
  • New England, always pro-British anyway (almost seceding in the War of 1812 in our timeline!) would confederate and join the pro-British group
  • New York, opposed to both Pennsylvania and New England, might try to go it alone, under the leadership of a pro-strong-government Alexander Hamilton
- France retaining Louisiana (which was a lot more than the current state of that name; it was rather almost the central 1/3 of the continent!) perhaps inciting a francophone Quebec to revolt against the British and allying Louisiana to Quebec to form a major francophone alliance in North America
- No War of 1812 or Civil War, but rather many small wars altering boundaries through the 19th century
- No unification of British North America in a single large nation. Perhaps the Province of Canada becomes a dominion, followed by a union of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island. Newfoundland becomes a dominion later.
(However, see earlier note re Quebec; it seems likely that Quebec would secede from a Province of Canada, opting to remain francophone and ally itself with a Louisiana that would be a powerful force in North America!)
I'm not so sure about that last part myself. --Sikulu 11:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
That, I guess, is one of the things about alternate history; different people have different ideas on what the result of a particular change would be. I was discussing this idea with my wife, and one of the ideas that came to me didn't seem too plausible to her. (Though she agrees with me on Quebec!) -- BruceG 17:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
- The Oregon Country is entirely under British rule.
  • The New England States (and possibly neighbouring ones) secceed from the US in 1812
Justification:
The (mostly pro-Federalist) New England states threatened to secceed from the union (see the Hartford Convention)
Ramifications:
- The US becomes more dominated by the slave-owning states, particularly Virginia
- Possibly other states might decide to secceed from the union (see Nullification Crisis)
- The Louisiana purchase would probably have been returned to Spain in such a case, or bought by Britain
  • Cuba annexed in 1854
Justificiation:
Annexation of Cuba had been considered (see Ostend Manifesto)
Ramifications:
- Expansion of slavery
- Admission of another slave state
- Intensified North-South debate
- Earlier Spanish-American War
  • Corporations not legally deemed to be "people" in the United States.
Justification:
The legal concept of "corporate personhood" may have been snuffed out with an early death of Alexander Hamilton or James Webster. A slight rewording of the 14th Amendment may also prevent corporate personhood. Another possible POD is in the late 1800's if someone other than Chief Justice Morrison R. Waite presided over some of the legal challenges to US railroads.
Ramifications:
If corporations are not "people" then owners and stock holders could be more legally liable for the actions of the corporations (notably in bankruptcies and law suits). Corporations would also not have "personal" freedoms like the right to free speech which allows them to influence political campaigns in OTL. This could lead to corporations which act more responsibly and to a more ideal democratic process.

