Story Idea Thread: post your ideas here!

So imagine FDR dies of polio in the late 20's following a failed bid as James Cox's VP in the 1920 elections.

Hoover becomes President as usual, the Depression happens, and all that stuff.

What then? In 1932, Hoover seeks reelection, with the most possible Democrat running against him being John Nance Garner, Roosevelt's VP during OTL, who originally ran against FDR in the primaries before striking a deal and becoming his running mate. How would the Depression and WWII play out under a possible Garner administration? Or is the idea of Garner becoming President just too far-fetched?

  Could be wrong but from what I've read, albeit a long while ago Garner had traditional views on economics, i.e. continue cutting spending and keeping the deficit low until the market 'corrects itself'.  Roosevelt took him on as VP in part to mollify the more conservative wing of the party and I think he had little/no support for the New Deal so if he became President your unlikely to see a lot of Roosevelt's policies.  While some conservatives will argue this will mean the market sorting the problem out in time without the 'big government' they hate this would mean there's a lot more suffering for the bulk of the population.  If you follow the Keynesian view American continues in deep depression until something changes, possibly violently given the desperation in the country in 1932/33.

Another idea to be unrealised...
No Papal intervention in the dispute between Argentina and Chile sees the two of them go to war at Christmas 1978.
Block and counterblow are struck with each side playing to advantages. The conflict sees Argentina gaining a 'victory' at the start in the disputed area but Chile responding by striking elsewhere.
Other South American nations are drawn in.
Where to go from there, I am not sure.

  That could be a huge game-changer.  If she can build a stable empire in the east it could defend the region a lot more effectively against the Sassanian empire.  However unless Rome totally collapses, in which case what happens to the chaos across about 2/3 of the empire, then sooner or later its likely to have a strong emperor reunite it.  They will almost certainly then want revenge and of course the return of the richest provinces in the empire.

  You might get a Roman emperor who decides, possibly after a long civil war to reunite the empire. that its too weak to really attack Palmyria but if he manages to create a new stable state, for a few years, its likely to regain wealth and confidence and a successor is going to want to 'complete' the task. 

  As such I think your right that there is likely to be a number of big wars in the Med as a result and Palmyria has the problem of being threatened from both east and west by larger and probably more powerful states.  Its going to need a lot of skilled management and/or luck to maintain its position under such circumstances.

  Not sure how this would affect other factors.  Most noticeably the OTL rise of eastern cultures, especially a certain Jewish sect ?  Possibly a more limited empire, restricted more towards its Roman-Greek core could turn against foreign/eastern ideas in response to the conflict with Palmyria.  Or simply the lack of a universal empire makes it more difficult for a universal religion to gain influence.

  Also while such a reunited empire stripped of its eastern provinces would be markedly poorer it may, provided it doesn't clash insistently with Palmyria be easiler to keep together.  It doesn't have to guard against Persian attacks and has a significantly smaller area that the emperor and his officials can possibly rule more practically.  Or everything could fall apart.  You could end up with both states crushed, an earlier and more complete dark age in west and central Europe and the Persians in charge of an empire as large as that achieved by the Achasmenid's at their height.

A Lebed-led Russia in the late 90s and early 00s.
Alexander Lebed would be Russia's Napoleon and make the new Russia he led a military expansive state where many of the old USSR borders were restored in Central Asia and the Caucasus. This would cause diplomatic conflict with the West and military stand-offs. Eventually, on the eve of a possible conflict with the West, Lebed dies and the storm doesn't come to pass.

  Long time since I've heard of him.  He was a military leader but I got the impression that he was fairly liberal and that if he had come to power he would have been more interested in internal reform and might have avoided the xenophobic kleptocracy that plagues Russia currently.  Definitely would be nationalistic but not necessarily expansionist.  Could be totally wrong but IIRC there was a fair level of disappointment in the west when he died fairly suddenly.

Have tried to find many timelines with him replacing Putin but i do not find many at all.