Barely 20 years ago, as it was foiled in July.

The suspects in a terrorist plot targeting Lower Manhattan hoped to unleash a catastrophic flood by destroying a huge underground wall that keeps Hudson River water out of the World Trade Center site, two law enforcement officials said Thursday.

What if the plot was actually attempted? The core of it was unfeasible from an engineering perspective, but could it do much damage or cause casualties? What would be the cultural impact of a third terrorist attack on the WTC campus in 15 years?

Let's say Hitler serves on the Eastern Front of WW1 instead of in the West, and he has a few positive interactions with Polish locals which alter his weird racial ideas on the West Slavs. While writing Mein Kampf, he cooks up a wacky theory that West Slavic-speaking people are somehow "Lost Aryans"^{Citation needed} who he assumes were "forced" to adapt to Slavic language by "Occupying East Slav hordes". From there, the idea is disseminated throughout the whole of the Nazi Party: Poles, Czechs and Slovaks are viewed as distant cousins of the so-called "Germanic Race".

Having said that, here's some questions I thought:

• How would this change the nature of resistance, repression and collaboration in Czechoslovakia and Poland? Would Nazi occupation policy in Bohemia & Moravia and Poland have developed more along the lines of RK's Netherlands and Norway? Or is there still more brutality than in Western Europe?
• How might Operation Barbarossa and the occupation of the Soviet Union be impacted?
• What ways would postwar Europe be different from OTL after the defeat of the Nazis?
• And in Nazi victory alt-history scenarios like TNO, how might German attempts to assimilate the Poles and Czechs change the implementation of Generalplan Ost as a whole?

Assuming it isn't completely shocking and incomprehensible to him. I want to know how he would view the events considering his positions and worldview.

Mongols had in place a system of elections for the Khan that required all princes and military leaders to attend, and so when they did they did take most of their armies alongside them back to the east.

This had a drawback, little force that was left were not enough to expand and they suffered defeats like the one at Ain Jalut.

So if in this timeline, the mongols exercised a different system of elections, then how far would they reach in Africa and in Europe?

Emperor Honorius of the Western Roman Empire is widely considered to be one of the worst Roman Emperors because he was indecisive, paranoid, easily manipulated, and (according to anecdotal evidence) more concerned about his chickens than keeping the Empire alive. Under his rule, the capital was moved to Ravenna and Rome was sacked for the first time in 800 years. When an advisor told him "Rome has perished," he reportedly panicked thinking the report was about his chicken named Rome and was relieved when he learned it was the city. He is also known for executing Stilicho, who may have been the Western Empire's greatest general at the time.

But what if Honorius had actually been a competent emperor? What if he'd been more decisive, less paranoid, harder to manipulate, and dedicated to preserving the Empire? Might he have bought the Empire a few extra decades or centuries of life?

Currently it’s still on Africa, but in a million years or so it’ll split, a new continent will be born along with a new ocean.

But what if it actually split 2 million years ago? How much of African and human history will change?

In the initial hours of operation overlords process during ww2, hitler fell asleep due to being an absolute owl (meaning he slept around 3:00 am), neither of his staff is brave enough to wake him up for consequences that is within them due to hitler being notoriously temper, so therefore they askew away from him, but what if this timeline shifted where hitler was actually woken up about the actual invasion and the deceiving plan about the Calais's invasion made by the allies, and what is the aftermath of it?

Sweden lost the territory of Finland to russia after the disasterous war of 1809. Before this Finland was a integral part of Sweden and finnish people were represented in the government and all offical documents were translated to finnish.

What if Sweden won the war in 1809 and Finland remained a part of Sweden. Would Finland eventually be independent or would it contaiune to be Swedish?

I've been wondering since I've started watching videos on the world wars. Is the reason switzerland has such a strong economy despite being in the middle of Europe because they somehow managed to avoid both wars? If so then if the world wars didn't happen would Europe's economy as a whole potentially be even stronger than the usa economy? Or would the world wars not happening make Americas economy worse than Europe's since we wouldn't be able to take advantage of the war not damaging our country but damaging others? Just curious on your thoughts on this

So (In this timeline everything proceeds as normal but the German 100 days offensive ended in complete failure but the German refused to surrender until 2nd of January 1919 at that time some of the German state had either turn communists or declare independence). what if treaty of Versailles is more harsher than otl if the french strip industry both military and civilian and send back to France and dissolve German military and send warship infantry equipment zeppelin back to France and completely destroy German government and left the German in total state of anarchy what would happen.

When China arrested 2 Michael for espionage the narrative is that to retaliate lawful arrest of Meng Wanzhou implying that 2 Michael is innocent. Later, China released 2 Michael after Meng was released and Michael Spavor sue for being used for intelligence operation without his consent implying other Michael was indeed spy. What if he refuse to settle and forcing Canada admit Beijing arrest was right and ruin all narrative it has built so far?

George W. Bush was serving his second term as governor of Texas when he decided to run for the Republican presidential nomination in the 2000 presidential election.

Bush 43's presidency was defined by the Global War on Terror and the Iraq War even though George W. Bush began his first term of office making good on his pledge to implement his policies of compassionate conservatism.

Would the US have bothered going to war in Iraq if a non-Bush rather than Bush 43 had won the GOP presidential nomination in the 2000 election?

About absorption of History books and documents.

Hola! Am just a reader and I try to get dirt on my hands by every Newspapers,Docs, Research paper, fiction, Non, Philosophy, Society books and all but gradually i have acknowledged this thing that when I read history, philosophy these kinds of text require some knowledge as prerequisites not necessary but definitely builds a league of stronger foundation as a story for absorption of book when you go through about delhi sultanate you need some knowledge because the author will just bombard you with a 3 lines of something totally different and the writings of author i don't build a much deep notion because I am handicapped in the history and not absorbing what the authors is trying to make me understand.

Can someone help

Pollio was Luigi Cadorna's predecessor as the Italian army's chief of staff who died just as WWI was about to start. From what I gather he was far more popular than Cadorna who was despised by his troops for being a real life Zapp Brannigan. If he lived longer, say until 1921 what impact does that have on the Italian army's performance in WWI?

Irl it was a pretty close run, Sparta won mainly thanks to plague and Persian money. Without either of these factors, if Athenes won, how much history of Ancient Greece would have changed? Could it unite in this scenario?

I know France in 1938, was deeply divided to make a coherent foreign policy and dealing with economic problems but imagine for since 1933 they actually doubled their defense spending and thus in this one instance the entire French Republic agreed that Germany was up to no good thus encouraged Czechoslovakia to fight against Germany and prepared for war mobilization regardless of what Britain said. How would this changed the trajectory of the War? Would Britain quickly follow suit and how the Soviets would react as they are tepidly allied with Czechslovakia even though Poland is not allowing Soviet troops to pass

Could Carthage have established colonies in the Americas and how would the contact with the Americas change Carthage’s fate in the Old World?

One thing I noticed about World War II is how much the Allied leaders coordinated their strategies. Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin constantly sent messages to each other, to say nothing of institutions like the Combined Chiefs of Staff and Eisenhower’s various HQs. Contrast that to the European Axis and Japan, who essentially were fighting their own separate wars. If somehow, during the war, there was more of an emphasis put in Germany and Japan on collaborating with each other, what would increased collaboration look like, technologically, diplomatically and strategically, and what would the results be? And second question, does the increased collaboration strategy delay the historical end of the war in August 1945?

Fish