As for me, Yes, and these would include:

-The US's historical westward expansion (either as an independent country, as in real life, or as a part of the British Empire). This means having the US expand into Oregon Country, Florida, Texas, California, et cetera.

-The partition of India based on religious lines--though I do wish that it could have been achieved with ASTRONOMICALLY less bloodshed.

-Full decolonization worldwide, including in Algeria and the Philippines.

On Fri, 21 May 2021 13:12:37 -0700 (PDT), WolfBear <m4josh@gmail.com>
wrote:

>As for me, Yes, and these would include:
>
>-The US's historical westward expansion (either as an independent country, as in real life, or as a part of the British Empire). This means having the US expand into Oregon Country, Florida, Texas, California, et cetera.
>
>-The partition of India based on religious lines--though I do wish that it could have been achieved with ASTRONOMICALLY less bloodshed.
>
>-Full decolonization worldwide, including in Algeria and the Philippines.

I duuno about that - one of the chief grievances in 1776 was that
Britain wasn't allowing colonization west of the Appalachians based on
the Royal Proclamation of 1763 (the one Canada still feels bound by
but the US doesn't)

On Friday, May 21, 2021 at 8:53:47 PM UTC-7, The Horny Goat wrote:
> On Fri, 21 May 2021 13:12:37 -0700 (PDT), WolfBear <m4j...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >As for me, Yes, and these would include:
> >
> >-The US's historical westward expansion (either as an independent country, as in real life, or as a part of the British Empire). This means having the US expand into Oregon Country, Florida, Texas, California, et cetera.
> >
> >-The partition of India based on religious lines--though I do wish that it could have been achieved with ASTRONOMICALLY less bloodshed.
> >
> >-Full decolonization worldwide, including in Algeria and the Philippines.
> I duuno about that - one of the chief grievances in 1776 was that
> Britain wasn't allowing colonization west of the Appalachians based on
> the Royal Proclamation of 1763 (the one Canada still feels bound by
> but the US doesn't)

Canada also colonized its western territories.

And I forgot to mention:

-A lack of any nuclear wars after 1945. I certainly WOULDN'T want to EVER change that!

WolfBear <m4josh@gmail.com> on Fri, 21 May 2021 13:12:37 -0700 (PDT)
typed in alt.history.what-if the following:
>As for me, Yes, and these would include:
>
>-The US's historical westward expansion (either as an independent country, as in real life, or as a part of the British Empire). This means having the US expand into Oregon Country, Florida, Texas, California, et cetera.
>
>-The partition of India based on religious lines--though I do wish that it could have been achieved with ASTRONOMICALLY less bloodshed.

I recall helping a friend edit her final draft of a paper on the
partition of India. (We were using that there new fangled Word
Processing Software on an Apple IIe)
Anyway, she had a hard time wrapping her head around the death
tolls reported. Mostly because the numbers reported were larger than
her home town in Alaska.
Yes, a million plus deaths is a lot of people, but out of 300
million people? Less that a third of one percent.
--
pyotr filipivich
"History rarely repeats herself" is the cliche. In reality she just
lets fly with a frying pan yelling "Why weren't you listening the first time!?"

On Friday, May 21, 2021 at 10:37:03 PM UTC-7, pyotr filipivich wrote:
> WolfBear <m4j...@gmail.com> on Fri, 21 May 2021 13:12:37 -0700 (PDT)
> typed in alt.history.what-if the following:
> >As for me, Yes, and these would include:
> >
> >-The US's historical westward expansion (either as an independent country, as in real life, or as a part of the British Empire). This means having the US expand into Oregon Country, Florida, Texas, California, et cetera.
> >
> >-The partition of India based on religious lines--though I do wish that it could have been achieved with ASTRONOMICALLY less bloodshed.
> I recall helping a friend edit her final draft of a paper on the
> partition of India. (We were using that there new fangled Word
> Processing Software on an Apple IIe)
> Anyway, she had a hard time wrapping her head around the death
> tolls reported. Mostly because the numbers reported were larger than
> her home town in Alaska.
> Yes, a million plus deaths is a lot of people, but out of 300
> million people? Less that a third of one percent.
>
> --
> pyotr filipivich
> "History rarely repeats herself" is the cliche. In reality she just
> lets fly with a frying pan yelling "Why weren't you listening the first time!?"

