What IF's

[Durthorin]

A favorite pastime of mine has been historic whatif's Creating or considering timelines where a single historical result went differently than it did in our history. There are a number of websites that are actually devoted to this and I've found that to do it well requires a detailed knowledge of all the history of the time period. It becomes in many ways an interesting way of examining the actual history.

[Darth Executor]

Have you played Red Alert?

[Durthorin]

Have you played Red Alert?

Nope, can't say as I have.

[sc_q_jayce]

Harry Turtledove.

[Darth Executor]

Well, you might like it. In the game, Einstein figures out how to build a time machine and travels back in time to kill Hitler. When he returns to his own time, WW2 still happened, but instead of fighting Hitler, the allies ended up fighting Stalin. (It's a strategy game btw).

[Nicholas]

A favorite pastime of mine has been historic whatif's Creating or considering timelines where a single historical result went differently than it did in our history. There are a number of websites that are actually devoted to this and I've found that to do it well requires a detailed knowledge of all the history of the time period. It becomes in many ways an interesting way of examining the actual history.

Alternate History scenarios really are quite fascinating. People tend to focus on scenarios where the Axis won the Second World War or if the Confederacy had wond the Civil War but there are many historic events that could have changed history.

[Nicholas]

Harry Turtledove.

I'm currently reading his Worldwar Series.

[Mr. Christopher]

A favorite pastime of mine has been historic whatif's Creating or considering timelines where a single historical result went differently than it did in our history. There are a number of websites that are actually devoted to this and I've found that to do it well requires a detailed knowledge of all the history of the time period. It becomes in many ways an interesting way of examining the actual history.

While looking up "What if's" is pretty fun sometimes, I usually only deal with "What is." I stopped looking up what if's when I was in 3rd grade (don't take that as an insult, please).

[Durthorin]

While looking up "What if's" is pretty fun sometimes, I usually only deal with "What is." I stopped looking up what if's when I was in 3rd grade (don't take that as an insult, please).

No insult taken. But in my mind what is is a direct result of the what if's that led there. In many ways its an exercise in the logical flow of history.

[Nicholas]

:bump:

[jesusfreak]

I do like what ifs. I mainly like WWII what ifs there is just something about the time period that fasinates me. One of the what ifs that I thought of is.

What if the aircraft carriers that were supose to be in Pearl Harbor when the Japanese attacked were there instead of out on an exercise.
The question is would we have been able to accomplish the Doolittle raid on Japan if the Japanese had taken our our aircraft carriers.

Another one is What if Pearl Harbor was actuall deeper than it is. The reason I say that is because most of the ships that were struck by the Japanese were reserected from the bottom of Pearl Harbor because it is so shallow that they were able to bring back the ships much quicker than if they would have to build new ones all over again.

It makes me wonder if we would have been able to attack as well and if not and if another what if that I talked about in another forum about Hitler bombing London longer. It makes me wonder if we would be speaking German for a first language and Japanese as a second

[One Bad Pig]

What If? (http://www.amazon.com/What-If-Foremost-MILITARY-Historians/dp/0425176428/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1200617209&sr=8-1)

What If? 2 (http://www.amazon.com/What-If-Eminent-Historians-Imagine/dp/042518613X/ref=pd_bbs_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1200617209&sr=8-2)

[Algesan]

What ifs can be a lot of fun to read or speculate on if they are well done, but I've tended to find the ones where I can hold some sort of informed opinion badly flawed.

For example, the carriers sunk at Pearl and a deeper Pearl Harbor mentioned above. In the first case, the most likely effect: Longer war with no difference in results except that even more nukes would have been dropped on the Japs. I'd think maybe a year. Two at the most. Remember that FDR had already gotten some of his cronies to ramp up production and set up contingencies in case of a war as well as the increasing industrial usage from becoming the "Arsenal of Democracy". There were a *lot* of ships in the pipe on 7 Dec 1941.
USN history (http://www.history.navy.mil/branches/org9-4c.htm) This link shows you the explosive growth in the Navy over that period, which is mostly in smaller ships with shorter turnaround times, but even playing relatively simple wargames, the US can lose mass amounts of ships early on and still have overwhelming force by 1944/5. In fact most games make the survival of Japan/Germany conditional on the Axis holding out for longer than they did historically. Something hard for people to understand today was the amount of hatred against the Japanese felt by US citizens.

In the second case the defenses would have been much different since it was assumed that the shallowness of the harbor would prevent or severely hamper torpedo attacks by planes. Of course, how much that would change some of the other decisions that helped cause the disaster.....

There is really no way that the South could have won the War unless you get a contrived combination of circumstances. Turtledove's Guns of the South is IMO about the best that he did, the rest of his works seem to degenerate too much. One series I do like (and cannot remember the name of off hand) was when a research vessel sent a near future naval battlegroup (including the USS Hillary Clinton) into the past. S.M. Stirling's work is mixed. I like the Draka, although it was a bit contrived, he carried it off well, although the last novel was disappointing, but I've heard rumors that that was because Baen demands that the "good guys" must always win (or at least not lose).

OTOH, the Nantucket series was very bad. It propagated the myths of the katana, forced PC equality of sexes in a type of combat that requires upper body strength found almost exclusively in the male population and a number of other goodies. Lots of good stuff in there, but where the characters would actually be stuck in a position of building their industrial base and dying with the second and third generation actually being capable of accomplishing what the first generation did in the books. It does get a lot of redemption from what happened to the New Age "hippies".

I find a lot of the "what if's" require major changes in personality or social structures, while others get overlooked. For example: "What if" Hitler (or Goering) had actually stayed focused on the "Battle of Britain" instead of moving on to the Blitz? It wouldn't have fit their personalities, but what it? Even for one, two or three more months of antiRAF strikes? (I think it would have taken two.) Probably a successful invasion of Britain, but the costs of it would have completely altered the timeline of the war. A better "point source" change IMO would have been the survival of Walther Wever (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walther_Wever_%28General%29). I've gamed some simulations of that and it is devastating. Yes, the Wehrmacht loses some of its efficiency from diversion of resources from tactical to strategic airpower, but the ability to hammer Britain and Russia cripples their efforts even more. (Note: Yes, I know about the problems with WW2 strategic airpower's effects being magnified, but IMO, the defensive measures required counts as much as the actual damage done.) Even if you get the US in the war in early 1941 (when it is less prepared, this is when a lot of ramping up I mentioned earlier started hitting its stride), Britain is usually gone and the Soviets are on their last ropes with the Middle East, beset by pro-Nazi coups the next target.

Oh, for fun, let's assume that the German Navy's espionage effort in the USN's torpedo research was a flop instead of a success. It means that when the U-boat campaign was at its height and just couldn't quite strangle Britain, it probably would have. The Nazis had to overcome an amazing string of torpedo "problems" that just happened to mirror those of the US subs in the Pacific......

Let's go with some of these. Britain falls early, which would dampen the already low US interest in "saving the Brits and Frogs bacon" again. Commie killing by the Nazis wasn't a big deal except to some intellectuals. So, would FDR been forced to back down on some of his pot stirring? Would the Japanese have backed off on a lot of their conquest plans if they no longer felt they had to strike while they had the strategic capability? Absent a provocation like Pearl Harbor, would the traditionally isolationist USA worried about the issue until it was too late? (IMO, it would have been too late if we had stayed out of it until 44/45.) Could we have still won?

[Nicholas]

Since this thread is alive again, I thought I'd post a link to a discussion board I found completely devoted to historical "What ifs": http://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/index.php

I should give you fair warning though, the rules are a bit less strict regarding language, and the members are even crazier than they are here, but if you like alternate history you should find it interesting.