[edit] American Civil War

  • Lincoln shot much earlier.
Justification:
It may be feasible for Lincoln to be shot "on the field".
Also there were 80 reported threats (assassination plots) against Lincoln's life, some more serious than others. Most notable:
- Lincoln snuck into Washington D.C. shortly after the election due to reports of assassination plots in Baltimore. If the plot was undiscovered and Lincoln remained in Baltimore, he may have been killed before he was inaugurated.
Ramifications:
- Entire character of Civil War and its aftermath is changed.
  • Lincoln not shot
Justification:
Conspiracy to kill Lincoln uncovered before it can advance
Ramifications:
Reconstruction goes very differently
Possible socialist leanings in Lincoln's second term?
  • Washington Seized
Justification: After the first Battle of Bull Run, the Confederate Army was within striking distance of a suddenly undefended Washington DC. Only a bout of political paralysis held them back, not realizing it was as close as they would get ever. If President Davis had been more decisive, or his generals more willing to overrule him, the Civil War might have ended in only a couple of months, in favor of the South.
Ramifications:
- The Confederate states would have been, for at least a short time, a separate country.
- There would be no lasting North/South bitterness because so few people were killed.
- There was already a bitterness before the War. However, it probably would've faded over time. -- Nik 06:55, 10 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- If they remained separated for many years, the conflict might have become a trade war which the North would have won.
- More likely, I think, is a growing friendship between the two. -- Nik 06:55, 10 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- Even if the CS rejoined, state governments would probably be much stronger than they are now.
- In the CSA, most likely, in the US, however, I suspect there'd be even more centralization, quite possibly including an amendemtn or two intended to prevent a repeat of the short war. Perhaps Amendment 13 would've been something like "This Union is permament, and may not be dissolved by act of a state government", since the CSA's indepenence would've cemented secession as a right of the states. No equivalents of OTL's 13th, 14th, and 15th amendements. However, slavery wouldn't've lasted very long in either the USA or CSA. By the 20th anniversary of the CSA's birth (1881), the US would probably be slave-free, and the CS might very well be too.
Secession of Texas (perhaps with Louisiana and Arkansas) from the CSA is quite possible, too.
The CSA would definitely be a strongly states-rights-oriented nation, and would be held back economically, probably becoming dependent upon the US for industrial products. Dissolution of the CSA into several nations, possibly one nation for each state, must be considered
Kentucky is an interesting question, as well. In OTL, Kentucky initially declared neutrality. Where would they go after the war? Staying with the US, or joining the CSA?
Maryland - would a Confederate victory cause them to bolt and join the CSA, too? In OTL, it was largely martial law that prevented it from joining the CSA, and as it was, they contributed a large number of troops to the Confederate cause, almost as many Marylanders as fought for the Union, in fact, despite conscription dragging people into the Union army!
With Maryland, and hence DC, in Confederate hands, where would the capital move too? Philadelphia? Westerners might object to another Eastern capital. Columbus, Ohio is a possibility, being central to most of the population at the time, the Trans-Mississippi still being fairly sparsely populated
The US, however, would remain a much weaker nation. Probably no Spanish-American War, for example. Definitely no Alaska Purchase or Hawaii annexation.
The Republicans would be history, and with that, probably fewer, but larger, states in the West (compare the 1860 map [1] with the 1870 map [2] - the Republicans had a good deal of support in the far west, and hence, carved up the territories into smaller entities to make way for more states, hence greater strength in the Senate and Electoral College. The Dems might well reconsolidate western territories, and favor admitting them in larger pieces, in order to maintain Eastern strength
Who would've risen as the opposition party? Socialists, as Harry Turtledove suggested? Some other populist movement? -- Nik 06:55, 10 Jul 2005 (UTC)
I see you like this thread idea, Nik. If you start it, I'll contribute to it! (After I get back from my trip, that is) --TheFuzzy 02:48, 11 Jul 2005 (UTC)

[edit] World War I

  • Germany doesn't give unlimited guarantees to Austria-Hungary.
Justification: The Emperor wanted to soften the wordings, his Generals made sure the strong version was sent to Austria-Hungary. A slightly different timing might have made a big difference.
Ramifications: Austria-Hungary acts more careful. Mobilisation and tension is slightly less. Western Allies and Prussia are more neutral. The war may still happen, but it starts between Austria-Hungary and Russia. Prussia still joins on the side of Austria-Hungary, but doesn't feel as threatened by western powers, therefore avoids war against France. The desperate situation of Austria-Hungary makes western powers more wary of Russia, therefore more neutral. Germany beats Russia similar to OTL, but probably faster. To avoid too much mistrust by Britain and the US, Germany refrains from conquering more than Poland, making Finland, the Baltics, the Ukraine and maybe a few other countries independent instead. Russia may or may not have a Revolution afterwards, it will sure have a change of leadership and more parliamentary power. Austria-Hungary might still fall apart after the poor showing against Russia. It will definitely have a change in leadership. If nothing else happens, militarism might become even more popular in Germany, which might lead to an early WWII. If France decides to use the opportunity to retake Alsace-Lorraine, it would probably get into a similar trenchwar as IOTL, thanks to the machine gun. Britain and the US would probably like Germany to be weakened by that, but they might not see a reason to intervene, as no neutral countries have been attacked by Germany yet. If Germany makes the mistake of attacking Belgium to try to stop the trench war in Alsace Lorraine, Britain would help France, with hard to guess result, as the CP would be much stronger in that scenario.
  • Germany finances WWI using long term bonds (or other instruments) instead of short term bonds.
Ramifications:
- Financially: war can last longer, and debt is much easier to deal with, hyperinflation does not occur.
  • Death of Adolf hitler during WWI.
Justification: he was badly wounded at least once
Ramifications:
- The Third Reich ends up controlled by The Steel Helmets (right wing but more conservative than fascistic and not particularly antisemitic).

