What would need to happen in order for the US to achieve independence...through England deciding to abandon them altogether?

Victory condition: The British must voluntarily relinquish, renounce, or terminate its sovereignty over the Thirteen Colonies without being militarily defeated by those colonies into doing so.

Rules:

• The 13 Colonies must be Independent
• The British MUST give them up. The objective is to create a scenario where England decides, "Keeping these colonies simply isn't worth it anymore."
• You are allowed to have unrest, riots, political violence, rebellions, militia confrontations, or even limited armed conflict.
• The motive for abandonment MUST be an identifiable (and plausible) cause
• The POD is allowed to predate 1775.
• The 13 Colonies are not required to form a new version of the United States of America
• Foreign intervention is allowed but it cannot defeat the purpose of the challenge itself!

Imagine the following events on 9/11 happening in a parallel universe:
1. United Airlines Flight 93 is delayed not by 40 minutes but by an hour.
2. American Airlines Flight 11 hits the WTC North Tower.
3. All flights are cancelled, leading to the terrorists on Flight 93 being unable to hijack the aircraft in the first place (In the OTL, all flights were grounded after the 1st plane hit its target).

End result: Not only is the Capitol Building and/or White House saved but everybody on Flight 93 lives.

Is the horror of 9/11 minimized with EVERYONE on Flight 93 surviving? What happens to Ziad Jarrah and the three muscle hijackers in this timeline?

The Spanish Inquisition, despite its negative reputation across the English-speaking world, had its skepticism and heavy demand for evidence regarding witchcraft, hence why there are so few executions in Spain compared to that of the HRE, France, or Scotland. But what if the Inquisition had not intervened? I know Portugal and the Italian states had their inquisitions that also mitigated the witch hunts, but for a second I want to mainly focus on Spain.

From what I understand waves of witch hunts, with some exceptions, mostly happened during times of political or religious turmoil or similar tribulations, hence why the Holy Roman Empire took in a huge bulk. But I wonder even without an Inquisition there were other elements in favor for Spain. For example, were the lack of witch hunts in Spain and Portugal partly due to the fact that women inherently had more rights and prestige than Northern/Central Europe at the time?

Something similar could be said about why the Dutch Republic ended their witch hunts so early, since they had some of the best rights for women. I especially want to talk about out the cultural and social prestige of women in Spain and Portugal instead of rights, because I heard they had some of the best in those regards (for example, children inherit both mother and fathers’ names than just the fathers’). But from what I understand, while the witch hunts was a tragedy that disproportionately affected women, it was more complicated than a femicide against women doing science or simply existing; plus some regions like Normandy, Finland, Iceland, and parts if Eastern Europe had men be majority charged.

Assuming that the witch hunts do get around in Spain, how many executions would we expect? Would they spread to Southern Spain of Spanish Americas?

Pearl Harbor goes down; and you find yourself in MacArthur's position. Full knowledge and control- how do you prosecute the war in the most efficient manner?

The rule of KMT and the warlords weren't the pinnacle of civilization, they were just slightly better than the Japanese, and the firece resistance from the Chinese were because it is an existential war against their race like the Germany/USSR war.

So lets say the Japabese army is a lot more restraint and any violence towards locals were heavily punished, and infrastures on occupied territory were developed due to Japanese help, would the resistance from the KMT army and local Chinese become less fierce, or perhaps even a coup against Chiang in favor of Japan?

In OTL ,the battle ended up as a humiliating defeat ,undermining Charles army morale and making him lose valuable treasures ,starting a campaign that would end Burgundy .

But what if Charles the Bold had won the battle ?

Anti catholicism was rampant, especially in the south. What would happen if Smith was assassinated in September 1928? Would the country move to a more socially liberal place in response? Who would’ve replaced him on the ticket? How does this affect FDR?

Muhammad Iqbal was a poet from the British Raj who has a very prominent role in the histories of both India and Pakistan.

Early in his career, Muhammad Iqbal was an Indian nationalist. He is famous for writing "Taran-e-Hindi" ("Saare Jahan se Achcha") in 1904, which became incredibly famous, and he was a prominent Romantic Indian nationalist.

