Whats your favorite what-if wartime scenario?

76,563 Views | 365 Replies | Last: 1 day ago by Tanker123
coupland boy
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Smeghead4761 • 9:42p, 8/10/21
AG
Good points about the deaths in occupied lands.

Even if you discount all those very good arguments, I just find it hard to abide the idea that you shouldn't, first and foremost, look out for your own in a bloody war with an enemy that proved itself to be quite cruel. It's easy to make that argument from the comfort of decades removed from that conflict.
Reply Quote
8
Smeghead4761
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to coupland boy • 7:50p, 8/11/21
The main arguments that the Bomb was unnecessary come from the so-called 'Atomic Diplomacy' school. They argue that, because the U.S. was reading Japanese diplomatic codes (Magic), we knew that Japan was ready to surrender, evidenced by feelers made by Japan to Russia, hoping for Russia to act as a go-between. Since we knew Japan was ready to surrender (they weren't; I'll get to that in a second), then the primary reason for using the Bombs was as a deterrent to the Soviets.

This has all be thoroughly debunked since the Ultra intercepts started being declassified in the late 1990s.

Now, as I said before, the Japanese had already publicly stated that the Potsdam terms were unacceptable. What they were attempting to do was enlist Russia as a go-between to negotiate and end to hostilities on terms acceptable to Japan. However, they hadn't even gotten to the point of offering the Soviets anything concrete to act as go-betweens, something which their ambassador in Moscow pointed out to the Foreign Ministry more than once - and which was read by U.S. code breakers.

And Japan's terms weren't anything close to acceptable to the U.S.. Off the top of my head, I can recall things like Japan tries its own war criminals (i.e., select a few pawns to sacrifice, all of whom commit suicide before trial), demobilize her own military (not disarm - demobilize), and, IIRC, maintain their client states in Korea and Manchuria.

Not surrender. Negotiated end to hostilities. Big difference. And the terms weren't even close to acceptable.
Reply Quote
8
Eliminatus
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:25a, 1/4/22
AG
Was talking to someone about how important the American effort to WW2 was and focused on pre Pearl Harbor and the couple of months immediately afterwards. Specifically Lend-Lease.

I think we all know LL was very important and even critical. But HOW critical do y'all think it was? Especially in '40 and '41? Would that have been a single change that could have swayed the war if it didn't exist?
Reply Quote
Ghost of Andrew Eaton
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:01a, 1/4/22
Let's say the Germans have two atomic bombs in January of 1944. Where do they use those two bombs?
If you say you hate the state of politics in this nation and you don't get involved in it, you obviously don't hate the state of politics in this nation.
Reply Quote
CanyonAg77
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Ghost of Andrew Eaton • 11:18a, 1/4/22
AG
Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:
Let's say the Germans have two atomic bombs in January of 1944. Where do they use those two bombs?

London, then hold one in reserve for the invasion fleet.
Reply Quote
2
1 edit
Eliminatus
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:22a, 1/4/22
AG
If considering a 100% success chance, just picking a place and make it go boom, Moscow definitely goes first. Hold other in reserve until reactions are analysed. If nothing changes, there goes London.

Also assuming no Allies know of the finite number of them.
Reply Quote
4
CanyonAg77
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Eliminatus • 11:46a, 1/4/22
AG
Eliminatus said:
If considering a 100% success chance, just picking a place and make it go boom, Moscow definitely goes first. Hold other in reserve until reactions are analysed. If nothing changes, there goes London.

Also assuming no Allies know of the finite number of them.

Good point. Lots more Germans dying in Russia. Second warhead might have been on Stalingrad, just for revenge, or more likely, on Soviet armies advancing through Ukraine.

As to the number of nukes, we were somewhat in the same position. I believe we had three total warheads at the time of Hiroshima, and the capability of producing one a month. The bottleneck was the production of the nuclear materials.

After Nagasaki, the Japanese still didn't immediately surrender. The third warhead was sent out from Los Alamos, headed to the Pacific. When the plane landed on the West Coast, negotiations had begun, and it was stopped there.
Reply Quote
Ghost of Andrew Eaton
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to CanyonAg77 • 12:15p, 1/4/22
CanyonAg77 said:
Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:
Let's say the Germans have two atomic bombs in January of 1944. Where do they use those two bombs?

London, then hold one in reserve for the invasion fleet.
Does London really solve their problem though? The Russians are moving west and nothing the Germans have done has stopped them.
If you say you hate the state of politics in this nation and you don't get involved in it, you obviously don't hate the state of politics in this nation.
Reply Quote
Smeghead4761
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Eliminatus • 1:19p, 1/4/22
Eliminatus said:
If considering a 100% success chance, just picking a place and make it go boom, Moscow definitely goes first. Hold other in reserve until reactions are analysed. If nothing changes, there goes London.

