Top products from r/HistoryWhatIf

We found 23 product mentions on r/HistoryWhatIf. We ranked the 34 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.

Next page

Top comments that mention products on r/HistoryWhatIf:

u/DrImpeccable76 · 1 pointr/HistoryWhatIf

http://www.viewsoftheworld.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/CroplandsMap_GriddedCartogram.jpg

Why exactly do you think that North America, Europe and Asia have so much more cropland than Africa and South America?
What do you think people do when they are more fertile land which requires fewer farmers to keep them alive? They become more educated, develop more advanced infrastructure, create technology at a much faster pace, etc. Just as an example, about 2% of the US population works in agriculture, 15% of Brazilians do the same.

And since you seem to like books so much (despite not even linking one that backs up your statments): https://www.amazon.com/Guns-Germs-Steel-Fates-Societies/dp/0393317552/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1466407800&sr=8-1&keywords=guns+germs+and+steel

Anyway, I don't want to act like cultural factors don't make any difference in the economic development over long periods of time becaue they certainly do, but you should not ignore the fact that certain parts of the world (such as Europe and North America) have climates and natural resources that are much more conducive to economic development.

u/Rand4m · 1 pointr/HistoryWhatIf

The Alteration. Because it did win the John W. Campbell award -- a major science fiction award -- it should be easy to find. Here it is over on Amazon.com.

u/JustARandomCatholic · 9 pointsr/HistoryWhatIf

I'm drawing that statement from a Soviet tank crewman's memoirs, hardly something I'd consider western propaganda.
The M4A3E8 met the T-34-85 in Korea, and did very well against it. (Though you could argue that was differing crew capabilities.) A big part of that was that both tanks are capable of penetrating the other, which means he who shoots first generally wins, and the Sherman's superior optics and visibility gave it the advantage there.

u/zardwiz · 11 pointsr/HistoryWhatIf

Over the intervening years, there would have been substantially more dead young Soviet men. That sort of warfare is difficult enough in a best case scenario when you have plenty of spare parts and the authority to change tactics because you're the one on the ground and you know what's going on there.

Those men and their commanders had neither, and they were at the end of a pretty miserable supply line as well. In order for Russia or the USSR to have won that war, I would submit that significant political changes would have been necessary. Those changes would have removed altogether the entire reason for being in the war (politics and pride).

A much earlier fall of the Soviet Union might have created the political conditions necessary to win the war, but at what cost? The Soviet economy of the time wasn't quite ripe for pillaging yet. Without the level of pillaging and profit-taking seen in the aftermath of the fall in OTL, the rise of people like Putin is potentially in doubt. Certainly, the ascent of someone like that would have taken rather longer.

For Russia to have a strong ruler arising from that class, a solid military, the necessary politics, and the resources and desire for a war like that, we could move the fall of the USSR back to 1959, two decades prior to the war. Doing so would be quite likely to lead to nuclear war, making the entire question moot. A "democratic" Russia ruled by a Yeltsin analogue followed by a Putin analogue in the same relative amount of time starting in 1959 would not have ended well for the world, I think.

I can imagine a few variations that might make it possible, but precious few of them lead to a world I'd want to live in.

For background, I'd suggest two sources, both of which are reasonably accessible. Grau's collection of experiences as told by Soviets is available in free PDF from a .mil source if you search it. The Wilson Center maintains translated minutes of Politburo meetings which shed light on how the war was handled (or not handled, as it were) at a high level of the Soviet government.

But to answer your question... Several years ago I drafted a rather lengthy alternate history to that effect. It's since been lost in its entirety, but the general gist was this: A strong foothold in Afghan cities would have allowed the Soviets to pay less attention to the mountains and countryside, for there lay only despair. If and only if, the Soviets had taken an iron grip on the cities, they would then have had rather interesting paths into a few key places. Namely, Iran as a whole and possibly China. Ignoring the geopolitical implications of taking Chinese territory in the early eighties, and also ignoring the fact that the Soviets didn't want Chinese territory, it was a possibility. Islamabad would not have been a terribly difficult target to drive tanks through in those days, probably, and the natives might not have harassed a Soviet force "just passing through" the way the Afghans fought the Soviets. Iran not only has oil, but also was in a much better position than the Russians to exploit and sell the same at the time. If the Soviets had taken the important parts of Afghanistan, and carried on into Iran, that oil production could well have supported them long enough to get to an era where some of the resources in Afghanistan would make it worth slowly bringing the villages into line to exploit those resources. The actual process of drilling and mining is arguably easier (certainly different) in Iran and Afghanistan than in, say, Siberia.

