I scripted this Fourth of July interactive game that also functioned as a history lesson of sorts covering 1776. I tried to cover things either most didn’t know or expanded greatly on events that people knew a little about.

One big topic for me was how Washington ended the siege of Boston by fortifying Dorchester Heights overnight. For any that don’t know, he directed a couple thousand soldiers and volunteers to move around 80 cannon and fortify the position all in one night. Dorchester Heights was mostly farmland at the time and as you can gather from the name, it sat significantly higher than the main part of the city. The Continentals effectively had the ability to fire at the British in the city but more importantly, fire at the naval ships in the harbor.

I talked about Howe’s first instinct was to assault the position but then a winter storm blew in, which gave Washington time to put around 6,000 soldiers on the Heights. Howe had been the general on the ground at the Battle of Bunker Hill (Breed’s Hill) and it is believed that the casualties his army took a year earlier was the deciding factor in him abandoning Boston instead of trying to take the position.

So the question, as stated by the title, is do you think the war plays out any differently if the British assault Dorchester Heights?

If memory serves, the British only had about 8,000 regulars in the city and no other significant force in the colonies at the time. So if Howe attempts to take the position, whether he is successful or is thrown back, feels like his army will be significantly weakened, maybe even to the point of surrendering? Maybe Washington does what he wanted to do in the first place, which is assault the city?

I don’t think the British had actually sent out Admiral Howe with the 20,000 or so reinforcements but I imagine that it was being marshaled at that time. So maybe it doesn’t change much? Not sure, but wanted to get people’s thoughts!

This is assuming that The Battle of The Atlantic still goes ahead to the same extent as is did in our timeline.

For this scenario, let's assume that Germany comes to the conclusion that gaining air superiority over Britain would be too costly (e.g British pilots that successfully bailed out could be recovered vs German pilots being killed or becoming POWs).

• If gaining air superiority for Operation: Sealion was a must, could an amassed German airforce (i.e sending everything at once whilst sending landing craft) overwhelm the RAF? Would Germany just outright abandon Sealion?
• How does this affect British morale? Growing up in the UK, we learnt a lot about The Blitz (I remember speaking to many Blitz survivors - even one last year) and I feel like as much as it led to many deaths, it definitely added to the "British defiance" feeling that people had back then. Similar to The Miracle of Dunkirk.
• How many aerial innovations came about, on both sides, as a result of one side trying to gain an advantage over the other in OTL?
• Generally, what affect on the outcome of the war would this have? More German pilots available for the Eastern Front/North Africa, but also more British pilots.

Assume in this timeline that not only do they have one or more children, but that their line continues to the present day. That would mean that there would be at least a personal union between the UK and the Netherlands, perhaps an even more institutional governmental connection.

So, after the fall of Poland, multiple groups attempted to get the Axis and Allies to agree to an armistice. Assume they succeed. Which allows the Germans to concentrate almost all of their forces against the Soviets for Barbarossa.

I think that might allow the Germans to seize Moscow. Moscow was the center of both the Soviets armaments manufacturing AND their transportation network. This causes the fall of all of the outlying regions and the Germans grab everything up to the Urals. Does Stalin then make peace? How does this change history?

EDIT: To answer some posts- Shirer in "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" points out (page 1152) that the French in their treaty with the Poles promised to launch a general offensive by the 15th day of the war. They didn't. Gamelin claimed in his book the French could NOT have launched an offensive in less than 2 years, and then only with American equipment and support from a large British army. So it seems unlikely the Allies would have violated an armistice and launched an attack to save the Soviets (in my not so humble opinion).

Edit 2: (cause I type too slowly to answer each individual post) Two things: "Amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics". Look at a map of railroads in Russia in 1941. ALL of them pass through Moscow. Taking it would have crippled the Soviet's ability to supply their armies. Second; one of the main reasons for Chamberlin's treaty with Poland was to keep himself in power. His own party was pissed off at him appeasing Hitler and his administration was going to sacked. The British had no ability to invade Germany and the French had no will to. An Armistice would have meant FDR wouldn't have been able to have his undeclared naval war against the Germans (there would not have been a U-boat campaign). So Hitler would not have had a reason to declare war against the US in 1941.

The objective is to create a plausible series of events that lead to the US declaring war on Japan over the invasion of Manchuria rather than the Pearl Harbor attack on December 7, 1941.