[edit] Spanish civil war

  • General Franco dies before the begining of the Spanish Civil War
Justification: He was wounded on the 29 of june 1916 by a bullet which narrowly missed any vital organs.
Ramifications:
- without a strong charismatic figure, the various rebel factions fight separatly and against one another in some cases.
  • In 1934, Companys (head of the catalan government) declare independence and armed the workers' militias.
Justification: *here* he believed that the security forces would be enough to ensure the catalan independence.
Ramifications:
- with other groups leading their own uprising, the civil war would have started 2 years earlier with the role being inverted of a conservative republican government fighting left wing rebels.
  • General Sanjurjo arrives in Spain and takes control of the rebel forces.
Justification: He was prevented from doing so due to his accidental death during a plane crash while leaving his exile in Portugal.
Ramifications:
- Those close to him thought that, as the war bore down, he might have accepted a compromise peace treaty with the republicans.
  • Right wing politician Calvo Sotelo is not executed
Justification: He was killed in retaliation for the murder of a left-wing officer. He was not however the first target (which was Gil Robles) of the assassins who simply kidnapped and shot the first high ranking rightwinger they could find(!)
Ramifications:
- He was considered to be the senior civilian of the Movement's conspiracy and a popular figure in his own right. He might have prevented the military from obscuring the other factions which could have lead to an authoritarian but not totalitarian regime.
  • José Antonio Primo de Rivera is broken out of prison at Alicante
Justification: the raid was well planed and backed by German help. Last minute changes ruined an escape that might have succeeded.
Ramifications:
- As one of the most charismatic leaders of the nationalists, he and his falange could have manage to gain control of the others. Under Primo de Rivera, spain would have had become something similar to fascist italy and might have well joined up the axis during WWII instead of adopting neutrality.

[edit] World War II

  • Roosevelt declines a 3rd term. John Nance Garner, the Vice-President, is elected by a modest margin.
Justification: Roosevelt's third term was unprecedented. Though not un-Constitutional, it was traditional for Presidents to only serve two terms "as Washington had". Garner was highly regarded in Democratic politics and likely to get the nomination in 1940. He was however more traditionalist and opposed to some "New Deal" programs.
Ramification: Unlike Roosevelt, Garner would have had little influence on decreasing American isolationism. He likely would not have passed Lend-Lease or possibly even the Japanese oil embargo. Without the embargo, the Japanese likely would not have attacked Pearl Harbor. And without Lend-Lease, the British would have faced a dire situation from the U-boat threat.
  • The attempt to assassinate Hitler on November 8th, 1939 succeeds.
Justification: Johann Georg Elser placed a large bomb in a column behind the speakers podium in preparation for Hitler's annual speech commemorating the failed putsch of 1923. The bomb went off, half the building was destroyed, 8 people were killed, and 65 wounded - but Hitler was uninjured because he had finished his speech early and left the building eight minutes earlier. If Elser had timed his explosion differently, Hitler would have been killed.
Ramifications: This is after Germany invaded Poland. Britain and France had already declared war on Germany but the real fighting was still in the future. With Hitler gone, all the big decision will be different and will depend on who becomes the next leader. Had Germany sued for peace quickly a large-scale war might have been avoided.
  • The assassination attempt on Hitler on July 20, 1944 is a success.
Justification: The plan was for a bomb (hidden in a satchel) to blow up right next to Hitler. Before the meeting however, an aide had moved the satchel in question under a chair at the other end of the table. When it blew up, the table (one of those monsters made of hardwood) took the brunt of the blast, sparing Hitler.
Ramifications:
- Germany sues for an end to the war.
- Germany signs a peace treaty with the allied countries minus Russia.
- The government fractures into factions and this lead to a civil war.
  • France is occupied by the Allies after the Normandy landing and treated in a manner similar to Italy.
Justification: A plan to do this had been drafted before D-day. Only de Gaulle's actions prevented its application
Ramifications:
- Resentment eventually pushes France into the communist camp
- Various groups including maquis, communists and former military under de Gaulle keep up a guerilla warfare against the occupation.

[edit] Cold War

  • Cuban Missile Crisis leads to World War Three
Justification: At this time the world came very close to a nuclear exchange OTL (some sources say the orders to launch a nuclear attack were revoked two minutes before such orders were no longer reversible).
Ramifications: Hundreds of nuclear explosions would reduce the industrial capacity of the USA, USSR and many other nations to about zero. Large scale long term environmental damage to the target nations and nations down wind.
  • JFK survives assassination attempt
Justification: Any number of coincidences could have made the attempt fail. Basically, the shot got lucky, not the president.
Ramifications: With Kennedy in office until 1969, the Vietnam War might have looked very different.
  • Gerald Ford wins re-election
Justification: Ford's bid for re-election hinged on Carter's ability to appear as a reformer. Also public dissatisfaction with the Nixon pardon. If either had been lessened, Ford could have won re-election in 1976.
Ramifications: Ford's victory would have lessened the chance of a Ronald Reagan nomination in 1980. Bob Dole was Ford's running mate, and given Republican Party politics, likely as not "given" the nomination. Dole would then probably have faced off with Ted Kennedy for the 1980 Presidential election.
It also might have squashed the conservative wing of the GOP or even caused a rift in the Republicans.

