What if history scenarios

Remove this Banner Ad

sydney eagle said:
How was Sealion going to succeed ? Getting a significant number of troops over to Britain in the river barges that the Germans were assembling would have been close to impossible in anything other than a dead flat calm, and they didn't have enough of them anyway.
Click to expand...
It wouldn't have, even if the Luftwaffe had complete aerial superiority, it would have taken a long while from to sink enough RAN ships to gain long enough control over the Channel and its ports.

But the scenario that the operation did succeed would have been interesting in its aftermath.
 
For all the WW2 talk and Hitler. I'm going back to WW1. What if the Germans win
a) With the USA isolationist?
or
b) The USA still come in but the Krauts hold them off regardless.

Both scenarios paint interesting pictures.
 
Run n Spread said:
For all the WW2 talk and Hitler. I'm going back to WW1. What if the Germans win
a) With the USA isolationist?
or
b) The USA still come in but the Krauts hold them off regardless.

Both scenarios paint interesting pictures.
Click to expand...
Depends on a few things with B, but the Germans would not have been able to hold them off the Americans due to the situation the homefront with starvation, the sheer weight of American numbers and deteriorating German home conditions. In addition, there was the large number of German troops that had to occupy all the land they won via the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. A prolonged war going into 1919 would have meant more troops would have been diverted East to protect German gains in Ukraine, Belarus and in the Baltics. These troops would be needed on the Eastern Front. The last problem is, while Germany may have militarily been able to ward of the yanks for a time, Bulgaria had surrendered, AH had collapsed, Turkey was surrendering and was completely spent, the situation was irrecoverable after the failure of the German Spring Offensives of 1918.

For A, I would like to think that the Germans would have won in 1918, the British imperial troops and French were even more spent than the German army was at that point. If the spring offensives didn't finish them, another push may have resulted in a French defeat shortly afterwards. After Verdun and the Nievve Chapelle offensives, it took Petain a while to rebuild the French army nearly completely, it was a shadow of its former glory in 1918.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Kangaroos4eva said:
For A, I would like to think that the Germans would have won in 1918, the British imperial troops and French were even more spent than the German army was at that point. If the spring offensives didn't finish them, another push may have resulted in a French defeat shortly afterwards. After Verdun and the Nievve Chapelle offensives, it took Petain a while to rebuild the French army nearly completely, it was a shadow of its former glory in 1918.
Click to expand...

The British and French armies were in better shape than the Germans after the Spring Offensives. Before the British was still in better shape, the French hard to call.

Both the British and Fr4ench were not reduced to the level of scraping the barrel as far as dropping requirements for more manpower, the German were going younger and with less strict requirements in 1918.
 
What if in the early days of Colonialism (1788-1800)

a) Unlikely but if The Aboriginies were somehow better armed (by one of the other Colonial powers/British empires) to give a better shot at resistance to either get rid of or not allow the British to gain such a foothold. Would the country have eventually been invaded or would others have been wary and Australia be one of the last countries settled? What would Australia look like today if there was more Aboriginal and less British Influence?

b) In the early years the sheer outnumbering of convicts to soldiers meant a half decent rebellion could've lead to the convicts overthorwing Arthur Phillip. Would the Brits just have said * it and shut up shop or would the early revolutionaries somehow had a crack at running things? (Most likely would've died off as it would of been hard to re establish contact with the Brits.
 
Run n Spread said:
What if in the early days of Colonialism (1788-1800)

a) Unlikely but if The Aboriginies were somehow better armed (by one of the other Colonial powers/British empires) to give a better shot at resistance to either get rid of or not allow the British to gain such a foothold. Would the country have eventually been invaded or would others have been wary and Australia be one of the last countries settled? What would Australia look like today if there was more Aboriginal and less British Influence?

b) In the early years the sheer outnumbering of convicts to soldiers meant a half decent rebellion could've lead to the convicts overthorwing Arthur Phillip. Would the Brits just have said **** it and shut up shop or would the early revolutionaries somehow had a crack at running things? (Most likely would've died off as it would of been hard to re establish contact with the Brits.
Click to expand...


a) The aboriginal problem wasn't weaponry (although that would have helped a lot) so much as lack of unity.

When the biggest forces you can muster are still only double digits, you're not going to beat a larger, better trained force, even if you have similar armaments.
Not sure more aboriginal influence was ever going to be a factor because of that, but even if it was I doubt it'd change much. The American Indians had a lot more influence in the early days there (as well as better armaments), but the end result was similar.

b) As you say, many would have died due to lack of contact with the Brits. I dare say future waves of British immigrants would have landed elsewhere (an invasion to retake the site would have been problematic due to the distance/troops required) and the later colony would have been far more successful, due to contact with the mother country, until eventually the rebels would have relented, and after a few (token?) leaders were executed for treason, Sydney would have rejoined the United Kingdom.

It'd make an interesting titbit in history, but the more significant change from that would have been the 'alternative' colony, both where (Newcastle, Jervis bay, Brisbane, NZ?) and how big it would have gotten (as in, which would be the dominant colony afterwards).
 
telsor said:
a) The aboriginal problem wasn't weaponry (although that would have helped a lot) so much as lack of unity.

When the biggest forces you can muster are still only double digits, you're not going to beat a larger, better trained force, even if you have similar armaments.
Not sure more aboriginal influence was ever going to be a factor because of that, but even if it was I doubt it'd change much. The American Indians had a lot more influence in the early days there (as well as better armaments), but the end result was similar.
Click to expand...
To steal a Dan Carlin quote, the only time the more primitive force had the sheer numbers to have a chance against the better armed more trained forced was when Rome invaded Gaul.
 
Run n Spread said:
For all the WW2 talk and Hitler. I'm going back to WW1. What if the Germans win
a) With the USA isolationist?
or
b) The USA still come in but the Krauts hold them off regardless.

