Jump to content
KeyDee

Let's talk about Alternative History!

Recommended Posts

So, the question is, what if something did not happen or something did happen in history. Like, that would clearly change history forever. I'd like you guys to give out your own theories from questions of alternative history from below:

1. What if Pearl Harbor wasn't attacked by the Japanese?

2. What if Hitler didn't get all angry about the bombing of Berlin?

So, those two for now. I'm excited to hear on your thoughts about this, also if you're interested in putting an idea into the thread, then you should and we should discuss on how things would go. 
:) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn’t know Berlin even got bombed during nazi Germany. I am pretty sure it was the reichtag fire. If it did i don’t think that was the reason for world war 2. 

What if hitler was not defeated and nazi took over France. I have a feeling we would be living in a different world right now or there would of been a war lasting for generations. 

What if Khrushchev (Russian leader at that time )decided to launch a nuclear missile during the Cold War. There would be no world to live in. The world would of been destroyed. 

This was infact found out recently. I only have some rough knowledge of what happensd. 

This is what happened- In a matter of seconds the world could of ended during the Cold War. This was when the USA had made the NATO pact and this pact was a alliance between Western Europe countries. So this pact went for a drill. Basically the army of the pact went for a drill so if sovients did invade they are prepared. When they went for a drill the the army was moving about in the Europe and were close  to the borders of the Eastern Europe. Khrushchev had thouht they were planning to invade. So sovients were ready to launch attack or a missile. Which could of led to missiles being launched from both side. Luckily the army made a turn before the sovients thought of it as a declaration of war. 

This was a moment where the theory of M.A.D would of been on play. The destruction on the world. Luckily I am alive to write this. 

Some of my info can be wrong so please correct me if you wish. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, HakuUzumaki said:

What if our world end up something like this? How would you guess this world came to be?

 

Spoiler

p89tolw4sq741.png

 

That map doesn't make any practical sense and ignores ethnic division, geopolitical practice, and general standardization of how boundaries function.

It ignores the fact that over half off the Nazi party were Christians, that LGB (which I assume is LGBT) is made up of a multitude of religions, that Japan, India, and Russia are nations, not a race nor a religion.  Since it's devoid of any discernable characteristic that's housed in reality - not sure how you would even pose it as a question.

On 5/16/2018 at 7:28 AM, KeyDee said:

1. What if Pearl Harbor wasn't attacked by the Japanese?

2. What if Hitler didn't get all angry about the bombing of Berlin?

I'm gonna be that guy, because misplaced facts do trigger me a bit.

Had the Japanese not bombed Pearl Harbor, in all likelihood the U.S. would have entered the war by 1943 due to the German's inability to keep their U-boat's under wraps.  The United States was already under constant German assault and that only amplified when they entered the war in 1942.  They were bombing off the coast of American cities in 1943.  The probability of the U.S. not entering the war simply due to the Battle of the Atlantic was essentially zero for this reason.  The only change in nature of the war would be a delayed tactic by the Americans which may have pushed World War II into the early 1950s.

As for Hitler "not getting angry" about the air raids on Berlin - he would have been seen as a weak ruler.  That's political suicide.  Your capital is bombed, your citizenry killed, and you don't swear retaliation?  That's not rooted in logic.  Hitler's fault in World War II didn't occur in Germany, but rather in his war tactics in Russia and Britain.  How he handled the attacks at home is arguable inconsequential.

On 5/17/2018 at 11:12 AM, Part_time_anime said:

I didn’t know Berlin even got bombed during nazi Germany. I am pretty sure it was the reichtag fire. If it did i don’t think that was the reason for world war 2. 

...yes.  We bombed them...1...2..3.....4....5 times during World War II.  It was a staple target during the Combined Bomber Offensive and one of the primary mission objectives for the Allies.  The best way to draw the Luftwaffe up to be destroyed was by attacking large populated areas, of which Berlin happens to be.  It also marked a wakeup call saying "hey, your capital is in striking distance of us."

What if hitler was not defeated and nazi took over France. I have a feeling we would be living in a different world right now or there would of been a war lasting for generations.

He did.  The Nazi's had occupied all of France prior to the Normandy landings in June of 1943, and the Dragoon landings in August.

What if Khrushchev (Russian leader at that time )decided to launch a nuclear missile during the Cold War. There would be no world to live in. The world would of been destroyed.

That was kind of what the whole Cuban Missile Crisis was about.  Not to mention there were several times where both the U.S. and the Soviets had misread standard rocket and missile launches as nuclear launches.  Generally, it was only because some poor officer in a hole somewhere knew better and decided to wait rather than hit the panic button.

