Not a war time what-if but let's say Washington runs for a third term as President and dies in office. Does the Republic sustain such a loss?

Smokedraw01 said:

---

Not a war time what-if but let's say Washington runs for a third term as President and dies in office. Does the Republic sustain such a loss?

---

Interesting. It depends on who his Vice President would have been in 1796, I think. Had it been an Adams, Jefferson, or someone with that kind of gravitas, then it likely would have been fairly seamless a transition. Had it been Hamilton, his Reynolds affair scandal was revealed in 1797 would have lead to massive upheaval at the highest levels of the Republic. The death of Washington on the heels of that might have caused major problems.

Belton Ag said:

---

Smokedraw01 said:

---

Not a war time what-if but let's say Washington runs for a third term as President and dies in office. Does the Republic sustain such a loss?

---

Interesting. It depends on who his Vice President would have been in 1796, I think. Had it been an Adams, Jefferson, or someone with that kind of gravitas, then it likely would have been fairly seamless a transition. Had it been Hamilton, his Reynolds affair scandal was revealed in 1797 would have lead to massive upheaval at the highest levels of the Republic. The death of Washington on the heels of that might have caused major problems.

---

I don't see how Adams could have been the VP over Jefferson, especially with the D-R machine behind him. Hamilton and Adams still had a decent relationship, so maybe he could have gotten Adams the VP slot.

Smokedraw01 said:

---

Belton Ag said:

---

Smokedraw01 said:

---

Not a war time what-if but let's say Washington runs for a third term as President and dies in office. Does the Republic sustain such a loss?

---

Interesting. It depends on who his Vice President would have been in 1796, I think. Had it been an Adams, Jefferson, or someone with that kind of gravitas, then it likely would have been fairly seamless a transition. Had it been Hamilton, his Reynolds affair scandal was revealed in 1797 would have lead to massive upheaval at the highest levels of the Republic. The death of Washington on the heels of that might have caused major problems.

---

I don't see how Adams could have been the VP over Jefferson, especially with the D-R machine behind him. Hamilton and Adams still had a decent relationship, so maybe he could have gotten Adams the VP slot.

---

If Adams was not the VP, then It would have been because he declined to run, he famously hated the office of VP. Hamilton's machinations behind the scenes in 1796 nearly cost Adams his shot at President, and was the reason for the split between the two.

titan said:

---

For WW II at sea? If favorite scenario means simply: one where you have the most likelihood to really change things,it might be these:

For the Atlantic: What if Captain Topp's pleading to let Tirptiz go ahead and sail with sister-battleship Bismarck even though had not completed shake-down had been granted. (His instincts were correct--the USN, Royal Navy, and IJN all would rush a new ship into action if needed and it usually worked out okay) If you have both Bismarck-class battleships and two cruisers (Hipper would likely have joined Tirpitz in turn) you have a really different sequence of events in May 1941 most likely. It took almost the whole available British fleet in the area to run down Bismarck -- with Tirpitz with her her, all bets are off.

For the Pacific:
What if Yamamoto listens to the Army and Hara and Takagi and cancels Midway in favor of making Coral Sea II the next grand carrier battle. It is somewhat doubtful it would fail a second time with the logistics more available there. Close second --- Yamamoto commits the super-battleships and real punch of the surface fleet to the naval battles of Guadalcanal --- that campaign really decided the rest of the war at sea in the Pacific and it was possible to lose there --it was a narrow thing.

---

Couldn't agree more on the Atlantic side. I had one enter my mind after talking with my 12 year old - what if Germany were able to build a carrier group or two and head out west and take the Azores and Bermuda. Then set up positions to begin aerial operations on US soil. Not that all of the east coast was reachable and the sea lane to UK would remain relatively untouched, but it would have wildly shifted the balance of US sea power to both seas. Combine the battleships into an Uber unit and start island hopping to a refill / logistics point. Set up a radar outpost and Bermuda is defendable. Until the US brings in several carrier groups. I don't think it would have lasted the duration, but what are the odds is severely hampers pacific operations and drives more US AirPower to remain CONUS?
And how much would have Japan benefitted from several carrier groups less to deal with. And how aggressive could we have been in island hopping both by the army and marines.

