"What if??" A thread for people who like to speculate

[DaveTee]

This is going way back in time, but I thought it might create a little speculation and fun.

So what do you think would have happened if England had been victorious in the 100 Years war with France? Let's say Joan of Arc never came along and France became a province of England. The impact on Europe would have been massive I think. England would have been the dominant power in Europe even before the Brittish Empire came along, so would the Spanish Armada ever sailed? Would Napoleon ever done anything notable? Would Nelson be famous? Even more importantly would Canada be a few centuries ahead of where it is as a country due to England colonizing North America early and not having to fight the French. Would we be one massive country with the current USA still under British rule?

I guess this one is wildly speculative but it's a little different then most threads so far. Let me know your opinions.

 

[a_majoor]

I guess this one is wildly speculative but it's a little different then most threads so far. Let me know your opinions.

Is it ever!  ;D

I think the long term effects would have been so multi faceted that the modern world as we know it might never have existed. France, being much larger, more populated and wealthier than England at the time would have grown to dominate the  Lancastrian Empire. English nobles would have preferentially settled in France, French nobility would have began occupying high positions in the ruling councils and French trade would effectively dominate the economy.

Because of this, French interests on the continent would predominate the interests of the Lancastrian Empire, and they would become embroiled in many of the same wars that France was involved in, including the Crusades, attempting to conquer Italy in the 1500's, various religious wars etc. The players would be different though, since in most of the wars in our history England threw in with the opponents of France to maintain the balance of power on the continent. A Lancastrian Empire might have actively supported the claims of the "anti-pope" and ignited a series of wars to establish their claim to the Papacy as well.

Other factors would include the extinction of the Valois and Bourbons as ruling families in France, the probable suppression of Protestantism in England and perhaps even throughout Europe (with a powerful Catholic Lancastrian Empire and most of Southern Europe to supply manpower, the Germans would have been overwhelmed in the religious wars of the 15 and 1600's). This would lead to the most remarkable outcome; no Treaty of Westphalia and the prevention or long delay of the idea of the Nation State.

We can also imagine this leads to the retention of feudal forms of government for a very extended period and perhaps no Enlightenment or Industrial Revolution. Since no other civilization ever embarked on these pivotal events, there would be no globe spanning Chinese or Indian Empires, and the entire world might have remained locked in a permanent middle ages. You and I would be having this discussion over a beer in a local tavern, and other topics of discussion in a hypothetical Army.ca broadsheet might be "future chainmail",  "military to receive new swords and polearms" or "tactical employment of longbows with pike formations". (The recruiting thread would be subdivided into "Press gangs" and "What Mercenary band should I join?", and George Wallace would be using the tag line "You need hooves to make a manoeuvre army"  .

I'm sure you could make all kinds of other extrapolations, about the only certainty is most of the people who were important in our history would never have made an appearance in this version of history.

 

[a_majoor]

Going a short distance into the past: at the height of the Cold War, the United States made plans to establish a military outpost on the moon. The groundwork was laid in the mid 1950's and lots of detailed planning was done, culminating in a report issued in 1959.

The Americans were well aware of rocketry and had the "cream" of the German V2 program. Without knowing about Sputnik, the US was moving towards launching a satellite in late 1958 for International Geophysical Year, and Vannavar Bush aside, many members of the US scientific and military community were well aware and supportive of the idea of long range rockets and missiles. The US Air Force was particularly enamoured of the idea, and pushed for a manned rocket plane to perform bombing and recce missions (mostly because computer technology was so primitive at the time the idea of unmanned spy satellites and ICBMs was simply unthinkable).

The rational for Horizon was undercut by the development of nuclear submarines capable of launching SLBMs (which was accomplished much faster and more cheaply than building 60+ Saturn I and 80+ Saturn II launch vehicles proposed to build the moon base), and space planes in general were done in by rapidly advancing computer technology which allowed smaller and cheaper ICBM RVs to perform the nuclear strike role and automated satellites to perform spy missions.

