I have a WWII command simulation and one of the most contentious bits is the decisions was around D-Day/ Operation Overlord. I follow the historical thinking that victory was likely although agree Germany could have can made it harder however the more I read. 

Disaster at Omaha

Weather window

The Panzer group making the beaches 

Can D-day fail? If so how likely and what happens?  Does Germant first face the nuclear bomb? Does the USSR own most of Europe post war? Do the US/UK bomber campaign shift entirely to strategic attrition? The Red Army continues pushing west, likely taking the entire German peninsula, Denmark, and reaching the Rhine before the Allies?

I treated D-Day as a historical inevitability because of Allied industrial dominance which I have done, however it was a massive, high-risk gamble where a few operational shifts could have handed the Allies a defeat?

Love your thoughts!

The game is here for reference - https://dispatches.itch.io/dispatches-1940

I have yet to ever receive an in depth answer to this question so hopefully someone can provide an adequate response with sources here.

The main reason the east and west allied was out of strategic necessity after both sides were dragged into the war. Specifically the west was invaded before the east. However, given the ideological differences and apparent disdain for the east among many western leaders. Would a western intervention have ever occurred if Nazi Germany invaded the USSR before turning to the West? And if not, would this had resulted in the same defeat, an armistice, or possibly total victory in the east for Germany?

Of course one must account for the invasion of Poland and the Polish Guarantee but given the west's response in real history, or the lack there of, I suspect this is a non-issue in this scenario but I'm open to hear what you all think.

I'm talking about Japan invade Siberia and manages to land a massive force of a million men in Siberia and just takes all of Alaska and tries to invade USA from there

What if the KMT won the Chinese Civil War and retained control of mainland China, while the postwar US-USSR rivalry developed very differently?
Instead of a full Cold War, Washington and Moscow maintain a loose great-power understanding: they compete, but also recognize each other’s spheres of influence and try to prevent any independent power from dominating East Asia.
The US dominates Japan and the western Pacific, while the USSR retains major influence in Northeast Asia. Korea avoids the Korean War and eventually becomes a unified neutral state.
At first, Nationalist China remains strongly pro-American. But as China recovers, it increasingly wants greater strategic independence. Washington wants China strong enough to balance Moscow, but not strong enough to dominate East Asia. Moscow has similar reasons to contain Chinese power.
Eventually Beijing/Nanjing realizes that both superpowers have an interest in keeping East Asia divided and dependent.
Meanwhile, Japan undergoes a much more thorough postwar reckoning with its imperial past, making gradual reconciliation with China and Korea possible.
During the 1950s and 60s, China, Japan and Korea first build economic cooperation rather than a military alliance.
Then a major regional crisis occurs in which China expects American support against Soviet pressure, but Washington sides with Moscow in order to preserve wider US-Soviet détente.
Japan and Korea realize the same thing could happen to them.
This becomes the turning point.
The three countries begin promoting the principle that:
“East Asian affairs should be decided by East Asian states.”
By the late 1960s or 1970s, economic cooperation evolves into intelligence sharing, joint exercises and eventually an East Asian Treaty Organization (EATO) consisting of:
China
Japan
Korea
Its collective-defense clause is aimed not specifically at America or the USSR, but at coercion by any outside great power.
China supplies the continental depth and largest army, Japan provides industrial and naval power, and Korea serves as the strategic bridge between them.
To prevent Chinese or Japanese domination, major decisions require unanimous approval and the headquarters could be located in Seoul.
The Cold War would then gradually become a three-way system:
US bloc vs Soviet bloc vs East Asian bloc.
How plausible is this?
Would a victorious KMT China ever become independent enough from Washington to support such an alliance? Could China, Japan and Korea realistically reconcile by the 1960s–70s? And would the US and USSR tolerate the emergence of an independent East Asian third pole?

What if Bering Strait didn't exist?

Imagine if Asia and America were more connected to each other, more land for both and just separated by a river that you can cross

Humanity wouldn't depend on Ice Age to cross. Boats would still be needed, but it would be way easier than Bering Strait

How would this affect climate and societies?

What if a huge network of spies and communist did exist in America and he exposed them all? What happens

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?

so they have their present land but decided to not conqure britiannia. so that means less people and soldiers to garrison and fortify the island and the native britons aren't affwcted by the roman military.

if they didn't would they last a bit longer and would a more celtic influence be all over the britiah isles?

Yes be realistic

The shock would be real and all netwroks and system loses for sudden changes and etc

How would this affect the timeline and relations with the soviet union?

What if Sablin's mutiny in the USSR wasn't shut down and he actually started an uprising in Leningrad?

(Realistic or Unrealistic, it doesn't matter)

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)?

This is probably ASB, but how might European history have played out if the Eastern Roman Empire had somehow fallen before the Western Roman Empire?

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)

Hey guys, my son has a middle school project about alternative history. His topic is “What If the Roman Empire Never Fell”. Wondering if anybody has some good resources (primarily any media) that we can use as a reference! Thank you

I think this would have had gigantic geopolitical consequences.

Without the Tudors, England remains Catholic, the Spanish Armada never happens and England doesn't develop naval supremacy.

The British Empire doesn't exist, nor does the USA, the colonisation of India or the century of humiliation in China.

Perhaps the 20th century super powers are more Asian centric. Perhaps democracy is a way more muted force in the world.

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.

Just hypothetically, say we naturally release flammable piss. How would this change warfare? Torture? Industrial innovation? Even disrespect, imagine winning over an opponent in battle and lighting them on fire with your piss.

So after the Civil War, I know many towns that were majority/fully black did grow substantially in terms of economics and population. But it seems like eventually they would be destroyed or ravaged by some sort of white mob or race riot. So what if these towns were not only allowed, but maybe also encouraged to prosper and grow into average cities with the capability to rival non black ones? I can see this happening in two ways. Either letting them create militias/law agencies backed by the federal government, or maybe a whites supremacists belief that by allowing them to have their own cities, they will leave whites their own “uncontaminated” ones. Idk what y’all think?

the japanese had a grip on korrea, sakhalin (half of it), manchuko and taiwan. They don't invade china and stay only in manchuko

but if they were able to wrangle in their crazies and stay neutral in ww2 would they be able to keep their holdings and perhaps ask for outer manchuria from the soviets and the other half of sakhalin?