"What if??" A thread for people who like to speculate

[Remius]

I like how most here gloss over or forget the rebellions in Lower Canada.  The "canadiens" obviously felt slighted and treated unfairly so much so that they had open rebellions over it.  Oh and about the raping and pillaging that went on...keep in mind that was after the second rebellion.  the instigators had been pardonned for the first one as a show of good will.  Also, in one of the last battles the "canadiens" feigned surrender and then open fire on the approaching British troops.  Let's just say they weren't too happy about that one.  But you don't learn that in french school.

So one could assume that if they had not been allowed to keep their civil code of law and freedom of religion rebellion or revolt or collusion with the US could have happened sooner.  You might have even seen a french version of Ireland develop.

They key though was allowing the Catholic Church to continue and hold its own power.  Had the British gone after the church things would be a lot different.  They had a LOT of influence and by keeping them, placated and in cahoots with them they could keep the population happy and docile.  Maybe not happy but docile.  To this day there is still resentment against the church for their part in working with the English.  After the quiet revolution Quebec moved to unshackle itself of the church.

 

[a_majoor]

Of course during that period, all churches had a great deal of civil as well as moral authority. The British used the Catholic Church in Quebec as a stabilizing force much the way the Church of England was seen as a stabilizing force back home. (Even during the Napoleonic wars, less than a half century later, English Christians who were not part of the Anglican Church were treated with suspicion, and Methodists in particular were harrassed and persecuted for their beliefs).

The question as to if this was the correct decision needs to be examined in light of what was known and understood at the time, not with 20/20 hindsight. Even with 20/20 hindsight, if you asked this question in 1950, you would get a much different answer than the same question in 1960, 1970, 1980 etc.

 

[Remius]

So true.  What we perceive as being ruthless by today's standards might have been seen as progressive or compromising back then.

 

[a_majoor]

Bringing back a fun thread. Here is the real life basis for a "what if" of epic proportions: Operation UNTHINKABLE, the liberation of Eastern Europe by the Western Allies starting 1 July 1945:

http://nextbigfuture.com/2013/01/operation-unthinkable-even-with-nuclear.html

Operation Unthinkable - Even With Nuclear Weapons Western Powers Had No way to Free Eastern Europe by Force of Arms

Operation Unthinkable was a code-name of two related plans of a conflict between the Western Allies and the Soviet Union. Both were ordered by British Prime Minister Winston Churchill in 1945 and developed by the British Armed Forces' Joint Planning Staff at the end of World War II in Europe.

The first of the two assumed a surprise attack on the Soviet forces stationed in Germany in order to "impose the will of the Western Allies" on the Soviets and force Joseph Stalin to honour the agreements in regards to the future of Central Europe. When the odds were judged "fanciful", the original plan was abandoned. The code-name was used instead for a defensive scenario, in which the British were to defend against a Soviet drive towards the North Sea and the Atlantic following the withdrawal of the American forces from the continent.

The study became the first of Cold War-era contingency plans for war with the Soviet Union. Both plans were highly secret at the time of their creation and it was not until 1998 that they were made public

The Soviet numerical superiority was roughly 4:1 in men and 2:1 in tanks at the end of hostilities in Europe. The Soviet Union had yet to launch its attack on Japan, and so one assumption in the report was that the Soviet Union would instead ally with Japan if the Western Allies commenced hostilities.

The hypothetical date for the start of the Allied invasion of Soviet-held Europe was scheduled for 1 July 1945. The plan assumed a surprise attack by up to 47 British and American divisions in the area of Dresden, in the middle of Soviet lines. This represented almost a half of roughly 100 divisions (ca. 2.5 million men) available to the British, American and Canadian headquarters at that time.

The plan was taken by the British Chiefs of Staff Committee as militarily unfeasible due to a three-to-one superiority of Soviet land forces in Europe and the Middle East, where the conflict was projected to take place. The majority of any offensive operation would have been undertaken by American and British forces, as well as Polish forces and up to 100,000 German Wehrmacht soldiers. Any quick success would be due to surprise alone. If a quick success could not be obtained before the onset of winter, the assessment was that the Allies would be committed to a total war which would be protracted. In the report of 22 May 1945, an offensive operation was deemed "hazardous".

