BQ78 said:

---

Here is an interesting counterfactual, if Zachry Taylor doesn't die in the summer of 1850 the Civil War kicks off that year. Texas would have started it by forcibly defending its claims to New Mexico. Taylor was planning to stop it by force personally when he died. Plus, Texas had pledged support from South Carolina and Mississippi.

---

That is interesting. I'm not sure though as it was Taylor who wanted to just compromise/hold the sections/didn't really push for slavery's expansion. It's not clear to me that he was planning to stop Texas by force, or that Texas really had an ability to control the parts of NM that became…NM/Colorado etc.

Quote:

---

As president, Taylor kept his distance from Congress and his Cabinet, even though partisan tensions threatened to divide the Union. Debate over the status of slavery in the Mexican Cession dominated the national political agenda and led to threats of secession from Southerners. Despite being a Southerner and a slaveholder himself, Taylor did not push for the expansion of slavery, and sought sectional harmony above all other concerns. To avoid the issue of slavery, he urged settlers in New Mexico and California to bypass the territorial stage and draft constitutions for statehood, setting the stage for the Compromise of 1850.

---

Arado, Horton and Junkers (going back to the other parts of the thread about large German aircraft/troop transport/bomber options) certainly had an ability to design/produce such aircraft. A tremendous amount of German airlift/paratroops were of course gratuitously killed/expended in the quest for Moscow/Stalingrad, though, certainly a vastly harder target (in the winter) vs. London, militarily.

[url=https://youtu.be/5uFNOtsucKE][/url]

fun article;

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20201104-the-intriguing-maps-that-reveal-alternate-histories

Taylor was ticked the compromise being proposed by Clay was different than what he proposed and included the Fugitive Slave Act (Clay also being a Whig). He had already given orders to the highest military commander in NM to fire on any Texan attempt to seize Santa Fe. Taylor seemed pretty belligerent about it all. He had promised never to veto a bill unless it was unlawful when he took office, yet a year later he said he would veto the omnibus Clay bill.

What if the Roman's never adopt Christianity?

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

What if the Roman's never adopt Christianity?

---

Marrying your sister would still be a thing!

Rabid Cougar said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

What if the Roman's never adopt Christianity?

---

Marrying your sister would still be a thing!

---

Would Christianity be the dominate religion of Europe and the West?

Started reading the thread and didn't realize it covered 6 years. But I did ready a NatGeo article this week about the German uboats in WWII and in particular during the Spring of 1943. The article went through how close Germans were to cutting off the Britain supply lines but by May of 1943 the tide had turned to the good guys. Will try and add a link.

This is not the article but discusses the time period. I consider myself a history centric person, but had never paid much attention to this time period from WWII.

https://www.history.navy.mil/about-us/leadership/director/directors-corner/h-grams/h-gram-019/h-019-4.html

Kind of cool thread:

2) In WW II, it was President Truman's order to drop the atomic bombs on Japan, essentially the last shot in that war (though some Japanese units held out in China, the Philippines, and elsewhere for a while).

3) Symbolically, Truman fired the shots ending both wars.

— Larry Schweikart (@LarrySchweikart) November 11, 2023

5) FDR's gun did not have the range, but was on a trajectory which, if he'd had a couple of miles, would have hit in the vicinity of a German field hospital. . .

6) where a German Corporal Adolf Hitler was recuperating from a wound. Another irony of history that . . .

— Larry Schweikart (@LarrySchweikart) November 11, 2023

7) contd . . . from Kansas doing the same detail. A guy named Walter.

8) Walt Disney.

— Larry Schweikart (@LarrySchweikart) November 11, 2023

Go back in time with one company of Green Berets to the year 76 AD in Judea.

demolish a few Roman Legions.

Jews take over the world rather than being decimated and expelled from Jerusalem.

Alternate history pretty well done as to 'what if' the Germans had won vs. the Russians.

I still like the idea of an A-10 showing up at the Alamo just in the nick of time.

one safe place said:

---

I still like the idea of an A-10 showing up at the Alamo just in the nick of time.

---

Not to be thread police, but what-ifs are usually based on something that really could happen - like Hitler doesn't invade Russia.

Probably already posted but don't feel like searching, but what if the Japanese and Germans coordinated Operation Barbarosa and struck Russia simultaneously at the same time.

JABQ04 said:

---

Probably already posted but don't feel like searching, but what if the Japanese and Germans coordinated Operation Barbarosa and struck Russia simultaneously at the same time.

---

That is an interesting one. The main issue would likely still have been war material supplies for the Japanese. The oil and rubber embargo by the US would still have caused friction with us. However, as they say "don't bite off more than you can chew" - the Japanese attack in the east would have possibly been just enough to weaken the USSR so Hitler defeats them. Then with Russia out of the way, the US becomes the focus of both Japan and Germany.

