Alternate History

[Lt. Fred]

Ah, a topic dear to my heart as a historian in training. A personal favorite of mine is, "What if it had not rained before the Battle of Waterloo?" I have to say that Napoleon would likely have won, and that would have been devastating for the Coalition.

That's some bullshit there. Even if Napoleon managed to beat the British in four hours up a hill outnumbered, he had to beat the Prussians (who turned up at midday), again with a bigger, unblooded force. Even if he somehow managed to destroy both armies, the Russians were only a month away.

[lord gibbon]

Ah, a topic dear to my heart as a historian in training. A personal favorite of mine is, "What if it had not rained before the Battle of Waterloo?" I have to say that Napoleon would likely have won, and that would have been devastating for the Coalition.

That's some bullshit there. Even if Napoleon managed to beat the British in four hours up a hill outnumbered, he had to beat the Prussians (who turned up at midday), again with a bigger, unblooded force. Even if he somehow managed to destroy both armies, the Russians were only a month away.

Perhaps, but think of the morale blow. The Kings of Europe had just spent several wars trying to beat him, and if he won at Waterloo, it would have clearly established that he was back in power. The Italians, Polish, French, Danish ect. would have flocked to his banner as they did the last time, and the coalition forces would be rather demoralized. It took all those wars to stop him the first time, and now they have to do it again? As for the battle itself, without the rain, it likely would have started earlier AND Napoleon would have been able to make better use of his artillery, a specialty of his.

[Lt. Fred]

I think a more interesting alternative history would involve Napoleon not losing Paris in 1814, continuing his ass-whoopery and receiving reinforcements. Or, I don't know, winning at Trafalgar somehow. Ninjaing across the English channel by tricking Nelson into sailing to Central America?

[lord gibbon]

Oh, I hear you there. I've actually written the framework for an A.H. where Napoleon assassinated Nelson at the start of Trafalgar, and the ensuing confusion wrecked the British fleet. I'm honestly stuck on weather the British populace would be more aggressive (how dare he destroy the fleet!?) or less (he destroyed the fleet, do what chance do we have?) But Waterloo is such a defining moment of history that it's very fascinating imagining an alternate.

[Lt. Fred]

Collingwood probably still would have won the battle. You'd need something a little more spectacular than an assassination- sabotage in harbour would do it, not that the French could have managed it. Or my idea of tricking the RN into think you're sailing to the West Indies to wreck up some shit there.

[Meshakhad]

I've also got several ideas regarding Israeli history:

What if... the agreement between David Ben-Gurion and Prince Faisal hadn't fallen through, and the Arabs and Jews had reached an accommodation?

(click to show/hide)

If it had held, and Israel was established without violence, then the whole Israeli-Arab conflict might never have happened. Also, Israel might have been established years earlier, perhaps early enough to participate in World War II.

What if... the US had decided to support the Arab nations against Israel, and the Soviet Union had backed Israel?

(click to show/hide)

I think the basic course of history wouldn't have changed much, except with regards to the internal dynamics of the Soviet bloc. Israel was never truly Communist, it just had powerful Socialist parties. Could the Soviets have really handled having a truly democratic ally? Conversely, would there be as much anti-US sentiment in the Middle East if the US had been backing the Arabs for decades? And what might Israel had become if the Socialists had remained in power indefinitely (which they well could have)?

[dpareja]

What if... the US had decided to support the Arab nations against Israel, and the Soviet Union had backed Israel?

(click to show/hide)

I think the basic course of history wouldn't have changed much, except with regards to the internal dynamics of the Soviet bloc. Israel was never truly Communist, it just had powerful Socialist parties. Could the Soviets have really handled having a truly democratic ally? Conversely, would there be as much anti-US sentiment in the Middle East if the US had been backing the Arabs for decades? And what might Israel had become if the Socialists had remained in power indefinitely (which they well could have)?

But since Israel was formed from the British Mandate of Palestine, the US not backing Israel might've driven a wedge in NATO and another wedge in the UN Security Council.

[Lt. Fred]

What if the experienced admiral who was planned to lead the Spanish Armada had not died, leaving a hack aristocrat in charge? What if the armada had managed to land?

Alternatively, what if England had stayed Catholic, and the Civil War never happened?

[R. U. Sirius]

What if Hitler had died in the trenches of WWI? Let's leave in place the assumption that a different charismatic, totalitarian leader would have risen to lead Germany back to economic stability based on war; would the Holocaust still have happened? The racist policies of the Third Reich in general? Would the Axis Powers have allied the same way, or for the same reasons?

