Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Alternate outcomes.. Even plausible ?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Alternate outcomes.. Even plausible ?

    I mean seriously, think about it. Could the Axis powers have defeated the Soviet Union and the United States if things had been different ? I doubt it. Just look at the numbers of tanks, ships and planes these countries produced compared to Japan, Germany and Italy. Heck, even without England the United States would've bombed Germany into the Stone Age with their B-29's (without even using the atomic bomb). And the Japanese were in even worse off shape than Germany was.
    Really the whole idea is about as ridiculous as coming up with an alternate history where the Confederacy wins the American Civil War. An agrarian based Southern culture beating the industrialized heavily populated North ? Not possible. Even if the Confederacy hadn't been "mostly" a confederacy of the mind, (instead of an actual Union of Confederate States).. The South still would have LOST the Civil War. It's simple math. Just look at the numbers. The North defeated the South with one arm tied behind its' back and a gimp leg..
    These Wars were over before the first shot was fired. In fact. They were over before the first brick was laid in a fort, or the first bucket of cement was poured into the first concrete bunker. Of course, that's just in my opinion. I could be wrong.

  • #2
    You have hit on some of the big alternative histories that seem to keep people awake at night writing replies and you may wake up some very well informed monstes with your points.

    Could the axis have won? Yes in the short term, if the British had thrown in the towel in 1940 and the Russians sued for a peace along the terms of Lenin's WWl surrender. However the Nazi economy would doubtless have collapsed as it was little better than the later Soviet one.

    Grey beat Blue? Most other Presidents than Abe may well have buckled and sued for peace if Gettysburg had gone the other way (or not happend). But again, they would ave folded up like a pack of cards with a generation or so and become an economic colony of the Union.
    What would Occam say?

    Comment


    • #3
      Precisely. In the two cases give above the numbers are against the loser. Which is where 99.9% of the folks proposing alternative outcomes error. Trying to seek a alternative in the winning of a specific battle, or provision of a different weapon is not enough to overcome fundamentals like population or industrial production.

      Turning the variables towards things like political or military leaders can get around those basics, to some extent. ie: Hitler was sucessfull as long as his opponents leaders sought to avoid total war, or fighting at all. When the Allied leadership became confident and aggresive it was game over. In the case of the US Civil War the south held its position through more effective leadership in the early years. As Lincoln & co gain political strrength and appointed more effective military leaders the Norths strengths were used effectively.

      Comment


      • #4
        As America's greatest post-war president said: "It's the economy stupid".

        actuallly I dont think he ever actually said it but still, let's not let facfts intervene.
        What would Occam say?

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Carl Schwamberg View Post
          Precisely. In the two cases give above the numbers are against the loser. Which is where 99.9% of the folks proposing alternative outcomes error. Trying to seek a alternative in the winning of a specific battle, or provision of a different weapon is not enough to overcome fundamentals like population or industrial production.

          Turning the variables towards things like political or military leaders can get around those basics, to some extent. ie: Hitler was sucessfull as long as his opponents leaders sought to avoid total war, or fighting at all. When the Allied leadership became confident and aggresive it was game over. In the case of the US Civil War the south held its position through more effective leadership in the early years. As Lincoln & co gain political strrength and appointed more effective military leaders the Norths strengths were used effectively.

          I think if the South wins at Antietam there is a good chance England and France recognize the South as a new country. This would influence the North's naval blockade on the South. With the South being recognized as a country, things change in the South's favor, which could have resulted in a peace treaty. Of course since this didn't happen, we all play detective and speculate on what would happen, but a victory at Antietam in my opinion changes how other countries around the world view the South.

          I believe England was not happy with the North, because of patent violations if I recall correctly, and the fact that the North's blockade was affecting them getting their cotton. I believe that is why cotton started being grown in India due to the fact England couldn't get cotton from the South.

          Comment


          • #6
            British intervention in the Civil War

            Correct Sgt. Rock. Britain was unhappy with the blockade. And in one instance, a Southern spy named John Slidell (for which my hometown in Louisiana is named), was taken from a British ship by a Union warship. This incident very nearly brought the two countries to the brink of War. But Lincoln made the decision to release Slidell and apologize to the British for his removal from British territory.

            Most of Lincoln's generals opposed the move criticizing Lincoln openly for appeasing the British. But Lincoln had a perfect response. Gentlemen he said, "One War at a time.. Please".

            The point is, if one is going to propose alternate histories inwhich various countries intervene and change history as we know it, one should also factor in the considerable lengths a country is willing to go to in order to prevent such intervention.

            For instance, the North could have at the time offered England very gracious trade rights to Post Civil War cotton.. and this would probably have been enough to keep England on the sidelines. Think about it.

            Comment


            • #7
              The Antietam victory by the South is a bit more plausible. But would recognition of the Confederacy alone be enough to change history ? I wonder. England was already recognizing the Confederacies right to independence on almost every level except an outright declaration. Including in some cases military advisors and I believe some secret arms shipments as well. So I wonder.

              Comment


              • #8
                I believe England was not happy with the North, because of patent violations if I recall correctly, and the fact that the North's blockade was affecting them getting their cotton. I believe that is why cotton started being grown in India due to the fact England couldn't get cotton from the South
                .