Two major changes would come out of those. First, we'd likely have a USSR-US balance of power to this day, and that is not a bad thing at all for world stability so long as both sides elect relatively sensible men to lead. It gives pause to smaller states with larger aspirations, at least, which is worthwhile for stability in and of itself. When smaller states are aligned with one of two or three significant powers, no one really wants to go to war. We'd have fewer rogue states, certainly.

Further, I'd argue that inclusion of Iran, Afghanistan, and possibly the relevant parts of Pakistan into the Soviet fold would play a significant role in preventing the growth of both state-sponsored and ideologically encouraged terrorism. Had the Soviets won the war in Afghan cities and in surrounding nations rich with resources, AQ and their ilk might have been reduced to nothing but mountain bandits fighting against the Soviets. Without the extended reach of pseudo-ideological terror, it's entirely possible that the remainder of the Middle East would have sorted themselves out and undone the damage done after WWI, through a series of small skirmishes and resulting treaties. Perhaps only a few miles of border at a time could be drawn that way, but they could be drawn in a way that made nations and states make sense. Encouraging that would have gone a very long way towards softening the underlying strife in the region today.

TL;dr - Had the Soviets focused on their doctrine instead of their politics, and been ravenously more expansionist than they already were, a large part of the world might today be more peaceful.

u/cl191 · 4 pointsr/HistoryWhatIf

This alt history novel series is an excellent read. Although in this series, both the Allies and the Axis powers received tactics and technologies from the future in story.

u/babbagack · 2 pointsr/HistoryWhatIf

There is actually a book on it, haven't read it, ex-CIA guy apparently too. However, from a theological perspective, Muslims considered each truly revealed religion to be Islam(submission to the will of God), since the time of Adam, Noah, Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad, peace be upon them all. In any case, link to the book, haven't read it, can't vouch for it personally but if I recall right, someone I know recommended a look:

https://www.amazon.com/World-Without-Islam-Graham-Fuller/dp/0316041203/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1527258736&sr=8-1&keywords=a+world+without+islam

u/WP47 · 7 pointsr/HistoryWhatIf

Feasible, but only under a number of specific circumstances. Third Reich Victorious is a book I'd recommend reading if you are interested in these sort of scenarios where the Axis fares far better than it did historically.

In the last scenario envisioned, Germany pulls off something very similar. However, the following conditions were necessary:

  1. Failure of Operation Overlord to gain a significant beachhead on the shores of Normandy.
  2. Operation Valkyrie is successfully implemented as Hitler celebrates repulsing the Allied Western Front. Oberst Claus von Stauffenberg comes to Generalfeldmarschall Erwin Rommel not only to hand the reins of power over to the national hero, but to expose the death camps for what they are.
  3. Rommel makes a generous offer to the Western Allies:
    arresting all SS & Gestapo personnel, repatriating all captured prisoners from the failed landings, and a full restoration of France & the Low Countries. (Maybe he keeps Elsass-Lothringen, maybe not.)
  4. Rommel institutes the industrial and military doctrinal reforms required to stop the Red Army cold at the 1941 pre-war line.

    Now if you are set on having a Nazi Germany survive, that is indeed, as /u/just_some_italian mentioned, extremely unlikely. However, assuming you are okay with an Imperial Germany surviving...

    The Cold War is likely to be very very different. Not only is the USSR far more weakened, the West would be more inclined to be isolationist in the coming years. It's even possible that the Korean & Vietnamese Wars never happen, the Space Race may not occur, and many inventions that stemmed from military research may not be invented until much later (computers, internet, and microwaves to name a few).