Also assuming no Allies know of the finite number of them.
Any discussion of targets like Moscow or London assumes that they have an aircraft capable of delivering a WWII era A-bomb, which they didn't. (To be fair, in January 1944, the USAAF didn't either - the B-29 didn't enter service until May 1944.)

The smaller of the two American bombs, Little Boy, weighed 4,400 kg. In theory, the FW-200 Condor could carry up to 5,400 kg of bombs, but that required the use of underwing bomb racks - the internal bay could only handle a max of 1,000 kg. Even if the bomb bay could be reconfigured to handle something the size and weight of of Little Boy (very iffy, given the size of the bomb), the max takeoff weight only allows for roughly 5,700 kgs of crew, weapons, fuel, and payload - and you've just taken up 4,400 kgs of that with the Bomb. You're probably not going to have enough fuel to reach Moscow unless it's one-way mission. London, maybe - much closer target to available airfields.

The best bet for employment would probably be to camouflage it on the ground somewhere in the path of the Red Army's winter offensive, and then use tactical withdrawals to lure as many Soviet troops as possible into the expected blast zone. Even then, you'd probably need a stay-behind SS fanatic to detonate it.
Reply Quote
4
Ghost of Andrew Eaton
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Smeghead4761 • 3:39p, 1/4/22
Langenator said:
Eliminatus said:
If considering a 100% success chance, just picking a place and make it go boom, Moscow definitely goes first. Hold other in reserve until reactions are analysed. If nothing changes, there goes London.

Also assuming no Allies know of the finite number of them.
Any discussion of targets like Moscow or London assumes that they have an aircraft capable of delivering a WWII era A-bomb, which they didn't. (To be fair, in January 1944, the USAAF didn't either - the B-29 didn't enter service until May 1944.)

The smaller of the two American bombs, Little Boy, weighed 4,400 kg. In theory, the FW-200 Condor could carry up to 5,400 kg of bombs, but that required the use of underwing bomb racks - the internal bay could only handle a max of 1,000 kg. Even if the bomb bay could be reconfigured to handle something the size and weight of of Little Boy (very iffy, given the size of the bomb), the max takeoff weight only allows for roughly 5,700 kgs of crew, weapons, fuel, and payload - and you've just taken up 4,400 kgs of that with the Bomb. You're probably not going to have enough fuel to reach Moscow unless it's one-way mission. London, maybe - much closer target to available airfields.

The best bet for employment would probably be to camouflage it on the ground somewhere in the path of the Red Army's winter offensive, and then use tactical withdrawals to lure as many Soviet troops as possible into the expected blast zone. Even then, you'd probably need a stay-behind SS fanatic to detonate it.
Would the German's be able to use the Black Sea to deliver a bomb to Stalingrad? I'm not all that familiar with what was going on in the Black Sea during the war.
If you say you hate the state of politics in this nation and you don't get involved in it, you obviously don't hate the state of politics in this nation.
Reply Quote
Old RV Ag
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Ghost of Andrew Eaton • 5:56p, 1/4/22
AG
Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:
Langenator said:
Eliminatus said:
If considering a 100% success chance, just picking a place and make it go boom, Moscow definitely goes first. Hold other in reserve until reactions are analysed. If nothing changes, there goes London.

Also assuming no Allies know of the finite number of them.
Any discussion of targets like Moscow or London assumes that they have an aircraft capable of delivering a WWII era A-bomb, which they didn't. (To be fair, in January 1944, the USAAF didn't either - the B-29 didn't enter service until May 1944.)

The smaller of the two American bombs, Little Boy, weighed 4,400 kg. In theory, the FW-200 Condor could carry up to 5,400 kg of bombs, but that required the use of underwing bomb racks - the internal bay could only handle a max of 1,000 kg. Even if the bomb bay could be reconfigured to handle something the size and weight of of Little Boy (very iffy, given the size of the bomb), the max takeoff weight only allows for roughly 5,700 kgs of crew, weapons, fuel, and payload - and you've just taken up 4,400 kgs of that with the Bomb. You're probably not going to have enough fuel to reach Moscow unless it's one-way mission. London, maybe - much closer target to available airfields.

