The Gang of Five
The forum will have some maintenance done in the next couple of months. We have also made a decision concerning AI art in the art section.


Please see this post for more details.

Alternate History

Chomper98

  • Grand Admiral
  • Member+
  • Petrie
  • *
    • Posts: 537
    • View Profile
I have always been a history buff, but I often wonder what would have happened if something major in history happened differently, like if the South won the civil war, or if the Germans won at Stalingrad, or if JFK didn't get shot. Does anyone here find this stuff interesting, or have any alternate history ideas? I personally find this quite interesting, even made one where the Confederacy wins the Civil war, and the whole world changes, but of course, the Union wins in the end. Anyone interested in this stuff can add something.


DarkHououmon

  • Member+
  • Littlefoot
  • *
    • Posts: 7203
    • View Profile
    • http://bluedramon.deviantart.com
I never read an alternate history novel but I am interested in the genre. That and naturally caused apocalypses (such as climate change). Something about them has always fascinated me. I love "what if" scenarios and thinking about what might have been, or might be.

A novel I've been working on is an alternate history novel, taking place in a world where humans and dinosaurs live together. If you'd like me to tell you more, I'll PM it to you.


f-22 "raptor" ace

  • Member+
  • Littlefoot
  • *
    • Posts: 6830
    • View Profile
I am. Turtledoves books on the subject are amazing and i'd recommend reading them.


Chomper98

  • Grand Admiral
  • Member+
  • Petrie
  • *
    • Posts: 537
    • View Profile
Quote from: DarkHououmon,Aug 12 2012 on  02:47 PM
I never read an alternate history novel but I am interested in the genre. That and naturally caused apocalypses (such as climate change). Something about them has always fascinated me. I love "what if" scenarios and thinking about what might have been, or might be.

A novel I've been working on is an alternate history novel, taking place in a world where humans and dinosaurs live together. If you'd like me to tell you more, I'll PM it to you.
Thanks, sounds really interesting.


Chomper98

  • Grand Admiral
  • Member+
  • Petrie
  • *
    • Posts: 537
    • View Profile
Quote from: f-22 "raptor" ace,Aug 12 2012 on  03:09 PM
I am. Turtledoves books on the subject are amazing and i'd recommend reading them.
I heard about them, and it inspired my own alternate history. I'll look for them.


EggStealerGirl

  • Spike
  • *
    • Posts: 296
    • View Profile
    • http://rosethethief.deviantart.com/
Well, I'm definitely interested!

Never really considered myself as being a history buff of any sort, but this kind of stuff has always left me thinking...


jansenov

  • Member+
  • Ducky
  • *
    • Posts: 2665
    • View Profile
I used to read ATLs (alternate timelines) on the Alternate History forum a lot, but not so much anymore. I love alternate history, but I have to balance it with the many other interests I have. Some of my favourite ATLs would be "Gorbachev MkII", an ATL about Gorbachev being more competent in Soviet economic reform, thus making the Soviet transition to capitalism and democracy more gradual, with the USSR remaining a superpower through the 1990s and 2000s, then "Neuropa", a timeline where Germany defeats the USSR, the Western Allies defeat Italy and Japan, Germany acquires nuclear weapons and through its control of almost all Europe emerges as a superpower stronger than the USSR in our timeline, and enters a cold war with the USA, and a timeline where a Mongol fleet (and their Chinese and Korean auxiliaries) lands in Central America 200 years before Europeans.


Chomper98

  • Grand Admiral
  • Member+
  • Petrie
  • *
    • Posts: 537
    • View Profile
My story for the Confederate's victory is this:

1863- Lee wins the battle of Gettysburg, which earns the Confederacy recognition from Britain and France, and force mediation between the USA and the CSA.

1863- But just weeks later, Lincoln orders another invasion, before the Emancipation Proclamation is declared, in response, Britain and France declare support for the C.S, and invade the United States, defeating the U.S yet again.

1863- Lincoln resigns from office, and the US, with huge debt from the civil war, plus reparations to the south, America falls into an economic depression, which lasts into 1871.