Hitler doesn't attack Russia. Does Russia backstab Hitler and attack Germany themselves?

I know this is a fairly talked about topic but haven't been able to dredge up some solid evidence to point what would happen if this scenario occurred. Hitler not attacking first I mean.

Also, would widespread chemical warfare have changed WW2 at all ya think? Tactically and strategically?

Eliminatus said:

---

Hitler doesn't attack Russia. Does Russia backstab Hitler and attack Germany themselves?

I know this is a fairly talked about topic but haven't been able to dredge up some solid evidence to point what would happen if this scenario occurred. Hitler not attacking first I mean.

Also, would widespread chemical warfare have changed WW2 at all ya think? Tactically and strategically?

---

Hitler has to attack the USSR. They were enemy number one against his regime.

I agree. Stalin bought into the Soviet/Nazi non-aggression treaty hard core. iIRC he was straight up stunned on June 22,1941.

JABQ04 said:

---

I agree. Stalin bought into the Soviet/Nazi non-aggression treaty hard core. iIRC he was straight up stunned on June 22,1941.

---

He refused to get out of bed for several days.

Had Hitler been able to convince Japan to stick to their border conflict and not sign the neutrality pact with Russia just prior to Operation Barbarossa, it would have tied up a significant portion of the Red Army in the East. The Soviets had spent a decade dealing with the Japanese threat after Japan invaded Manchuria and Mongolia and Stalin was terrified of a Japanese invasion.

The Nazis still wouldn't have been able to pull off Operation Barbarossa, but they'd have gotten much closer. A few tweaks of that plan, plus the looming threat of Japan, and it could have been a vastly different war.

Smokedraw01 said:

---

Eliminatus said:

---

Hitler doesn't attack Russia. Does Russia backstab Hitler and attack Germany themselves?

I know this is a fairly talked about topic but haven't been able to dredge up some solid evidence to point what would happen if this scenario occurred. Hitler not attacking first I mean.

Also, would widespread chemical warfare have changed WW2 at all ya think? Tactically and strategically?

---

Hitler has to attack the USSR. They were enemy number one against his regime.

---

Further, they were dramatically out producing him in war materials and men. He had to do it or be swamped.

Belton Ag said:

---

Had Hitler been able to convince Japan to stick to their border conflict and not sign the neutrality pact with Russia just prior to Operation Barbarossa, it would have tied up a significant portion of the Red Army in the East. The Soviets had spent a decade dealing with the Japanese threat after Japan invaded Manchuria and Mongolia and Stalin was terrified of a Japanese invasion.

The Nazis still wouldn't have been able to pull off Operation Barbarossa, but they'd have gotten much closer. A few tweaks of that plan, plus the looming threat of Japan, and it could have been a vastly different war.

---

Great point. Another dynamic I always think about.

If Germany and Japan had actually collaborated to any real extent, one would have to think it would have made a lot of difference. Maybe not swing the war around but give the Axis a better chance at least. Spent some time last week actually trying to learn about the Germany-Japan relationship on the tactical and strategic level. Pretty much amounted to a fat "not a hell of a whole lot". But didn't get far either.

Anyone know of some good resources I can look at for that area of interest?

kubiak03 said:

---

I'm no World War Two scholar but am an avid reader on the subject, so maybe I'm totally wrong.

It seems to me Stalin would have been content to sit on the sidelines for a few more years if not indefinitely.

Stalin didn't really say a peep or react negatively when the Germans did their balkans campaign and that was right on the USSR's doorstep and opened up a another major invasion into Russia.

He was more concerned about keeping his power and not so much spreading the revolution. I don't think he ever bought into the revolution per say, just the power it allowed him to amass.