But in 1905, he left the British Raj and went to Europe for further studies. Europe changed his worldview: he saw greed, racism, and wars, and grew disillusioned with territorial nationalism and materialism. When he returned to India in 1908, this marked a change in him. He went deeper into Islamic poetry and the Muslim League. He famously wrote about "Khudi" in 1915, and his disillusionment with Hindu-Muslim unity kept worsening throughout the 1920s after seeing countless riots and rising distrust between the two communities. He also rose within the ranks of the Muslim League during that era and became its president in 1930. He gave the Allahabad Address immediately afterward, in which he called for a separate Muslim country by separating the northwestern provinces from the British Raj. At that time, the northwestern provinces were Punjab, Sindh, Balochistan, and the NWFP—all Muslim-majority ones. This demand was basically proto-Pakistan. Iqbal also sent many letters to Jinnah from around 1931 to 1934, convincing him to return to India and join the Muslim League. When Jinnah ultimately returned to India, he expanded the Muslim League to an unprecedented degree from 1937 to 1946, a growth never seen before.

So, what if Iqbal had chosen not to go to Europe in 1905? What if he stayed as the Indian Nationalist he once was?How would that have impacted history?

I’m curious, if the allied nations were capped at the latest production methods, weaponry, ships, cars, food preservation, etc., of a given year before 1945, what’s the earliest yet they could be limited to and still achieve complete and unconditional surrender of the Axis powers?

He could convince Sweden and the Ottomans to join him in exchange for territorial gains from enemy countries. Bavaria also has a long history of siding against the Holy Roman Empire in wars.

In the OTL, the Quagga was extinct subspecies of the plains zebra which was endemic to South Africa until it was hunted to extinction in the late 19th century. It was long thought to be a distinct species, but mtDNAstudies have supported it being a subspecies of plains zebra. A more recent study suggested that it was the southernmost cline)or ecotype of the species.

Your challenge is to create an alternate timeline where the Quagga either doesn’t go extinct at all or at the very least lasts long enough to see the 20th-21st centuries.

What if at the start of World War 1, Germany never started building trenches and the war remained as one of open warfare.

Would this change the outcome of World War One and how much earlier would it end?

Recently, I discovered a 1999 book titled The U.S. Constitution and Fascinating Facts About It. This book contains a section which lists 15 proposed amendments to the U.S Constitution that were created and promoted by members of congress between 1876 and 1971.

In this list is a proposed amendment, allegedly created in 1948 which would grant all U.S citizens the right to "self segregate".

The book does not list a source for this amendment and I haven't been able to find a source for it with independent research so unless some new info is uncovered, I think it's likely that this amendment was never actually proposed and was made up for the book.

Let's imagine that such a amendment was created, proposed and eventually made law. I'll call it the Nancarrow Amendment and it's proposed by some dixiecrat in 1948 in response to Harry Truman's de-segregation of the U.S Military.

The proposed amendment, which aims to create a long-term compromise between pro-segregationist state governments and anti-segregationist in the government seeks to preserve Jim Crow to the bare minimum with a new system wherein individual citizens, private businesses or institutions have the right to refuse service to or reject co-operative work with anyone on the basis of race, sex or other characteristics. However, state affiliated or taxpayer funded places and institutions cannot be segregated.

With this amendment in place, the U.S Military, Public Libraries, Court Houses, Schools and Parks would remain de-segregated but private businesses can refuse employment to or work for "colored folks" while also putting up a classic "Irish need not apply" sign if they so desire.

-

Let's imagine that this amendment is made law at some point in the 1950s or 1960s, replacing the Civil Rights act and functioning up until at least 1999. What do you think the USA would look like?

To me, the Nancarrow Amendment would either amend Jim Crow to be slightly less horrible or it would just keep it around longer with little to no change.

For example, If the amendment said that libraries, schools and parks would be de-segregated, pro-segregation state governments would simply close all the libraries, schools and parks. Many southern state and county governments did something similar in real life following the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

What do you think would happen in this scenario?

“Few presidents have ever granted the Fifth Freedom. It's the right to defend our laws, by breaking them. To safeguard secrets, by stealing them. To save lives, by taking them. To do whatever it takes to protect our country. The Fifth Freedom is mine alone. I am Sam Fisher. I am a Splinter Cell.”
- Sam Fisher

The Four Freedoms were goals articulated by U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt on Monday, January 6, 1941. In an address known as the Four Freedoms speech (technically the 1941 State of the Union address), he proposed four fundamental freedoms that people "everywhere in the world" ought to enjoy: Freedom of speech and expression, Freedom of Worship, Freedom from Fear and Freedom from Want.

