Alternate History Thread (mainly for funsies)

[Mand'alor Dash 2,224]

Decided to put this in General, since it's neither random and silly enough to go in Forum Games, nor in-depth and controversial enough to go in debate pit. And no, sadly, it does not involve ponies.

 

For the uninitiated, Alternate History is the practice of changing a single point in time to have a different outcome, and then following it through to its logical ramifications. For instance, a common scenario amongst historians deals with Hitler's proposed invasion of Britain, which is predicted to have failed catastrophically had it ever happened.

 

Other times, Alternate History is used in entertainment as a way to concoct outlandish and foreign situations out of what we once saw as familiar. The Fallout series, for example, deals with an AH scnario wherein the cultural attitudes of the 1950s never died off, and the rampant jingoism that resulted led to a nuclear war 120 years later.

 

Alternate Histories can be well-researched and rock-solid, or they can be loose and fun. For the purposes of this thread, we're going to accommodate both tastes.

 

First off, you are to propose a scenario with a very specific point of divergence. Ergo, "What if the Confederacy won the Civil War" is too broad. How did they win the Civil War? This is very important to know, because it speaks to how they will fare as a nation. Will they eventually abolish slavery, or does it become a staple of Confederate culture and never go away? Do they put aside their differences with the Union, do they forever remain enemies, or do they just flat-out conquer the Yanks? And how would this change the outcome of the World Wars?

 

If you are going to propose a world where the South won the Civil War, or anything similar, you need to select the precise point in history where everything changed. "What if Pickett's Charge had succeeded, and had turned the war in the Confederacy's favor" would be much more appropriate.

 

Second, after you have proposed a starting point, others can either continue off of it, or propose their own alternate universes. If you are going to continue off of someone else's AH, then you have two avenues available to you. You could either heavily research the issue, and determine a conclusion based on rock-solid fact, or you could simply use your best judgement.

 

If you try for the latter, please try to stick to a policy of Ceteris Paribus, or "All else being equal." So, unless you can find a way to prove otherwise, the South winning the American Civil War isn't going to prevent the Russian Revolution, the World Wars, or the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. The decline of America as a military/economic power would probably affect these events in some way, and you are free to ponder on that, but until proven otherwise, they still happened. Try not to introduce additional points of divergence, if you can help it. Keep alternate histories to a single point.

 

And finally, if you want to introduce a universe with steampunk/dieselpunk/atompunk/cyberpunk/decopunk/whateverpunk elements, try to incorporate it into your divergence. For example, maybe petroleum engines had too many early failures, and were thought to be unprofitable as a result, which would lead to an increased reliance on steam power. You should still look at how this would affect world events, however, such as how Middle Eastern nations would fare without their oil reserves to generate such a steady stream of income.

 

So, those are the simple ground rules, and I leave you with my scenario: What if Germany had never made an enemy out of the US during WW1, and had instead inspired anti-British and pro-imperialist sentiments in the American public, leading to the US entering the war on the side of the central powers instead of the allies? Would the allies had still won, or would American support had been enough to turn the tides? Would the second world war have still happened, and if so, what part would the US have played in that iconic battle of fascism against democracy? And how would Russia have fared, being in the middle of a revolution during the waning years of the great war? Would that have turned out differently too?

 

Lemme know what you think, and have fun!

[Duster Dawnhorse 248]

As much as I love the "what if" history game, I have to question one aspect of your scenario. How would America go about changing its outlook? WWI and II were spun as ultimate acts and defenses of independent patriotism to the point both wars had propaganda departments.

 

Considering America has an entire holiday dedicated to freedom, Creel's Committee on Public Information would have a tough nut to crack in order to make America sympathize with a lot of the tyrannical shenanigans going on in Europe. Would the CPI's message change?

[Mand'alor Dash 2,224]

As much as I love the "what if" history game, I have to question one aspect of your scenario. How would America go about changing its outlook? WWI and II were spun as ultimate acts and defenses of independent patriotism to the point both wars had propaganda departments.