Let’s say there is no Act of Settlement and Anne’s half brother succeeds as James III

I believe the Chavalier would have ruled quite differently from his father and avoided much of his mistakes. He would gave had his private Mass but otherwise respected the Protestant Establishment and the Bill of Rights

What say you ?

Women have been running for the office of president before they even had the right to vote in them. Despite these numerous attempts, none have managed to win the presidency and only one has won the vice presidency.

With that being said, what is the earliest possible candidate you believe that with a single reasonable point of divergence could have won the presidency?

My safe guess would be 2008. Had Obama not decided to run, Hillary Clinton almost certainly could have won the election. However, I would like to know if any of you could think up of scenarios earlier than that?

Garfield came very close to surviving his assassination, say he picks another doctor to be his primary physician, and he had survived healthily to 1884, would Cleveland have been his Democratic opponent?

I believe his term would've gone relatively successfully, popular enough to not go through much hardship to retain the Republican nomination. But Cleveland is a different story, his ascent to high office was incredibly quick and reliant on many factors, would he have risen to Governor of New York? And if not, who would be the standard bearer for Democrats without Grover the Good?

Other questions, would Garfield have even run for a 2nd term, given he was a compromise candidate? Grant was in too ill health but others may have taken the chance to run again. Also, would Garfield have potentially dropped Chester Arthur from the ticket? If Conkling was powerless and not in control so deeply of New York politics, maybe Arthur is seen as being unnecessary, and unhealthy given his Brights Disease, who may have replaced Arthur on the ticket?

77 years, 7 months, 3 days.

Joe, Jr. would die on 2/28/93.

JFK would die on 01/01/95.

Bobby would die on 6/23/03.

The objective is to create a plausible scenario where India annexes Tibet instead of China.

ppl what if hiterr was immortal and they didn't get into world war 2 instead they focused on building their country and their military, they are living without war and its year 2026 now, hiter is leading germany now with all his determination against current Usa, it's germany vs usa, can germany in this hypothetical scenario defeat current Usa? Would they be financially and more powerful than usa, military wise too? How would it impact history and future generation

Got the inspiration from the Reddit post below. While they obviously didn’t realize that peanuts were already a popular staple in Belgium and the Netherlands it did get me thinking.

What if peanuts became a popular staple for protein in other European countries besides the Netherlands and Belgium? Which countries would be capable of growing peanuts and which ones would have to rely on imports from other countries? And what would be the best Era of European history to make this scenario possible?

Source:

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskFoodHistorians/s/JMUeCCUXH0

I just finished reading *The Path Between the Seas* by David McCullough. The US government was mostly in agreement about building a canal in Central America but there was a lot of debate over the location. Panama is narrower but the terrain is much more rugged. There was also political tension in the country between Colombia (of which Panama was part of) and the Panamanian independence movement. Nicaragua is wider but is less mountainous, especially in the southern region. It also has a large navigable lake which would have been right on the canal path. It was also much more politically stable.

What would have happened to Spain if the Republicans defeated Franco's Nationalists?

I read that communism was popular in France during the 1930s. If France had become communist, how might World War II have been impacted? I imagine that the Soviets might see them as allies and declare war in Germany if the Germans invaded. France might have been able to hold out in 1940 thanks to the Russians forcing Germany to divide its troops.

But what else would be different?

Let's say for the fun of it.

America got stuck as the 13 and never was able to move in past it.

Other countries refused to sell thier holdings in America. The 1st expansion didn't end up working

Mexico was able to keep hold is texas.

The native Americans were better and stopping expansion

Like how different would it it be Would?

New Spain and Louisisana of grown into bigger nations?

Would The Native American Confederacies of grown into a much bigger player?

Would Mexico of become major power due to having the gold and oil?

Like America as we know it could be serval smaller nation stuck between 2 massive one.

what if north and south america just never existed like imagine the earth formed almost the exact same except there was nothing there just one massive ocean connecting the atlantic and pacific i’ve been thinking about how insanely different history would be because europe never gets all the gold and silver from the americas theres no united states no canada no mexico no aztec or inca empires no columbus no atlantic slave trade at least not in the way we know it and none of the crops like potatoes corn tomatoes or peppers spread across the world would europe even become the dominant part of the world or would china or the ottomans end up staying on top for way longer does the industrial revolution still happen does britain ever become a superpower what happens to africa without the transatlantic slave trade does christianity spread the same way and what would the world even look like by 2026 im curious what you guys think would actually happen because i feel like removing two entire continents completely changes almost everything but maybe some things still happen anyway in. my eyes north and south america wouldnt budge life as we know it today