PDA

View Full Version : What if?


Livewire
August 24th, 2011, 06:28 PM
What if the world we know was flipped? Say for a moment that one event in history changed - What if Rome exterminated all the Christians in the first century? If the Crusaders actually conquered and held the Holy Land, or, what if the Islamic countries successfully invaded Europe? What if the Allied invasion at Normandy failed? Adolph Hitler conquers the USA? Would the South have been repaired if Abraham Lincoln hadn't been shot? What about JFK? Al Gore won in 2001. 9/11 never happened.


How would things be different, if one single day in history was different?

Discuss possible ~hypothetical~ scenarios - take the last 2,000 years and flip it around 180 degrees. How would our world look?

Netto Azure
August 24th, 2011, 06:44 PM
What is the goal of this thread? I love the subject but do we recreate the scenario like a fanfic? Chronology? or Do we Discuss the plausability of the time line? Etc.

Still I do love and lol at the timeline Newsweek made postulating an Al Gore victory

www.2010.newsweek.com/essay/if-gore-had-won.html

Esper
August 26th, 2011, 09:48 AM
This is a thread for talking about alternate histories, yes? The "what if this had happened instead of that" kind of talk, right?

I remember in my Chinese history class when we were talking about the Mongol Yuan dynasty in the 13th century and the Mongol invasion of pretty much the whole known world that they'd stopped short their invasion of Europe because the Khan had died. Western civilization would have been totally different had the Mongols kept going. They could have brought with them all kinds of technologies and studies and institutions from the other end of Eurasia and basically pushed the world closer together.

That newsweek article was pretty fun. I especially liked the part which read: "The president then names Illinois junior senator and constitutional law scholar Barack Obama as 110th Supreme Court justice."

Jack O'Neill
August 26th, 2011, 02:06 PM
Alternate history is a very messy can of worms to open up, and it gets messier the further back in time you go. Too many variables to take into account, too many assumptions to make.

However, I will give you this: Nazi Germany could never have been able to conquer the United States, no matter how hard it tried. Feel free to rationalize how Germany can support a trans-Atlantic invasion despite having inferior industrial capacity and a subpar navy. The only way the Germans could have succeeded is if they enlisted the aid of alien space bats (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_space_bats), because that's just how ridiculous the scenario is.

Livewire
August 26th, 2011, 03:06 PM
Alternate history is a very messy can of worms to open up, and it gets messier the further back in time you go. Too many variables to take into account, too many assumptions to make.

However, I will give you this: Nazi Germany could never have been able to conquer the United States, no matter how hard it tried. Feel free to rationalize how Germany can support a trans-Atlantic invasion despite having inferior industrial capacity and a subpar navy. The only way the Germans could have succeeded is if they enlisted the aid of alien space bats (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_space_bats), because that's just how ridiculous the scenario is.

You're still applying actual history to another scenario. What if they COULD have? What if Hitler had mass produced the new Messershmit ME, giving unmatchable air superiority to the Germans?

Jack O'Neill
August 26th, 2011, 04:15 PM
You're still applying actual history to another scenario. What if they COULD have? What if Hitler had mass produced the new Messershmit ME, giving unmatchable air superiority to the Germans?
I assume you're talking about the Me 262; the Bf 109 was ultimately a dated design, and the Me 110, Me 210, and Me 410 were never meant to be air superiority fighters. Sure, it could outrun any piston-engined fighter of the era, but it was a poor dogfighter at low speeds, was extremely vulnerable during takeoff and landing, and required large amounts of resources to build and maintain compared to other fighters. Hell, according to Albert Speer's memoirs, Adolf Hitler had originally delayed the introduction of the Me 262 before deciding that it should be used as a high-speed light bomber instead of as an interceptor. By the time the Me 262 finally entered service, it made very little difference; the deteriorating situation on the Eastern Front and the bombing campaigns of the USAAF and RAF had all taken their toll on the Germans.

Your problem is that you're not focusing on the big picture. How could Germany mass-produce the Me 262 if it had to devote the majority of its resources to fighting the Soviets on the ground? How could Germany mass-produce the Me 262 if the Americans and British were gutting its industry from the air? How could Germany mass-produce the Me 262 if its own leader blocked its production at a time when it could have actually made a difference? Even if Germany could mass-produce Me 262s, where is it going to get fuel and qualified pilots?