The best bet for employment would probably be to camouflage it on the ground somewhere in the path of the Red Army's winter offensive, and then use tactical withdrawals to lure as many Soviet troops as possible into the expected blast zone. Even then, you'd probably need a stay-behind SS fanatic to detonate it.
Would the German's be able to use the Black Sea to deliver a bomb to Stalingrad? I'm not all that familiar with what was going on in the Black Sea during the war.
Why would you blow up rubble - there was nothing left of Stalingrad. Symbolic doesn't cut it in this case. There was a reason the US did not fire bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki (and the other original site). They needed a true showing.
Reply Quote
6
Smeghead4761
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Ghost of Andrew Eaton • 8:59p, 1/4/22
Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:
Langenator said:
Eliminatus said:
If considering a 100% success chance, just picking a place and make it go boom, Moscow definitely goes first. Hold other in reserve until reactions are analysed. If nothing changes, there goes London.

Also assuming no Allies know of the finite number of them.
Any discussion of targets like Moscow or London assumes that they have an aircraft capable of delivering a WWII era A-bomb, which they didn't. (To be fair, in January 1944, the USAAF didn't either - the B-29 didn't enter service until May 1944.)

The smaller of the two American bombs, Little Boy, weighed 4,400 kg. In theory, the FW-200 Condor could carry up to 5,400 kg of bombs, but that required the use of underwing bomb racks - the internal bay could only handle a max of 1,000 kg. Even if the bomb bay could be reconfigured to handle something the size and weight of of Little Boy (very iffy, given the size of the bomb), the max takeoff weight only allows for roughly 5,700 kgs of crew, weapons, fuel, and payload - and you've just taken up 4,400 kgs of that with the Bomb. You're probably not going to have enough fuel to reach Moscow unless it's one-way mission. London, maybe - much closer target to available airfields.

The best bet for employment would probably be to camouflage it on the ground somewhere in the path of the Red Army's winter offensive, and then use tactical withdrawals to lure as many Soviet troops as possible into the expected blast zone. Even then, you'd probably need a stay-behind SS fanatic to detonate it.
Would the German's be able to use the Black Sea to deliver a bomb to Stalingrad? I'm not all that familiar with what was going on in the Black Sea during the war.
Even if they could get the bomb across the Black Sea to Sevastapol (which the Germans held until May 1944) - an operation which would require entrusting the transport to ships of the Romanian navy, since I don't think the Kriegsmarine had any naval vessels in the Black Sea during the war - they'd still be left with the problem that getting the bomb anywhere behind Soviet lines would require an aerial delivery system which the Germans simply didn't have.

From a strategic point of view, it might make more sense to load the thing onto a long range U-boat and try to sail it around the world, sneak it into the harbor at Vladivostok and detonate it there, since a whole lot of Lend Lease supplies came in to the USSR that way. Again, it would probably have to be a suicide mission.

Now, if the Germans had developed the bomb in, say, early 1945, I can see them detonating it in the ruins of Berlin as the Red Army overran the city, as a kind of final F*** you to Stalin.
Reply Quote
YZ250
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:19a, 1/5/22
I can't imagine the Germans would develop a bomb and not come up with a way to deliver it. Those two things go hand in hand.
Reply Quote
5
BQ_90
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to YZ250 • 10:14a, 1/5/22
AG
YZ250 said:
I can't imagine the Germans would develop a bomb and not come up with a way to deliver it. Those two things go hand in hand.
the issue is range for the bombers they had.

It's not like we developed the B29 for the H bomb, we did because the b17s didn't have the range in the Pacific.

But then it allowed us to carry the H bombs.

Now I don't know, but I figure the B17 could be configured to carry H bomb if we had it ready in time or needed it to bomb Germany.
Reply Quote
1
BQ78
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:51a, 1/5/22
AG
Hitler would have nuked Moscow before London.
Reply Quote
6
Smeghead4761
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BQ_90 • 11:50a, 1/5/22
BQ_90 said:
YZ250 said:
I can't imagine the Germans would develop a bomb and not come up with a way to deliver it. Those two things go hand in hand.
the issue is range for the bombers they had.

It's not like we developed the B29 for the H bomb, we did because the b17s didn't have the range in the Pacific.

But then it allowed us to carry the H bombs.

Now I don't know, but I figure the B17 could be configured to carry H bomb if we had it ready in time or needed it to bomb Germany.
B-17 wouldn't have the payload to handle it. Payload for a B-17G on a short range mission (<400 mi) was about 3,600 kg - and Little Boy weighed 4,400. Might be possible if you remove most of the guns and gunners.