Except the Soviets weren't going anywhere. They were already building industrial infrastructure east of the Urals and would have had millions of people still fighting. The idea that the Nazis could have ever pacified the Soviet Union is a joke.

The German offensive culminated outside of Moscow even before the Soviets brought troops from the Far East. The German drive was stopped by the combination of the fact that their logistics sucked - they had planned for an 8 week campaign which would destroy the Red Army west of the Dvina-Dniepr river line, IOW, west of Smolensk and Kyiv, and they were well past that in terms of both time and distance - the brutal losses they had already taken, the fact that they had vastly underestimated the size of the Red Army (pre-Barbarossa estimates put the Red Army at 200 division equivalents. Reality was 373.), it's ability to generate new forces, and the strength of Stalin's government.

Without the Siberian units, the Red Army probably wouldn't have been able to launch its December counter-offensive in front of Moscow. But the Wehrmacht would still have been stuck deep inside Russia, now fighting the kind of war of attrition (Materialschlacht) that the Germans always sought to avoid.

Japan declaring war on the USSR would have complicated at least some of the Lend-Lease transportation - no more putting stuff on Soviet flagged ships and sailing them across the Pacific to Vladivostok.

Here's an interesting, somewhat related what-if: What if Hitler didn't declare war on the US? That certainly throws a curveball at the Anglo-American 'Germany first' strategy.

These might already be in this thread somewhere, but…

What if Ghenghis Khan didn't die when he did and the Mongols invaded Europe at the height of their power.

What if Europe tried to conquer the America's, but European diseases weren't a factor and those American societies were able to resist at full population.

What if the Byzantine - Sasanian War of 602 - 628 had never happened? Without this war, the Arab conquests (632-on) would have run into a strong Persia and Byzantium instead of mutually weakened states and Islam may have never made it out of the desert.

jwoodmd said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Except the Soviets weren't going anywhere. They were already building industrial infrastructure east of the Urals and would have had millions of people still fighting. The idea that the Nazis could have ever pacified the Soviet Union is a joke.

---

But the Urals would have been squeezed between the Germans and the Japanese. Almost 50% of aluminum for Russian industrial needs was supplied by the US. The routes for getting the materials there would have been severed. Yes, the Soviets keep fighting and not all the territory would be conquered but they would could have been effectively knocked down to just maintaining a defensive guerilla type war.

---

You're grossly overestimating the strength of the Nazis and Imperial Japan in material and personnel. Japan was already stretched to the limits in Southeast Asia. The idea that they could turn around and launch a massive invasion of Russia while holding and protecting their existing empire is extremely far fetched.

this is a great thread...!!!

Interesting question;



This whole series (History Undone) is great, but I bet we get some interesting feedback/discussion on this one around Gettysburg in particular:



Spoiler, they get around to discussing post-civil war slavery likely ending due to pressure from England etc. around the 40 minute mark. I hadn't seen a British discussion of alternate history to the civil war as such previously. Anyway, they also have another one speculating what happens if Lincoln survives assassination.

Sapper Redux said:

---

jwoodmd said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Except the Soviets weren't going anywhere. They were already building industrial infrastructure east of the Urals and would have had millions of people still fighting. The idea that the Nazis could have ever pacified the Soviet Union is a joke.

---

But the Urals would have been squeezed between the Germans and the Japanese. Almost 50% of aluminum for Russian industrial needs was supplied by the US. The routes for getting the materials there would have been severed. Yes, the Soviets keep fighting and not all the territory would be conquered but they would could have been effectively knocked down to just maintaining a defensive guerilla type war.

---

You're grossly overestimating the strength of the Nazis and Imperial Japan in material and personnel. Japan was already stretched to the limits in Southeast Asia. The idea that they could turn around and launch a massive invasion of Russia while holding and protecting their existing empire is extremely far fetched.

---

To be fair, in June 1941, Japan hadn't invaded or occupied any of SE Asia yet, except part of French Indochina.

That being said, the IJA had said in mid-1941 that unless Red Army force levels opposite Manchuria dropped below certain levels by September, an invasion of Siberia was a bad idea. Soviet force levels did not reach that level, even by September. I don't have the page reference right now, but you can find it in Richard Frank's Tower of Skulls.

But let's just say they do it anyway, on the idea that the Soviets will have to draw troops away to deal with the greater threat of Germany. They would probably get slammed with a full oil and metal embargo, plus asset freeze, by the US, and even sooner. Which means they still need to go into the Dutch East Indies for oil, tin, aluminum, etc. Except now they've got even fewer army troops to do it with, because a huge chunk of the IJA is stuck fighting in Siberia.