Netto Azure
August 26th, 2011, 04:23 PM
The more plausible scenario is a Fortress Europe one with the Germans investing tons in Nuclear Research to check the Allies military-industrial strength resulting in some sort of Cold War if the Soviets were overpowered. That pretty much fulfills Hitler's wet dream of Lebensraum.

Jack O'Neill
August 26th, 2011, 04:55 PM
The more plausible scenario is a Fortress Europe one with the Germans investing tons in Nuclear Research to check the Allies military-industrial strength resulting in some sort of Cold War if the Soviets were overpowered. That pretty much fulfills Hitler's wet dream of Lebensraum.
Read the first paragraph (http://www.pokecommunity.com/showpost.php?p=6756602&postcount=7) to learn the condensed version of why Germany could have never been able to completely overrun the Soviet Union, and read this entire post (http://www.pokecommunity.com/showpost.php?p=6473777&postcount=32) to learn several reasons why Germany could never get nuclear weapons before the United States.

Mr. X
August 26th, 2011, 05:33 PM
And read this, http://www.pokecommunity.com/showpost.php?p=6818550&postcount=1 Specificly the first sentence. History has no purpose in 'what if' senario's which is what this topic is about.

That said, perhaps you should stop posting in this topic since everything you have posted to far is off-topic.

Anyway, im kinda interested in what would have happened had Japan taken control of the US, or if they had beaten us in WWII. We only won due to our aircraft carriers so im wondering how things would have turned out if they were destroyed during Pearl Harbor or if we never had any to begin with.

Anyway, we beat Japan by luck and we beat Hitler because he made two mistakes (One he stopped bombing Britian. Two, he tried to **** with Russia which is STILL one of the biggest mistakes you can make.)

I wrote out a big paragraph about how WWII could have turned out bad for us (By this I means we get slaughtered on BOTH sides) but I can't remember what forum I wrote it on. I'll see about finding it, or even rewriting it since its essentially a big what if senario. Anyway, as for Hitler ruling the US... No. In a what if, i'd put more stock into Japan/Mexico/Canada dividing us up between themselves.

donavannj
August 26th, 2011, 06:50 PM
Anyway, im kinda interested in what would have happened had Japan taken control of the US, or if they had beaten us in WWII. We only won due to our aircraft carriers so im wondering how things would have turned out if they were destroyed during Pearl Harbor or if we never had any to begin with.

Quick correction there: We didn't only win due to our aircraft carriers. We had far superior industrial capacity and population (123 million people resided in the US in 1940 compared to 73 million residing in Japan) when compared to Japan at the time, and the whole reason for the attack on Pearl Harbor was to slow us down enough (roughly a year or two) to where they could conquer the majority of the Pacific and have a much firmer grip on it by the time we were fully mobilized. We also did have a total of maybe 10 aircraft carriers then, if my memory serves from history class, about half of them being slowed to Pearl Harbor by a sea storm in our timeline, which probably would have been swiftly replaced in a time of war. We would likely have gotten rubber from somewhere other than Indonesia

As for a thing I think would have drastically altered history, or at least lengthened the duration of World War II, I think if Hitler had opted not to declare war on the Soviets until much later than he did, he could have had control of much of Western Europe and have vastly more subjects with which to wage war on the Soviets, and may have led to America being pretty much on its own if it did get involved in any war, which it probably would have if Canada were attacked.

twocows
August 26th, 2011, 06:58 PM
I assume you're talking about the Me 262; the Bf 109 was ultimately a dated design, and the Me 110, Me 210, and Me 410 were never meant to be air superiority fighters. Sure, it could outrun any piston-engined fighter of the era, but it was a poor dogfighter at low speeds, was extremely vulnerable during takeoff and landing, and required large amounts of resources to build and maintain compared to other fighters. Hell, according to Albert Speer's memoirs, Adolf Hitler had originally delayed the introduction of the Me 262 before deciding that it should be used as a high-speed light bomber instead of as an interceptor. By the time the Me 262 finally entered service, it made very little difference; the deteriorating situation on the Eastern Front and the bombing campaigns of the USAAF and RAF had all taken their toll on the Germans.