    Ultimately, too much of a butterfly effect to properly account for, any estimation of historical changes is even more WAGs than usual. There are so many minutia that would be changed and have a great effect that it really is hard to tell exactly how it would be different.
u/persiangriffin · 3 pointsr/HistoryWhatIf

Allow me to recommend picking up a copy of John Keegan's The Mask of Command.

u/ApertureBrowserCore · 1 pointr/HistoryWhatIf

There's a book about this very topic! It's called Stonewall Goes West and is written by R. E. Thomas. I bought it on Amazon. Here's its description:

> Stonewall Jackson's death at the Battle of Chancellorsville is the great "what if" of the Civil War. In Stonewall Goes West, the fabled Jackson survives his wounding at Chancellorsville in 1863 to assume command of the South's Army of Tennessee. In a final bid to reverse the failing fortunes of the Confederacy, a maimed but unbowed General Jackson confronts not only Sherman's Union armies on the western front, but his own recalcitrant generals. Stonewall Goes West gives the classic "what if" a fresh, new answer in a fast-paced tale, rich with authentic detail, filled with battle and strategy, and populated by the Civil War's most colorful personalities.

So he does get injured but from the bit I've read of the book it seems to not play into things too much. It's been a while since I started it and I don't remember a whole lot but I enjoyed what parts I remember.

Hope this helps you out OP

u/billyjoedupree · 1 pointr/HistoryWhatIf

Encircling Moscow alone would have severally disrupted Soviet logistics to the west. Lrnd-lease through would get rerouted to Vladivostok and later Basra, severally slowing the flow at a critical time.

It possibly would have caused Soviet troops who were holding ground to the north and south to start counter attacks on AG Centers flanks, similar to the piecemeal spoiler attacks of early June and July. All of these things work for the Germans.

Without the direct support of STAVKA at Leningrad, it is quite possible that the Germans take the city before '42. This not only frees AG North but the Finns as well.

Taking, or even encircling Moscow might be enough to get Japan to consider reneging on the non-agression pact. This kind of pressure would slow the withdrawal of the Siberia divisions. Possibly causing a less effective winter offensive.

Does Moscow win them the war, that's another question. I don't think so, but it puts the Soviets at a serious disadvantage.

Here's a good book that explores the question if your interested. I don't like some of the authors reasoning, mostly the spacial comparison of the French campaign to justify the same gains in Russia. He does a good job of exploring the question otherwise.

http://www.amazon.com/Hitlers-Panzers-East-World-Reinterpreted/dp/0806125810

u/MJ724 · 4 pointsr/HistoryWhatIf

The other answers here have been sufficient, it was the last period a war like that could have been survivable in some recognizable shape.

​

I will link you this though if you want to read more about it : Bombs Away

u/dr__professional · 1 pointr/HistoryWhatIf

Depends on when. If you're interested, I'd recommend "The Hot War" but Harry Turtledove:
https://www.amazon.com/Bombs-Away-Hot-Harry-Turtledove/dp/0553390724

The POD is MacArthur uses nukes in the Korean War.

u/gallenator85 · 24 pointsr/HistoryWhatIf

Posted this over in /r/HistoricalWhatIf on the same question as well, but I'm sharing here too because I spent two hours on this answer goddammit, so I've earned this!

Part 1/2

I think this massively depends on why the Famine never happens. There were a lot of factors that came together in a perfect storm to make the Famine as devastating as it was, so depending on which of these are considered the point of divergence from OTL changes a lot of things for the outcome. That said, some things happen the same regardless.

Let's briefly run through how the Great Famine (An Gorta Mór) happened in OTL:

Massive Disclaimer: _Many parts of this are simplified for the purposes of a more coherent answer and easier reading. If you want to go a bit more in-depth, try reading This Great Calamity by Christine Kinealy, Famine: A Short History by Cormac Ó Gráda, or if you want something visual (that's not to abysmal), you could watch Extra Credits' series on the Irish Potato Famine._

Now, on with the context.