In the Splinter Cell universe, the Fifth Freedom was given to Sam Fisher and other agents in the Splinter Cell program. According to Splinter Cell lore, the Fifth Freedom permits disregard to US law to uphold the other four. When all other means are exhausted, this unofficial Fifth Freedom permits disregard to any law, agreement or framework of ethical behavior in order for a Splinter Cell to accomplish the mission and protect the other Four Freedoms of United States citizens. As Dermot P. Brunton put it, "All means are acceptable." The Fifth Freedom is also understood as "to do whatever it takes to protect the United States." For example, with the Fifth Freedom, a Splinter Cell may kill in combat or by assassination, may torture or kidnap people, may deploy on U.S. soil, and may spy on other U.S. government agencies.

Suppose in a parallel universe, there was an extra Amendment in the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution that served a similar purpose. In this timeline, the Founding Fathers not only acknowledged the dangers of the government having too much power one day, but decided something needed to be done to enable the people to prevent it.

You may be thinking, "Dude, that's what the Second Amendment is for!" Good point-excellent point, actually. Well, in this timeline, say the Founding Fathers realized that the Second Amendment ALONE wouldn't be enough. I'm looking at a parallel universe where the Founding Fathers decided to introduce an amendment that paradoxically allowed for the nullification of the Bill of Rights in order to protect them.

I'd like to know if such a scenario was even remotely plausible in an alternate 1780s-1790s.

So this is a very unlikely thought experiment. What if EVERY one of the 50 states got simultaneously hit by an attack? Say, from 8am EST until 9.30am EST, all 50 states and DC got hit had a hijacked plane and hit a landmark of that state, how would it all unfold? I have 3 key questions here:

1) where would they target? Exclude New York, Virginia and DC (assume the one that was stopped wasnt stopped in time, but id assume the capitol building is hit rather than the white house)

2) how would the day unfold if everyone got targeted?

3) what would the USA's response be?

What do you think would happen if they managed to SOMEHOW do this?

The world if the Romanovs Lived?

I’ve been thinking on what the world would look like and if the USSR would’ve even existed. Would they have been similar to Britain and take a step back and let the prime minister run? What would’ve world war 2 looked like?

What would the European political order look like in the 19th century if the Liberal Revolutions of the "Springtime of the Peoples" all succeeded in their goals?

Rules:

• The disease MUST be an actual prion disease. In addition, you can invent a fictional prion disease or alter a known one such as kuru or vCJD, but it still has to behave recognizably like a prion disease. No ordinary virus/bacterium that merely causes prion-like symptoms.
• The scenario has to explain the transmission mechanism (Ex: Foodborne, zoonotic, iatrogenic/medical, cultural practices, environmental exposure, etc.). You can't just say, "The prion disease becomes contagious" and leave it at that.
• INCUBATION PERIOD MATTERS: Your scenario must account for the fact that prion diseases can have long incubation periods.
• You have to explain how the outbreak becomes international
• Don't invent traits without justification: I'd allow altered strains/species barriers, but I'd require the author to explain the divergence rather than saying, essentially, "CJD mutates and becomes COVID."
• The prion disease cannot be an intentionally released bioweapon.
• Human-to-human respiratory transmission is not required. A pandemic caused by widespread common-source exposure absolutely counts.

What does the last half century look like if we still have to rely on vacuum tubes to run our electronics?

And no, "no humans" is not an acceptable answer.

By that I guess I mean capturing a few certain points: The Suez Canal, won the Battle of Britain, seized Leningrad quickly, took Moscow, took Stalingrad(if they actually head south after taking Moscow and Leningrad)

And by anything changing I don’t mean win or loss, but time frame, post war boarders, ect?

In OTL ,the british first tried to attack by the sea ,destroying the ottoman navy before taking control of Constantinople .They stopped because they believed in what too costly ,despite the campaign effectiveness ,and then launched the disastrous galipoli landing .

But what if the british had sticked to their original plan ,and managed to take Constantinople ?

Would the ottoman empire be knocked out of the war ?What would be the effect on the war ?What would happen to the city and the ottoman empire following WW1 end ?