 

Considering America has an entire holiday dedicated to freedom, Creel's Committee on Public Information would have a tough nut to crack in order to make America sympathize with a lot of the tyrannical shenanigans going on in Europe. Would the CPI's message change?

 

A very good question!

 

Keep in mind that the first and second World Wars were entirely different beasts, and we certainly aren't talking about the US being drawn in to aid the Third Reich. Kaiser Wilhelm, though no saint, isn't exactly a supervillain either, and if the American propaganda machine was able to downplay Soviet atrocities during WW2, then whitewashing Great War-era Germany wouldn't be much of a challenge.

 

Now, with that in mind, the CPI would spin the war as being a revenge against the British Empire, an entity which was still very much alive back during the Great War. Posters such as these would be replaced with depictions of British Redcoats burning the White House during the War of 1812 (perhaps with a split shot of them doing it again in 1922), and reminders of how close the British came to aiding the Confederacy during the Civil War. Alternative routes could paint Serbia as a "savage beast" for the assassination of Prince Ferdinand, or demonize Tsarist Russia as "a threat to our God-given freedoms."

 

War propaganda is rarely about making one side look sexy, but stirring up hatred for the side that you're going to fight against, and stirring up hatred in the pre-war United States against the British Empire, or most other allied nations, would not have been difficult.

Edited June 16, 2014 by Mand'alor Dash

[M'aiq the Liar 5,804]

Well for the most part, no the Second World War would have have occurred had germany won the first one. Hitler was mainly inspired by the loss of WWI, and due to his experience fighting in the war, and the fact that Germany lost without French or allied troops ever setting foot on German soil led to his anti-semitism. He would have never begun to spy on those bavarian beer halls, because the German civil war of 1918 would have never occurred, thus he would have never been a government informant turned coat thanks to the ideals of the people he encountered while working as a government agent. So had germany won WWII, a smaller, less extreme war may have broken out again at a later date, but the WWII as we know it would not have occurred. The US would have had easier access to support the anti-bolshevik brigades thanks to being allied with germany, so the USSR would have been a lot more limited in power, and Stalin most likely would not have risen to power. So a weaker/possibly non existent USSR combined with a defeated england and france, and no 3rd reich.

 

and as for what would happen if the CSA had become its own country

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Victory_Series Well, you got 11 books to cover that.

[Mand'alor Dash 2,224]

@, It goes without saying that Hitler would not have risen to power, though it's possible a similar figure may have been elected in a different "loser" nation, such as Britain, or maybe even a Hitler-esque Tsar in Russia after the Bolsheviks are suppressed.

 

Hitler's rise to power IRL was a product of scapegoating and hateful sentiments on behalf of the German people, who wanted to strike back at those who destroyed their economy. A similar situation could very well occur in most nations facing the same adversity.

Edited June 16, 2014 by Mand'alor Dash

[M'aiq the Liar 5,804]

@, It goes without saying that Hitler would not have risen to power, though it's possible a similar figure may have been elected in a different "loser" nation, such as Britain, or maybe even a Hitler-esque Tsar in Russia after the Bolsheviks are suppressed.

 

Hitler's rise to power IRL was a product of scapegoating and hateful sentiments on behalf of the German people, who wanted to strike back at those who destroyed their economy. A similar situation could very well occur in most nations facing the same adversity.

They could have, but it wouldn't have been as extreme as Germany's case. If germany won, there would be multiple nations facing the reparations that ruined the German economy during the 1920s and 30s, and even with the depression setting in, had germany won we would have seen a more lenient treaty of Versailles , and all war reparations would not have been thrown on one burdened country, but spread out amongst two very powerful empires, that had very large coffers. Even with the loss of WWI, if Britain and France did not face the same level of economic reparation as Germany faced alone, then perhaps there might not have been as great a depression and environment for the rise of nationalism under prejudice guise.