Well, the death tolls could have been even less than that, had Britain actually tried to maintain order in India. TBH, I'm primarily interested in partitioning India as a way of removing as many potential Islamic fundamentalists from within India as possible. Now, if all Pakistani and Bangladeshi Muslims actually behaved like Ahmadis *en masse*, then we shouldn't actually have too much problems with a united India, but that's not actually the case in reality, unfortunately. :(

On Fri, 21 May 2021 21:22:34 -0700 (PDT), WolfBear <m4josh@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Friday, May 21, 2021 at 8:53:47 PM UTC-7, The Horny Goat wrote:
>> On Fri, 21 May 2021 13:12:37 -0700 (PDT), WolfBear <m4j...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >As for me, Yes, and these would include:
>> >
>> >-The US's historical westward expansion (either as an independent country, as in real life, or as a part of the British Empire). This means having the US expand into Oregon Country, Florida, Texas, California, et cetera.
>> >
>> >-The partition of India based on religious lines--though I do wish that it could have been achieved with ASTRONOMICALLY less bloodshed.
>> >
>> >-Full decolonization worldwide, including in Algeria and the Philippines.
>> I duuno about that - one of the chief grievances in 1776 was that
>> Britain wasn't allowing colonization west of the Appalachians based on
>> the Royal Proclamation of 1763 (the one Canada still feels bound by
>> but the US doesn't)
>
>Canada also colonized its western territories.

Well yes and no. Canada colonized the Canadian prairies. British
Columbia joined Confederation as a separate British colony - same as
Upper and Lower Canada (aka Ontario and Quebec), Nova Scotia PEI and
New Brunswick. And of course Newfoundland much later.

Canadians often forget that the Churchill FDR meeting at Argentia Bay
(south shore of NF) WASN'T Canadian territory at the time.

>And I forgot to mention:
>
>-A lack of any nuclear wars after 1945. I certainly WOULDN'T want to EVER change that!

On Fri, 21 May 2021 22:36:50 -0700, pyotr filipivich
<phamp@mindspring.com> wrote:

>WolfBear <m4josh@gmail.com> on Fri, 21 May 2021 13:12:37 -0700 (PDT)
>typed in alt.history.what-if the following:
>>As for me, Yes, and these would include:
>>
>>-The US's historical westward expansion (either as an independent country, as in real life, or as a part of the British Empire). This means having the US expand into Oregon Country, Florida, Texas, California, et cetera.
>>
>>-The partition of India based on religious lines--though I do wish that it could have been achieved with ASTRONOMICALLY less bloodshed.
>
> I recall helping a friend edit her final draft of a paper on the
>partition of India. (We were using that there new fangled Word
>Processing Software on an Apple IIe)
> Anyway, she had a hard time wrapping her head around the death
>tolls reported. Mostly because the numbers reported were larger than
>her home town in Alaska.
> Yes, a million plus deaths is a lot of people, but out of 300
>million people? Less that a third of one percent.
>
Well given the reference to Apple IIe that would presumably be around
1980 - when Alaska had a total population of roughly 400-500k - so not
just her home town!

On Fri, 21 May 2021 13:12:37 -0700 (PDT), WolfBear wrote:

> As for me, Yes, and these would include:
>
> -The US's historical westward expansion (either as an independent country, as in real life, or as a part of the British Empire). This means having the US expand into Oregon Country, Florida, Texas, California, et cetera.
>
> -The partition of India based on religious lines--though I do wish that it could have been achieved with ASTRONOMICALLY less bloodshed.
>
> -Full decolonization worldwide, including in Algeria and the Philippines.

The Big Bang

WolfBear <m4josh@gmail.com> on Sat, 22 May 2021 00:08:27 -0700 (PDT)
typed in alt.history.what-if the following:
>On Friday, May 21, 2021 at 10:37:03 PM UTC-7, pyotr filipivich wrote:
>> WolfBear <m4j...@gmail.com> on Fri, 21 May 2021 13:12:37 -0700 (PDT)
>> typed in alt.history.what-if the following:
>> >As for me, Yes, and these would include:
>> >
>> >-The US's historical westward expansion (either as an independent country, as in real life, or as a part of the British Empire). This means having the US expand into Oregon Country, Florida, Texas, California, et cetera.
>> >
>> >-The partition of India based on religious lines--though I do wish that it could have been achieved with ASTRONOMICALLY less bloodshed.
>> I recall helping a friend edit her final draft of a paper on the
>> partition of India. (We were using that there new fangled Word
>> Processing Software on an Apple IIe)
>> Anyway, she had a hard time wrapping her head around the death
>> tolls reported. Mostly because the numbers reported were larger than
>> her home town in Alaska.
>> Yes, a million plus deaths is a lot of people, but out of 300
>> million people? Less that a third of one percent.
>>
>> --
>> pyotr filipivich
>> "History rarely repeats herself" is the cliche. In reality she just
>> lets fly with a frying pan yelling "Why weren't you listening the first time!?"
>
>Well, the death tolls could have been even less than that, had Britain actually tried to maintain order in India. TBH, I'm primarily interested in partitioning India as a way of removing as many potential Islamic fundamentalists from within India as possible. Now, if all Pakistani and Bangladeshi Muslims actually behaved like Ahmadis *en masse*, then we shouldn't actually have too much problems with a united India, but that's not actually the case in reality, unfortunately. :(

