usa- the great basin of west usa had lots of lakes notably lohunton, bonavale and cocaran which was on the central valley and emptied in san fransisco bay and its leftovers tulare lake turining california into a donut so what if these were still around

usa lakes- https://mapsontheweb.zoom-maps.com/post/620653942817292288/great-lakes-of-the-pleistocene-in-the-western/amp

canada- when the glaciers receded there was a big lake leftover (an under statement): lake agassiz was huge if it were still around it the caspian would be the second biggest.

lake agassiz https://www.riverkeepers.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Lake_Agassiz_Jan-2015-JC.pdf

so what happened if these lakes didnt disappear in the first place?

12/31/1991 or 01/01/1992 Gorbachev Resigns (I know the actual scenario is 12/25/91 but for symbology's sake, I changed the date).

Now it's time for the Soviet Legislature (Supreme Soviet) to formally dissolve the Soviet Union, however, either one of two happen:

1. The Supreme Soviet held a vote, but it isn't enough to be a majority to dissolve the Union.
2. Supreme Soviet is completely vacated, but there was no vote, so no formal dissolution.

In this timeline, Vladimir of Kievan Rus chooses different religions to convert to or stays Pagan.

How would it effect the world

Would the Ardennes be reinforced? Would the German offence stagnate? What would happen if they were forced to fight a longer campaign for France?

Japan was in an existential war with the United States, it is likely they would submit to the Soviet sphere of influence in order to survive. Would it be smart for the Soviets to put pressure on the United States to simply negotiate a peace treaty in order to have a strong ally in the pacific to help against the United States in the coming Cold War? Is it possible?

Not like the state of east germany, but regions like east prussia, silesia, pommerania etc what would change

For this alternate timeline, let us imagine that the following previous events happen first:

1. Saudi Arabia chooses not to let the United States deploy troops to the country and instead using Osama bin Laden’s mujahideen to intervene in the Gulf War, but the US still maintains support for Israel. In our timeline, one of Osama bin Laden’s biggest motives for 9/11 was the deployment of US troops to Saudi Arabia, which is considered holy land to Muslims (https://www.camera.org/article/why-did-bin-laden-hate-america-was-it-because-of-israel/). In this timeline, America never occupies Saudi Arabian soil but still supports Israel, much to Osama bin Laden’s ire.
2. Osama bin Laden holds a much bigger grudge against the Russian Federation instead of the USA due to war crimes committed by Russian military forces during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. He decides that Russia needs to be dealt with first and the United States second.

As such in this alternate reality, 9/11 still happens but is directed at Russia instead of the USA. Does the War on Terror look any different with Russia at the forefront instead of the United States?

It did almost happen, as many slaveowners joined the gold rush. Plus the Central Valley would be a good location for large plantations and farms. The Compromise of 1850 ultimately had it enter as a free state.

What impact would this have on the Civil War? A West Coast theatre would be interesting; although some slave states did stick with the Union (MD, MO, DE, KY)

Bonus question: What if California was split and admitted as two states, one slave and one free?

I'm currently working on a small alternate-history project where some famous movies had different casts.

Presently, I'm interested in imagining an alternate cast for Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope and I need some ideas. I'm not necessarily interested in people who auditioned for the various roles or were almost cast and I will accept any answer as long as it's makes sense chronologically.

The only cast change I have settled on for my concept so far is that Luke Skywalker will be portrayed by Leif Garret. Leif was a famous actor and "singer" in the late '70s although most of his acting roles were in lesser known films and TV series. He would eventually drop his acting career in favor of being a full-time singer and I find this odd as his "singing" was comprised almost entirely of lip-syncing while his acting skills were about the same as Mark Hamill's circa 1977. Leif had a massive fanbase and I think having him portray Luke alongside an equally attractive actress for Leia could have propelled his career to new and stable heights while also making Star Wars appealing to a significant number of both boys and girls alike.

What other actors from the '70s do you think would be good alternatives for the cast of ANH?

“Our life, it probably began inside of the ocean,’ Johnny said quietly. ‘About four thousand million years before now. Probably near hot places, like volcanoes, under the sea.’ I turned to look at him. ‘And for almost all of that long time, all the living things were water things, living inside the sea. Then, a few hundred million years ago, maybe a little more—just a little while, really, in the big history of the Earth—the living things began to be living on the land, as well.’ I was frowning and smiling at the same time, surprised and bewildered. I held my breath, afraid that any sound might interrupt his musing. ‘But in a way you can say that after leaving the sea, after all those millions of years of living inside of the sea, we took the ocean with us. When a woman makes a baby, she gives it water, inside her body, to grow in. That water inside her body is almost exactly the same as the water of the sea. It is salty, by just the same amount. She makes a little ocean, in her body. And not only this. Our blood and our sweating, they are both salty, almost exactly like the water from the sea is salty. We carry oceans inside of us, in our blood and our sweat. And we are crying the oceans, in our tears.”“Our life, it probably began inside of the ocean,’ Johnny said quietly. ‘About four thousand million years before now. Probably near hot places, like volcanoes, under the sea.’ I turned to look at him. ‘And for almost all of that long time, all the living things were water things, living inside the sea. Then, a few hundred million years ago, maybe a little more—just a little while, really, in the big history of the Earth—the living things began to be living on the land, as well.’ I was frowning and smiling at the same time, surprised and bewildered. I held my breath, afraid that any sound might interrupt his musing. ‘But in a way you can say that after leaving the sea, after all those millions of years of living inside of the sea, we took the ocean with us. When a woman makes a baby, she gives it water, inside her body, to grow in. That water inside her body is almost exactly the same as the water of the sea. It is salty, by just the same amount. She makes a little ocean, in her body. And not only this. Our blood and our sweating, they are both salty, almost exactly like the water from the sea is salty. We carry oceans inside of us, in our blood and our sweat. And we are crying the oceans, in our tears.”