Probably the best option, after the B-29, for delivering a 1945 vintage A-bomb would be the RAF's Lancaster.
Reply Quote
1
CanyonAg77
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Smeghead4761 • 12:42p, 1/5/22
AG
Quote:
Probably the best option, after the B-29, for delivering a 1945 vintage A-bomb would be the RAF's Lancaster.
I seem to recall that we had that option on the table for our A-bomb, if the B-29 failed to develop.

Warning: For the WWII history buff, Mark Felton is addicting. Also, he talks...really....slow. Watch at 1.25x playback, if not 1.5x

Reply Quote
3
1 edit
Smeghead4761
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:35p, 1/5/22
The Lancaster could drop the Grand Slam bombs, which were 22,000 lbs and 27' long.

Little Boy, at ~9,700 lbs and 10' would have been easy.
Reply Quote
Ghost of Andrew Eaton
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:35p, 1/7/22
The Spanish decided to close the port of New Orleans in 1794 and refuse to negotiate with the United States. How does the U.S. react and what implications does it have on the world?
If you say you hate the state of politics in this nation and you don't get involved in it, you obviously don't hate the state of politics in this nation.
Reply Quote
nortex97
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:09a, 1/8/22
AG
My favorite what if (not a hope for) would always be Gettysburg. What if the signal guys hadn't secured cemetery hill/Ewell had taken it on day 1? The outcome of the war might or might not have been different, but I think a decisive CSA win there could have significantly changed history.

A lot of random things could have changed the battle obviously; NB Forrest could have made it to the battle, Stonewall Jackson might not have been killed earlier, and would have handled the battle much better as a lieutenant, or heck Lee might have not attempted the doomed final frontal attack (with ineffective artillery in the middle as/where the union commanders/Meade anticipated).

All of it is part of why it is such an amazing place still to visit/appreciate.

As far as Hitler having the bomb, he was so crazy by the end of 44 until his death it probably wouldn't have mattered at all. He'd have found a way to screw it up regardless, as he was a feckless drug-addled moron by that point (who had always been a terrible military tactician), though perhaps duelling a-bomb's might have provided the Japanese motive to negotiate a non-total surrender. The nazi's also didn't have a heavy bomber to deliver such a bomb, and though they surely could have built something (like an enlarged Arado: the HE-177 was a death trap) to get it done they obviously lacked any kind of air superiority sufficient to strike a major allied city, including the Soviet ones.
Reply Quote
Sapper Redux
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to nortex97 • 9:43a, 1/8/22
Quote:
Stonewall Jackson might not have been killed earlier, and would have handled the battle much better as a lieutenant


For every battle that Jackson does well in, there's another where he seems oblivious to what is happening. His leadership during the Seven Days, Antietam, and Fredericksburg was questionable. I once asked an expert what they thought would have been different if Jackson was at Gettysburg and his answer was, "more Confederates would have died."

Reply Quote
1 edit
nortex97
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sapper Redux • 10:17a, 1/8/22
AG
Sapper Redux said:
Quote:
Stonewall Jackson might not have been killed earlier, and would have handled the battle much better as a lieutenant


For every battle that Jackson does well in, there's another where he seems oblivious to what is happening. His leadership during the Seven Days, Antietam, and Fredericksburg was questionable. I once asked an expert what they thought would have been different if Jackson was at Gettysburg and his answer was, "more Confederates would have died."

That's fair. A parallel inquiry might be 'what if Lee had listened to/taken Longstreet's advice on any of the 3 days?' JEB Stuart's absence also plays a role there. Roger Ransom's book 'what might have been' does a good job with a bunch of alt-history scenarios (of varying degrees of plausibility).

Another one would perhaps be 'what if Napoleon weren't so frustrated over Haiti etc. that he offered to sell the whole Louisiana purchase for a pittance?'

Finally, and this one is perhaps a bit wild, but what would have happened if we hadn't been able to/lucked into buying Alaska? From a wealth perspective and mineral/military side of things, it would have been invaluable to the Soviets, later (as the Japanese thought, in WW2). There are some good books somewhat related to what-if's on all of that and the pacific northwest in general/hudson bay co.
Reply Quote
Sapper Redux
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to nortex97 • 11:14a, 1/8/22
I think the Alaska one gets overlooked and it's interesting to think about, especially regarding the Cold War.

Honestly, if Louisiana doesn't get sold in bulk, I think it eventually gets sold by chunk.