Smeghead4761 said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

jwoodmd said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Except the Soviets weren't going anywhere. They were already building industrial infrastructure east of the Urals and would have had millions of people still fighting. The idea that the Nazis could have ever pacified the Soviet Union is a joke.

---

But the Urals would have been squeezed between the Germans and the Japanese. Almost 50% of aluminum for Russian industrial needs was supplied by the US. The routes for getting the materials there would have been severed. Yes, the Soviets keep fighting and not all the territory would be conquered but they would could have been effectively knocked down to just maintaining a defensive guerilla type war.

---

You're grossly overestimating the strength of the Nazis and Imperial Japan in material and personnel. Japan was already stretched to the limits in Southeast Asia. The idea that they could turn around and launch a massive invasion of Russia while holding and protecting their existing empire is extremely far fetched.

---

To be fair, in June 1941, Japan hadn't invaded or occupied any of SE Asia yet, except part of French Indochina.

That being said, the IJA had said in mid-1941 that unless Red Army force levels opposite Manchuria dropped below certain levels by September, an invasion of Siberia was a bad idea. Soviet force levels did not reach that level, even by September. I don't have the page reference right now, but you can find it in Richard Frank's Tower of Skulls.

But let's just say they do it anyway, on the idea that the Soviets will have to draw troops away to deal with the greater threat of Germany. They would probably get slammed with a full oil and metal embargo, plus asset freeze, by the US, and even sooner. Which means they still need to go into the Dutch East Indies for oil, tin, aluminum, etc. Except now they've got even fewer army troops to do it with, because a huge chunk of the IJA is stuck fighting in Siberia.

---

Would we have declared war if Japan went into Dutch East Indies? Lets say they only attack European colonies, not any US colonies or territories? Do we declare war, I don't think so.

the eastern push by Japan to occupy those territories didn't bring them anything but gigantic area to defend and bunch of people to feed.

I guess the Philippians was their biggest issue, in theory i guess we could have tried to blockade shipping, but could we or would we?

JABQ04 said:

---

Probably already posted but don't feel like searching, but what if the Japanese and Germans coordinated Operation Barbarosa and struck Russia simultaneously at the same time.

---

My response from the first page:

Quote:

---

An interesting one that I have not put much thought into. Hmmm...From what I do know I imagine it would not have made a very large difference overall. Maybe. It would come down to timing. I believe there existed a very brief time frame where Russia, if under more pressure, may have buckled. Another front by a hardened enemy could have been just the thing to tip the scales. I think it would then come down to what kind of power Japan would have been able to project against Russia in 1941. They were absolutely bogged down in China and Korea at the same time. I am not aware of any meaningful Japanese power that could have been projected against Russia during that year. If you take the timing of Russia collapsing and the power of a Japanese force as sliding scales, I am sure that there is some point where both could line up however to have an appreciable outcome on the war.

---

In that time, I think my overall stance has changed to an overall no. Once Stalin "snapped" out of his funk and got his focus and mentality set, Japan would not have been able to contribute in any meaningful manner that would shape the war. They could cause a ruckus maybe and capture a few things along the coast but they would be even less prepared to go deep into Russia than Germany was. There is no way they could commit to the war in China, occupation of Korea, a NEW war against the eastern vastness of Russia, AND prepare for the upcoming war against the Allies. Their ability to project anything of note against Russia in that timeline, I just don't see happening. Period. I think I was alluding in my earlier response to that very early first week or so that could possibly make Stalin crack mentally and do something crazy like surrender out of hand?

The one caveat to that above, is an indefinite hiatus to their December southern Pacific campaign. And even then, still a hard question mark in my mind.

Hubert J. Farnsworth said:

---

Everyone loves talking about WW2, but I feel like the result of WW1 had a much larger effect on the last 100 years. My favorite what if is what if the US stayed out of WW1? The French were ready to quit and I feel like the central powers would have pulled it off had the US not gotten involved. How long do the empires last if the central powers pull it off and how different does the middle east look?

---

Dies Hitler rise to power in that scenerio?

Not specifically wartime, but wars were certainly fought over it. What if Isabella I doesn't marry Ferdinand due to any number of reasons, and thus the thrones of Castile and Aragon aren't united. Does it happen later? Is there a "Spain" today?

Any a second part, what if the Habsburgs somehow managed to keep their lands at the height of Charles V as a unified holding. Not even talking about the HRE, but just the direct holdings such as Austria, Bohemia, Hungary, Milan, Naples, Sicily, Sardinia, Spain, and the various areas that were left of Burgundian territories. No doubt it would have been incredibly difficult, but I think its an interesting what if.

My boss at work is convinced that if the Germans had an actual armor component during the Schliemann Plan of WW1 then they would have won. No Nazis, no Second World War, maybe even no Soviet Russia, severely delayed atomic research, and delayed space programs. He thinks we'd be living in the equivalent of the 1960/70s today.