Space planes like RoBo and missions like Horizon were at the edge of technology in the late 1950's, and with the right "push" or set of circumstances, it is possible that these projects could have come to fruition, leading to the sort of future with space forces, rocket patrols and other ideas we associate with 1950's era Science Fiction! (You might consider a future where disgruntled Bell engineers migrate to Canada after their rocket bomber was cancelled and help create the successful AVRO Arrow project)

Some links:

http://www.astronautix.com/project/horizon.htm
http://astronautix.com/articles/prorizon.htm
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/robo.htm
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/bomi.htm

 

[Richie]

The other thread has been dormant for over six months, so I'm starting a new one.

Here's my "what if" scenario: what if Kaiser Frederick III had not succumbed to cancer but instead had reigned for much longer than just ninety-nine days?

Frederick was an Anglophile, the husband of Queen Victoria's eldest daughter and would have taken Germany in a much different direction than did his son, Kaiser Wilhelm II. But for the onset of Fritz's throat cancer, Germany may well have developed into a liberal democratic society with much greater power given to the Reichstag and much less to the Kaiser. The Prussian factor in German history would have been diluted.

The Great War would likely have been avoided and Great Britain and Germany might have been allies as the twentieth century progressed. Hitler may well have died aimless and in poverty in Vienna, the Second World War may not have taken place (at least not in the form it did in Europe) and the confrontation with Soviet Russia would either have been avoided all together or have been much "hotter" than the Cold War which we all know and love. Perhaps Nicholas II would have abdicated or have allowed the Russian tsarist system to develop into a constitutional monarchy and liberal democratic traditions would have had a chance to consolidate and grow without interference from Lenin and the Bolsheviks. Would Russia and the West still be deadly enemies if Russia had followed Germany's example and developed into a liberal democratic state?

With a little luck, Europe would have avoided losing an entire generation in World War I and then again twenty years later.
Would Canadians feel as "Canadian" as we now do if Vimy Ridge were just another name on the map? If Dieppe were known to historians simply as a nice beach resort in Normandy?

America, free to concentrate on the war with Japan, may have decided to use a naval blockade of Japan's Home Islands to end the war and not have developed the atom bomb.

Russia would not have had access to German rocket scientists and hence the first man in space would likely have been an American and the first satellite would not have been called Sputnik.

Think about everything in the last one hundred years that would be different if only Frederick III had not developed cancer.

 

[benny88]

And if my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle. Just kidding, interesting question Richie. While I'm not knowledgable enough in history to contribute much, I'll tag this thread and anticipate those of you with active imaginations.

 

[RTaylor]

I think Im living in that alternate worlds you all speak of...I work at a call center...it''s JUST like working at one of those commie camps from what I hear.

 

[Richie]

And if my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle. Just kidding, interesting question Richie. While I'm not knowledgable enough in history to contribute much, I'll tag this thread and anticipate those of you with active imaginations.

If your aunt had balls, I'd advise you to sit down and have a very serious talk with your uncle!  ;D

As far as my hypothetical situation goes, feel free to throw in anything that comes to mind. I am by no means a professional historian, I just like throwing things out there to see what other folks have in their minds. Think of it as a historical beef stew and if you have an ingredient to throw in, feel free! You never know where it may lead!

 

[Richie]

I think Im living in that alternate worlds you all speak of...I work at a call center...it''s JUST like working at one of those commie camps from what I hear.

:rofl:  I work in a call centre too! My mind wanders as I listen to those people complain about how they can't receive email on their Crack Berries and can't SMS on their cell phones. Oh noooo! Their world is ending... :

 

[FascistLibertarian]

What if in 1990 Saddam had kept his tanks in his cities and had made plans to react agressively to operation desert shield?
What if he used chemical weapons on the American troops during this stage of the war and his crack republican guard units attacked while the US troops on the ground were few and disorganized?