The Dailymail had coverage when this information was first released.

Given the acute sensitivity of their draft proposal for what was termed Operation Unthinkable, security was at a premium. Needless to say, too, Stalin learned very quickly what was going on in the British camp.

One of the many spies he had in Whitehall swiftly conveyed to Moscow tidings of an instruction that had gone out from London to Field Marshal Bernard Montgomery, the senior British commander in Germany, urging him to stockpile captured German weapons for possible future use.

In the report the planners drew up for the PM, they were quick with their reservations, pointing out that the Russians could resort to the same tactics they had employed with such success against the Germans, giving ground amid the infinite spaces of the Soviet Union.

Ultimately, Churchill knew in his heart that the tyranny established by the Red Army could not be undone either through diplomacy or by force of arms. But he never doubted the malevolence of Soviet intentions in Eastern Europe, and indeed around the world, and in that regard he was ahead of his time.

In the years after the war, it became progressively apparent that the Western Allies would have to adopt the strongest possible defensive measures against further Soviet aggression in Europe.

The U.S. dropped an atomic bomb on Japanese town Nagasaki, on August 9, 1945 - the month before Churchill got inside knowledge at Potsdam that they had completed a successful test of the bomb emboldening him to bring Stalin to heel

In August 1946, the U.S. chiefs of staff became sufficiently fearful of conflict with the Russians to initiate military planning for such a contingency. In London, the 'Unthinkable' file was taken out and dusted down.

Though at no time was it ever deemed politically acceptable or militarily practicable to attempt to free Eastern Europe by force of arms, military preparations for a conflict with the Soviet Union became a staple of the Cold War.

NBF - If the US did not have nuclear weapons, Stalin probably would not have been deterred from taking the rest of Europe after WW2.

Populations

Russia had a population of about 110 million in 1945 and the Soviet Union a population of about 180 million.

The US population was 140 million in 1945

Britain's population in 1945 was 47 million.

From a military perspective it may or may not have been doable (read the comments following the post at the link), obviously there was no political will to carry it out in our history, but Winston Churchill could be persuasive, and of course a big "what if" might be if FDR had not died in office when he did.

 

[Danjanou]

We'd be short 1 large province and gained two smaller one's in St Pierre and Miquelon?

MM

Ok I'll bite which Province would leave as a result of us supporting UDI?

 

[vonGarvin]

Bringing back a fun thread. Here is the real life basis for a "what if" of epic proportions: Operation UNTHINKABLE, the liberation of Eastern Europe by the Western Allies starting 1 July 1945:

http://nextbigfuture.com/2013/01/operation-unthinkable-even-with-nuclear.html

From a military perspective it may or may not have been doable (read the comments following the post at the link), obviously there was no political will to carry it out in our history, but Winston Churchill could be persuasive, and of course a big "what if" might be if FDR had not died in office when he did.

Interesting.  The Soviet Union was in tatters thanks to the Wehrmacht and the Waffen-SS.  It would all come down to logistics.  Without the supply coming from the Allies, the USSR would have folded in probably 1942.  It would be interesting to game this out...

 

[Old Sweat]

I think it was not on the cards and would not have been after the end of the war in the Pacific. Our propaganda machine had spent several years extolling "Uncle Joe" and the Red Army as our heroic allies battling the Nazi hordes. To turn around and go to war against the USSR would have been politcally unthinkable, and Churchill was out of office, replaced by the Labour Party which saw the Soviets as its natural comrades in the class struggle.

 

[a_majoor]

No, it was not in the cards (the British staff were not very keen on the idea in the first place, and the political will was not there), but Churchill was not the only one who was thinking that way (Patton was not very subtle about viewing the Russians as potential enemies, and it must have crossed a lot of other minds as well), and there is one school of thought which suggests that the use of the atomic bomb was a warning to Stalin as well as a quick way to end the Pacific war.

So as a "what if" we have a massive Red Army flush with victory but at the end of a long logistical train, a probably ambivilent Allied force, millions of newly conquered people yearning for liberation and still (at that time) willing to fight for it. It would also be interesting to see what the various Allied powers would see as "Victory". Do they drive to Moscow or just stop at the Dneiper River? The Polish Border? The Baltic States? The final question is would the United States be willing to go nuclear in such a war?