Aside from the fact that WWI tanks were extremely slow - top speed was basically walking speed - an enormously mechanically unreliable - they needed to be transported to somewhere very close to their jumping off point, and would generally break down within a few miles, certainly within 50 - that might be true.

Of course, nobody had tanks in 1914. They were specifically created to try to overcome the specific problems of trench warfare as it existed on the Western Front in WWI.

Also, the only tank the Germans managed to make by the end of 1918 was crap.

What your boss is imagining is WWII Panzers in 1914. IOW, Manstein's plan from 1940.

Dynamic Pinto Beans said:

---

My boss at work is convinced that if the Germans had an actual armor component during the Schliemann Plan of WW1 then they would have won. No Nazis, no Second World War, maybe even no Soviet Russia, severely delayed atomic research, and delayed space programs. He thinks we'd be living in the equivalent of the 1960/70s today.

---

Not specifically limited to armor, but if Moltke hadn't panicked and transferred 3 whole corps to Prussia (where much of the upper German officer corps was from) after the battle of Tannenburg, and instead focused on taking Paris quickly per the actual Schlieffen plan/doctrine (always strengthen the hammer), yes, history would likely have been…much less bloody, in any case.

The German plan specifically favored mobile warfare, which made sense from their perspective:

Quote:

---

It reflected the traditional German preference for mobile warfare (Bewegungskrieg), which favored superior German tactics, rather than a static war of attrition (Stellungskrieg) that could only favor their numerically superior opponents.

---

Tanks of the (slightly later) day would have only slowed them down, substantially, and their plans were actually coordinated down to the minute. Fun fact: Moltke's father ('the elder') was in many ways the precursor to Schlieffen in such plans/thoughts. Dan Carlin's series of course on this is absolutely great.

Smeghead4761 said:

---

Aside from the fact that WWI tanks were extremely slow - top speed was basically walking speed - an enormously mechanically unreliable - they needed to be transported to somewhere very close to their jumping off point, and would generally break down within a few miles, certainly within 50 - that might be true.

Of course, nobody had tanks in 1914. They were specifically created to try to overcome the specific problems of trench warfare as it existed on the Western Front in WWI.

Also, the only tank the Germans managed to make by the end of 1918 was crap.

What your boss is imagining is WWII Panzers in 1914. IOW, Manstein's plan from 1940.

---

I visited the Tank Museum in Bovington, UK this summer and they have a collection of WWI tanks on display

ABATTBQ87 said:

---

Smeghead4761 said:

---

Aside from the fact that WWI tanks were extremely slow - top speed was basically walking speed - an enormously mechanically unreliable - they needed to be transported to somewhere very close to their jumping off point, and would generally break down within a few miles, certainly within 50 - that might be true.

Of course, nobody had tanks in 1914. They were specifically created to try to overcome the specific problems of trench warfare as it existed on the Western Front in WWI.

Also, the only tank the Germans managed to make by the end of 1918 was crap.

What your boss is imagining is WWII Panzers in 1914. IOW, Manstein's plan from 1940.

---

I visited the Tank Museum in Bovington, UK this summer and they have a collection of WWI tanks on display

---

I didn't say there weren't tanks in WWI, there were. But they didn't show up until 1917, two and a half years into the war.

In August of 1914, there were no tanks. The poster I was referring to was talking about using tanks in the Schlieffen plan.

Smeghead4761 said:

---

ABATTBQ87 said:

---

Smeghead4761 said:

---

Aside from the fact that WWI tanks were extremely slow - top speed was basically walking speed - an enormously mechanically unreliable - they needed to be transported to somewhere very close to their jumping off point, and would generally break down within a few miles, certainly within 50 - that might be true.

Of course, nobody had tanks in 1914. They were specifically created to try to overcome the specific problems of trench warfare as it existed on the Western Front in WWI.

Also, the only tank the Germans managed to make by the end of 1918 was crap.

What your boss is imagining is WWII Panzers in 1914. IOW, Manstein's plan from 1940.

---

I visited the Tank Museum in Bovington, UK this summer and they have a collection of WWI tanks on display

---

I didn't say there weren't tanks in WWI, there were. But they didn't show up until 1917, two and a half years into the war.

In August of 1914, there were no tanks. The poster I was referring to was talking about using tanks in the Schlieffen plan.

---

I was.just posting about the tank museum and their collection, not involved with yalls discussion

To piggyback off the WWI discussion, what if the UK never joined the Allies in WWI? They were prepared to look the other way if Germany only went through a small portion of Belgium at one point.

There could be a discussion it was actually a mistake for the UK to enter WW1 as that was when they started to lose their world power status for many reasons associated with that war.