Author Topic: Alternate History  (Read 25636 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline PosthumanHeresy

  • Directing Scenes for Celebritarian Needs
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 2626
  • Gender: Male
  • Whatever doesn't kill you is gonna leave a scar
Re: Alternate History
« Reply #135 on: July 07, 2013, 05:56:42 pm »
The JFK assassination happens, but in this alternate history, it's found that the CIA really was behind it. How does America, and the world, change?
What I used to think was me is just a fading memory. I looked him right in the eye and said "Goodbye".
 - Trent Reznor, Down In It

Together as one, against all others.
- Marilyn Manson, Running To The Edge of The World

Humanity does learn from history,
sadly, they're rarely the ones in power.

Quote from: Ben Kuchera
Life is too damned short for the concept of “guilty” pleasures to have any meaning.

Offline Lt. Fred

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 2994
  • Gender: Male
  • I see what you were trying to do there
Re: Alternate History
« Reply #136 on: July 07, 2013, 10:19:18 pm »
England is part of the continent. How does this change history?
Ultimate Paragon admits to fabricating a hit piece on Politico.

http://fqa.digibase.ca/index.php?topic=6936.0

The party's name is the Democratic Party. It has been since 1830. Please spell correctly.

"The party must go wholly one way or wholly the other. It cannot face in both directions at the same time."
-FDR

Offline chitoryu12

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 4009
  • Gender: Male
  • Tax-Payer Rhino
Re: Alternate History
« Reply #137 on: July 08, 2013, 12:47:40 am »
England is part of the continent. How does this change history?

Just thinking about World War II, a German invasion actually occurs and possibly succeeds. The biggest obstacle to the Nazis in conquering the UK was the English Channel. Even though the British had to flee minus a ton of equipment at Dunkirk, the inability of the Germans to actually engage in an amphibious landing or beat the British Navy and RAF in a straight up fight in the Channel meant that they had to spend tons of time and resources preparing for Operation Sealion, which included engaging in the Battle of Britain and losing.

Even if they had won, of course, Sealion would have been a failure. They had never done a landing like it required, and lacked the resources and vessels necessary. The British held enough control of the seas that they could have used the Navy to put up a good defense. This link has a lot more information: the poor quality of the barges they planned on using, which would have taken 30 hours each to cross the channel and likely been sunk by the choppy conditions before even reaching shore, the epic failure of a test run (minus many of the real life Sealion conditions, making their failure even more of a comedy of errors), and exact details on the British Navy compared to the German.

Had England been part of the continent, that wouldn't have had to happen. The Germans simply could have continued marching along with the Blitz and may have successfully overrun the British given enough time and resources. The American intervention would have to start with taking back Britain rather than France.
Still can't think of a signature a year later.

Offline lord gibbon

  • That Weird Guy in the Corner
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 868
  • Gender: Male
  • living trivia machine
Re: Alternate History
« Reply #138 on: July 08, 2013, 01:14:37 am »
Hell, you can go back even further that that. A large part of England's invincible reputation (Hardly ever invaded, last conquered by William of Normandy) comes from it being an island. Napoleon, for instance, would have been able to simply march into England, and without the navy to stop him, it's extraordinarily unlikely that England could beat France when it came to the army, Napoleon's specialty.
Excuse me, sir, do you have a minute to talk about your lord and savior, Hannibal Barca?

Quote from: Seneca
Religion is regarded by the common man as true, by the wise man as false, and by the powerful man as useful
Yeah, if the pagans are so smart, why did Jesus invade Pagan-land on the back of a dragon and kill them all!

Offline Lt. Fred

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 2994
  • Gender: Male
  • I see what you were trying to do there
Re: Alternate History
« Reply #139 on: July 08, 2013, 01:19:10 am »
Napoleon would have easily invaded as well. Then again, so would Louis the XIV, Cardinal Richelieu, the Spanish... Lots of people would have invaded perfidious Albion if they could only walk on water.