[Mand'alor Dash 2,224]

They could have, but it wouldn't have been as extreme as Germany's case. If germany won, there would be multiple nations facing the reparations that ruined the German economy during the 1920s and 30s, and even with the depression setting in, had germany won we would have seen a more lenient treaty of Versailles , and all war reparations would not have been thrown on one burdened country, but spread out amongst two very powerful empires, that had very large coffers. Even with the loss of WWI, if Britain and France did not face the same level of economic reparation as Germany faced alone, then perhaps there might not have been as great a depression and environment for the rise of nationalism under prejudice guise.

I see your point, but I disagree with the idea that Germany's version of the treaty of Versailles would have been more lenient. Remember, Germany saw WW1 as an opportunity to carve out an empire of its own. Therefore, had they won, and provided they were did not simply assume control outright, they would most certainly demand that Britain and France hand over their colonies, thus giving Germany its empire, but depriving the former Empires of any way to pay back their reparations.

 

And, to speak of reparations, I think Germany would see their advantageous situation as less a chance to be fair, and more a chance to either exploit the situation for as much as they can, or to keep their adversaries down and submissive for as long as possible, as was one of the goals of the RL treaty.

 

Therefore, you have two former Empires, three if you count Russia, whose territory and national pride were violently ripped from them in an instant, and whose entire broken economy now exists in servitude of their conquerers. Compare this to real life Germany, who never had an empire to begin with.

 

The way I see it, nationalism would brew just as fast, if not faster, in these nations as it did in real life Germany, simply because they would face very much the same adversity.

[M'aiq the Liar 5,804]

I see your point, but I disagree with the idea that Germany's version of the treaty of Versailles would have been more lenient. Remember, Germany saw WW1 as an opportunity to carve out an empire of its own. Therefore, had they won, and provided they were did not simply assume control outright, they would most certainly demand that Britain and France hand over their colonies, thus giving Germany its empire, but depriving the former Empires of any way to pay back their reparations.

 

And, to speak of reparations, I think Germany would see their advantageous situation as less a chance to be fair, and more a chance to either exploit the situation for as much as they can, or to keep their adversaries down and submissive for as long as possible, as was one of the goals of the RL treaty.

 

Therefore, you have two former Empires, three if you count Russia, whose territory and national pride were violently ripped from them in an instant, and whose entire broken economy now exists in servitude of their conquerers. Compare this to real life Germany, who never had an empire to begin with.

 

The way I see it, nationalism would brew just as fast, if not faster, in these nations as it did in real life Germany, simply because they would face very much the same adversity.

But England and France had the ability to maintain their colonies, as German lacked the force projection to invade outer colonies, thus why they had to recruit the ottomans to do it for them. Germany didn't have the force projection to invade England's outer colonies, thus they could remain in english control. The treaty on Germany was harsh because they new that Germany had little to no force projection left, and that it had been majorly deprived of military strength. France would have only lost the area they retook during the 1881 war, as that is what germany was fighting to reclaim. Germany could not require the colonies, as they had no force projection to go occupy them, and no projection to invade England. Even with American support, an invasion of England in order to gain its colonies would have been very difficult.

 

With American support, the bolshevik revolution could have been greatly forestalled, but it still would take time. Russia would be out of the global picture longer, as support for the democratic government meant that the revolution would last far longer than the quick overthrow they experienced in our world.

 

The treaty was so harsh on Germany because the allies knew they could get away with it. Lacking the force projection to move great armies to the allies colonies, and with American force projection being so weak that even in our real world the troops they sent to support the democratic russian government froze to death on the trans-siberian railway. They would simply not have the capability to transport enough troops to successfully take the outer colonies, thus still allowing France and England to maintain enough colonies to repay reparations. American supplies could be given to the anti-bolsheviks faster, and in larger numbers with Germany as an ally, but America at the time did not have the force projection to put major boots on the ground.