Both scenarios paint interesting pictures.
Click to expand...

If we believe the british aristocracy were on board with a surrender so long as they maintained their own status, who knows?

But Hitler was getting more and more unhinged, the main reason they lost. Had he somehow won, someone would have done him in.

So, Hitler less germany running europe? might not be that different to today, but europe would be more powerful and technologically advanced than the USA
 
Pessimistic said:
If we believe the british aristocracy were on board with a surrender so long as they maintained their own status, who knows?

But Hitler was getting more and more unhinged, the main reason they lost. Had he somehow won, someone would have done him in.

So, Hitler less germany running europe? might not be that different to today, but europe would be more powerful and technologically advanced than the USA
Click to expand...

It seems unlikely.

After the Munich agreement was broken, the British leaders, including the Aristocracy, decided they couldn't trust Hitler.

It was a BIG shift in attitude and is pretty clear through all the papers from the time.
 
What if Hannibal had marched on Rome after his victories at Lake Trasimene and then a year later at Cannae when his army slaughtered nearly 50,000 Roman soldiers? Even after Trasimene Rome was vulnerable with only one Legion to defend it. Rome would have had to call other legions, the two closest at Sardinia but Carthaginian ships patrolled waters in supreme numbers. Rome would have been forced to recall legions from Sicily, Iberia and exposed these areas to Carthage attack.

He choked and according to Livy regretted it when he was called back.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

TheGreatBarryB said:
What if Hannibal had marched on Rome after his victories at Lake Trasimene and then a year later at Cannae when his army slaughtered nearly 50,000 Roman soldiers? Even after Trasimene Rome was vulnerable with only one Legion to defend it. Rome would have had to call other legions, the two closest at Sardinia but Carthaginian ships patrolled waters in supreme numbers. Rome would have been forced to recall legions from Sicily, Iberia and exposed these areas to Carthage attack.
Click to expand...
I doubt it. Rome would have raised more troops, if possible rather than call troops back.

In any case interception sea in this period is somewhat Chancey
 
telsor said:
It'd make an interesting titbit in history, but the more significant change from that would have been the 'alternative' colony, both where (Newcastle, Jervis bay, Brisbane, NZ?) and how big it would have gotten (as in, which would be the dominant colony afterwards).
Click to expand...

Interesting one. Given the coastline of NSW and location of the Blue Mountains rapid expansion was always going to happen as a) Farming land was needed and was intially blocked by the mountains and the coastal areas of NSW offer a rich variety of resources. So the size and a greater scope of the continent was used and quickly developed.

Brisbane. Built on a floodplain so would have been weather dependent early. Don't know how much that would've changed.

NZ is interesting. Parts of it are isolated and it's Geography means it is very hard to settle quicly. In fact NZ settled a bit later than Australia and had help from the Australian Colonists (who had established in settling.

IF NZ was first up I think expansion would've been a lot slower. Rather than a focus on farming the building of advanced cities would've have been the go and a need to develop technologically would mean there would be a greater influence. Assuming that trend followed to Australia I'm guessing both countries would be a more technological driven rather than resource economy (like Japan or Germany) and would probably have established closer ties with Asia due to an early need for trade.
 
On the above, the native Australians had very little interest in metals, which were clearly in abundance. Had they been adorned in gold like the indigenous South Americans, the place would have been a lot more interesting to Spanish and Portuguese explorers
 
Pessimistic said:
On the above, the native Australians had very little interest in metals, which were clearly in abundance. Had they been adorned in gold like the indigenous South Americans, the place would have been a lot more interesting to Spanish and Portuguese explorers
Click to expand...

Was that due to lack of interest or metallurgical skill?

Their technology was pretty much stone age.
 
Pessimistic said:
What spurred the technology in other parts of the world?

Interest
Click to expand...

Yes and no.

A culture had to move beyond hunter-gatherer in order to achieve this (not least because smelting metals wasn't something you could do on the move), which required agriculture, and there are only a few indications of development towards that goal.
 
What if Paul Keating won the 96 election and stayed in power until 2007
 
Not sure if I've mentioned this one before, but...What is Henry V (of England) had lived longer?

Background:
After Agincourt, and the subsequent campaigns, along with anarchy/civil war within France, the French king basically gave up. On May 21st, 1420 in the treaty of Troyes, Charles VI married his daughter to Henry and named him as his heir so that upon Charles death the English and French crowns were to be unified....At this stage, Charles was 51, not in great health and suffering bouts on insanity (for which Henry would be Regent) Henry 33, and the 'real' French heir 17.

Clearly, the idea would have been that over the subsequent years, Henry would secure his hold on the throne (either as Regent, or after Charles' death, as king) and in time, when he died, hand over his crown to his heir...

The problem...
Henry died on 31st August 1422, 50 days before Charles (Oct 21), and 95 days before his own son (and heir) was born (Dec 6), which led to some dispute as to the succession (not that one was really needed...any excuse would do, but this was a relatively good one)

Additionally, the new English king's mother (AKA, the daughter of Charles VI of France) had a lot of influence over her son's court and the king grew up to be...well, not the man his father was (mad, or just stupid, the reports vary, although to be fair, they were mostly written by his enemies) and England descended over the next decade or so into the war of the Roses and with it, the end of the Hundred Years war and, in effect, the English claim on the French throne.

So...the alternative history...

What if Henry had lived another 10 or 20 years?

His reputation as a military leader was massive at the time (he won a lot more than just Agincourt), so he would have had a fair shot at subduing enough of France to make a go of it in time...So...what if?
 
What if at the end of WW2 none of the victorious powers had developed nuclear weapons and used them, and weren’t able to for another 50 years at least: would there have been another worldwide hot war in a generation?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top