[Random Gal]

I've wondered what would have happened if the Saxons had won at Hastings, considering how close the battle was and then only because the Saxons were temporarily weakened from having to fight off the Vikings earlier.

[Meshakhad]

I've wondered what would have happened if the Saxons had won at Hastings, considering how close the battle was and then only because the Saxons were temporarily weakened from having to fight off the Vikings earlier.

For one, it's likely that English as we know it would never have developed. Britain today (and anywhere they had spread themselves) would be speaking a language much closer to German.

For another, I think France would have become stronger earlier, not having to deal with English kings ruling half their country.

An interesting possibility is that without the Norman conquest of Britain, there might never have been a Norman invasion of Ireland. If so, it's likely that the High Kingdom of Ireland would have solidified during the Middle Ages. Not only would the centuries of English oppression not have happened, but Ireland would have become a player in European politics.

[Sixth Monarchist]

In a shocking subversion of standard FSTDT etiquette, a forumite steps forward and... deals with the OP. Some asspulling may occur.

A Nixon win in 1960 would've probably meant Watergate in 1964. We can safely assume that the Cuban Missile Crisis would play out in a similar manner, because a) there's only one sensible option in that scenario, and JFK took it, and b) this would be a very short post from anyone otherwise.

Watergate '64* would happen because Nixon was the kind of crazy bastard who would've done it anyway. Let's not forget that he was easily on course to win in 1972, but decided to cheat anyhow.

With Nixon resigning around 1966, this makes Henry Cabot Lodge the new Gerald Ford. By some theories, Lodge cost Nixon the election by pledging, unauthorised, to include at least one African-American in the Cabinet, thus losing votes in the South, so... the Civil Rights Act, or some form of it, might have passed around 1967, but similarly it might have taken a Democrat President from 1968 to pass it.

My guess is that Vietnam and the Civil Rights Act would have still happened, but in the longer term, the Reagan Presidency might have got lost in the shuffle. If Lodge passed the CRA, then the modern perceptions of the two parties might have swapped. That said, some form of Reaganomics, or else a Libertarian platform of some kind, would most likely have arisen around 1976, due to the economic issues brought about by the oil shock of 1973 and Watergate causing a loss of trust in government. The Civil Rights era and the Keynesian consensus might, if anything, have died a little earlier.

(click to show/hide)

*is misleadingly named, because the tour went to Australia and NZ in 1965.

[Askold]

I got the impression that Nixon had some kind of messiah complex, believing that he really is the better candidate and that even a possibility of losing is too much because he feared what might happen if he isn't in charge. So I have no trouble believing that he would have done "watergate" type shenanigans to ensure his victory (since if he is not the president the world is DOOOOOMED!) but just because of that insanity of his I'm not so sure how would the missile crisis ended if he had been in charge.

There were way too many things affecting that outcome, particularly misconseptions on both sides. Add another slightly insane leader to that mess and who knows how it would end.

Besides one of the main reasons why the USSR decided to send the missiles was that after the bay of the pigs fiasco they thought that Kennedy was weak and would not dare to do anything about it. In fact I've read some interpretations that they actually thought that Kennedy was just a puppet and the US military was in charge of the country. (unfortunately I can't seem to find anything to back up that claim, it might have been just someone's opinion anyway.)

And now that I did some reading on the subject, WHAT THE HELL?!

Arguably the most dangerous moment in the crisis was only recognized during the Cuban Missile Crisis Havana conference in October 2002. Attended by many of the veterans of the crisis, they all learned that on October 27, 1962 the USS Beale had tracked and dropped signaling depth charges (the size of hand grenades) on the B-59, a Soviet Project 641 (NATO designation Foxtrot) submarine which, unknown to the US, was armed with a 15 kiloton[citation needed] nuclear torpedo. Running out of air, the Soviet submarine was surrounded by American warships and desperately needed to surface. An argument broke out among three officers on the B-59, including submarine captain Valentin Savitsky, political officer Ivan Semonovich Maslennikov, and Deputy brigade commander Captain 2nd rank (US Navy Commander rank equivalent) Vasili Arkhipov. An exhausted Savitsky became furious and ordered that the nuclear torpedo on board be made combat ready. Accounts differ about whether Commander Arkhipov convinced Savitsky not to make the attack, or whether Savitsky himself finally concluded that the only reasonable choice left open to him was to come to the surface.[92]:303, 317 During the conference Robert McNamara stated that nuclear war had come much closer than people had thought. Thomas Blanton, director of the National Security Archive, said, "A guy called Vasili Arkhipov saved the world."