 

[Sythen]

I was browsing reddit.com today, and saw this post:

http://www.reddit.com/r/HistoryPorn/comments/178t5q/adolf_hitler_age_35_on_his_release_from/c83eqme

In it, user taranaki says the following:

I would bet that in about 100 years there will be a pseudo-lionization of Adolf Hitler. The emotional horror he inflicted will have worn off, and thus history will view his shadow rather than the ugly man he was. He will still be seen as a "bad" man, who did horrible things. However I suspect there will be a creeping undercurrent of sentiment similar to that of say Ghengis Khan. That he was a man who "DID" things. He had drive, initiative, and daring. Many of his actions will still be seen as monstrous, but the sentiment that he was a "Great" man in the sense of his objective actions may exist (again ignoring morality because history rarely remembers OR cares). Someone who grabbed the reins of a crumbled dilapidated country and in under a decade took it to the brink of conquering the entire world vs an alliance of nearly every other major power. How many others could claim such a feat? Yes he failed, but so did Napoleon. Yes he invaded, murdered, and conquered other countries, but so did Ghengis Khan. Yes he took a republic and turned it into a dictatorship, but so did Julias Caesar. All these men have been lionized by history none the less.

I am not saying I agree, but you can see the subtle undercurrent happening already. And frankly it happens to almost everyone. Napoleon as I mentioned a man who today is seen as "great" though at the time his name was spit upon by anyone outside of France. Ghengis Khan is another example. Put thousands of innocents to the sword. Seen as a great man. Who here even remembers, yet alone vilifies, the mongolians for the Sack of Merv, where 600,000-1,000,000 men, women, and children in ONE CITY were put to the sword? One of the single bloodies acts in all human history. Hell even PIRATES are seen as awesome now. You know, the guys would would enslave your son and daughter while raping your wife during your travel by ship.

Even in 100 years I doubt anyone will be openly praising Hitler, but a kind of begrudged respect (respect is not quite the word im looking for) might develop. By 300 years, who knows how he will be talked about. History plays interesting tricks on the human collective psyche

Most what ifs people talk about are imagining what might have happened. I think this is an interesting what might happen, if I worded that right?

 

[a_majoor]

In SFnal circles this is called "future history", and indeed cycles of novels have been written using this as a basis. The main issue with future history is that real history rarely cooperates.

Jerry Pournelle wrote a great series (now collectively known as the Co Dominium cycle, with one of the better sub parts known as Falkenberg's Legion). The basis was the apparent permanence of the Cold War as seen from the mid 1970's, and the creeping growth of the Bureucratic welfare state in the United States at the same time. In this future history, the US and USSR decide that while they hate each other, they hate the idea of other nations rising to challenge them even more, and band together to divide the Earth between them (The Co Dominium) and take control of science and industry to prevent unexpected scientific or industreal developments from threatening their position. Perhaps luckily for them, a form of cheap spaceflight is discovered during the consolodation, and the Co Dominium uses this to send criminals, non conformists and even entire populations into permanent exile away from Earth. Pournell knows his stuff, and predicted that the Co Dominium itself would become ossified and eventually collapse under internal stress.

In the real world, of course, internal stresses did in the USSR and the Cold War was won by the United States, setting up an entirely different set of conditions.

 

[vonGarvin]

NECRO THREAD BUMP

So, A while back I wrote what amounted to a short story about an alternate history where Hitler is assassinated in 1943.  Well, I'm going to alternate *that* history. 

I learned recently that in 1943, after Stalingrad but before Kursk, the USSR made feelers for peace with the Germans.  In real life, these weren't considered seriously by Germany until later 1943.  By then, the Soviets were less serious, changed their conditions and of course as the fortunes turned more and more against Germany, those offers were withdrawn.