Without the protection of their natural moat, the long-standing and oft-noted amateurism* of the British Army would have never existed, I feel. Instead of being the pre-eminent naval professionals they were post 1650, defence spending would have remained heavily tilted towards the army.  Instead of sending their sons to be Midshipmen, the English Gentry would have enlisted their progeny as artillery officers (a similar profession in that it requires lots of maths). Britain would probably have developed in a similar way to France, with a standing land military force of great size, or perhaps like the Netherlands with their emphasis on fortifications (France is more likely, given the open, relatively sparsely populated England of 1650). The English-French hundred years war would probably never have ended, without any logical geographical barriers between the two (unlike between Germany or Spain and France, for instance).

At many times in its history, England has pursued an isolationist policy (from 1815-1914, for instance; also during the English Civil War, for obvious reasons). This has allowed it to develop its own culture and institutions, independently, without unwanted foreign interference. To take an example, point to a Civil War in Europe with less foreign intervention than the English Civil War or the various English-Scots wars. Stuck in the middle of things, England would never have developed its unusually universal mono-culture, with more emigration from France and the Netherlands drawing in even more German and French influence. Scotland probably would have retained its independence, being able to avoid English domination by playing them off against other nations, like Savoy/Switzerland, ect. The English Civil war probably would not have happened. England probably would have been a combatant in the Thirty Years' War, on the side of the French and Protestants, which would have been interesting. The British Empire would never have happened as it did, without the overwhelming superiority enjoyed by the Royal Navy. France also would have been changed by having enemies on three sides, rather than just two (Germany and Spain), perhaps becoming a second Germany.

* I don't mean this as a slight. Amateur armies are some of the best in history: the US, Russian and British armies of WW2 were amateur. So were Napoleon's legions. An amateur army is a force that does pretty badly at the start of conflicts because it lacks a large standing compliment, or very effective organisation. Often they end up winning anyway. I'd much rather my country's army look like Britain's circa 1928 than Germany's circa 1913. Also, I find there to be something inherently evil about professional murder. The citizen-soldier idea- we don't want to do this, but we must, so let's get it over with for the good of our country and then get home and make cars or work in a fish and chip shop or something- is far more attractive to me than the Ninja-Chic of the modern special forces unit. Not that we shouldn't have them. They are just an ugly institution, to me.


Apologies, Lord Gibbon, you beat me to it.
« Last Edit: July 08, 2013, 01:22:51 am by Lt. Fred »
Ultimate Paragon admits to fabricating a hit piece on Politico.

http://fqa.digibase.ca/index.php?topic=6936.0

The party's name is the Democratic Party. It has been since 1830. Please spell correctly.

"The party must go wholly one way or wholly the other. It cannot face in both directions at the same time."
-FDR

Offline Askold

  • Definitely not hiding a dark secret.
  • Global Moderator
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 8358
  • Gender: Male
Re: Alternate History
« Reply #140 on: July 08, 2013, 01:25:18 am »
The German army was already overtaxed after taking France. The escape in Dunkerque was possible because the German commanders did not dare to push their luck and try to annihilate the escaping armies. Furthermore the British and French troops left most of their equipment in Dunkerque since they were in a hurry and Germans were able to use them to equip their growing armies. This also meant that the British had to completely rearm those troops which had escaped continental Europe.

If we take away the English channel then the panicked retreat over it would not have occurred as such. Without the channel to rely on they would have probably been retreating slower and fighting much harder since they would not have wanted to put England in danger.

I still think that the German advance would have faltered, due to the biggest problem they had with blizkrieg: Running out of fuel. They would have needed time to resupply and rest their troops anyway. Of course this would have meant that the attack on Britain would have been much easier, they could have built airfields closer to Britain as the German army advanced, thus eliminating one of the biggest problems Luftwaffe had in the Battle of Britain.

Actually I think another major difference is that Germany would not have attacked USSR so soon if they would have been forced to deal with Britain immediately after France. In our timeline they could just ignore the islands and try to bleed them off with submarines since the invasion was not going to happen.