Here Is mine, what if the Germans/Italians went for Malta at the beginning before the invasion of Crete mess and instead of the invasion of Russia, move those forces to North Africa.

---

Personally, with my finite knowledge, this is where I am at.

And the shift from Russia to Africa via all those isles, is an interesting take. Cementing down the southern front as it were, would have been a major change for sure. Very interesting. Opens up all sorts of follow on scenarios of course. Would have protected Italy so maybe Italy could have had a more lasting impact on the war?

Definitely the other side of the North Africa coin.

I'm more along the lines that no matter what hitler did, he was never going to conquer the soviets in a two front war. He needed to leave them alone for any chance of getting a victory.

I understand that would never have happened due to hitlers/nazi ideology but it's a fun what if.

The go south strategy in my big picture is to cut off the UK from their overseas empire/goods thus Causing the UK to take Hitlers deal, get out of the war and keep most of their empire. Then war is basically over for the Germans if they want it to be. Doubtful Stalin would go after a Germany that has just taken most of Europe and key strategic areas of the Middle East.

I don't have the info in front of me but the Germans sent a crazy small part of their forces to North Africa vs what was sent to Russia.

Until it was too late when they tried to reinforce Tunisia in the end.

A Civil War one recently reminded of is worth mentioning. What if the ironclads CSS Mississippi and Louisiana were operational (they nearly were) in time to defend New Orleans in April 1862? That sure changes many things if it doesn't fall so early. The whole Mississippi River campaign goes differently.

Eliminatus said:

---

Hitler doesn't attack Russia. Does Russia backstab Hitler and attack Germany themselves?

I know this is a fairly talked about topic but haven't been able to dredge up some solid evidence to point what would happen if this scenario occurred. Hitler not attacking first I mean.

Also, would widespread chemical warfare have changed WW2 at all ya think? Tactically and strategically?

---

Well, now that I know the level of intel that Russia had warning of the German attack, I am now convinced that Russia had no plans for an attack early 1941.

Stalin was absolutely terrified of any action against the Germans. I knew that was true to an extent but never to this depth. Crazy.

Well done video that answered my question. Been subbed to this channel for some time and recommend it for WW2 stuff. And Indy works another channel called The Great War that is also excellent covering WW1 stuff.

Not strictly a war-time what if, but definitely an interesting one, at least to me:

What if Texas had never became part of the United States, at least not in 1845 when it did?

(I will add the caveat here that, as much as Texans like to state that "Texas was its own country!", Texas petitioned to become a state almost as soon as they had achieved independence from Mexico. The only reason it took almost a decade to happen was U.S. internal politics specifically, free state vs slave state politics, and political balance. A treaty of annexation couldn't get the needed 2/3s approval in the Senate, because the free states voted against it and they had enough votes to kill it. Texas was finally admitted by a simple majority vote on a (Constitutionally suspect) joint resolution of Congress in the waning days of the Tyler administration. Such a resolution was not subject to the 2/3s Senate vote requirement, not could it be stopped by filibuster in the Senate. So the United States basically just said "Texas is a state now" and Texas went along with it.)

So, suppose that Congress is stuck to trying to push through an actual treaty, and they couldn't get it done. It's 1845, and Texas continues to exist as an independent nation which allows slavery. It is recognized as an independent country by the U.S., England, and France, but NOT by Mexico. (Santa Anna was El Jefe Supremo when he marched north to bring the Texans to heel, but he had been removed from that status by the folks left behind in Mexico City, and said government never recognized him as having the authority to sign a peace treaty.)

If Texas doesn't become part of the U.S., the initiating incident for the Mexican-American War the dispute over where the border is doesn't happen. Texas and Mexico still disagree over the Neuces vs the Rio Grande, but they're not fighting over it. The government in Mexico City continues to regard Texas as a rebellious province that isn't paying its taxes, but they still consider it part of Mexico. They haven't made any attempt to re-assert or restore their authority north of the Rio Grande since Santa Anna was defeated at San Jacinto. So there's an uneasy status quo between Texas and Mexico, with Texas de facto independent, but Mexico not acknowledging that fact. Kind of like the PRC and Taiwan.

