Best products from r/HistoryWhatIf

> 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.

You have a good point and I won't deny that croplands play no role but they definitely don't play a significant one. Iceland, and other Nordic countries are doing just fine. The reason poorer countries have more people working in agriculture is because the countries are less industrialized/automated and the people are less skilled so they have to work in menial jobs. In South America it has nothing to do with an inability to produce adequate crops. A good portion of what they produce will be exported anyways.

> And since you seem to like books so much (despite not even linking one that backs up your statments

This is my textbook from macroeconomics 101. Where the majority of my knowledge on the subject comes from.

https://www.amazon.com/Principles-Economics-7th-Gregory-Mankiw/dp/128516587X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1466409272&sr=8-1&keywords=principles+of+economics

I'm also aware of Guns Germs and Steel. It has decent points about the long term development of large population groups of humans. Such as how the shape of the continents and domesticatable animals attributed to the Asian/European domination of the world.

However, when talking about things like why the British eventually overcame the Chinese in a period of a few hundred years it has more to do with principles of macroeconomics than it does with climate.

> 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.

It has a small effect over thousands upon thousands of years. However the reasons why North America is more developed than South America in the modern world has very little or almost nothing to do with food. More to do with stable governments as a result of culture, education, and wealth.

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.

One of these days I need to dig into the archives of NASA and pull out some of the actual vehicles and plans they had for several missions into space that even went into some considerable depth in terms of planning and even performing the celestial navigation calculations needed to travel to those destinations.

If you want to read at least one alternative history novel by an actual astronaut, I'd recommend reading The Return, which goes into some of the alternative plans that were done by NASA as well by somebody who should know.

It would be fun to write this up like Rome Sweet Rome (/r/romesweetrome/) but as another type of alt history. It is something I'm passionate about as you can tell.

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.

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.

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.

Yeah sure! Prisoners of Geography by Tim Marshall is a great primer on how geography basically locks us into world political climate we have today.

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.

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

There is a great book on the topic: http://www.amazon.com/Bombs-Away-Hot-War/dp/0553390708

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.

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

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

1901, a novel by Robert Conroy, addresses a similar scenario.

Another excellent text is Judith Keene's Fighting For Franco https://www.amazon.co.uk/Fighting-Franco-International-Volunteers-Nationalist/dp/1852855932

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

Glenn Greenwald, who reported the Edward Snowden revelations, argues that this decision set the precedent for the powerful in the U.S. publicly and unapologetically declaring that the law applies differently to them then it does to the masses.
http://www.amazon.com/Liberty-Justice-Some-Equality-Powerful/dp/1250013836

I've got a link.

The Anglo-American / Nazi War, which was later cleaned up and published as Festung Europa.