1871- Prussia unifies the German states, with the exception of Austria, and sympathetic to America, Kaiser Wilhelm I loans America money, which allows the U.S economy to get back on its feet, and America, grateful, to ally with Germany.

1875- The British create the HMS Dreadnought, ushering in the age of Battleships.

1914- The world is divided between the Allied Powers(Britain, France, Russia, Serbia, Greece, Romania, and the Confederacy) and the Central Powers(Germany, Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria, the Ottoman Empire, and the United States).

1914- On June 28th, Archduke Franz Ferdidand and his wife are shot to death by a Serb, and Austria declares war on Serbia in August.

1914- Austria is backed by Germany, while Serbia is backed by Russia, and Germany declares war on Russia and France, and invades Belgium to get to France, Britain then declares war on Germany.

1914- The U.S declares war on the C.S on August 8th, asked by President William Howard Taft. Confederate President Woodrow Wilson tries to mediate between the Allies and Central Powers, though America's declaration of war ends all hope for peace.

1914- Wilson orders the Confederates to capture Washington, and they advance deep into Maryland, but the Americans hold off the Confederate advance, and invade the British Dominion Canada.

1914- Germany crushes the Allied lines in Belgium and advance into France, but are stopped at the Battle of the Marne.

1915- Confederates in New Mexico and Arizona invade Nevada, Colorado, and California, and the Western Campaign begins, which lasts into 1917.

1915- The Battle of Manhattan occurs between the navies of the United States, Germany, and Austria against the British, French, and Confederate Navies, ending in a costly Central Power victory.

1915- America breaks through the Anglo-Canadian lines and a small German army outfights the Russian army.

1915- T'sar Nicholas II takes command of the troops, and his poor leadership causes massive losses.

1916- Wilson is defeated by Confederate president Joseph Jackson Smith for dragging the CSA into war(the reason he won reelection in our timeline was for keeping the USA out of the war).

1916- Pro-United States black slaves revolt, and are massacred by the Confederacy, which America uses as propaganda against the Confederacy.

1917- America wins the Western Campaign when General George A. Custer outflanks and defeats the Confederate Army(he survived because no Battle of Little Bighorn occured).

1917- Germany finally defeats Russia and Russia decends into anarchy.

1917- Yankee troops break through the Confederate lines and invade Virginia, the U.S troops in the west invade Texas, Arizona, and New Mexico, and force the Canadians to surrender.

1918- The United States captures Richmond, and forces President Smith to surrender. America declares victory, and turns her attention from the Confederacy to Europe, where Germany is planning the Summer Offensive.

1918- A German-American invasion occurs and Paris is captured; the British navy mutinies and Britain is forced to surrender, ending World War I.

1918- The American people celebrate hard in finally winning revenge against the Confederates, and the Treaty of Versailes places outrageous terms on the Allies(Britain is forced to relinquish her empire to Germany, the North Western area of Virginia, New Mexico, Arizona, Texas, and Arkansas are annexed by the United States, and the Confederate army is limited to 100,000 troops, and two billion dollars in reparation are given to Germany and America by the Confederacy. Russia loses much of her western border with Germany, out of which the countries of Poland, Latvia, Lithunia, Estonia, and Finland are created.)

1923- A former Confederate veteran and extreme racist, Albert Featherstone, takes the lead of the 'Vengeance' party(analogous to the Nazi Party) and begins campaigning for the presidency.

1929- American stock market crashes, causing the Great Depression.

1933- Featherstone is elected president due to his promises for a new economy, and revenge against the Central Powers.

1935- Featherstone approves a massive rearmanent program and unveils a new airforce and tank divisions(analogous to the Lufwaffe and Panzers).

1936- Italy's monarchy is overthrown and a republic is declared(Italy was an allied power in World War I) and signs a friendship pact with America and Germany.

1937- Japan invades China, and America supports China.

1938- The Confederacy's battleships Davis and Semmes(analogous to the Bismarck and Tirpitz) are completed.

