I did some research, and the best one i found was this, but I would prefer something more similar to this

Previous

Today:

Welcome to this week's instalment of /r/AskHistorians' Sunday Digest (formerly the Day of Reflection). Nobody can read all the questions and answers that are posted here, so in this thread we invite you to share anything you'd like to highlight from the last week - an interesting discussion, an informative answer, an insightful question that was overlooked, or anything else.

So in plain terms, we can't moderate these kinds of questions to the standard that /r/AskHistorians is based around. We know they can be fun to read and think about, but they aren't fun to moderate.

Additionally though, and on less practical terms, there is the deeper issue of how 'What If' questions engage with the historical method. To be sure, counterfactuals are one of many tools within the historians arsenal. Some enjoy making use of them, while others shun them, but while they can often help an historian think through the implications of a conclusion, they don't make up the sum of our work. You can often see them mentioned and worked through on the subreddit as part of a larger response which is grounded in sources and reaches a conclusion supported as such, but that doesn't mean we can unleash them onto the subreddit on their own, as they simply aren't answers themselves, but rather intellectual exercises.

What If I'm Not Sure What Qualifies?

As with all of our restrictions on asking questions, we attempt to keep them as narrow as possible. The two rules of thumb that we follow are A) Does the question require a counterfactual scenario to get a response? and B) Does the question require a time machine to set up?

For the first, what we mean by that is what would a conclusion look like? Would it be something that is citing historical fact, or at least supportable inference based on the evidence of what did happen? If so, we'll likely give it an OK, but if not, we'll likely remove it. Or put another way, are you asking about what a group planned to do, or asking to speculate what those plans would have looked like in reality? We can know the first, but not the second.

For the latter, questions such as "Who would win in a fight, [Period X Army] versus [Period Y Army]?" are the most obvious kinds of examples, but in sum, if you are having things compete across time periods, it almost certainly would be removed.

What If I Want to Ask It Anyways?

If it is a question you really want to ask anyways, the best thing to do is to consider the underlying question that you are asking. "If I want to imagine what might have happened, what information would help me do so?"

One of the most common questions we see here which I'll use as an example is "Would the USSR have beat the Nazis on their own?" It is interesting to think about, but to answer it requires so many assumptions! Why are they on their own, for starters? Did the UK make peace, did they get invaded, did they never even declare war? Does Lend-Lease happen? Does Japan act differently? I could go on and on, but the point is that you can't evaluate this in a vacuum, and you need to answer a lot of questions to even arrive at a scenario where you can work through the matter.

But there are obvious questions you might ask which gird such an inquiry and are well suited! Asking, for instance, about the impact of Lend-Lease on the Soviet war effort is a popular one, or asking about how Soviet and German industrial capacity compared in the lead up to war could be another. The answer to that first question is one we can only speculate on, but you can ask about the kind of information that helps you speculate about it better.

If you are unsure how you might modify a question to be less 'What If?', you are always invited to reach out to the modteam and we're happy to help as well.

And of course, if you quite explicitly want to ask an Historian 'What If?', there are two great communities for it which we recommend you check out, /r/HistoricalWhatIf and /r/HistoryWhatIf.