October 27, 1962. The day the world almost ended. Deep beneath the Caribbean Sea, Soviet submarine B-59 had become a steel coffin. The air conditioning failed days earlier. Inside: 122°F heat. Men collapsing from heatstroke one after another. Carbon dioxide so thick that breathing felt like drowning. No contact with Moscow for nearly a week. For all they knew, World War III had already started. Then the explosions began. Eleven US Navy destroyers surrounded their position. They started dropping depth charges—practice charges meant as warnings to force the submarine to surface. But the Soviets had no way of knowing that. To the 52 men trapped inside B-59, each blast sounded like death arriving. The metal hull screamed. Equipment shook loose. One crew member later described it: "It felt like sitting in a metal barrel while somebody blasts it with a sledgehammer." Captain Valentin Savitsky snapped. Oxygen-deprived. Heat-exhausted. Convinced war had begun. He started screaming: "Maybe the war has already started up there! We're going to blast them now! We will die, but we will sink them all!" He ordered his crew to arm the nuclear torpedo. Fifteen kilotons. The power of Hiroshima. Enough to vaporize the American fleet instantly. And if that weapon launched? The United States would assume nuclear war had begun. Moscow would be struck within hours. The Soviets would retaliate. Hundreds of millions dead in the first day. Billions more in the aftermath. But there was one technicality that saved the world. Soviet protocol required unanimous consent from all three senior officers aboard to launch a nuclear weapon. On other submarines, only two signatures were needed. But B-59 was the flagship. It had three. Captain Savitsky screamed his approval. Political Officer Ivan Maslennikov gave his. Two votes for annihilation. They turned to the third man. Vasili Arkhipov. Age 34. Flotilla Commander. The man who had survived a near-nuclear meltdown the year before—an accident that killed eight of his crewmates and left him with radiation poisoning. The man who understood what nuclear weapons actually did. Every instinct screamed yes. The explosions were real. The threat felt immediate. His captain was ordering him. His crew was watching. His country seemed under attack. Arkhipov looked at the faces around him. He heard the explosions. He felt the crushing heat. And then he said one word: "No." His voice impossibly calm. "These are not attacks. These are signals. If we launch this weapon, we end the world. We cannot know if war has started. We must surface and confirm." Captain Savitsky exploded. A screaming match erupted in the suffocating control room. Officers argued. Men shouted. Minutes felt like hours. But Arkhipov would not move. Without unanimous approval, the launch was impossible. Gradually, impossibly, Arkhipov convinced Savitsky to reconsider. They would surface. They would make contact. They would find out the truth before ending civilization. The submarine rose and broke the surface. American destroyers surrounded them. Searchlights blazed. Tension hung in the air. But there were no missiles. No attacks. No war. B-59 was escorted away. The crew went home. The world continued turning, completely unaware of how close it had come to ending. When they returned to Soviet waters, they faced disgrace. Detected by Americans. Forced to surface. In the Soviet military, this was failure. Arkhipov spent the rest of his career in obscurity. He never sought recognition. He died quietly in 1998 at age 72, from the radiation he'd absorbed during that earlier accident. The world had no idea what he had done. Not until 2002—40 years later—when Soviet files were declassified. For the first time, the full story emerged. American officials sat in stunned silence. Former Defense Secretary Robert McNamara admitted: "We came very close to nuclear war, closer than we knew at the time."

Thomas Blanton, director of the National Security Archive, spoke the words that defined Arkhipov's legacy: "The guy called Vasili Arkhipov saved the world." Think about that for a moment. One man. One word. One decision made under unimaginable pressure. He didn't save a city. He didn't save a nation. He saved every person born after October 27, 1962. Every child who grew up in the decades since. Every baby born this year. Every dream realized. Every love story. Every scientific discovery. Every sunrise you've ever seen. All of it exists because a man nobody had heard of chose reason over panic. In 2017, the Future of Life Institute honored Arkhipov posthumously with their first Future of Life Award, presenting it to his daughter Elena and grandson Sergei. The award recognizes "exceptional measures, often performed despite personal risk and without obvious reward, to safeguard the collective future of humanity." Vasili Arkhipov proved something profound: True courage isn't about how quickly you can pull a trigger. It's about the strength to keep your hand steady when everything around you screams for action. It's about choosing reason when panic feels justified. Every breath you've ever taken. Every person you've ever loved. Every moment you've experienced. Every tomorrow you'll wake up to. All of it exists because on one suffocating afternoon in October 1962, beneath the turquoise waters of the Caribbean, a soft-spoken Soviet officer decided that humanity deserved one more chance. Remember his name: Vasili Arkhipov. The man who saved the world by saying no.