Your problem is that you're not focusing on the big picture. How could Germany mass-produce the Me 262 if it had to devote the majority of its resources to fighting the Soviets on the ground? How could Germany mass-produce the Me 262 if the Americans and British were gutting its industry from the air? How could Germany mass-produce the Me 262 if its own leader blocked its production at a time when it could have actually made a difference? Even if Germany could mass-produce Me 262s, where is it going to get fuel and qualified pilots?

You're completely missing the point. It's a HYPOTHETICAL. Ignoring practicality, what if they had successfully invaded the US? How would the world be different? That's what he's asking, not for a discussion on the viability of it.

I think a more interesting question would be what if America never got involved in WW2? How would it have played out?

donavannj
August 26th, 2011, 07:12 PM
I think a more interesting question would be what if America never got involved in WW2? How would it have played out?

Are we talking lack of military involvement or a lack of economic involvement as well? The answers you get may be drastically different depending on how uninvolved you would have the US be.

Jack O'Neill
August 26th, 2011, 08:25 PM
Quick correction there: We didn't only win due to our aircraft carriers. We had far superior industrial capacity and population (123 million people resided in the US in 1940 compared to 73 million residing in Japan) when compared to Japan at the time, and the whole reason for the attack on Pearl Harbor was to slow us down enough (roughly a year or two) to where they could conquer the majority of the Pacific and have a much firmer grip on it by the time we were fully mobilized. We also did have a total of maybe 10 aircraft carriers then, if my memory serves from history class, about half of them being slowed to Pearl Harbor by a sea storm in our timeline, which probably would have been swiftly replaced in a time of war. We would likely have gotten rubber from somewhere other than Indonesia
Addendum: Japan had been bogged down in a ground war against China since 1937 and was struggling to keep its war effort going due to the effects of embargos by the United States, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom. The IJN even had plans to abandon its destroyers and other escorts in the middle of the Pacific Ocean if they ran out of fuel traveling to or from Pearl Harbor. If they couldn't keep enough of their ships fueled just to stage a brief raid, what makes you think they could stage an all-out invasion and occupation of Hawaii, much less an attack of any sort on the American mainland or the Panama Canal?

As for how grossly superior the American war machine was to the Japanese during World War II, I'll let the numbers speak for me (http://www.combinedfleet.com/economic.htm). Even if the U.S. Navy had lost all of its carriers at Pearl or Midway, existing production would have fully replaced those losses within a year. The Japanese could have had a few more months with which to consolidate their holdings, but it would not have made any real difference in the long run. Many high-ranking Japanese officers, most famously Isoroku Yamamoto, knew that waging war against the United States would be suicide, but Tojo and the other leaders of the junta insisted otherwise, and they paid for their folly with the blood of their own countrymen.

Livewire
August 26th, 2011, 09:33 PM
You're completely missing the point. It's a HYPOTHETICAL. Ignoring practicality, what if they had successfully invaded the US? How would the world be different? That's what he's asking, not for a discussion on the viability of it.

I think a more interesting question would be what if America never got involved in WW2? How would it have played out?

Finally somebody gets it. Hypothetically speaking, how would these things have turned out, ignoring all the particulars of our current time. Let's use our imaginations for a change, instead of spewing obscure data on German fighter capabilities, etc.

Jack O'Neill
August 26th, 2011, 09:49 PM
Finally somebody gets it. Hypothetically speaking, how would these things have turned out, ignoring all the particulars of our current time. Let's use our imaginations for a change, instead of spewing obscure data on German fighter capabilities, etc.
You cannot analyze situations like this in a vacuum. Any discussion of a hypothetical Nazi German invasion of the American mainland will inevitably have to involve discussion of German industrial capacity, logistics capabilities, and raw military strength compared to those of the Americans, which are far more important considerations than you realize. You can't just ask what would happen if Nazi Germany managed to take over the United States, you also need to ask how Nazi Germany could take over the United States to begin with. "Let's use our imaginations" is basically shorthand for "Let's summon alien space bats to aid the Germans, because there's no way in hell that this scenario will work out no matter how hard I try to rationalize it."