As for Gettysburg, I have a hard time seeing it work out too differently just knowing Lee's personality. He was willing to take a chance during the Second Bull Run campaign due to his own limitations and his disdain for Pope. I think he smelled blood in the water when Hooker was relieved and wasn't going to play games. He didn't know Meade too well and may have underestimated him. I also think supplies factored in. Lee had enough ammo for one good battle. He may have worried about his ability to continue the campaign if he didn't break the AoP when they presented themselves.
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
cbr
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Ghost of Andrew Eaton • 8:11a, 1/9/22
AG
Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:
The Spanish decided to close the port of New Orleans in 1794 and refuse to negotiate with the United States. How does the U.S. react and what implications does it have on the world?


We that's a good one and a new one for me.

I don't know enough about what the Spanish were doing in that period so I'd have to research. You have any thoughts?
Reply Quote
Ghost of Andrew Eaton
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to cbr • 1:22p, 1/9/22
cbr said:
Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:
The Spanish decided to close the port of New Orleans in 1794 and refuse to negotiate with the United States. How does the U.S. react and what implications does it have on the world?


We that's a good one and a new one for me.

I don't know enough about what the Spanish were doing in that period so I'd have to research. You have any thoughts?


I'm not really sure. It was imperative that we be able to use the Mississippi River and New Orleans, so I'd imagine that it escalated to war with us taking both Floridas. I wonder if we continue and capture land west of the river. It's my understanding that Spain was very weak but it's not like we were all that powerful. So do we take all of the Louisiana territory and parts of Texas?

If you say you hate the state of politics in this nation and you don't get involved in it, you obviously don't hate the state of politics in this nation.
Reply Quote
Sapper Redux
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Ghost of Andrew Eaton • 1:27p, 1/9/22
In 1794? With what? What Army that existed was in the Northwest Territories, and while Spain was no powerhouse in North America, the natives in the region weren't friendly to the US.
Reply Quote
Coach_King
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to JABQ04 • 2:52p, 1/9/22
The japs invading russia like hitler requested is a great scenario. The japs were no match for the red army and would have eventually have fallen. However, could this of caused a pact of some sort between the Japanese, germany, and the soviets?
Reply Quote
dcbowers
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:28p, 1/9/22
AG
Given that Hitler didn't have a heavy bomber to deliver an atomic bomb, could he have but it on a U-boat and sailed up the Hudson and/or Potomac Rivers?
dcbowers
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Reply Quote
Ghost of Andrew Eaton
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sapper Redux • 5:01p, 1/9/22
Sapper Redux said:
In 1794? With what? What Army that existed was in the Northwest Territories, and while Spain was no powerhouse in North America, the natives in the region weren't friendly to the US.


That is what makes the question interesting. The Mississippi has to remain available to the U.S. but do we really have the ability to use force if it is needed? Really, this problem could have popped up until we purchased Louisiana, so 1794 isn't all that important except to the readiness of the U.S. military forces, western volunteers, and James Wilkinson eventually.
If you say you hate the state of politics in this nation and you don't get involved in it, you obviously don't hate the state of politics in this nation.
Reply Quote
2
BQ78
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Ghost of Andrew Eaton • 8:58a, 1/10/22
AG
We didn't really start shipping anything significant through New Orleans until the Louisiana Purchase, so I'm not sure it would have led to war but it would have been a source of aggravation.
Reply Quote
1
cbr
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to dcbowers • 10:08a, 1/10/22
AG
dcbowers said:
Given that Hitler didn't have a heavy bomber to deliver an atomic bomb, could he have but it on a U-boat and sailed up the Hudson and/or Potomac Rivers?
i was actually going to post that...
Reply Quote
1
Rabid Cougar
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:59p, 1/10/22
AG
The L&C expedition was going up the Missouri River regardless of the status of the purchase. It was clandestine operation to begin with. If you look at the uniforms that Lewis brought with him down the Ohio River they are definitely not U.S. Army issue but very nondescript.

It all changed when the purchase was conceived and executed. Lewis simply gave the extra uniforms to the men Clark brought on board in Kentucky who were not soldiers to begin with.
Reply Quote
2 edits
BQ78
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:55p, 1/15/22
AG
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.
Reply Quote
BMX Bandit
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to EMY92 • 7:18a, 1/16/22
EMY92 said:
I still don't think that the Germans could have conquered England even if they captured or wiped out the English troops at Dunkirk. The Germans never developed a way to transport troops across the English Channel.

.


Couldn't they have used the French fleet? In other words, would Churchill have been able to destroy it if Brits were wiped out at Dunkirk?
Reply Quote
2
Sapper Redux
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BQ78 • 7:21a, 1/16/22
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.


Interesting. I had heard about rumblings in 1850. Probably would have been better for the South. The 10 years between 1850 and 1860 were crucial for industrialization.
Reply Quote
4
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.