|
Best Porn Sites | Live Sex | Register | FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Mark Forums Read |
General Discussion & News Want to speak your mind about something ... do it here. |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
November 3rd, 2009, 03:46 PM | #11 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 127
Thanks: 543
Thanked 909 Times in 120 Posts
|
Given the primitive state of amphibious warfare, I doubt a 1916 D-Day would have been possible. A 1914 Schlieffan plan victory by the Germans would (imho) have resulted in a negotiated peace on the Western Front. The French would have lost a large part of their colonies (and the British would have had to forfeit some token parts of their colonial empire also).
In the East, the Russians would have been beaten rather quickly and the 1917 revolution would have occurred in 1915, at the latest. The interesting thing would be the postwar world. Would a second world war have erupted? I'm inclined to think it would. The global depression was caused by the collapse of the American stock market after the Jazz Age and this would have happened regardless because of the nature of capitalism in the US at that time. The economic upheaval of the global depression would have brought about the overthrow of the German monarchy by the German communists (undoubtedly backed by their bretheren in the USSR). Without the "stab in the back" theory as a linchpin of their propaganda, the NSDAP would have remained an obscure party. World War II would have had a German Red Army sweeping through Western Europe in revolutionary fervor. And the Cold War would have started in 1941-42 instead of 1946. Speculation is fun, isn't it? Last edited by SwedishEroticaFan; November 4th, 2009 at 01:03 AM.. Reason: typo |
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to SwedishEroticaFan For This Useful Post: |
November 3rd, 2009, 04:47 PM | #12 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,044
Thanks: 24,638
Thanked 34,288 Times in 4,008 Posts
|
brianwp,
Quote:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/program.html Physics isn't my strong suit so I'll let the program speak for itself. But its basically about string theory and why its gaining so much interest. The area I found most interesting was the problem between Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. Just fascinating! Hope you give it a look, well worth while for anyone interested in this discussion. Edit: I was just looking at the Nova page and have one suggestion. Although it may be tempting to just view the section on Parallel Universes, that probably is not a good idea. As you can imagine, this is a difficult subject for most people so jumping in in the middle may leave you a bit confused. Probably best to start at the beginning. Last edited by 9876543210; November 3rd, 2009 at 04:52 PM.. |
|
The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to 9876543210 For This Useful Post: |
November 3rd, 2009, 06:34 PM | #13 |
Vintage Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Between Here & There
Posts: 2,063
Thanks: 73,874
Thanked 34,771 Times in 2,064 Posts
|
I'm a bit surprised that no one has mentioned the author Harry Turtledove. I have read most, if not all of his alternate history works and find them to be very plausible.
Of course I find the entire subject of Alternate History/Reality to be very interesting and often play around with the question of "what if" in my head. In fact there is a forum about this subject that I visit quite often and is worth checking out. Ghaleon |
The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to Ghaleon For This Useful Post: |
November 3rd, 2009, 07:04 PM | #14 | |
Vintage Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: 1977
Posts: 598
Thanks: 3,187
Thanked 7,055 Times in 592 Posts
|
Quote:
Eric Flint wrote an absurdly neo-con book about a slice of America thrown back in time to the Thirty Years War in Europe - that was interesting in a laughable sort of way. |
|
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to haldane4 For This Useful Post: |
November 3rd, 2009, 07:22 PM | #15 |
Vintage Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: 1977
Posts: 598
Thanks: 3,187
Thanked 7,055 Times in 592 Posts
|
SwedishEroticaFan - I'm not sure the British would have negotiated a peace or truce on the Western Front. I feel it more likely there would have been the kind of 'phoney war' we saw in 1940 - occupied Europe, a state of war, but no real confrontation except in the colonies. I doubt too the British would have given up any of the Empire at that point - they were absurdly Empire-proud, to the point where we had to fight a war in Ireland over something as unremarkable as Home Rule. It took a Labour Government in the 1940's to give up the Empire - a very different beast from a liberal-conservative war cabinet. No, I feel the British would have held on until America intervened, or until Germany over-reached herself. And Germany would have, as the real Marne demonstrates.
As for the Russian revolution - there's no doubting the force for change in Russia, but would the Bolsheviks have come to power? It was, after all, the Germans who sent Lenin back into Russia by sealed train - would they have done so if the Western Front had been won? Perhaps they would have been more content to see a liberal revolution like Kerensky's. It's fun to speculate but it's all very complex. And one forgets just how much of history is personality driven. If you ever find a copy, I'd recommend a book called The Kings Depart by Richard M Watt - it's the best book I've ever read covering the failed German revolution of 1918, and the subsequent negotiations at Versailles. |
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to haldane4 For This Useful Post: |
November 4th, 2009, 01:13 AM | #16 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 127
Thanks: 543
Thanked 909 Times in 120 Posts
|
True. History is driven by people. The Civil War has been described as "the irrepressible conflict." Is there any doubt that John Brown was the single greatest cause of the War of the Rebellion?