1939- Russia invades Poland on September 1st(same day Germany invaded Poland in our timeline) Italy and Germany declare war on Russia, in response, Britain and France declare war on Germany and Italy.

1939- America declares war on Britain, France, Russia, prepares for war with the CSA.

1940- Japanese bombers attack Pearl Harbor(leading the US to officially declare war on Japan), Russia siezes the Baltics.

1940- Battle of Finland ends with a Russian victory, Holland and Belgium are attacked by Germany because they were discovered harboring British and French troops.

1940- Norway declares Neutrality, but Britain invades it to prevent iron ore from getting to Germany, in response, Norway declares war, and with German and Italian support, staves off the Allied attack.

1940- Holland and Belgium are liberated by Britain and France, and British troops in North Africa invade Italy from the south.

1941- Canada invades America, and the Confederacy launches a massive attack on June 22(same day Germany invaded the Soviet Union) Illinois, Ohio, Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin are captured, splitting the American front in two.

1941- Allied troops advance into Germany, and begin an invasion, though German and Italian defenses cause massive losses.

1942- Battle of Midway occurs, and America begins to push back the Japanese.

1942- Battle of Berlin ends in Allied victory, leaving America alone to fight the Allies.

1942- Battle of Washington D.C. occurs, where Americans lose millions of men, but win, turning the tide.

1943- Italian and German rebels, spurred by the American victories against Japan and Italy, revolt, and begin guerrilla fighting, further weakening the Allied Lines.

1943- China defeats Japan at the battle of Beijing, and and a Sino-American force lands in northern Japan.

1944- Americans retake Minnesota and invade Virginia.

1944- America develops the Atomic Bomb one year early, and uses it against Richmond. Richmond is nearly destroyed, and Featherstone, the CS government, and leaders of the army are killed, the Confederate governors now in control capitulate and Canada surrenders when threatened with the Atomic bomb.

1945- In March, Britain and France try to finish their atomic program, but fail to when their research sites are bombed and the British fleet bases are bombed.

1945- April, 2 million Central Power troops cross the Atlantic ocean and land in England, quickly overwhelming the British army, and capture London.

1945- They cross the English channel and invade France, which is overrun two months later. August begins with the defeat of France, and the invasion of Holland and Belgium, which are crushed, and the Liberation of Germany.

1945- American troops cross the Rhine and liberate Germany, and bomb the Russian bases on the original border between them and the east. Death camps filled with black prisoners are discovered in the Confederacy.

1945- Italian rebels succeed in overthrowing their Allied Occupiers, and join the American led force in invading Russia. America announces the Death Camps to the world.

1946- Millions of American casualties occur in Japan and Russia, but victory is assured when America bombs Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and threatening to do the same to Moscow. Confederate Death camps are liberated, and the Vengeance party is outlawed, and remaining Confederate officers are tried for crimes against humanity(analogous to the Nuremburg trials).

1946- Russia surrenders, and America declares victory, but it occurs at a terrible cost, 10 million military deaths in the entire war, aswell as the loss of 50 ships in the navy, including two aircraft carriers and 10 Battleships, even so, the war ends following America's victory.

1947- A pole is opened for whether or not to absorb the Confederacy, but poles showed only 7% wanted it, America had suffered to much because of the south, and they wanted nothing to do with them, even so, America occupied it, along with most of continental Europe, though Germany and Italy occupied Europe the most.

1948- Former Central Power and Allied Power relations improve as they treat the allies much better, and fraternization occurs between soldiers and civilians.

1949- Germany develops the Atomic Bomb, and the newest Kaiser, Friedrich VII makes Germany a constitutional monarchy.

1950- America and the Confederacy sign a pact of friendship, and American troops leave the Confederacy.

1960- American soldiers leave Europe, and Russia launches Sputnik.

1969- Neil Armstrong is the first human to walk on the moon.

1970- Civil rights movements for blacks are victorious, and slavery is outlawed in the Confederacy.