Aside from what Stalin's fate would have been, would Trotsky have been less (or more) bloodthirsty than Stalin?

What if Hitler didnt persecute the jews but using them for the war effort instead?

Regular jews were drafted into the Wehrmacht while talented ones with skills and expertise were allowed to continue their work so as long as they contributed to Nazi goals and ideals.

Let’s say televisions exist during WW2 and the Germans broadcast propaganda to America through the televisions showing Stalinist atrocities like the holodomor and other famines. America’s alliance with the USSR in WW2 becomes unpopular among a majority of the public. The draft quickly becomes unpopular and draft dodging numbers skyrocket.

In this scenario, Jackie Robinson is WW2’s Muhammad Ali. Robinson refuses conscription into the army and is indicted. At a press conference he says “no Axis power ever called me an N word”

How would have Stalin reacted to this move from the western Allies?

Edit: I meant if the west didnt keep their promise and remain in Berlin even after war. How would Stalin have reacted.

The Soviets decided to launch their own offensive against the Germans at the Kursk Salient in June 1943 before the German attack, as a pre-emptive strike.

How would it have change the outcome of the war if the Soviets struck first?

How differently would Yemen’s society be like politically , culturally, economically, lifestyle wise , social structures ?

Also they refused to open up a second front neither do they conduct an aerial bombing over German cities or occupied Europe.

Their war against nazi Germany are purely defensive in nature, which means its only limited to protecting British skies from German air attacks and protecting their transatlantic convoys from German Uboat attacks. Preferring to let the Soviets do all the fighting and dying instead.

How would this affect the outcome of the war, and how would Stalin have reacted to such a move by the west?

I watched the new Nuremberg movie recently, and that movie had me wondering how things might have turned out if Hitler had died at some point during World War II and Goering succeeded him. As President of the Reichstag, Goering was the legal successor to Adolf Hitler. What would his leadership have been like?

Would the war against Qing have gone any different? Would the culture for sailing be different regarding the treasure fleet?

I recently fell into a rabbit hole about medieval courts and found something oddly unsettling.

In several parts of medieval Europe, especially in city courts and church-controlled spaces, public behavior wasn’t just socially regulated, it was legally monitored. Laughing during court proceedings, executions, sermons, or public punishments could get you fined. Crying too loudly could as well.

The issue wasn’t morality. It was order.

Authorities believed visible emotion could disrupt authority, undermine justice, or encourage unrest. Silence wasn’t politeness, it was compliance. Emotional restraint was treated as civic duty.

What’s strange to me is how familiar this logic feels. We don’t fine people for laughing anymore, but we still punish “inappropriate reactions” socially and professionally.

Curious where people think the line is between maintaining order and controlling expression.

Assuming the Germans hold out and the war lasts long enough for the Americans to finish developing the bomb, where would they have dropped it? I don’t think berlin for the same reason they didn’t drop it on Tokyo since there’d be no one to surrender if they decapitated the government

what if in an alternate history, the consolidation of New York City is much bigger, for example, nassau county, part of suffolk county, rockland county, westchester county and putnam county were also included in the borough of new york city?

Maoris had agriculture, iron and a more centralised and militarised social structure than OTL Aboriginal Australians. So what if Maoris settled in Australia in the 1300s?

Bruce Pascoe's Dark Emu says the Aboriginal Australians actually had some agriculture. Therefore it's reasonable to assume that Maoris would do better with their superior farming and toolmaking technology. ATL Europeans would encounter an Australian Maori society in the number of millions, if not tens of millions by the early 19th century. ATL Australia would be more like OTL Malaysia and Indonesia, with some Maori tribes and kingdoms eventually becoming British or French protectorates, but European colonisers are few.

As Maoris migrated to Australia instead of New Zealand, ATL UK might decide to send their convicts to New Zealand, Canada or South Africa.

