Re: New Reality Seeds
 

Try this idea.

Western Antarctica collapses in 1991. This would entail the ice shelves breaking up, the sea waves beating out ice caves, the over hanging ice falling into the sea, and the submerged ice bobbing up. Then the currents take all the ices away and the cycle repeats. Theoretically this could put enough ice into the sea to raise sea level by twenty feet. Eastern Antarctica has a different geography.

The importance of this senario is that it could "realistically," for a given value of "realistic," raise sea-level 20 feet in as many years. I could see populations blame the conservative widely in power at the time, folks like Clinton come in with big change because we're in an emergency mandate, and conservatives, because they were deticated to attacking Clinton in America, and Liberals and social democrats elsewhere, getting seen as disloyal and self-seeking.

Global Warming would be taken far more seriously. Large populations would be displaced. Both conservatives and the far left would become radicallised and probably violent. It could be an interesting world.

Re: New Reality Seeds
 

The Book of Revelations almost didn't make it into the Bible because too many thought it read like the ravings of a lunatic. Considering the effect that book has had on culture, imagine if it had been an apocryphal text...

Re: New Reality Seeds
 

Or if one of the others got left out. Imagine cutting Job with its message of bad things happening to good people for "reasons" not quite fitting with the other books.

Re: New Reality Seeds
 

I do like this one. It would be an interesting near-parallel.

Speaking of near-parallels:

What if we make the attempted assassination of Archduke Ferdinand successful?

It's pretty out-there, I know, but let's go with it. We'll say that disorganized and poorly-equipped though they were, one of the assassins goes to get a sandwich at the last minute and accidentally ends up right on the parade route, giving him one last, ultimately successful chance.

So, although any realistic history would probably keep going just fine, it's plausible that the assassination would cause the Great War to come much earlier as the treaties and general instability come crashing down.

We'd probably see Denmark, Great Britain, Italy, Turkey, and Russia one one side, and Germany, France (sharing their Holy Roman roots), Austria, continental Scandinavia, and many of the smaller powers of Europe on the other. Since this all comes before the widespread adoption of Zeppelins, there's little need to focus on good airfields in this early Great War, but I've always thought that conflict of the era could spur the ultimate evolution of personal armor: the armored tractor. Imagine the treads of a tractor put on the sides of steel pillbox. The interior could be quite comfortable, since the armor would be so massive that internal comforts would add minimally to overall weight.

I think it matches the tech level of the time pretty well, and would allow for faster transport over the muddy fields and wastes produced by artillery (not aerial bombardment).

Without the war-ending power of Zeppelins, the Early Great War could drag on for some time. Long enough for camps of men from opposing sides to get to know one another. This is a bit silly, but I could almost imagine opposing forces calling a ceasefire for Christmas, possibly even trading gifts!

No, too unrealistic. Forget it.

Sooner or later, this version of the War would eventually end. Since France and Austria-Germany (well, just Austria and Germany in this timeline) started the conflict by responding to the assassination of the Archduke, one would imagine they would have the advantage and win... however, I think that the United States would eventually join her mother country. The USA's isolationism would probably minimize their effect in the war, but nonetheless, the Central European Powers would eventually fall.

The timeline would almost appear normal at that point: A peaceful Europe, united under a League of Nations, and only distantly involved in the colonial conflicts of the 1930s and 40s. However, Franco-Germany, Austria, and Scandinavia would all be crushed by the loss of the War, easy targets for Communist demagogs. I think it's fair to say that 1950 would see the rise of a new European Socialist/Communist Party. Politics are boring, of course, so let's just make them cartoonishly evil- make them make scapegoats of catholics or something and lock them up in prisons, for instance- and I don't know, give them black uniforms with skulls. Or maybe just make them take Eugenics too far, unlike the successful campaigns in the United States in OTL.

The world could be set for a second Great War- a Greater War. No telling who would win, frankly, if Franco-Germany remains united. Imagine a European conflict in 1950, without zeppelins, but with armadas of armored, gunbearing tractors. It could be fearsome indeed! They might even use Atomics in anger- possibly utilizing some kind of thorium-steam-gun or a x-ray lantern. The second could even be the only way to penetrate the armor of the tractors!

Re: New Reality Seeds
 

Of course a German-Franco Coalition within living memory of the Franco-Prussian War of 1870 is rather unlikely. How do you think an assassination of the Heir to the Austro-Hungarian Throne would overcome that?

Re: New Reality Seeds
 

Well, I'm basing that off the OTL alliance in 1942 during the colonial wars in Africa. But that was just as much with Belgium.

Re: New Reality Seeds
 

Ah good point, it would certainly make more sense than, hrm, say an alliance with England. France and England have been fighting for over a thousand years, I don't see it ending anytime soon.

Re: New Reality Seeds
 

Please let's not indulge in hyperbole. That disagreement barely lasted seven centuries and has been over for just over a century now. That's not to say that they're enamoured of each other but they don't find themselves knee-jerk opposition to the other side's stance anymore.

I'm unsure what failed assassination plot you're referring to. Apparently, there was one attempt in 1913 but even if it had occurred in 1906, it would have been too late to alter WWI.

A more interesting problem might have been the formation of a triple Alliance of Russia, Germany and the United Kingdom as the three cousins did apparently like each other. The Triple Entente then consists of France, Italy and Austria-Hungary in an alliance of convenience.

A couple of points become salient. Austria-Hungary would be fighting a two-front war against Russia and Germany. Germany would be fighting on three fronts against Austria-Hungary, Italy and France and France would be fighting a two-front war against Germany and the United Kingdom. Italy and the United Kingdom would be the only nations fighting a one-front war unless the United Kingdom decided to open a second front against Italy in the Mediterranean.

Another interesting factor is that both treaty groups have a young (less than fifty years old) partner holding the center [Germany and Italy] while the older partners are on the flanks.

This war may end up with static lines of trenches, but it could easily look quite different from our own timeline. The Western front in France is much closer to Paris than was otherwise the case because the UK threw its weight in behind Germany. Germany has a Southern Front where the Italians have linked up with the Austro-Hungarians. This is a bit shallower towards the east and Austria because Austria-Hungary had to divert troops to its Eastern front where the Russians have come crashing in by way of what will later become Poland and Czechoslovakia. Austria-Hungary also has a Balkan front that it can't quite ignore with Bosnia-Serbia-Montenegro.

Re: New Reality Seeds
 

The first half is our timeline written by an alternate historian from another world (where zepplins work). The assassination plot is the one that actually kicked off WWI. Several details have been approximated.

Re: New Reality Seeds
 

Or we can envision a world where Marcion won - his New Testament was the Gospel of Luke (heavily edited) and seven (I think) of the epistles. And of course he renounced the Jewish heritage entirely. I find it hard to believe that it could have made the Church more anti-Semitic, though. Have you read On the Jews and their Lies?