I will update this later on.


jansenov

  • Member+
  • Ducky
  • *
    • Posts: 2665
    • View Profile
^So in this scenario, the South doesn't become a raw materials appendage to the North, but to Britain instead. You delayed American rise to greatest power status and prolonged Pax Britannica. However, you also opened a probable new front for WW1 in North America, therefore limiting possible American involvement, and thus ensuring Central Powers' victory in continental Europe. Britain still dominates the seas, the North finally subjugates the South, and Germany dominates contine.tal Europe. You created a tripolar, Germanic-dominated world.

EDIT: I'm sorry. When I saw your post you just left placeholders for the events in WW1. I didn't think you would update you post so fast.


Chomper98

  • Grand Admiral
  • Member+
  • Petrie
  • *
    • Posts: 537
    • View Profile
Quote from: jansenov,Aug 12 2012 on  08:12 PM
^So in this scenario, the South doesn't become a raw materials appendage to the North, but to Britain instead. You delayed American rise to greatest power status and prolonged Pax Britannica. However, you also opened a probable new front for WW1 in North America, therefore limiting possible American involvement, and thus ensuring Central Powers' victory in continental Europe. Britain still dominates the seas, the North finally subjugates the South, and Germany dominates contine.tal Europe. You created a tripolar, Germanic-dominated world.

EDIT: I'm sorry. When I saw your post you just left placeholders for the events in WW1. I didn't think you would update you post so fast.
I thought it would be better if I used dates to form a timeline, making it easier to understand what year it is in this timeline.


Malte279

  • The Circle
  • The Gang of Five
  • *
    • Posts: 15608
    • View Profile
    • http://www.ineinemlandvorunsererzeit.de.vu
I believe that history is extremely easy to change even by seemingly minor events. Also important events most likely have a much further reaching effect than meets the eye. For example in case of the Lincoln assassination one needs to take into account that beyond the uncountable other effects billions of later people would never spend any time reading, learning, being taught about the specific event or watch documentaries about it. How many times people may have gotten to know each other because of a shared interest in the matter or how many times they might get to know each other if person X goes somwhere because there is no documentary to watch that evening? It is perhaps a bad example, but in many cases history seems to be determined by minor aspects. My Dad didn't even want to go to the party where he got to know my Mum and was talked into comming along. Or how many people ow their existence to an alarm clock not working properly? :p
A big change of one historic event would likely cast waves causing most of the events that would have otherwise taken place not to occur or to occur in a rather different manner. For example (and this is not meant to be in any way against you Chomper) it is rather uncertain if the wave effect of a different outcome of the American Civil War would not have caused such familiar events as the assassination of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand or the battle of Midway to take place at all. An America divided after the Civil War might have had less of an eye on expansion in the second half of the 19th century and as a result a different power (Japan showed a lot of interest) might have turned Hawaii into their colony. Chances are also that in case of a different outcome of the civil war the resulting nations might have divided up further. Had the civil war established a "right to leave the union" the same might have occured again. In a "mild" variant there could have been a third nation making up for the Pacific coast where people might have felt that their interests were better served by an own government rather than one in far away Washington or Richmond. In a more severe scenario a different outcome of the Civil War might have resulted in a perception of democracy as not working properly resulting in forms of government to change. Smaller issues (taxes etc.) could have caused the new states to split up further. There might have been the independent Kingdom of Carolina, the Archduchery of Alabama, the empire of Texas or the like. In this scenario the state of near constant little wars which have so strongly influenced much of European history might have sipped over to America. Maybe the native Americans could have become beneficiaries of such a development and built up a stronger territorial claim against many smaller nations to busy to skirmish among each other to push into their lands with as much vigor as they historically did. Speaking of native Americans, with Custer being in active service in 1917 in your timeline he would become not only one of the youngest generals (in the civil war) but at age 78 also one of the oldest in active duty. Not impossible - just a funfact.