So, would the Mexican-American War happen? I would say yes, it would just start in a different place, and thus look somewhat different.

In 1848, or maybe 1849, gold is probably still going to be found at Sutter's Mill, or somewhere nearby in California. Once that happens, hordes of Americans are going to descend on northern California as gold fever takes hold. And John C. Fremont, or someone like him, will probably be in and among them, with a wink and a nod from the U.S. Government, to try to stir up all those Americans to revolt against Mexico, just as he was in 1846. Once that happens, the U.S. Government is going to support them in that revolt, and that revolt is going to succeed, because northern California is just too far away from the major population centers of Mexico, and too sparsely populated with actual Mexicans, for the government in Mexico City to do much about it. Even more so if the U.S. Navy is roaming the coast, providing assistance to the rebels.

Now, the U.S. had been trying to acquire ALL of California from Mexico for several years at that point, without success, so if and when the U.S. gets involved in the California independence war, they're going to most likely try to take southern California as well, and they'll probably succeed, for much the same reasons as in northern California.

At this point, you might well end up with a similar situation as pertained in the Mexican-American war as it actually happened. The Mexican government will have lost control of big chunks of territory, territory which the U.S. wants to annex. And the Mexican government in Mexico City will still refuse to concede that loss of territory, and to negotiate any end to the war which involves ceding said territory to the U.S. At which point the U.S. will have to escalate the war, probably by marching on Mexico City the way Scott did in actual history, or settle into a perpetual low intensity conflict where the U.S. controls the territory, Mexico refuses to acknowledge that control, but lacks the power to do anything about it.

So, if the Scott marches on Mexico City, and captures it, and Mexico is thusly coerced into 'selling' the territories of Alta California and Neuvo Mexico, well, now there's another problem. Because a big chunk of the territory which Mexico calls New Mexico is also claimed by Texas. And the U.S. has, at least up until that point, recognized Texas' claim to the land. So does the U.S. maintain the consistent position, that the land on the left bank of the Rio Grande belongs to Texas, or does the U.S. change tack and now assert that the land is part of New Mexico, and thus now belongs to the U.S.? (I will note that, despite Texas' claims, Texas did not exert any actual authority in most of that area, especially in El Paso and Santa Fe, the territorial capital. The government of both was entirely Mexican.) The U.S. might well have a better de facto claim to the land than Texas, if U.S. troops had captured Santa Fe and El Paso while fighting Mexico. (The U.S. troops under Kearny and Doniphan that captured Santa Fe and El Paso marched originally from Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, via the Santa Fe Trail, not Texas.)


So would the U.S. end up fighting a war with Texas over New Mexico? And what would this mean for the coming American Civil War?

dcbowers said:

---

What if Sam Houston and the Texians had gotten decimated by Santa Anna at San Jacinto?

We'd all be speaking Spanish, for one.

---

What if we would have won at the Alamo? Texas would probably still be part of Mexico. Independence may have not been declared by time of the victory and I would have to assume a Santa Anna army that badly damaged would have been overthrown by other enemies in Mexico City.

I have a hard time with that "what if" when you just skip over how the 200 texians defeated 2000 mexicans. I also don't think that losing the alamo would have been the end of Santa Anna. He lost Texas at San Jac and stayed relevant and in power for another 20yrs (and that included another war where he lost massive land to the USA).

My favorite is what if Caesar hadn't been killed, or alternatively if Alexander's hoplites hadn't refused to continue to march after the battle of the Hydaspes, east toward/thru India/China.

I do think Alexander had gotten reckless at that point (a la napoleon), and the Malian arrow he took might have contributed to his sudden later death. As with many military commanders in history, I'm suspicious he might have developed some sort of substance abuse issue by then.