donavannj
August 26th, 2011, 10:26 PM
The Nazis wouldn't have needed space aliens. They go a long way toward matching the U.S. by not stabbing the Soviets in the back (and, by extension, not shooting themselves in the foot in doing so). I mean, it's not exactly like the Soviets got along very well with the U.S., though I don't think Nazi Germany would have formed an alliance with Japan if that were the case. The Soviets and the Japanese weren't exactly on friendly terms, either, but if they can keep the US out of the conflicts long enough, they can come close to matching America's industrial capacity between both the USSR and Nazi Germany over the course of a decade, assuming competence and a lack of arrogance among the leadership.

Mr. X
August 26th, 2011, 11:15 PM
And that is one of the reason's why Germany lost. The other main reason is that they stopped bombing Britian. Had they continued bombing then the USA wouldn't have been able to use that country as a staging area for a assault into the rest of Europe.

Had Hitler not attempted to screw Russia over I could see Russia entering the war as a part of the Axis, instead of the Allies, mainly due to their dislike of the US.

LW, since Jack (most likely) has no intention of remaining on topic perhaps its best that he not be allowed to post on this thread.

Anyway, nukes. How do you think the war with Japan would have turned out if we didn't have them?

Jack O'Neill
August 26th, 2011, 11:23 PM
The Nazis wouldn't have needed space aliens. They go a long way toward matching the U.S. by not stabbing the Soviets in the back (and, by extension, not shooting themselves in the foot in doing so). I mean, it's not exactly like the Soviets got along very well with the U.S., though I don't think Nazi Germany would have formed an alliance with Japan if that were the case. The Soviets and the Japanese weren't exactly on friendly terms, either, but if they can keep the US out of the conflicts long enough, they can come close to matching America's industrial capacity between both the USSR and Nazi Germany over the course of a decade, assuming competence and a lack of arrogance among the leadership.
You do realize that Nazi Germany would still have needed to fight the British. If the Germans wanted to launch a trans-Atlantic invasion, they would have needed some way to neutralize the threat of the Royal Navy first. Keep in mind that the Kriegsmarine lacked enough force to directly challenge the RN and that the Luftwaffe lacked aircraft with sufficient range to strike the main RN base at Scapa Flow (assuming said aircraft could get past the RAF without suitable escorts).

There's also the situation on the European mainland and in North Africa to consider. The Germans still need to maintain considerable amounts of forces along the border with the Soviet Union; if you're going to assume competence on the part of the Germans, you're going to assume that they won't leave their land borders unguarded. They also have to deal with partisans in the occupied territories, particularly in the Balkans. Finally, there's the issue of the Italians, who the Germans are obligated to assist. Does your scenario assume that the Italians are still foolish enough to provoke the British in North Africa?

And that is one of the reason's why Germany lost. The other main reason is that they stopped bombing Britian. Had they continued bombing then the USA wouldn't have been able to use that country as a staging area for a assault into the rest of Europe.

Had Hitler not attempted to screw Russia over I could see Russia entering the war as a part of the Axis, instead of the Allies, mainly due to their dislike of the US.

LW, since Jack (most likely) has no intention of remaining on topic perhaps its best that he not be allowed to post on this thread.

Anyway, nukes. How do you think the war with Japan would have turned out if we didn't have them?
Germany could never have been able to achieve air superiority over the United Kingdom, no matter how hard it tried. The Bf 109 lacked sufficient range to escort German bombers, while the Me 110 was not nimble enough to contend with British fighters. In addition, Germany's bombers at the time were just plain unsuited for the task of strategic bombing; the He 111, Ju 88, and Do 17 all had poor defensive armament and simply could not carry enough bombs. The Germans also consistently underestimated the strength of the RAF due to poor intelligence and lacked a consistent strategy for dealing with the RAF. If the Luftwaffe had insisted on pressing the attack even in the face of increasing losses, it would have quickly run out of both serviceable aircraft and qualified pilots.

Even on the off chance that the United Kingdom would fall to Germany, the United States had a contingency plan for such a situation: AWPD-1 (http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/readings/awpd-1-jfacc/awpdproc.htm). If worst came to worst, the USAAF could just sit back and send B-36s across the pond to bomb Germany back to the Stone Age at its leisure; even the Luftwaffe's best interceptors would not have been able to touch the B-36 at its operating altitude.