Sometimes there are cases in history where we may think "if only this has worked differently" but where there may have been not exclusively positive effects.
Take this scenario for example:
The weather took a rather nasty turn over then Eastern Prussia on the 20th of July 1944. The meeting scheduled for that day was therefore held in the massive bunker rather than in the lighter build conference room which had been suggested to be the meeting place in case the hot weather of the last few days had lasted. The effect of the bomb brought to the meeting by Klaus Schenk Graf von Stauffenberg proves davastating in the bunker (where the compression of the explosion could not escape the way it did in the wooden conference room). Hitler and everyone who was in the room at the time are dead.
This is one of the many "if only" scenarios which history provides. It may have caused WW2 in Europe to end almost a year earlier (and the most bloody, destructive, and pointless (for everyone not totally crazy could see that Germany had long lost the war by July 20th 1944) year at that). However, the intentions of the assassins and the political consequences are often overlooked. One of the ideas was to open Germany up for the Western Allies hoping to keep the Soviet Union as far from Germany as possible. Perhaps even to continue the war against the Soviet Union with England and America as allies rather than enemies.
If such a war would have resulted from a successful assassination of Hitler may be questioned, but it cannot really be excluded. Would the unprecedented crimes committed by Germany be sufficient to deter England and the USA from an alliance against the Soviet Union (with Stalin being a close follow up in the contest for the rank of most terrible dictator of the time)? In any case demands would have been made for the Soviet Union to settle with much less territorial gains than it did and it is uncertain if Stalin would have accepted that. He had a HUGE military machine set in motion by now and without denying the effect of the supplies provided by the USA in the lend and lease program it ought not to be overlooked that the Soviet Union's own production was huge (with many facilities being located beyond the Ural and therefore out of range of enemy bombs), and the quality of their weaponry splendid in many cases (e.g. German soldiers often exchanged their weapons for Soviet guns that were deemed more reliable, the T34 was one of the most successful tanks in all WW2 and the Illjushin Ill2 Stormovik probably the most successfull battle plane to support the troops on the ground). That in his mind it is not likely that Stalin would have settled for territorial gains anywhere close to the front lines of July 20th 1944. Winston Churchill however would have tried everything to keep Soviet sphere of influence as small as possible (he had actually advocated for the invasion to take place in Greece rather than Normandy with the barely concealed intention of not only defeat Germany, but especially to keep the Soviet Union far from Eruope). In 1945 Churchill actually ordered for a scenario to be worked out that assumed an Anglo American Attack to be launched on the Soviet Union in July 1945. The operation was a thought play and accordingly code named "operation unthinkable" but given the conditions in case of a successful assassination plot of July 20th 1944 the thought may not have been quite as unthinkable to Anglo American leaders if Stalin hadn't settled for moderate territorial gains only (which he most likely wouldn't have). In the documents the British strategists consider the chances of a military success of an attack against the Soviet Union to be almost non-existent. The scenario is not based on any awareness of the existence of the nuclear bomb however...


jansenov

  • Member+
  • Ducky
  • *
    • Posts: 2665
    • View Profile
Malte, you don't have to believe that history is very easy to change. It is a mathematically and experimentally proven fact.

Alternate history can be a fun intellectual exercise. But not much more.  From a physical point of view writing alternate history doesn't make much sense, because the universe is indeterminate, which means that from the current state (knowing the state of each particle in the universe) of the universe we cannot predict its next state, thanks to quantum mechanics.

But that never stopped anyone from asking himself/herself: "What if?" ;)


Malte279

  • The Circle
  • The Gang of Five
  • *
    • Posts: 15608
    • View Profile
    • http://www.ineinemlandvorunsererzeit.de.vu
There is one question that cannot possibly be answered but which I still find something to think about.
There are plenty of stories about famous people from history very narrowly escaping death prior to or early in their famous careers (e.g. Hitler almost getting killed several times throughout WW1, John F. Kennedy nearly getting killed when his torpedo boat was sunk, kings such as Frederick II. of Prussia and Charles XII. of Sweden being hit in battle with the bullets being deflected by stuff they had in their pockets / or necklaces they were wearing). But thh the matter can also be turned around. With millions of people slaughtered in war or killed in disasters, how many of them would have become future presidents or dictators, revolutionaries, artists, scientists etc. How many people were actually killed of whom people would say "Imagine the what if he / she hadn't had his narrow escape back then?" if they hadn't been?