TheFirebird said:

---

Smokedraw01 said:

---

What if Truman uses the a-bomb against Chinese targets during the Korean War?

---

The United States would have become a pariah nation and very possibly would have been unable to hold together the Transatlantic Alliance (plus Australia, New Zealand and a few others). Probably earth-shattering political implications on the home front. A massive propaganda and political victory for the Soviet Union that would have likely gained some official allies and certainly would have swayed a much larger bloc into "unaligned/leaning red." Basically the textbook example of "Pyrrhic Victory."

---

I wonder if the USSR would have struck back at American allies in retaliation?

TheFirebird said:

---

Smokedraw01 said:

---

What if Truman uses the a-bomb against Chinese targets during the Korean War?

---

The United States would have become a pariah nation and very possibly would have been unable to hold together the Transatlantic Alliance (plus Australia, New Zealand and a few others). Probably earth-shattering political implications on the home front. A massive propaganda and political victory for the Soviet Union that would have likely gained some official allies and certainly would have swayed a much larger bloc into "unaligned/leaning red." Basically the textbook example of "Pyrrhic Victory."

---

maybe, maybe not. we certainly maintained the high ground despite our strategic bombing retaliation campaign and first use of nukes.

(and rightly so, IMO)

i think the true equation is more cost-benefit. if nukes would have effectively given battlefield victory, we might have used them tactically. however, their usefulness in the korean conflict, or ability to deliver victory, is doubtful. also, by that time, russia had a nuke deterrent.

titan said:

---

A Civil War one recently reminded of is worth mentioning. What if the ironclads CSS Mississippi and Louisiana were operational (they nearly were) in time to defend New Orleans in April 1862? That sure changes many things if it doesn't fall so early. The whole Mississippi River campaign goes differently.

---

Do you think that would have had an appreciable difference on the final outcome of the ACW? Tactically, I think it would have made a difference obviously but I still wonder if it would have been "enough" to actually matter in the end.

Eliminatus said:

---

titan said:

---

A Civil War one recently reminded of is worth mentioning. What if the ironclads CSS Mississippi and Louisiana were operational (they nearly were) in time to defend New Orleans in April 1862? That sure changes many things if it doesn't fall so early. The whole Mississippi River campaign goes differently.

---

Do you think that would have had an appreciable difference on the final outcome of the ACW? Tactically, I think it would have made a difference obviously but I still wonder if it would have been "enough" to actually matter in the end.

---

You could go the other direction as well...what if Farragut had brought enough troops with him to garrison New Orleans, and take a few thousand upriver? After the capture of New Orleans, Farragut sailed upriver as far as Vicksburg - which, in mid-1862, was lightly garrisoned and almost unfortified. Farragut had no troops to take advantage of the opportunity - he brought Gen. Butler and 10,000 to New Orleans, but it required every last one of them to control the city.

If McClellan had given Farragut another 5,000 or so troops, the Union might have captured Vicksburg in 1862 instead of 1863.

Of course, that would have meant no brilliant Vicksburg campaign for Grant. Maybe instead he would have gone up the Tennessee River to Chattanooga, and cut the more westerly of the two major rail routes from Atlanta to Richmond. (Again, a year or so earlier than it actually occurrred.)

What if the Democrats won the election of 1960. No Civil War, freedom of the slaves put on hold for who knows how long. Lincoln just an answer to a trivia question. Somewhere in the neighborhood of a half a million lives saved.

aggiejim70 said:

---

What if the Democrats won the election of 1960. No Civil War, freedom of the slaves put on hold for who knows how long. Lincoln just an answer to a trivia question. Somewhere in the neighborhood of a half a million lives saved.

---

I dont think the answer to that is as simple as they would have "moved on" from the issue. The dominos were leading to war. Unless a leader steps in that could have lead to a peaceful resolution, the issue and the tension it caused would have remained.