Really though, WW2 is small fish compared to everything else that would have changed. How would the Napoleonic wars have gone if France would not have needed a fleet to try to invade Britain? What about all the other wars that the British isles had been part of? This is a major change on a tactical level. And what about during peace? Traveling between Britain and continental europe would have been easier, how would this affect the British population demographics?
No matter what happens, no matter what my last words may end up being, I want everyone to claim that they were:
"If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine."
Aww, you guys rock. :)  I feel the love... and the pitchforks and torches.  Tingly!

Offline Meshakhad

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 2205
  • Gender: Male
  • The Night Is Dark And Full Of Terrors... Like Me
Re: Alternate History
« Reply #141 on: July 08, 2013, 01:56:14 am »
I've got a few more:

What if... Catherine of Aragon had given Henry VIII a son, removing the reason for Henry to secede from the Catholic Church?
What if... Queen Mary and King Philip had had a child, and following Mary's death, Philip had claimed England in the name of his child, with the goal of bringing England and Spain under a single crown?
What if... Jan Hus hadn't been burned at the stake, and the Reformation had gotten going on a large scale in the early 1400s?
What if... Joan of Arc hadn't been captured, and had lived to see a French victory in the Hundred Years' War?
G-d's Kingdom Is A Hate-Free Zone

Quote from: Reploid Productions
Pardon the interruption, good sir/lady; there are aspects of your behavior that I find quite unbecoming, and I must insist most strenuously that I be permitted to assist in resolving these behaviors through the repeated high-velocity cranial introduction of particularly firm building materials.

Quote from: Meshakhad
GIVE ME KNOWLEDGE OR I WILL PUT A CAP IN YO ASS!

Offline Sixth Monarchist

  • God
  • *****
  • Posts: 564
  • The spirit of 1776.
Re: Alternate History
« Reply #142 on: July 09, 2013, 07:09:31 am »
The JFK assassination happens, but in this alternate history, it's found that the CIA really was behind it. How does America, and the world, change?

Wednesday, June 12th, 1974
CIA BEHIND JFK KILLING

REUTERS (NEW YORK): Panic struck around the world today as newly released tapes from the Watergate Hotel investigation exposed the CIA's involvement in the assassination of John F. Kennedy Jr.

The discovery of the CIA's unexpected competence has sent stock markets plunging and the global economy into further unrest. One anonymous business leader said: "it's very worrying. Previously, I had assumed that the CIA's missions were bound to be fuckups, and invested in oil futures accordingly."

"But if a successful mission like this can be pulled off, who knows what they can do?..."

SUBSCRIBE to read full article.

Friday, October 18th, 2002
NO INVASION OF IRAQ, SAYS PRESIDENT

REUTERS (WASHINGTON DC): President Bush announced today that he would not proceed with any attempts to invade Iraq after intelligence reports suggested that weapons of mass destruction were not present in the country.

"These folks are good at what they do," the President said in a White House briefing, "they're not to be misunderestimated. If they say Saddam has no weapons, we should listen to that and act accordionly."

But Democrats in Congress accused the Administration of flip-flopping on the issue, claiming that the President had lost credibility on the issue. "The President...

SUBSCRIBE to read full article.

Monday, November 1st, 2004
BIN LADEN 'NOT RE-ELECTION MASCOT' SAYS PRESIDENT

REUTERS (NEW YORK): President Bush insisted today that the US military and intelligence services' failure to capture Osama bin Laden over the last three years did not point to the man's fictional status, and called accusations made by campaign opponents 'shameful'.

"Bin Laden is real, and he is a threat to the United States," the President insisted, "he is not some viral online campaign for my re-election, and I find such accusations shameful."

But a recent poll showed that just 28% of Americans believe Bin Laden to be an actual person, with 44% believing him to be fictional, up from 19% last year, and 32% believing him to be a campaign mascot of the Bush campaign.

The President's re-election bid has struggled against the increasingly inert war in Aghanistan and questions about his domestic policy...

SUBSCRIBE to read full article.
Marvel reviews, "Last Movie You Watched", p. 75-76.