My own opinion is that by 1947, the British government was tired
of war, of having to police their empire, of having an empire, and
just wanted to have a nice going away ceremony, hand over the keys and
let the locals run the place. Not that I necessarily blame them, but
....

--
pyotr filipivich
"History rarely repeats herself" is the cliche. In reality she just
lets fly with a frying pan yelling "Why weren't you listening the first time!?"

On 5/21/2021 2:12 PM, WolfBear wrote:
> As for me, Yes, and these would include:
>
> -The US's historical westward expansion (either as an independent country, as in real life, or as a part of the British Empire). This means having the US expand into Oregon Country, Florida, Texas, California, et cetera.
>
> -The partition of India based on religious lines--though I do wish that it could have been achieved with ASTRONOMICALLY less bloodshed.
>
> -Full decolonization worldwide, including in Algeria and the Philippines.
>

Believe it or not, PROBABLY 9/11.

It was BAD, but unless you can remove the underlying causes (and most of
the ways of doing so would more likely than not have their own terrible
consequences), then it's LESS-bad than the alternative of "let that
enemy keep building up its strength until it has the weapons of an
actual State of the world--probably Afghanistan--behind it, and only
THEN strike, likely still by using civilian planes as guided missiles".
I'd much rather get it rammed up the ass by OBL at THAT point than once
he starts having influence over the Afghani state. That's *particularly*
true if air-travel security isn't tightened on its own, and specifically
in a way that would prevent any of the hijackings in the first place.

--
Chrysi Cat
1/2 anthrocat, nearly 1/2 anthrofox, all magical
Transgoddess, quick to anger. [she/her. Misgender and die].
Call me Chrysi or call me Kat, I'll respond to either!

On Wednesday, May 26, 2021 at 3:55:46 AM UTC-7, Chrysi Cat wrote:
> On 5/21/2021 2:12 PM, WolfBear wrote:
> > As for me, Yes, and these would include:
> >
> > -The US's historical westward expansion (either as an independent country, as in real life, or as a part of the British Empire). This means having the US expand into Oregon Country, Florida, Texas, California, et cetera.
> >
> > -The partition of India based on religious lines--though I do wish that it could have been achieved with ASTRONOMICALLY less bloodshed.
> >
> > -Full decolonization worldwide, including in Algeria and the Philippines.
> >
> Believe it or not, PROBABLY 9/11.
>
> It was BAD, but unless you can remove the underlying causes (and most of
> the ways of doing so would more likely than not have their own terrible
> consequences), then it's LESS-bad than the alternative of "let that
> enemy keep building up its strength until it has the weapons of an
> actual State of the world--probably Afghanistan--behind it, and only
> THEN strike, likely still by using civilian planes as guided missiles".
> I'd much rather get it rammed up the ass by OBL at THAT point than once
> he starts having influence over the Afghani state. That's *particularly*
> true if air-travel security isn't tightened on its own, and specifically
> in a way that would prevent any of the hijackings in the first place.
>
> --
> Chrysi Cat
> 1/2 anthrocat, nearly 1/2 anthrofox, all magical
> Transgoddess, quick to anger. [she/her. Misgender and die].
> Call me Chrysi or call me Kat, I'll respond to either!

FWIW, if a successful 9/11-style attack is delayed until after 2004, then we might very well see a US President Al Gore between 2005 and 2009.

Practically all of pre-modern history is miserable by modern standards.

I can't think of any such event or period that couldn't be optimized to
some degree by our standards.

> -The US's historical westward expansion (either as an independent
> country, as in real life, or as a part of the British Empire). This
> means having the US expand into Oregon Country, Florida, Texas,
> California, et cetera.

So you're OK with the violent displacement and frequent massacres
of American Indians?

That's part of this history, which you "would STRONGLY prefer NOT
to change."

> -The partition of India based on religious lines--though I do wish
> that it could have been achieved with ASTRONOMICALLY less bloodshed.