[edit] Gulf War

  • Saddam Hussein uses nerve gas against US troops during Persian Gulf War in 1989/90
Justification: Saddam Hussein had various chemical weapons at his disposal at this time including nerve gas. The scud missiles were proving to be too inaccurate for their payload of 500lb of explosives to be of much use. A chemical payload would not require as much accuracy.
Ramifications:
- If there were large US casualties in Dhahran or Riyadh due to nerve gas, this could result in harsher terms at the end of the war, helping anti-Saddam insurgents. Or it could even cause the scope of the war to increase to "regime change". An Iraq War style conflict could have occurred a decade earlier than in OTL but with 500,000 US troops rather than the 150,000 seen in OTL.

[edit] The 2000 US Presidential Election

Bill Clinton doesn't lie about Lewinsky, Gore isn't embarrassed by him and accepts Clinton's help in winning the election.

Hillary Clinton does more to help Gore's election campaign.

"Butterfly Ballots" are not used in Florida, and the voters there are not confused.

Just a few hundred more people go to the polls, and Al Gore wins a few more electoral votes, and the election.

Ramifications:
-Earlier transition to fuel effecient and hybred vehicles.
You overestimate the President's influence here.
Look what he is doing with a single doccumentary. You underestimate to most powerful position in the country.
-Possible electoral reform, including constitutional amenments to have a proportional electoral college, or even to abolish it all together.
Any party which has achieved power is unlikely to have the rules-of-the-game changed.
This depands on how Gore would have one. If he won through straight numbers then there would be no incentive to change the electoral system. But if it was post- Florida and the Supreme Court ruling in his favor then there could be a push for changes in the way we handle our elections.
-No Iraq or Afghanistan wars, as it's quite probable that 9/11 would have been reacted to differently.
Afghan War is still likely (assuming 9/11 occurs) but Iraq War would not happen
Posibile Saudi war, considering the ties between the Royal family and the bin Ladens. Also there would be no personal/political friendship between the Saudis and Gore.
-No record economic upswings.
Definitely a matter of opinion on how the economy was handled under GWB.
Economy would have been much better without Bush wasting trillions on the military and as plums to his rich friends. History has shown that liberal presidents lead to economic prosperity, while conservatives destroy the economy and attempt to blame liberals.
-Shoe bombers and other attempted terrorist attacks may have succeeded.
Does the election ensure that the stewardess Hermis Moutardier is not on flight AA 63 or that she is not attentive enough to notice that Mr. Reid is trying to light a fuse on his shoe? Consider also that the Department of Homeland Security was an idea forced on the Republicans by the Democrats and by propaganda stating (untruthfully) that there was popular support - a different president may change its nature but not its existence.
-Tax cuts may have not happened.
. . . but federal spending would also be much smaller.
... thus leading to the continuation of Clinton's surplus.
-Iraq and Afghanistan war/invasion/occupations may not have happened (depending on your political POV)
-System of Carbon Credits adopted to reduce pollution and "Climate Change".
-Greater federal control of the internet.
Not sure how you mean that. Do you mean censorship? I'm not so sure a liberal president would be behind censoring free speech.

[edit] The 2004 US Presidential Election

Howard Dean doesn't give that scream during one of his speeches, he doesn't get ridiculed, and more people vote for the Democrats.


A few thousand more people go to the polls, John Kerry wins a few more electoral votes, and the election.


Evidence that the Republicans were cheating during George W. Bush's debates with John Kerry, is publicized before the election.

Justification:
Here are web sites with articles on accusations of cheating by the Bush team:

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2012 http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_10/004929.php http://www.counterpunch.org/lindorff10162004.html http://mediastudy.com/articles/av1-20-05.html


And an accusation of Kerry cheating by using note cards during a debate:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1234124/posts

Ramifications:

Kerry may go "Nixon-1968" and instead of "winning in Iraq", prolong it as much as Bush is in OTL, in an effort to stave off being "the Democratic President who lost Iraq". (Given his stance during OTL's 2004 campaign, not his post-defeat stance).

The Republicans may have kept Congress in 2006, despite the Abramoff and Foley scandals, due to public desire for "divided government".

[edit] See also

Retrieved from "http://althistory.wikia.com/wiki/Alternative_History:Hinge_moments"
Personal tools
.