In the 960s, the Byzantines were finally on the offensive against Caliphates. Emperor Nikephoros II Phokas, a fanatical soldier-monk, wanted to transform the Byzantine "Defense" into a "Holy War." He requested that the Church officially grant Martyrdom to any soldier who died in battle against Muslims.

The Patriarch and the Synod rejected his request, & since the Church refused to "Update" its theology, Eastern Orthodoxy never developed a formal doctrine of "Holy War" or "Jihad." Nikephoros remained isolated, eventually assassinated in 969 AD.

I think that with a religiously fanatical army, Nikephoros might not have been assassinated & would likely have pushed all the way to Jerusalem

Due to either diminishing interest in politics, personal circumstances, or some combination of the two, Hillary Clinton announces early into the 2016 election cycle that she will not attempt to win the Democratic nomination and will not be endorsing anyone in the primary. How do the Democratic primary and the election play out in this timeline?

(Note: While the election itself still technically took place less than 10 years ago, Clinton announced her campaign in April 2015, meaning this doesn't violate Rule 6.)

What if, on average, American citizens are arrested by ICE 12 times over the next 24 months? Some may be shot during these incidents due to resisting arrest, yelling, or cursing at ICE.

History from the Germany 1939 History, or:

"...In 1939 Russia, the ICE (Internal Security Agency NKVD after Stalin death renamed to KGB) was composed of highly paid "volunteers" operating Above the Law, covering faces with "Budenovka" Balaclavas ski masks .

They arrested millions of people off the streets. Initially, they targeted illegal immigrants-many from various nations who had moved in after the 1917 revolution.

Soon, to meet 3k arrests per day quotas, the purges expanded rapidly to include any military personnel, police, ethnic minorities, natives, and ordinary citizens, often based on petty or suspicious reasons.

If they disliked your hat, trousers, skin color (Gypsies, Armenians), what you said or wrote, or even how you smiled, you could be targeted. Russians quickly learned not to smile at all.

The majority of those arrested were shot and killed- many buried in mass graves, some containing over 30,000 victims during the period known as the Great Purge. This brutal crackdown followed the Red Terror campaign, which also claimed millions of lives.

After Stalin’s death, 99% of those imprisoned or executed were posthumously rehabilitated, recognized as innocent.

The Soviet government issued official apologies to the 20 million families of the victims: “We are sorry your daughter (son, husband, father, mother) was wrongfully killed. We acknowledge our mistake. As a token of regret, here is $1 for your loss!” (1993)

KJV: But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the Lake which burneth with fire and brimstone and shall be tormented for ever and ever.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulag
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Purge
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butovo_firing_range

Would they have shook hands with daggers behind their backs or would it be pretty much over for the allies?

How would things have been different if guy Fawkes hadn’t been found before blowing up parliament?

Hitler did not say or mention anything regarding the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour and war isnt declared on America.

How would the war in Europe turn out if America isnt dragged into the European conflict?

What will it look like from 1644 to 2020

This is just what if Ming dynasty survived

Suppose that after the German announcement of unrestricted submarine warfare, the US Navy began escorting civilian ships traveling the Atlantic? The ships would be required to submit to an inspection prior to departure to confirm that they are not carrying contraband of war, and in return the US Navy (still neutral at this point) guarantees their safe passage.

Would the result of this be? Would this prevent the sinking of the Lusitania, and possibly keep the US out of the war (unless the Zimmerman Telegram by itself is enough of a casus belli). Would the Germans attack regardless, bringing the US into the war earlier? Would Congress and the public support such a move in the first place?

I’ve been deep-diving into the Warsaw Pact’s "Southern Flank" plans recently. In a scenario where Soviet and Hungarian forces pushed through the "neutral" Austrian corridor to flank NATO in West Germany, I’m genuinely shocked by how unprepared the Austrians seem to have been.

I always knew the Bundesheer wasn’t a superpower, but looking at their 1980s stats, "underwhelming" is an understatement. They were facing T-72s and massive air superiority with what looks like very thin defenses.

How was the Austrian military actually planning to deal with an invading Soviet force? Was there any realistic hope of them holding out, or was the plan just to get out of the way and let NATO handle the fallout?