This was when the USA had made the NATO pact and this pact was a alliance between Western Europe countries.

Except it wasn't, it was a peacekeeping organization that was established by the UNSC as a directive to ensure the Soviets and any other foreseeable imposing power could not overrun smaller regional nations and states.  Not to mention it included a number of smaller organizations such as SEATO which were not "western."

So this pact went for a drill. Basically the army of the pact went for a drill so if sovients did invade they are prepared. When they went for a drill the the army was moving about in the Europe and were close  to the borders of the Eastern Europe.

By regulation, NATO does not have an army.  They are not allowed to have a standing army.  NATO policy dictates peacekeeping forces must be drawn from the UNSC with a Security Resolution which didn't happen for the first time until the Yugoslavic wars in the 1990s.  UNPROFOR was the first time there was any "NATO Army" and it only existed from 1994-1997.

The Americans were present constantly in Western Germany and the Fulda Gap due to concern of Soviet invasion which was constantly a risk.  Stalin had already established this as a potential, that's why we had the Berlin Airlift.

Khrushchev had thouht they were planning to invade. So sovients were ready to launch attack or a missile. Which could of led to missiles being launched from both side. Luckily the army made a turn before the sovients thought of it as a declaration of war.

This never happened.  It doesn't exist anywhere in any military history.  The Soviets were up in arms over what was going on in Turkey much more than the German front.  They only thing they got uppity over was the deployment of SRBM's in Turkey that could strike Russian soil.  Their retaliation was to deploy SRBM's and MRBM's in Cuba, thus the Cuban Missile Crisis.

This was a moment where the theory of M.A.D would of been on play. The destruction on the world. Luckily I am alive to write this.

M.A.D. is a defense policy, not an offense policy.  It doesn't get "put in play." 

Some of my info can be wrong so please correct me if you wish.

I did, but at least it got you thinking, right? :)

  • Disagree 1
  • Winner 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@The History Kid Do you think if Hitler had been accepted into the Vienna art school, would there have been another dictator who would likely have risen to commit the same crimes he did? It seems to me the political climate at that point in time had morale low and it could have been any other unhinged dictator in power if not him. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Wedgy said:

@The History Kid Do you think if Hitler had been accepted into the Vienna art school, would there have been another dictator who would likely have risen to commit the same crimes he did? It seems to me the political climate at that point in time had morale low and it could have been any other unhinged dictator in power if not him. 

That's a good question, and you'd be surprised how little I've heard the topic discussed outside of Art History channels.  

I think you're on the right track in your assessment of the economic and political climate of Interwar Europe.  The Entente really shot itself in the foot during the Versailles meetings.  They essentially guaranteed a disgruntled Germany, and the U.S. Congress' lack of foresight with the League of Nations just added more tinder to the fire pit.  I really think it was just a matter of WHO, not IF with World War II.  Let us not forget that contemporary to Hitler was Mussolini in Italy and Stalin in the Soviet Union.  Then there was also Hirohito in Japan.  With the whole world struggling for economic stability and resources, I think the notion of a war starting was inevitable.

As for Hitler being the centerpiece had he been accepted into the art school in Vienna and not being the Germanic dictator - maybe, but maybe not.  I've been of the camp that Hitler's anti-Semitism was a character trait, not something that was progressively developed.  If that is the case, he'd have been of the opinion of exile (which he wanted first) then extermination.  That being said, Hitler wasn't alone in his thought process.  What made him Chancellor wasn't his ideas, which were a common theme among some really deranged individuals, but his charismatic behaviors.  I think if any of those people who shared those thoughts could have developed the charisma, the result in Europe would have been the same.

There's a great book by David Clay Large called Between Two Fires that examines Europe during the Interwar.  When you hear stories of German marks all over the streets because they were worthless - it's really quite sad.  You don't sympathize with the Germans, but you do understand why they might think SOMETHING needed to change.  A great history to read and think about, especially considering current world affairs.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, The History Kid said:

As for Hitler being the centerpiece had he been accepted into the art school in Vienna and not being the Germanic dictator - maybe, but maybe not.  I've been of the camp that Hitler's anti-Semitism was a character trait, not something that was progressively developed.  If that is the case, he'd have been of the opinion of exile (which he wanted first) then extermination.  That being said, Hitler wasn't alone in his thought process.  What made him Chancellor wasn't his ideas, which were a common theme among some really deranged individuals, but his charismatic behaviors.  I think if any of those people who shared those thoughts could have developed the charisma, the result in Europe would have been the same.