Not to mention nobodies like Charles Manson (who killed the Flower Power movement), John Wilkes Booth (who laid the foundation for a century of division in America), George III (just give 'em what they want George - representation in Parliment! ), ad infinitum. |
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to SwedishEroticaFan For This Useful Post: |
November 4th, 2009, 10:46 AM | #17 | |
Super Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: England
Posts: 26,237
Thanks: 162,388
Thanked 278,403 Times in 26,182 Posts
|
What are the drivers of history?
Quote:
I am aware of two opposed theories of historical trends, but I am sure there are others. The two I am aware of are: The Deterministic Theory: I call it that for want of knowing whether it has an official name. This theory informs all Marxist and ideological analysis of history, but is current at least as far back as Edward Gibbon, who used it as the basis of his argument in his lifework, The Decline And Fall Of The Roman Empire. The basic argument is that history is governed by social and economic forces: therefore regardless of specific events, great trends such as the gradual failure of the Roman Empire are unstoppable. BTW, I certainly havent read Decline and Fall, only exerts from it and essays about it. THe Great Men/Women Theory Again, I know no official name. It was articulated by Thomas Macauley in History of England From the Accession of King James II. Macauley believed in an optimistic view that the general trend of human civilisation is progessive and improving. He also believed that there is nothing inevitable about this trend, that great individuals can and do shape events for better or worse, that they can even mould the fate of nations. Again, I have never read Macauley but I have read discussions of him in other historical works, including Winston Churchill's. Churchill was very much a disciple of Macauley. What I am building up to in this long winded way is that what you predict as an alternative outcome in an alternative history (eg what if Archduke Franz Ferdinand's driver had not lost his way in Sarajevo on 28 June 1914 and the car had never passed near Gavrilo Princip in the crowd?) has to depend heavily on which of these two historical theories you identify with more closely, but very few people would say either theory is totally right or either theory is totally wrong.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. |
|
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to scoundrel For This Useful Post: |
November 4th, 2009, 05:50 PM | #18 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 406
Thanks: 10,881
Thanked 3,510 Times in 392 Posts
|
I think it's accepted that WW1 would have happened even if the Archduke hadn't been assassinated, and that everyone was ready for war anyway.
And that WW2 would have happened without Hitler. What is really scary are the number of times important battles in WW2 depended on the weather; IE, if the weather hadn't been right, then D-Day would have been a failure (though according to what G Orwell was writing at the time, Germany had lost the war for at least a year before then; they just didn't know it). But there were other battles before then that we were very lucky to have won. |
November 11th, 2009, 02:01 PM | #19 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 127
Thanks: 543
Thanked 909 Times in 120 Posts
|
On a completely different subject, Ted Sorenson and Arthur Schlesinger, two of JFK's advisors, insist he would have not escalated the Vietnam War. I am inclined to doubt it. He certainly would not have pulled out before the 1964 election. And all the people recommending escalation to Johnson in 1964-66 were holdovers from Kennedy's tenure.
JFK may not have sent a half million troops but there would have been several hundred thousand committed by the end of 1966. Last edited by SwedishEroticaFan; November 11th, 2009 at 02:02 PM.. Reason: clarify |
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to SwedishEroticaFan For This Useful Post: |
November 11th, 2009, 11:54 PM | #20 | |
Vintage Member
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Somewhere flat, that's either hot, cold, or windy ... Canada?
Posts: 1,966
Thanks: 42,100
Thanked 21,351 Times in 1,903 Posts
|
Quote:
I was very young at the time but I think that Chucky might be granted too much influence here given other possibilities that I saw. It seemed to me that much of the "peace" and "free love" movements were made of individuals (and their families) who were in the socio-economic classes between the upper Lower-Class and the lower Upper-Class--essentially those who did not have enough affluence to avoid being drafted into the U.S. armed forces to fight in Viet Nam, but were high enough in aspiration to not want to fight. In the U.S.A., if one could go to college or be exempt from the draft by some other means then likely one did so. In Canada, the U.K., and other "distant" societies, it seemed that "peace and free love" was mostly an opportunity for teenagers to act "older" than they actually were because most adults were busy living "real lives". However, as soon as Viet Nam was over I noticed that all the peace marches, war demonstrations, "free" love, and other "groovy" stuff disappeared almost as fast as I could blink! Only the very small groups of die-hards remained. Within a few years, peace and universal brotherhood was another NIMBY (generally desired but "not in my back yard" if someone has to take a stand). The "Me Decade" had taken over with vengence. I still get spasms when I see bell-bottom pants! What do you think? e.d. |
|
The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to electile disfunction For This Useful Post: |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|