Blais_13

  • Spike
  • *
    • Posts: 347
    • View Profile
In my opinion if you want to read alternate history you just have to read a history coursebook.


jansenov

  • Member+
  • Ducky
  • *
    • Posts: 2665
    • View Profile
@Malte: while it is impossible to put a definite number on the number of potential "important" actors of history, we can say with confidence, from what we know about chaos theory, that the number must be very large. But it doesn't have to encompass all of mankind, or even most of it. Human society on its own is a relatively simple macroscopic system (simple when compared to the biological systems surrounding it, including human bodies), so in a reasonably short interval of time we can ignore quantum and chaotic effects and say that the system is quasy-deterministic i.e. quasy-predictable.

I don't have the data and computing power to give any definite numbers, nor even an exact model, but I think the framework I outlined in the paragraph above is a useful way to think about answering your question.


Chomper98

  • Grand Admiral
  • Member+
  • Petrie
  • *
    • Posts: 537
    • View Profile
Quote from: Malte279,Aug 13 2012 on  03:42 AM
I believe that history is extremely easy to change even by seemingly minor events. Also important events most likely have a much further reaching effect than meets the eye. For example in case of the Lincoln assassination one needs to take into account that beyond the uncountable other effects billions of later people would never spend any time reading, learning, being taught about the specific event or watch documentaries about it. How many times people may have gotten to know each other because of a shared interest in the matter or how many times they might get to know each other if person X goes somwhere because there is no documentary to watch that evening? It is perhaps a bad example, but in many cases history seems to be determined by minor aspects. My Dad didn't even want to go to the party where he got to know my Mum and was talked into comming along. Or how many people ow their existence to an alarm clock not working properly? :p
A big change of one historic event would likely cast waves causing most of the events that would have otherwise taken place not to occur or to occur in a rather different manner. For example (and this is not meant to be in any way against you Chomper) it is rather uncertain if the wave effect of a different outcome of the American Civil War would not have caused such familiar events as the assassination of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand or the battle of Midway to take place at all. An America divided after the Civil War might have had less of an eye on expansion in the second half of the 19th century and as a result a different power (Japan showed a lot of interest) might have turned Hawaii into their colony. Chances are also that in case of a different outcome of the civil war the resulting nations might have divided up further. Had the civil war established a "right to leave the union" the same might have occured again. In a "mild" variant there could have been a third nation making up for the Pacific coast where people might have felt that their interests were better served by an own government rather than one in far away Washington or Richmond. In a more severe scenario a different outcome of the Civil War might have resulted in a perception of democracy as not working properly resulting in forms of government to change. Smaller issues (taxes etc.) could have caused the new states to split up further. There might have been the independent Kingdom of Carolina, the Archduchery of Alabama, the empire of Texas or the like. In this scenario the state of near constant little wars which have so strongly influenced much of European history might have sipped over to America. Maybe the native Americans could have become beneficiaries of such a development and built up a stronger territorial claim against many smaller nations to busy to skirmish among each other to push into their lands with as much vigor as they historically did. Speaking of native Americans, with Custer being in active service in 1917 in your timeline he would become not only one of the youngest generals (in the civil war) but at age 78 also one of the oldest in active duty. Not impossible - just a funfact.