[DATA EXPUNGED 324]

It would be interesting to see the outcome of WWII if Churchill and Roosevalt went through with "Operation Unthinkable" (the British and American plan to invade the USSR after they took Berlin). Considering the fact that the US used up its only two nuclear weapons in its arsenal on japan, i believe it would be a very agonizing and casualty heavy conflict for both sides. I dont think the US and UK would have the abuility to take all of the USSR without help from other nations. However, many nations would most likely take the USSR's side due to the fact that the US and UK attacked preemptively. I believe that the victor would be the USSR mainly because the US and UK would have to conscript men who don't want to fight, in a war they stated out of cold blood. The USSR would have some determination to destroy the allies. Perhaps the USSR would push past Berlin and take all of central and some of western europe. I am curious as to what others may say.

[Stalliongrad 982]

A frequent thing that comes up in the "If the South had won" argument is slavery. If The south had won the war slavery would not have continued into the 20th century. The South would have relied on European imports for its victory. The North was able to produce more because all the factories were in the North. The South's idea of an entire country reliant solely upon Agriculture..... was even at the time a very dated Idea. Any nation reliant upon mostly or solely agriculture struggles very hard to modernize... Think about Early Communist China under Chairman Mao. The millions of people that died (despite how terrible it is) sort of had to die. Mao was trying to break people out of being complacent with being peasants and in a sense forcing them to evolve into well educated industrialized people that could compete on the world stage. I predict if the South had won a similar thing would have happened because all Western expansion would have been exactly like the south (which in a way it already was).

 

As far as Hitler. Yes I do agree the Second World War would never have happened if Germany had won the first one. However my predictions are a little different. Germany would have made serious allies out of a larger number of enemies. Despite the German control over the continent Germany didn't have the money to counter the (still) superior Royal Navy. Britain would have found ways to counter German U Boats. World War II would not have been about Nazis and rampant Anti-Semitism, but it would have been a more traditional war in the sense of Empires fighting over Territorial possessions. I don't feel as though Fascism would have dominated German politics because Germany wasn't broken in its victory. Hitler wouldn't have had to rely on it to boost support. If anything he would have been made the next Kaiser and he would have been one of the Imperialists he claimed to hate. Germany would have begun trying to capture French and British possessions in Africa and Asia at the time. But would only meet moderate success due to the state of its navy. Germany would have spent the next few years cranking out large battleships to counter the Royal Navy and to have a better ability to project force around the world. Even though Germany had battleships and the capabilities during WWII they were never able to fully compete with the resolve of the Royal Navy and Hitler was forever jealous of that. (resulting of the advantage of the U-boat) 

 

As far as American involvement we probably would have maintained the stance that we always wanted to and that is of non-involvement. If Germany had won WWI America probably would have said (yep that's the last time we are doing that) America has a lot of people of both Anglo and German ancestry. I feel that unless Germany provoked us into the war we probably would have remained neutral. Maybe, and its a big maybe America would have felt inclined to assist Britain because of ancestral heritage, common language etc but even during that time America was Anti-Imperialist and would have helped to assist the defense of the British Isles from German incursion but less likely to assist in protecting British assets from German/Axis invasion. That is something I think the French would be likely to do. At that time, politically we were to busy trying to secure Democracy remained the primary form of government in the "New World".

 

That being said I think that history would have looked differently and perhaps be better. If Germany had won WWI there wouldn't have been rampant Fascism and Anti-Semitism and the concentration camps wouldn't exist. Germany wouldn't need to rely on fearmongering the people into thinking Jews were the reason they had no money and no prosperity and thus wouldn't have felt the need to execute them all. The Fractured era of the Weimar Republic wouldn't have existed and the German Empire would probably still be a country today with all its former territories still tied to it (in a commonwealth of nations) fashion. Believe it or not there are still pretenders to the German throne today trying to convince people that Germany should restore its monarchy so that the "guidance of the monarchy can guide the people through these troubled times". During a time when other Monarchies are trying to modernize and the subjects of those monarchies are questioning why they still need one. The stereotypes we apply to Germans today (to me) are a direct result of WWII. The Germans stick to the principle of "Quality over Quantity". Germans and their "inherent" desire to be the best and only the best will do type of thing.