From what I have read, during the first few months of operation desert shield there was a lot of fear, disorganization, and confusion (marines seem to have been better than the army and it depended on units).

As well, the US military has not had a big test since vietnam. The iraqi army came to look like a paper tiger but the reverse could have happened.

If they had taken the offensive sooner, could Iraq have held Kuwait?

 

[CougarKing]

And if my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle. Just kidding, interesting question Richie. While I'm not knowledgable enough in history to contribute much, I'll tag this thread and anticipate those of you with active imaginations.

You're the guy who posted the ff. response to this thread at military.com, weren't you?  ;D

Originally posted by foxred03:
What if your aunt had balls?


...I guess then she'd be your uncle.

" What is to prevent an insane US president from launching a nuclear strike?"

http://forums.military.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/5291911282/m/5310009971001  :rofl:

 

[Old Sweat]

I was in J3 Plans in NDHQ at the time and spent most of the August 1990 to March 1991 period studying the detailed situation as part of a team assembled to track both sides. We had a naval task group and a large fighter squadron in the region for most of that period and lated added a field hospital. The latter included Charles Company which actually saw some operational activity collecting Iraqi PWs.

What if in 1990 Saddam had kept his tanks in his cities and had made plans to react agressively to operation desert shield?

I don't understand your drift here. Saddam had occupied Kuwait because of a misleading diplomatic signal from the US. He was not prepared to react to Desert Shield, perhaps because he thought the US was just going through the motions.

What if he used chemical weapons on the American troops during this stage of the war and his crack republican guard units attacked while the US troops on the ground were few and disorganized?

A great unknown, but I suspect if he used chemical weapons at an early stage, Iraq would have disappeared under an aluminum overcast. He was playing with the opposition at this stage. In fact he was doing what ultimately led to his downfall a dozen years later.

There was a period where he could have overrun northern Saudi Arabia and the US build-up. What would his purpose have been? He already had what he wanted, the oil fields in Kuwait. He did not have the forces to occupy and hold the whole of SA. The West would not have allowed him to do so, anyway, and neither would the other Middle East states. It seems to me that Jordan was his only supporter and it stayed on the sidelines.

Having said all that, Saddam was a military moron surrounded by yes men. He seemed to be on one hand sly and cagey, and on the other hopelessly out to lunch.

From what I have read, during the first few months of operation desert shield there was a lot of fear, disorganization, and confusion (marines seem to have been better than the army and it depended on units).

This is the first I have heard of this theory, except for some silly speculation on As It Happens. The US military was in very good shape; the re-equipment program of the eighties and the conversion to a proper volunteer force had produced a first rate military. The major glitch I recall involved an aviation brigade in the US. Its commander, perhaps in an effort to get a higher priority for equipment, declared his brigade non-operational after receiving a warning order for deployment. Result, another aviation brigade was sent in its place.

That is not to say there were not screw ups and glitches. Obviously there were, however the Americans moved the majority of their army and marine divisions as well as overwhelming superiority in naval and air forces halfway around the world and maintained them there, all the while assembling and preserving a fragile alliance made up of middle eastern states as well as force from virtually every continent on earth.

As well, the US military has not had a big test since vietnam. The iraqi army came to look like a paper tiger but the reverse could have happened.

It had had some little tests. Grenada in particular revealed some shortcomings which the army worked hard to correct. While the intelligence picture painted the Iraqi army as formidable in numbers, it did not have the leadership, organization and logistics to fight the forces arrayed against it. Whether it was by deliberate Iraqi deception or because of a misreading of intelligence, the Iraqi forces were credited with some capabilities that it did not have. The Scud/chemical threat comes to mind, as does its armoured forces.

 

[benny88]

You're the guy who posted the ff. response to this thread at military.com, weren't you?  ;D

http://forums.military.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/5291911282/m/5310009971001   :rofl:

  Hahaha, no I'm not the same guy, but I like his style.