Source: Wikipedia.

How about that for alternate history, if those three officers had been a bit more scared, that submarine might have started the third World war. Seriously, it would not have taken much to tip the balance, what if one of those depth charges had fallen closer and they had thought that the danger is even greater? What if they would have had trouble sleeping last night and had been really tired on top of all the stress? Maybe if Arkhipov had gotten sick due to poor coffee and had been confined to the toilet and the one person arguing against using the nuke hadn't been in the argument at all?

[Lt. Fred]

Besides one of the main reasons why the USSR decided to send the missiles was that after the bay of the pigs fiasco they thought that Kennedy was weak and would not dare to do anything about it.

I don't want to provoke another CMC discussion (needless to say I think Kennedy managed the crisis in a criminally dangerous way for no reason), but there is actually substantial evidence against this. The Soviets consistently said that they sent weapons to Cuba in the sincere desire to defend Cuba. They didn't think it would be an issue.

Arguably the most dangerous moment in the crisis was only recognized during the Cuban Missile Crisis Havana conference in October 2002. Attended by many of the veterans of the crisis, they all learned that on October 27, 1962 the USS Beale had tracked and dropped signaling depth charges (the size of hand grenades) on the B-59, a Soviet Project 641 (NATO designation Foxtrot) submarine which, unknown to the US, was armed with a 15 kiloton[citation needed] nuclear torpedo. Running out of air, the Soviet submarine was surrounded by American warships and desperately needed to surface. An argument broke out among three officers on the B-59, including submarine captain Valentin Savitsky, political officer Ivan Semonovich Maslennikov, and Deputy brigade commander Captain 2nd rank (US Navy Commander rank equivalent) Vasili Arkhipov. An exhausted Savitsky became furious and ordered that the nuclear torpedo on board be made combat ready. Accounts differ about whether Commander Arkhipov convinced Savitsky not to make the attack, or whether Savitsky himself finally concluded that the only reasonable choice left open to him was to come to the surface.[92]:303, 317 During the conference Robert McNamara stated that nuclear war had come much closer than people had thought. Thomas Blanton, director of the National Security Archive, said, "A guy called Vasili Arkhipov saved the world."

Source: Wikipedia.

How about that for alternate history, if those three officers had been a bit more scared, that submarine might have started the third World war. Seriously, it would not have taken much to tip the balance, what if one of those depth charges had fallen closer and they had thought that the danger is even greater? What if they would have had trouble sleeping last night and had been really tired on top of all the stress? Maybe if Arkhipov had gotten sick due to poor coffee and had been confined to the toilet and the one person arguing against using the nuke hadn't been in the argument at all?

Ever seen the movie K-19 the Widowmaker? Despite the absurd title, it's actually a reasonably accurate movie, regarding the meltdown of a nuclear reactor aboard a state-of-the-art Soviet submarine circa 1960. Liam Neeson plays Vasili Arkhipov. That's right, Arkhipov saved the world from nuclear holocaust twice.

[Jack the Monster]

In a shocking subversion of standard FSTDT etiquette, a forumite steps forward and... deals with the OP. Some asspulling may occur.

A Nixon win in 1960 would've probably meant Watergate in 1964. We can safely assume that the Cuban Missile Crisis would play out in a similar manner, because a) there's only one sensible option in that scenario, and JFK took it, and b) this would be a very short post from anyone otherwise.

Watergate '64* would happen because Nixon was the kind of crazy bastard who would've done it anyway. Let's not forget that he was easily on course to win in 1972, but decided to cheat anyhow.

With Nixon resigning around 1966, this makes Henry Cabot Lodge the new Gerald Ford. By some theories, Lodge cost Nixon the election by pledging, unauthorised, to include at least one African-American in the Cabinet, thus losing votes in the South, so... the Civil Rights Act, or some form of it, might have passed around 1967, but similarly it might have taken a Democrat President from 1968 to pass it.

My guess is that Vietnam and the Civil Rights Act would have still happened, but in the longer term, the Reagan Presidency might have got lost in the shuffle. If Lodge passed the CRA, then the modern perceptions of the two parties might have swapped. That said, some form of Reaganomics, or else a Libertarian platform of some kind, would most likely have arisen around 1976, due to the economic issues brought about by the oil shock of 1973 and Watergate causing a loss of trust in government. The Civil Rights era and the Keynesian consensus might, if anything, have died a little earlier.

(click to show/hide)

*is misleadingly named, because the tour went to Australia and NZ in 1965.

Of course, all that's assuming that Nixon didn't get assassinated like Kennedy did.