Also, what makes you think Hitler would not abrogate the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact? He was just as motivated by his own ideology as he was by pure political and economic considerations; considering all of his talk about lebensraum and the supposed inferiority of the Slavic races, a German invasion of the Soviet Union was an inevitability. Even if there were talks to bring the Soviet Union into the Axis, the Germans themselves ultimately left the issue unresolved by refusing to answer further Soviet proposals after the initial round of negotiations.

As for the war in the Pacific theatre without nukes? The short version: Operation Downfall happens, the Americans and British sustain horrendous casualties, and Japan effectively ceases to exist.

Finally, don't go whining to the mods. I am on topic; I am merely demonstrating why your scenarios are implausible.

Mr. X
August 27th, 2011, 04:21 AM
First of, im not, second off your not. These are WHAT IF senarios that have absoultely NO RELATION to established history.

And my what if situiation for their being no nukes. We invade Japan, sustain extremely servere losses and we pull out. Japan although mostly rubble continues to exist.

Anyway, as for Germany never achieving air superority. If the RAF was as good as you say then that doesn't explain just how Germany was able to bomb England all to hell. Sure some of the craft got shot down but in the end England was turned into rubble. As for the bombing itself, it was more of a bomb everything at random and kill their fighting spirit then it was a actual military campaign.

Im kinda interested in what would have happened had we not gone back on our word. You know, the part about not trading with countries who are at war. Hitler would have eventually taken down England thats what. And then he gets destroyed when he tries to launch a full invasion into Russia.

Livewire
August 27th, 2011, 08:25 AM
You cannot analyze situations like this in a vacuum. Any discussion of a hypothetical Nazi German invasion of the American mainland will inevitably have to involve discussion of German industrial capacity, logistics capabilities, and raw military strength compared to those of the Americans, which are far more important considerations than you realize. You can't just ask what would happen if Nazi Germany managed to take over the United States, you also need to ask how Nazi Germany could take over the United States to begin with. "Let's use our imaginations" is basically shorthand for "Let's summon alien space bats to aid the Germans, because there's no way in hell that this scenario will work out no matter how hard I try to rationalize it."

And you seem to miss the fact that this is purely hypothetical in nature, and that the actual particulars don't apply here. And there's your problem, you're trying to rationalize it. What part of "This isn't actual history, therefore actual history doesn't work here" did you miss?

Esper
August 27th, 2011, 03:11 PM
You know, rather than wonder what the world would be like if the Nazis won, or if they'd taken over the US, I wonder what the world would be like if there hadn't been a Nazi party (or anything similar) taking over Germany. Would there have been no concentration camps? No WWII at all? Then no war in the Pacific and no nuclear bombings? Would colonialism have continued longer than it did since we wouldn't have had WWII to spurn on the independence movements across Africa and the rest of the world?

Gold warehouse
August 27th, 2011, 03:14 PM
If there had been no Nazi party I get the feeling we still would have had some sort of large war. It's possible the communists could have got their hands on Germany, further spreading their influence in Europe; then there's the war in Asia as well... actually why am I posting here?

History is so vast and complex I just don't see how anyone could accurately theorise anything. This is closer to fan fiction than anything.

Livewire
August 27th, 2011, 06:20 PM
If there had been no Nazi party I get the feeling we still would have had some sort of large war. It's possible the communists could have got their hands on Germany, further spreading their influence in Europe; then there's the war in Asia as well... actually why am I posting here?

History is so vast and complex I just don't see how anyone could accurately theorise anything. This is closer to fan fiction than anything.

You can't accurately theorise much here, I don't know why only one other person actually got the point of this thread. Speculating is kind of the point here. There is no right answer, that's the point.

I would think that minus the Nazi party, the row between the West and Communism would be greater, seeing as they'd be without their mutual enemy. Maybe the Cold War begins a few years earlier and actually evolves into all out war, because don't forget, even if the Nazis are out of the picture, Mussolini and Hirohito aren't.