Sometimes there are cases in history where we may think "if only this has worked differently" but where there may have been not exclusively positive effects.
Take this scenario for example:
The weather took a rather nasty turn over then Eastern Prussia on the 20th of July 1944. The meeting scheduled for that day was therefore held in the massive bunker rather than in the lighter build conference room which had been suggested to be the meeting place in case the hot weather of the last few days had lasted. The effect of the bomb brought to the meeting by Klaus Schenk Graf von Stauffenberg proves davastating in the bunker (where the compression of the explosion could not escape the way it did in the wooden conference room). Hitler and everyone who was in the room at the time are dead.
This is one of the many "if only" scenarios which history provides. It may have caused WW2 in Europe to end almost a year earlier (and the most bloody, destructive, and pointless (for everyone not totally crazy could see that Germany had long lost the war by July 20th 1944) year at that). However, the intentions of the assassins and the political consequences are often overlooked. One of the ideas was to open Germany up for the Western Allies hoping to keep the Soviet Union as far from Germany as possible. Perhaps even to continue the war against the Soviet Union with England and America as allies rather than enemies.
If such a war would have resulted from a successful assassination of Hitler may be questioned, but it cannot really be excluded. Would the unprecedented crimes committed by Germany be sufficient to deter England and the USA from an alliance against the Soviet Union (with Stalin being a close follow up in the contest for the rank of most terrible dictator of the time)? In any case demands would have been made for the Soviet Union to settle with much less territorial gains than it did and it is uncertain if Stalin would have accepted that. He had a HUGE military machine set in motion by now and without denying the effect of the supplies provided by the USA in the lend and lease program it ought not to be overlooked that the Soviet Union's own production was huge (with many facilities being located beyond the Ural and therefore out of range of enemy bombs), and the quality of their weaponry splendid in many cases (e.g. German soldiers often exchanged their weapons for Soviet guns that were deemed more reliable, the T34 was one of the most successful tanks in all WW2 and the Illjushin Ill2 Stormovik probably the most successfull battle plane to support the troops on the ground). That in his mind it is not likely that Stalin would have settled for territorial gains anywhere close to the front lines of July 20th 1944. Winston Churchill however would have tried everything to keep Soviet sphere of influence as small as possible (he had actually advocated for the invasion to take place in Greece rather than Normandy with the barely concealed intention of not only defeat Germany, but especially to keep the Soviet Union far from Eruope). In 1945 Churchill actually ordered for a scenario to be worked out that assumed an Anglo American Attack to be launched on the Soviet Union in July 1945. The operation was a thought play and accordingly code named "operation unthinkable" but given the conditions in case of a successful assassination plot of July 20th 1944 the thought may not have been quite as unthinkable to Anglo American leaders if Stalin hadn't settled for moderate territorial gains only (which he most likely wouldn't have). In the documents the British strategists consider the chances of a military success of an attack against the Soviet Union to be almost non-existent. The scenario is not based on any awareness of the existence of the nuclear bomb however...
Yeah, alot of stuff may not happen, but I personally believe that World War I was inevitable because of Kaiser Wilhelm II, he brought Germany into the war, bringining Russia, France and Britain in after, I believe it wouldn't matter if America had lost the civil war, World War I may still have happened, and if Britain and France mediated with the Confederacy, America would have hated them, and if the Confederacy allied with Britain and France to protect itself from the United States, then America may have done the same when Germany emerged as a world power. Likely, the outcome of World War I would have been different, America and the Confederacy would very likely be preoccupied with eachother, so in Europe, the war would be pretty much the same as in our timeline, and eventually Russia would have been defeated(it's Czar's poor leadership on the battlefield caused Russia's defeat), and Germany would have been able to focus soley on Britain and France, and with no America to assist them(America actually did save the allies when it joined, because Germany broke the allied lines in the summer offensive, when the Americans started to arrive in force) they would have been defeated, either with America defeating the Confederacy and helping Germany in Europe, or Germany defeating Britain and France and assisting America in North America. Yes World War I may have happened, but it is just creative license if a Hitler analogue came to power in the Confederacy, still was possible, just unlikely.


Pterano

  • The Fabulous Fearsome Flyer
  • Member+
  • Ducky
  • *
    • Posts: 2937
    • View Profile
I often do speculate on such things. The RPing site I run has a few alterations to history taking place (though I try to keep it historically accurate as well). It's mostly minor things, like Nelson receiving command of the HMS San Josef instead of the Victory at Trafalgar, though even that brings up questions as well. What would happen if Nelson's ship had come alongside any other vessel except the Redoubtable? Redoubtable was the only one that had trained sharpshooters at that battle, so what if Nelson survived? The biggest question for me though, is what would've happened had Napoleon won Waterloo? Probably not much, as he still had to contend with Austria and Russia, and even if he HAD managed to broker peace, he would've died from stomach cancer only six years later anyway.