― Gregory David Roberts, Shantaram

Apparently there was an actual proposal for Trump to drop out of the race and be replaced with Pence, with Rice as his running mate, what if it went through and they won the election

In this timeline, Gandhi never called off the Non-Cooperation Movement, which forced Britain to either leave India or make it a self-governing dominion like Australia

How would it effect the world

What economic system would India follow.

How do you think it would have impacted the region, the world, the Hindus and Christians in India, the Pakistani people and the Muslim religion in general?

Who would be his cabinet? Do you believe he would attack Iran? What role do he, Palin and their cabinet have in this and the other issues that will face McCain? What would he use his capital to pass, like Obama did with healthcare? I think McCain would pass a Republican stimulus that gets more Republican votes, push for an immigration bill in 2009 and push for strikes on Iran in 2011. His daughter Meghan I feel would be an adviser and Todd Palin might have a mid level position in interior.

In the annals of papal history, few events are as macabre and bewildering as the Cadaver Synod of 897 AD. This ghastly trial, orchestrated by Pope Stephen VI against his long-dead predecessor Pope Formosus, took an inexplicable turn that left witnesses slack-jawed and historians scratching their heads for centuries to come.

The Grim Proceedings

Pope Stephen VI, driven by political vendettas and an insatiable thirst for posthumous justice, had the corpse of Pope Formosus exhumed and brought before the papal court. The decaying body, dressed in papal regalia, sat propped up on a throne, a macabre puppet in this theater of the absurd.

The charges against Formosus were grave: perjury, illegally ascending to the papacy, and the ecclesiastical faux pas of presiding over more than one diocese simultaneously. As Stephen hurled accusations at the silent defendant, the court watched in a mixture of horror and morbid fascination.

An Unexpected Turn

Just as it seemed the verdict was a foregone conclusion, something extraordinary occurred. Witnesses reported a sudden gust of wind that swept through the courtroom, causing candles to flicker and parchments to flutter. In that moment, to the astonishment of all present, the corpse of Formosus appeared to move.

Some swore they saw the cadaver's jaw drop open, while others claimed to hear a ethereal whisper echo through the chamber. The court fell into chaos, with clerics crossing themselves and attendants fleeing in terror.

The Verdict

As the commotion subsided, Pope Stephen VI, pale and shaken, approached the corpse. With trembling hands, he removed the papal tiara from Formosus' head. Then, in a voice barely above a whisper, he uttered the unthinkable:

"Formosus... is innocent of all charges."

The court erupted in murmurs of disbelief. Stephen, looking as though he had seen a ghost (which, in a sense, he believed he had), quickly adjourned the trial and fled the chamber.

Aftermath and Speculation

In the days that followed, rumors spread like wildfire. Some claimed divine intervention, while others whispered of dark magic. A few level-headed observers suggested that the strange events were nothing more than the product of mass hysteria and the noxious vapors of a decomposing corpse.

Whatever the truth, the Cadaver Synod's unexpected conclusion marked a turning point. Stephen VI's reputation never recovered, and he was himself deposed, imprisoned, and strangled within the year.

To this day, the Cadaver Synod remains one of the most bizarre episodes in papal history, its inexplicable ending a reminder that even in death, truth and justice can find a way to prevail... or at least, that's what the ghost of Pope Formosus might have us believe.

An oil pipeline from the Western Urals to the Rajasthan or Sindh region, is it feasible to build such a thing or will the terrain pose a challenge.

I am not looking at the political aspect with Afghanistan and Pakistan in between. Ignore that.

I'm just asking to see if it was theoretically possible for Russia/USSR to annex Middle East and basically control entire oil & gas flow in Eurasia.

Japan is 98% import dependent in energy, other countries would want all the oil and gas as well.

If Russia/USSR annexes Persian Gulf, could it theoretically build pipelines to the north where it would then either use the oil/gas itself or export it through another set of pipelines, but now from Russia/USSR as a transit point.

Basically: Persian Gulf -> Caucasus -> southern Russia -> pipelines to Europe/China/India/Korea/Japan

Could this work or is it impossible due to the geography of eastern Iran/northern Iraq?

Also, how much power does oil/gas control give you? Other countries could just stockpile it so I don't see how it can be used as a leverage.