OmegaRuby and AlphaSapphire
August 28th, 2011, 03:04 PM
Yes the world would still happen without the nazi's but at a smaller scale than it did or western europe democracies might have tried to take Russia from the communists and escalate to a debate on political ideology like it did in the cold war.Yes this is all hypothetical

Ice Car
August 28th, 2011, 04:48 PM
I would totally do this.

fSGQPzS0p5E

Generally, the result that might seem obvious to some is that World War II may have never started. Going more into detail, Hiroshima and Nagasaki would not have been hit by the Atomic Bomb, and quite possibly the world might not ever know the dangers of Atomic weaponry until it's too late.

And then BAM, now we get to play Fallout in real life!

Note: These are just really loosely connected thoughts that came to me. Try not to start pointing out "flaws in logic" and other stuff, these are just general thoughts.

OmegaRuby and AlphaSapphire
August 28th, 2011, 06:45 PM
Another what if: what if the french had invaded Britain during the Nepoleonic wars?
I think if that happened we might all be speaking French rather than english as he would most likely aim at the American colonies next.

Livewire
August 28th, 2011, 07:28 PM
Another what if: what if the french had invaded Britain during the Nepoleonic wars?
I think if that happened we might all be speaking French rather than english as he would most likely aim at the American colonies next.

Right, had the French defeated Lord Nelson at Trafalagar, that would have possibly opened up the mainland for an invasion - It would no doubt have inflated Napoleon's ego to the point that he believed he could invade England. Not to mention, with that great victory, Napoleon may not have invaded Russia in 1812, meaning that the behemoth 600,000 man Grand Armee may not have even been needed. He could have possibly already won in 1805.

**I see you Jack.

OmegaRuby and AlphaSapphire
August 28th, 2011, 09:08 PM
Right then he could have turn to Russia in the spring and made it to Moscow by summer like he had planned thus forming an empire possibly bigger than the soviet union and British empire.

Jack O'Neill
August 28th, 2011, 11:24 PM
Right, had the French defeated Lord Nelson at Trafalagar, that would have possibly opened up the mainland for an invasion - It would no doubt have inflated Napoleon's ego to the point that he believed he could invade England. Not to mention, with that great victory, Napoleon may not have invaded Russia in 1812, meaning that the behemoth 600,000 man Grand Armee may not have even been needed. He could have possibly already won in 1805.

**I see you Jack.
Oh, don't worry about little old me. The Napoleonic Era isn't one of my areas of expertise, but I still know a few things about it.

A French victory at Trafalgar would have to be dependent on the French Navy not losing most of its best officers in the early stages of the French Revolution through execution or dismissal, as well as the French Navy adopting tactics similar to those of Nelson's. The French would have also needed to build better landing craft in order to actually get their troops across the English Channel. Finally, consider that even if Napoleon succeeded in his invasion of the United Kingdom, he still would have had to contend with the Austrians and the Russians. Remember that the original Grande Armée was first raised for the planned invasion of the United Kingdom but wound up getting used against the Austrians once those plans were scrubbed; without the Grande Armée at Napoleon's disposal on the mainland, the Ulm Campaign and the Battle of Austerlitz may well have resulted in Austrian victories instead. An Austrian victory at Austerlitz is its own can of worms, which you may feel free to open up on your own if you so choose.

As for a successful invasion of Russia, I honestly don't see any way how Napoleon can overcome the harsh realities of Russian climate and terrain. Even if he launched his invasion as soon as winter ended, he would have needed a way to get through all that mud. Napoleon also would have needed a more robust supply train to counter Russian scorched earth tactics, as well as a way to deal with typhus and other illnesses among his men; starvation and disease killed more members of the Grande Armée than actual combat during the invasion of Russia, after all. Even if he succeeded in capturing Moscow and defeating the bulk of the Russian Army, Napoleon still would have had to deal with partisans and other irregular troops, just as he did in real life; a good question to ask would be just how bad the Russian insurgency would get in the event of Napoleon actually succeeding. Considering that the Peninsular War was still ongoing at the time of Napoleon's invasion of Russia, he could very well have become been a victim of his own success if he actually won in Russia; in all likelihood, he would have needed to accept losing Spain and Portugal in order to consolidate his new gains.