 

[a_majoor]

I believe the United States sent some clear signals that any use of WMD (including chemical or biological weapons) wold be responded to in kind. Unlike Iraq, the Americans only have one type of WMD, and it's pretty darned effective.

 

[dglad]

What fascinates me about alternate histories are the "little" tipping points that make up the past.  For example, the first bombing of London during the Battle of Britain was essentially a mistake; on 24 August, German bombers, on a raid against oil installations at Thameshaven and an aircraft factory at Rochester got lost and jettisoned their bombs while they were above London.  This ultimately led to the shift of German attention away from British airfields and onto the bombing campaign against London which, as we now know, in turn led to the failure of the Luftwaffe to break the RAF and pave the way for a German invasion of the UK in 1940.  A simple mistake by German bomb crews (and probably, in the end, by one man...the officer commanding the German bomber formation that night) led to a huge change in the course of the battle, the war and, of course, history.  Fascinating.

One wonders how many other decisions or actions throughout history by individuals or small groups of men and women could have, if they have varied slightly, led to a huge change in the course of events.  And I'm not talking about different decisions by the "great leaders"; sure, if Hannibal or Julius Caesar or Gustavus Adophus or Napoleon Bonaparte or any number of other great names had made different decisions than they did, the world could be a very different place than it is.  I'm more interested in the "little folk".  It's mind-boggling to think that, had a Russian platoon commander at Kursk or an American squad leader on Guadalcanal decided to...I don't know, go left, instead of right, or hold back, instead of advancing a few dozen metres (or, for that matter, go for a pee instead of holding it and doing whatever it was he actually did do) history could have been completely changed.

And, of course, we'll never know, because all of these little acts get swallowed up in the great, vast whole.  Still, I find the thought utterly compelling.

 

[Richie]

What fascinates me about alternate histories are the "little" tipping points that make up the past. 

That's what fascinates me, as well. My alternative history scenario of Kaiser Frederick III is what I think of as a tipping point in history. While a German Kaiser is definitely not one of the little people, the fact that a German Kaiser, an Anglophile married to Queen Victoria's daughter, reigned for only ninety nine days because he developed cancer is a tipping point if I ever saw one.
His father, William I, had lived to be ninety and it's likely that Frederick III could have been Kaiser for thirty years or so (1888-1918) and aligned his nation with Great Britain after promoting liberal democratic traditions in Germany. Frederick III's German doctors advised removing the part of his vocal chords affected by the cancer, a British doctor brought in recommended a vacation to ease the then Crown Prince's "sore throat". If the advice of the German doctors had been followed, Frederick would still have a voice (literally and politically) and may have lived and reigned much longer.

I consider World War I to be the pivotal event in the twentieth century: it brought an end to the Hohenzollern dynasty, the Romanov dynasty, the Habsburg dynasty, led to the creation of the Soviet Union, gave Hitler a reason for being. It brought an end to the nineteenth century way of life.
World War I would not have occurred or at least would not have dragged in the major powers of Europe if Kaiser Frederick III had not developed cancer and if his treatment had not been misdiagnosed. The "Great War" may have gone down in the history books as simply another Balkan conflict if only one man had not been stricken with cancer.

Anyway that's my pet historical "what-if", I'll get off my soap box for now. 

 

[armyguy62]

I'm more interested in the "little folk".  It's mind-boggling to think that, had a Russian platoon commander at Kursk or an American squad leader on Guadalcanal decided to...I don't know, go left, instead of right, or hold back, instead of advancing a few dozen metres (or, for that matter, go for a pee instead of holding it and doing whatever it was he actually did do) history could have been completely changed.
  I am of the same mind... I often give thought to the "little guy" who fought with no hope of survival, knowing full well that no one would know how he died, but he did it because it was what needed to be done. I think the Russians have a particular claim to fame in this thought experiment.... (granted Barbarossa started late) how might the world look now if Pte Ivan had not fought to his last ounce of blood?