Which is a change.

Note also the partition of India led to multiple bloody wars
between Pakistan and India, to Pakistan's bloody division,
and to Pakistan's degeneration into a Moslem-supremacist
semi-dictatorship which has enabled a great deal of terrorism,
especially in regard to the Taliban.

That's part of this history, which you "would STRONGLY prefer NOT
to change."

> -Full decolonization worldwide, including in Algeria and the
> Philippines.
Which has resulted in extravagantly corrupt and brutal dictatorships,
gruesome internal wars, and several incidents of outright genocide.

That's part of this history, which you "would STRONGLY prefer NOT
to change."

--
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.

On Thursday, May 27, 2021 at 5:18:15 AM UTC-7, Rich Rostrom wrote:
> Practically all of pre-modern history is miserable by modern standards.
>
> I can't think of any such event or period that couldn't be optimized to
> some degree by our standards.
> > -The US's historical westward expansion (either as an independent
> > country, as in real life, or as a part of the British Empire). This
> > means having the US expand into Oregon Country, Florida, Texas,
> > California, et cetera.
> So you're OK with the violent displacement and frequent massacres
> of American Indians?
>
> That's part of this history, which you "would STRONGLY prefer NOT
> to change."

Do you have a realistic way to prevent this?

> > -The partition of India based on religious lines--though I do wish
> > that it could have been achieved with ASTRONOMICALLY less bloodshed.
> Which is a change.
>
> Note also the partition of India led to multiple bloody wars
> between Pakistan and India, to Pakistan's bloody division,

Well, TBH, I'd rather have East Pakistan and West Pakistan become two separate, independent countries back in 1947. That would prevent the extremely massive bloodshed in East Pakistan in 1970-1971.

> and to Pakistan's degeneration into a Moslem-supremacist
> semi-dictatorship which has enabled a great deal of terrorism,
> especially in regard to the Taliban.

Do you really think that Pakistani Muslims would be MUCH more moderate if they would have remained a part of India? Up to the point of supporting free speech for people who draw Muhammad cartoons as opposed to murdering such people?

>
> That's part of this history, which you "would STRONGLY prefer NOT
> to change."
> > -Full decolonization worldwide, including in Algeria and the
> > Philippines.
> Which has resulted in extravagantly corrupt and brutal dictatorships,
> gruesome internal wars, and several incidents of outright genocide.
>

So, a better decolonization with better post-independence leadership for the developing world?

> That's part of this history, which you "would STRONGLY prefer NOT
> to change."
>
> --
> Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
> --- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.

I'll also say this, though: While I don't like colonialism, I would prefer a return to a more voluntary and more humane form of colonialism in comparison to open borders. Open borders is just flat-out lunacy. It can work in the EU because the countries there aren't too different, with the exception of the Balkans, which don't have that many people relative to the rest of Europe anyway. But if there will be 4 billion black Africans in 2100, well, I could certainly see a billion of them or more wanting to permanently move to and settle in the West. This would obviously destroy the West! As Steve Sailer previously said, it would be similar to the Great Migration times 100! Not times 10, but rather times 100!

Also, re: Bangladesh: While it doesn't have religious radicalism to quite Pakistan's levels, it still has a lot of problems with religious fundamentalism: For instance, atheist bloggers getting murdered. Frankly, I'm glad that India removed a lot of Muslim religious fundamentalists from its borders through partition, though I obviously think that India (and the West, and other countries) should be willing to accept those people from Pakistan and Bangladesh, such as Ahmadis, who are likewise victims of Muslim tyranny.

On 5/27/21 5:25 PM, WolfBear wrote:

> Do you really think that Pakistani Muslims would be MUCH more moderate
> if they would have remained a part of India? Up to the point of
> supporting free speech for people who draw Muhammad cartoons as
> opposed to murdering such people?

Moslems in India are much less radical than Moslems in majority
Moslem countries.

--
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.

On Wednesday, June 2, 2021 at 8:28:15 AM UTC-7, Rich Rostrom wrote:
> On 5/27/21 5:25 PM, WolfBear wrote:
>
> > Do you really think that Pakistani Muslims would be MUCH more moderate
> > if they would have remained a part of India? Up to the point of
> > supporting free speech for people who draw Muhammad cartoons as
> > opposed to murdering such people?
> Moslems in India are much less radical than Moslems in majority
> Moslem countries.
> --

Not necessarily in comparison to Kazakhstani or other Central Asian Muslims..

> Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
> --- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.