P.S. I am asking this because out of all major power, Russia/USSR pretty much is the only one that could semi-realistically try to annex the entire Persian Gulf and keep it. Perhaps giga-India can do it too, but it would be much harder. Anyways, this is me just thinking about the consequences if a single country controls entire Persian Gulf, what kind of leverage/power/geopolitical clout would a single state get from that.

So in an alternate history scenario I created a few years ago the British side with the Union and the French side with the CSA during the Civil War. As a result the Civil War turns into a global war, with Britain liberating Algeria from France's rule with Morocco's and Abd al-Qadir/Emir Abdelkader's help.

If this were to happen, how would the country develop socially, politically, and economically? Would Algeria become independent or would it be ruled by Morocco? And how would this affect the development of France's Colonial Empire in Africa?

Sources:

https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoricalWhatIf/comments/15up0x9/what_if_the_british_sided_with_the_union_and_the/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoryWhatIf/comments/15uoxay/what_if_the_british_sided_with_the_union_and_the/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

"From 16th-18th century, the Italian states were divided by foreign rule first by Spanish and later Austrian Habsburgs thus became their possessions or vassals. However if Italian states were independent and formed a a union eithet federation of confederation in 1600s-1700s could they become a great power? I read Italy had accumulated a lot of capital and wealth and strong bourgeoisie in the cities but at the same time Italy lacked domestic sources of coal for industrialization and only modest deposits of iron when it was unified by 1861 so it's industrialization was slow and sluggish.

The date is December 18th, 2001. The US just finished toppling the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan.

You are made Secretary of Afghan Decelopment, a temporary cabinet position dedicated to overseeing nation-building during the occupation. Your task is to create a US-aligned government that can stand on its own. You have twenty years to accomplish this goal. You're strongly encouraged to make the new Afghan state a liberal democracy.

How do you go about doing this? What would you need?

Please give serious answers. Not "I'd resign" or "I'd have the US withdraw immediately".

I don't know how many times was this question asked on this subreddit, but I remember reading that when the genocide in Darfur was happening in 2003, Bush wanted to intervene, but one of his staff members talked him out. So what if instead of invading Iraq (and instead continuing with the bombing campaigns like the Clinton administration), the US military invaded Sudan and stopped the Darfur genocide?

Now I know that there are some white Botswanans but it's not to the level of, say, South Africa or even Rhodesia; however Botswana never had apartheid like the other two nations that are known for having white Africans and, I believe, Botswana was far more stable than it's neighbours in terms of the economy and it was an actual democracy.

But, what if Botswana had a more notable population of white Africans considering that it used to be a British colony? Considering that Seretse Khama, the first leader of the independent Botswana had a British wife, Ruth Williams, I would have to imagine that, even if there was an increase of white Botswanans (probably those who could trace their roots back to British settlers) there wouldn't be as much tension between white and black Africans as there was in Rhodesia, which was their next door neighbour.

Europe has this huge problem that the number of retired people is growing while working people are getting less and less, this creates a problem where young people need to pay more and more taxes just to cover the pensions of the elderly. But what if governments say possibility in COVID and decided it'll solve the problem by killing off the elderly population. What if instead of restrictions EU governments encouraged people to go on with their lives and were like "okay, people will die, but we can't stop living, take care but that's it from us".

Cold Europe revitalise and catch up to China and USA as they still had restrictions and their economies shrank. Would more businesses decide to move te Europe as there would be no hinderence to manufacturing? Would Europe be better off than today?

Part of the Soviet–Japanese border conflicts (until 1939) and World War II, the Battles of Khalkhin Gol (Russian: Бои на Халхин-Голе; Mongolian: Халхын голын байлдаан) were the decisive engagements of the undeclared Soviet–Japanese border conflicts involving the Soviet Union, Mongolia, Japan and Manchukuo in 1939. The conflict was named after the river Khalkhin Gol, which passes through the battlefield. In Japan, the decisive battle of the conflict is known as the Nomonhan Incident (ノモンハン事件, Nomonhan jiken) after Nomonhan, a nearby village on the border between Mongolia and Manchuria. The battles resulted in the defeat of the Japanese Sixth Army.

While this engagement is little known in the West, it played an important part in subsequent Japanese conduct in World War II. The battle earned the Kwantung Army the displeasure of officials in Tokyo, not so much due to its defeat, but because battles were initiated and escalated without direct authorization from the Japanese government.

This defeat, along with a lot of other historical factors, moved the Imperial General Staff in Tokyo away from the policy of the North Strike Group favored by the Army, which wanted to seize Siberia for its resources as far as Lake Baikal. Instead, support shifted to the South Strike Group, favored by the Navy, which wanted to seize the resources of Southeast Asia, especially the petroleum and mineral-rich Dutch East Indies. Masanobu Tsuji, the Japanese colonel who had helped instigate the Nomonhan incident, was one of the strongest proponents of the attack on Pearl Harbor. General Ryūkichi Tanaka, Chief of the Army Ministry's Military Service Bureau in 1941, testified after the war that "the most determined single protagonist in favor of war with the United States was Tsuji Masanobu". Tsuji later wrote that his experience of Soviet fire-power at Nomonhan convinced him not to attack the Soviet Union in 1941.

Here’s the challenge: alter the battles’ outcome so that the Japanese win instead of the Soviets!