 

[lone bugler]

History is full of "what ifs" a couple of my favorites are,what if the British
had lost on the Plains of Abraham,what if the Brits. had come into the
US civil war on the side of the Confedracy.But the one I would like to kick
the thread off with is,what if Churchill had made a deal with Hitler in
1940,and decided that there enough Brit. Commonwealth gravesites in
France,and if Hitler kept his hands off British interests and possession's
he could carry on in Europe.Any fellow speculators.
                                          Regards

You do know that Brits did come into the US civil war on the confederacy side right? Although not officially declaring war. They were awfully happy about the civil war weakening their major problem at the time, an emerging super power, the USA. and provided a great amount of essential goods to the confederacy, not to mention ships (look up CSS Alabama) ,weapons, etc.

 

[time expired]

If the Confederation had won the Gettysburg battle the Brits
would have likely come in on the side of the south.The Federal
blockade of the south was very damaging to the British weaving
industry ,no cotton, and at the very least the British would have
broken this blockade and probably supplied the Confederation.
                                Regards

 

[a_majoor]

If the Confederation had won the Gettysburg battle the Brits would have likely come in on the side of the south.

Since Canada wasn't yet a nation at the time, this is a very speculative "what if" 

On a more serious note, the Emancipation Proclamation was issued in September 22, 1862, well before the battle of Gettysburg (July 1 – July 3, 1863). The proclamation had converted the meaning of the Civil war to the fight to abolish slavery in the minds of both the Americans fighting the war and European observers. There was no way that England would openly side with the Confederate States of America and uphold the institution of slavery, regardless of the economic impact of the cotton embargo.

On a more purely military note, there are several possible outcomes to a Confederate victory at Gettysburg. The most probable outcome is the Army of the Potomac would have withdrawn to the "Pipe Creek" line (where General Meade had already made dispositions expecting to meet the Army of Northern Virginia there, near Taneytown, Maryland, and from  which he marched once advanced elements of his force made contact with Lee's forces on July 1, 1863). The Confederates would have followed (quickly, if they had managed to capitalise on the virtual destruction of MGen Sickles's III Corps of 2 July, or slowly if " Pickett's Charge" had succeeded on 3 July), but I suspect that casualties and the Confederate habit of looting abandoned Union stores to restock would have made any sort of close persuit impossible.

The other alternative (one which is more difficult to quantify) would be for General Lee to have followed MGen Longstreet's suggestion and interpose the Army of Virginia between the Army of the Potomac and Washington, D.C. This would have required Lee to leave the field at Gettysburg still in control of the Union (something he would have resisted), and also to move without his cavalry screen to scout ahead or screen his moves. The chances of success would be low due to these factors, but if the Confederates could find suitable ground, the Army of the Potomac would be forced to attack an entrenched Confederate force.

More capable historians may dispute this, but I suggest that on strictly military grounds, the Battle of Gettysburg is rather overrated as the "turning point" of the Civil War. General Grant's victory at Vicksburg placed the Mississippi river under control of the Union and enabled the other half of the pre war "Anaconda" strategy of economically strangulating the Confederacy to take effect (since the oceanic blockade was already in place). In the long term, this reduced the ability of the Confederacy to continue the war, and Sherman's "Army of the West" would still be free to greatly damage the Confederate economy regardless of what happened on the eastern front.

 

[Old Sweat]

While speculation about little events changing history, it really is a mug's game when applied to modern military history. There are so many events taking place more or less at the same time that one successful defence of a key hill or the failure of a bridgehead to hold or an air raid gone astray matters little in except in national and regimental mythology. It is a combination of events rather than one key incident that decides the outcome of the war. This is especially true of modern conflicts (including the US Civil War) where the net military, industrial and financial resources as well as the mental attitude and moral authority of the warring factions decides the outcome in the majority of cases.

We all can probably point to cases where this theory is disproven (one could [wrongly] cite the 1982 Falklands campaign for example), but I believe it holds true overall.