                IIRC the cotton was being grown in Egypt and turned out to be a better cotton than what the South was growing. Played a big roll in the slow recovey of the South after the war.
                "Ask not what your country can do for you"

                Left wing, Right Wing same bird that they are killing.

                you’re entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

                Comment


                • #9
                  numbers are not everything

                  War of 1812 is an example of that.
                  8 million people in the USa 500 000 in Canada and yet canada held off the US

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    There was never any chance of Great Britain allying herself with a slaveholding South - any Member of Parliament who supported it was liable to be kicked out of office at the first opportunity by the extremely strong and popular abolitionist movement.

                    The UK was still in the middle of a major surge in evangalist christian activity and in the UK slavery was viewed as inherantly anti-christian (not a view shared by Christians in Dixie obvioulsy). At the direction of Parliament, the Royal Navy was dedicating resource to act as the self appointed "International Anti Slave Trade Police" and was hunting down slavers left right and center.

                    In the center of Manchester, where much of Britain's cotton industry was based there is a statue to Lincoln paid for through public subscription for his struggle against slavery. Although the leaders of the Empire may have been throughly grubby pragmatists on the whole, supporting the South would have been several steps too far for the electorate to allow.

                    The South was doomed from the get go - even a military victory could only have postponed the inevitable victory of Yankee capitalism.
                    What would Occam say?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Sgt. Rock View Post
                      I think if the South wins at Antietam there is a good chance England and France recognize the South as a new country. This would influence the North's naval blockade on the South. With the South being recognized as a country, things change in the South's favor, which could have resulted in a peace treaty. Of course since this didn't happen, we all play detective and speculate on what would happen, but a victory at Antietam in my opinion changes how other countries around the world view the South.

                      I believe England was not happy with the North, because of patent violations if I recall correctly, and the fact that the North's blockade was affecting them getting their cotton. I believe that is why cotton started being grown in India due to the fact England couldn't get cotton from the South.
                      Not necessarily. Egypt was shown to be fully capable of filling the needs of a cotton hungry Great Britain throughout the Civil War.
                      "Profanity is but a linguistic crutch for illiterate motherbleepers"

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by notwillW View Post
                        numbers are not everything

                        War of 1812 is an example of that.
                        8 million people in the USa 500 000 in Canada and yet canada held off the US
                        That is perhaps not a good example. The US was never completely involved in that war because of regional and factional divisions until after 1814 and even then, not completely. Total US Regular Army Troop Strength in the winter of 1814, well over two years after the US Declaration of War, was only a little over 35,000 men vs. the called-for strength of 60,000 men..
                        "Profanity is but a linguistic crutch for illiterate motherbleepers"

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by billscottmorri View Post
                          There was never any chance of Great Britain allying herself with a slaveholding South - any Member of Parliament who supported it was liable to be kicked out of office at the first opportunity by the extremely strong and popular abolitionist movement.

                          The UK was still in the middle of a major surge in evangalist christian activity and in the UK slavery was viewed as inherantly anti-christian (not a view shared by Christians in Dixie obvioulsy). At the direction of Parliament, the Royal Navy was dedicating resource to act as the self appointed "International Anti Slave Trade Police" and was hunting down slavers left right and center.

                          In the center of Manchester, where much of Britain's cotton industry was based there is a statue to Lincoln paid for through public subscription for his struggle against slavery. Although the leaders of the Empire may have been throughly grubby pragmatists on the whole, supporting the South would have been several steps too far for the electorate to allow.

                          The South was doomed from the get go - even a military victory could only have postponed the inevitable victory of Yankee capitalism.
                          I believe prior to the Battle of Antietam that slavey wasn't one of the big issues in the War. I believe the North stated that their goals were to preserve the Union. After the Battle of Antietam the Emancipation Proclamation is issued, which brings the issue of slavery to the forefront, and after that no European country would want to side with the South. If the South can win at Antietam and somehow convince England or France to side with them, because until the Emancipation Proclamation is issued, they might just might be able to get assistance from England or France.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by waldron View Post
                            Correct Sgt. Rock. Britain was unhappy with the blockade. And in one instance, a Southern spy named John Slidell (for which my hometown in Louisiana is named), was taken from a British ship by a Union warship. This incident very nearly brought the two countries to the brink of War. But Lincoln made the decision to release Slidell and apologize to the British for his removal from British territory.

                            Most of Lincoln's generals opposed the move criticizing Lincoln openly for appeasing the British. But Lincoln had a perfect response. Gentlemen he said, "One War at a time.. Please".


                            Extremly interesting point. Here is a link that goes into how close England almost got involved in a war in regards to that incident. Also talks about how European governments viewed the South.

                            http://www.civilwarhome.com/europeandcivilwar.htm

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Changing History

                              Understand I'm not trolling or flame baiting.. just considering the probabilities of changing history. Here's something else to consider. How resilient IS history ? How set is the course it takes ? Can history actually be altered by changing a single event ? Or would it merely return to its original course at a later date ? I wonder.

                              Take for instance the Hitler assassination. Someone goes back in time and shoots Hitler as a boy and WWII never happens. But the social movements of the early 20th century "secular humanism and moral relativism" are still in place. Germany is economically unstable and most veterans are still angry about the outcome of WWI. The Republic is still looking for a "controllable" puppet in this vein to satisfy the mobs and are still willing to hand over extraordinary powers to this individual. Who's to say some other would-be dictator wouldn't write Mien Kampf and just step into Hitler's role ?

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X