Assuredly, since once the police had arrested Oswald they'd interview Marina, and in all likelihood she'd tell all, so they'd know even if the forensic evidence seemed doubtful.
Many thanks for a great answer. Just one remaining quibble though: what about the sea coasts? I am just very attracted to the idea of e.g. alt-John Cabot or Erik the Red being met out at sea by a fleet of sailing ships.
I wondered about this. Why not? Do they lack suitable textiles? The military advantage alone (thinking in terms of logistics as much as direct use in combat) would surely spur their development.
After Stalin's nervous breakdown, the Politburo came to him and he thought they intended to arrest him. Might things have gone better if they'd said "da"? Some of Stalin's military interventions in 41-42 didn't go well.
These are the two most salient points. Internally, the lesson Berlin (and Vienna) will learn from this is that wars are winnable and even profitable. "After all, we won in 1870 and again in 1914 (insert latter year as preferred), why not start another?" States institutionalise what makes them...
No, but I've never studied it, though it sounds fascinating.
In the early period at least I doubt if we would get much legal difference, if only because the initial circumstances of the conquest, and the post-conquest situation, were very different.
The distinction certainly does seem to have been codified to some extent. Under Englishry law, murders were treated differently depending on ethnic status, apparently for some time after the Conquest.
Incidentally, it was not just nobles having their lands confiscated; for some generations...
"Easily" is doing an awful lot of work there! After WW1 London didn't have much if any freedom of action. Congress was a political fact that London couldn't ignore. I agree with all the other comments here about the implausibility of the OP idea.
The most likely chance leading to a prolonged stalemate scenario in the West is if the Allies had mounted Overlord in 1943 (an option that would have required an extraordinary level of foresight and optimism from the decision-makers, and probably several slices of good luck, but is at least...
The resources of central and northern Italy would have been picked up and used by someone. Maybe Etruria unifies and starts empire building? Or maybe Samnium fights a long war to expel the Greeks from the boot and then pushes north.
There is a twelfth-century possibility, though it requires a few changes. King David I of Scotland's only son, Henry Earl of Huntingdon, was unmarried until 1139. If Geoffrey of Anjou had died young, preventing his marriage to the Empress Matilda, perhaps they might have married in the early...
Very much this. I was very young at the time, but had a precocious interest in current affairs. My feeling, which I think was widely shared, was that even if the USSR was sclerotic at best, there was no way it could change. After all, as long as the people in charge didn't want to change, it...
The unspoken assumption in a lot of these scenarios would appear to be that an Imperial Germany that manages to impose a peace by force in 1918 would then be a staisfied power, and that therefore the way to get an alt-WW2 is via a war of revanche by France and Russia. Why would this be so? If...
They were also so absurdly lucky in the period 1938-41 that giving them any more luck runs into a plausibility problem. How many sixes do you want them to roll?
You say that like it's a bad thing. But seriously, if so, surely that would just have made the chief minister the effective head of state - imagine a longer run for Witte, maybe, or Stolypin?
Agreed. In this scenario there is a strong chance the UK holds Malaya/ Singapore, and if so a 1943 D-Day becomes plausible, basically because of one word: shipping. Not a sure thing, though, unless the knock-on effects are such that the Battle of the Atlantic goes much better. In order to get a...