So yes, alternate histories are part of my musings as well. :yes

(runner up)
(runner up)
---------------------------------------------------

Poster of the Gang of Five's 400,000th post


Malte279

  • The Circle
  • The Gang of Five
  • *
    • Posts: 15608
    • View Profile
    • http://www.ineinemlandvorunsererzeit.de.vu
Quote
The biggest question for me though, is what would've happened had Napoleon won Waterloo? Probably not much, as he still had to contend with Austria and Russia, and even if he HAD managed to broker peace, he would've died from stomach cancer only six years later anyway.
One might argue that the cancer too may have been influenced by psychological elements. Nevertheless I consider the battle of Waterloo one of the most overestimated in human history. Not to sound unfair or anything, but my guess is that its significance was by far blown up because it was the only major battle the English won against Napoleon when he was actually participating in the battle. As a consequence countless towns, bridges, a major station in London etc. were named after the little village of Waterloo, which, come to think of it, must sound kind of odd given the English meaning of the word parts "water" and "loo". There had been the suggestion to name the battle after the place where Napoleon had his headquaters, "La belle alliance" which would have also had a nice dubble meaning (it translates to "The beautiful alliance") given the alliance of English, Prussians, Dutch etc. who fought there.
Anyway, I see no way Napoleon could have remained in power for long even if he had won a sound victory at Waterloo. He no longer had the staff of highly talented generals who made many of his earlier triumphs possible, his support with the people had also suffered (though many might perceive him as the lesser of two evils given the rather unimpressive Louis XVIII and his restoration policy), France's supply of men fit for military service had been drained, and the determination of the other European rulers not to make any compromises with Napoleon had never been greater. The battle of Waterloo has become probably the most famous of all battles involving Napoleon, it has become proverbial for a defeat, but I believe the significance of the battle for the course of European history is probably grossly exaggerated.


Pterano

  • The Fabulous Fearsome Flyer
  • Member+
  • Ducky
  • *
    • Posts: 2937
    • View Profile
Hence why I said I don't think things would've changed. He would've had to stand against Austria and Russia, and probably Sweden as well. I WILL however debate you on the point of the cancer. His father died of the same thing (though I will concede that experts aren't certain if the tumor in Carlo's stomach WAS cancerous or not) at an even earlier age (38 as opposed to Napoleon's 51), so if anything, psychological factors might not have played as great a role as simple genetics here. Although, I believe I read somewhere in a new article that his diet at the time may have exacerbated ulcers, which greatly increased one's risk for developing stomach cancer if one had genetic predispositions for it. Her certainly was a very fast eater, which often causes indigestion (and did in his case).

A bigger thing than Waterloo would be what would've occurred had the Fifth Coalition not broken out, and Napoleon hadn't taken over Spain? What would've happened after Friedland and the Treaties of Tilsit? At that point Napoleon was arguably at the height of his power, and hadn't overextended himself to the point of it being dangerous. I feel the Fifth Coalition was probably inevitable, but I do think about what would have happened had it not taken place, and Napoleon kept out of Spain (which in part helped to encourage Austria to launch war once he became embroiled on the Iberian Peninsula).

Referencing THIS article is why I debate you on the cancer thing ;) http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...napoleon_2.html

(runner up)
(runner up)
---------------------------------------------------

Poster of the Gang of Five's 400,000th post


Malte279

  • The Circle
  • The Gang of Five
  • *
    • Posts: 15608
    • View Profile
    • http://www.ineinemlandvorunsererzeit.de.vu
What I said about the cancer was not meant to say that he wouldn't have ever got any, but I don't believe that he (or anyone) is "destined" to die on May 5th 1821 specifically no matter what. Psychological elements do play a significant role in many diseases including even cancer. I don't mean to say that he wouldn't have gotten any cancer, but he might have lived longer than he did on St. Helena under the impression of having been ultimately defeated.