Irish lands were owned by British landlords - many of whom were absentee and represented by middlemen - and divided out among tenant farmers. These farmers (around two-thirds or so) lived on plots of land ranging from about 0.4 hectares to 6 hectares. The land was so small because the middlemen were given the entire estate to manage and just told to collect rent for it. As such, dividing it up meant more farmers and, therefore, more rent. The small plots of land, combined with the fact that tenancy was "at will" (tenants' rights really only existed in Ulster, and - not coincidentally - this is where the Famine had the lightest impact) meant that farmers had to use very little land to grow enough food to both pay their extortionate rents and feed their (usually quite large) families. Since the potato is a very efficient crop, that can grow in almost any soil type and produces a lot from very little, this meant that tenant farmers were pretty much growing only potatoes. So there was no real grain plots and definitely no animal rearing.

Once the blight caught on, the potato harvests were absolutely destroyed. And since most of the impoverished farmers were almost totally dependent on the potato, the result was widespread collapse of both the Irish economy (such as it was at the time) and the Irish populace. The British government could've stepped in and eased the suffering, but the situation was severely mismanaged - either through incompetence in their efforts, misunderstanding of the situation or (in some cases) a belief that the poor needed to be culled anyway - so this was just nature's way of balancing itself. It also wasn't helped that those in power in Westminster who could've mobilised support tried using the situation to advance their own political agenda. Sir Charles Trevelyan - secretary of the treasury - made efforts to delay and suppress famine relief aid from abroad (American maize, for example) so as to not impact free market ideology and undermine British international trade. This meant that aid wasn't getting to those who needed it. Many were forced into workhouses, made to emigrate, or straight up left to die. The political instability also caused many people to take up arms to fight against British rule in attempts to feed themselves and their families.

Thus, the stage is set; the actors are in place; the curtain rises; and disaster is inevitable. A combination of over-reliance on a single crop due to a massively corrupt and unregulated system of land ownership, a disconnection from the reality of life in rural Ireland, a general feeling of contempt for the poor (especially the Irish poor), and the willingness to sacrifice human life and wellbeing for political gain, all created a massive powder keg on the Emerald Isle; ready to blow at the first sign of trouble. Indeed, the blight itself was merely the spark that ignited the whole thing.

u/Tangurena · 2 pointsr/HistoryWhatIf

The Japanese believed that since it took the Allies 4 years to build the first atomic bomb, that it would take 4 years to build the second one. We knew this because we were reading their codes. They knew what an atom bomb would do because they had their own atom bomb project. The Soviet Union, in compliance with the Potsdam Agreement, declared war 90 days after Germany's surrender. It was when the Soviets reneged on their non-aggression treaty with Japan and declared war, the Japanese high command knew that they had unequivocally lost the war.

Some books covering the history of atom bomb projects:
The Making of the Atomic Bomb.
Dark Sun, this contains a lot of updates to the first book that came out after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

u/sonofabutch · 3 pointsr/HistoryWhatIf

There's a couple issues with your premise. First, if you're including minorities and "criminals," the number is higher. The U.S. Holocaust Museum estimates 17 million people were killed in the Holocaust: 6 million Jews, but also Russians, Ukrainians, Poles, Serbs, Slovenes, Romani, people with disabilities, homosexuals, political opponents, Jehovah's Witnesses, Roman Catholics, Freemasons, and criminals.

But your question specifically dealt with Jews, so let's rule out minorities and "criminals" and just stick with 6 million Jews.

This is the second issue with your premise: Of those 6 million Jews, only about 160,000 to 180,000 were German Jews. The Germans also killed Jews from Poland -- about 3 million Polish Jews, in fact. They also killed Jews in the countries they occupied -- France, Belgium, Holland, Greece, and Norway. (Almost all the Jews of Denmark were saved.) Jews in German-occupied Italy were rounded up after Italy surrendered to the Allies in 1943.

They also killed Jews in Nazi-allied countries like Hungary and Bulgaria who are presumably eligible for "recruitment."

So the vast majority of Jews murdered by the Germans were not in fact subject to recruitment, they were enemies of the Germans. It's true that some people in occupied countries joined the Germans, but a very small percentage... certainly less than 33 percent of the total population.

TL;DR - No, you're not adding 2 million more soldiers.

However, you can make an interesting argument about how the Manhattan Project fares without all the refugee scientists from Europe...