This is in line with what I was thinking, I just didn't want to dip too far into the psychological aspect of it in attempt to keep to the subject. No doubt this was a character trait that was present even before he let it ripen and subsequently fester the way it did. I also agree that he wasn't made Chancellor by accident. He was appointed that position. He was viewed as a great leader during extremely harsh economic and geopolitical times. History knows it was ultimately a catastrophic decision to put him in power- but not specifically him, as in such desperate times, anyone who stepped up with that level of passion to lead their country out of the rampant stagnation could have done it.

I can't help but roll my eyes at that credit scene in Deadpool 2 where Wade travels back in time to Austria 1889 and it is implied he harms or kills infant Hitler. Somehow I doubt it would have stopped the Holocaust, and certainly would have had null effect on Germany's role in WW2.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Wedgy said:

I can't help but roll my eyes at that credit scene in Deadpool 2 where Wade travels back in time to Austria 1889 and it is implied he harms or kills infant Hitler. Somehow I doubt it would have stopped the Holocaust, and certainly would have had null effect on Germany's role in WW2.

If we understand how the rest of the world was acting at the time of Hitler's rise to power, then it's easy to see that the Holocaust may have been inevitable.  Whether that would be in the form of how it manifested in history is a question - but it was likely to have occurred.  The most significant reason for this is simply because the world was looking for people to blame, reason behind turmoil, and a light to look to.  They were also looking at things like eugenics.  The best example of this is when World War II actually started in 1931, it wasn't by the Germans, but rather the Japanese that had already been trying to exile western and Slavic influence from Asia.  They also insisted that the Japanese race of Asians were superior to all other Asians, similar to how the Germans believed the Aryans were the superior race of Europeans.  With that in mind, it is easy to see that it was highly likely that the Holocaust would have manifested in some form with eventuality.  I just can't attest to what it might look like - it wouldn't be good either way.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, The History Kid said:

With that in mind, it is easy to see that it was highly likely that the Holocaust would have manifested in some form with eventuality.  I just can't attest to what it might look like - it wouldn't be good either way.

This and, we can't forget the Holocaust wasn't entirely unique. It wasn't the first time history has seen genocide, and it hasn't been the last. It's not the novel brainchild of our aforementioned dictator and therefore was a hurricane that was bound to have happened whether or not the proverbial butterfly flapped its wings.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/5/2020 at 7:09 PM, Wedgy said:

This and, we can't forget the Holocaust wasn't entirely unique. It wasn't the first time history has seen genocide, and it hasn't been the last. 

I wanted to come back to this, because it's actually a very important statement.  Many people hang up on the Holocaust - probably for all the right reasons.  However, it presents something that we see often in history, and even more-so in military history: the dampening problem.  The Dampening Problem works in two different capacities: 1, It establishes a peak of which all other events can seem insignificant if not relative in comparison, and; 2, a repetitive nature of minute events can become more significant than a peak.  It's a really fancy way of saying "people have warped perspectives on subject matter."

In this specific case, one thinks of the Holocaust as the most significant genocide in human history.  True, it is likely the most deadly - and it certainly was one of the worst.  But the problem is that by and large, all many subsequent genocides have been ignored.  I'm not a big fan of Wikipedia, but their lists sometimes are good starting points:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genocides_by_death_toll

A few interesting notes about the first five.  Three of those are carried out by the Nazi's.  Six million approximately were Jewish executions.  But there were far more than that - yet they are generally not discussed, overshadowed by the Jewish Holocaust.  That includes the systemic execution of Poles, the execution of Soviet POW's (due to resource shortage), and the execution of civilian "sympathizers."  

The sixth references Pol Pot's extermination of anyone who opposed Leninism - which included all Vietnam residents within Cambodia (that sounds familiar...wait...that's just like the extermination of the Poles...my bad).  And if that isn't bad enough for you, you can just take a look at the ongoing genocide being carried out presently by IS.  The worst anything in my recent memory was probably the Yugoslavic War crisis in the 90s, and that was bad enough - the last time we staged coalition intervention for humanitarian and human rights violations (you know, when NATO had a backbone).

Here's another good article that excludes the Holocaust:

https://www.theclever.com/the-15-worst-genocides-aside-from-the-holocaust/

Again, atrocities are everywhere in the world around us.  Many of us sadly have just grown deaf or blind to them.  It really is a shame that more people are more worried about small police actions here and there rather than bloody and inhumane escalations that are happening elsewhere.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Anime Forums

A unique community of fans from around the world, who gather to share their fandom and love of anime, manga, gaming, fanart and at the cornerstone of it all, Japanese culture!

Take a moment to join us today and you'll have access to our member clubs and events too. Come join in the fun and become a part of our community.
insta-1

twit
×
×
  • Create New...