So, I will take this thread thus:

Stalingrad occurs just as in our timeline.
Von Manstein's counter blow restores the front and deals the Reds a serious blow, just as in our timeline.
Hitler goes to the Ukraine to meet with his front HQs to discuss the upcoming summer offensive, just as in our timeline.
German and Soviet agents meet in Sweden to discuss feelers for peace, returning to the borders of September 1, 1939 (this means a free Baltic States and for Finland as well, FYI), just as in our timeline
*Plot Twist*  The assassination attempt on Hitler (which failed in real life) succeeds in my alternate universe.  The new Führer, Hermann Goering, pursues the feelers, makes some counter proposals for borders (nothing major) and suspends the Kursk offensive.
So, how would the war in the West proceed?  Would the USSR then pursue a war with Japan?  Would Stalin survive?  The invasion of Sicily and subsequently Italy would occur, just as in our timeline, but by October 1943, the German Army is really reinforcing the west (It maintains a strong presence on the Eastern "border" with the USSR and its puppet state of Poland, naturally), but how would this affect the war in Italy?  How would the defences of France look?  In our timeline, 3rd Canadian Division faced off against 3 Panzer Divisions (albeit they were sent in piecemeal and not as a proper corps) and emerged victorious.  How would the landings survive a counter blow by the 1st SS Panzer Korps?  Would there be landings?


I'll ponder this and ponder that and see what I can come up with! 

Cheers!

 

[Old Sweat]

To pursue the Normandy scenario, I wonder if the Allied grand strategy would have remained in place. Re 1 SS Panzer Corps, would Diettrich, who was a crony of Hitler, have stayed in command, or would he even have survived?

As you probably know, the mission of the 3rd Canadian Division was to hold the key terrain in Normandy and defeat the German armoured counter-attack, which it did. However the corps was without 1st SS Panzer Division for a significant period as it was watching the Pas de Calais. I refer here to Mark Milner's Stopping the Panzers.

Would Goering and the Nazis have remained in power? Would whoever took over really have trusted Stalin? What would Stalin have done in the Nazis were deposed. I suggest he would have resumed the struggle against the Germans, and let Japan wait.

(You are making my head hurt.)

 

[vonGarvin]

To pursue the Normandy scenario, I wonder if the Allied grand strategy would have remained in place. Re 1 SS Panzer Corps, would Diettrich, who was a crony of Hitler, have stayed in command, or would he even have survived?

As you probably know, the mission of the 3rd Canadian Division was to hold the key terrain in Normandy and defeat the German armoured counter-attack, which it did. However the corps was without 1st SS Panzer Division for a significant period as it was watching the Pas de Calais. I refer here to Mark Milner's Stopping the Panzers.

Would Goering and the Nazis have remained in power? Would whoever took over really have trusted Stalin? What would Stalin have done in the Nazis were deposed. I suggest he would have resumed the struggle against the Germans, and let Japan wait.

(You are making my head hurt.)

I have indeed read Marc Milner's book (I have an autographed copy). 

So, instead of a June 1944 invasion in Normandy, would they instead invade much further south, away from Germany, supported by a fleet of Air Craft Carriers, drawing the Germans in for a war of attrition as they developed The Bomb?

(I mention 1 SS Panzer Corps only because it was a very powerful force.  Heck, any Panzer Corps, ably handled, would have given us headaches at Normandy.  Thankfully we had the infighting between 12 SS, the Thugs lead by Criminals as Milner calls them, and Panzer Lehr and 21st Panzer)

 

[Old Sweat]

Some moot points, but I don't think even an armada of aircraft carriers would have given the Allies the air power to operate outside of fighter range of the UK.

As you have read Marc's book, you will recall the assessment by a Canadian officer about the Germans including the Waffen SS, that they tried to fight the invaders as if they were Russians and failed miserably. Despite having been bombarded by "history" that made the Germans out to be super soldiers, I concluded quite a while ago that they failed miserably, when they had a fair chance of succeeding, and that was because of sloppy tactics. They had a major tactical shortcoming, which was the same one we used against them in the Great War; they had an almost automatic response to any tactical set back, to mount a local counter-attack with whatever was available without considering the situation other than to adopt the most obvious course. They were real good soldiers at the company and below and pretty good at the battalion level, but above that they operated by rote. Fortunately for them, they had some really good kit.

Do you think you could see the Allies mounting the invasion through the south of France where the 15 August "follow-on" landing took place?

 

[vonGarvin]

Do you think you could see the Allies mounting the invasion through the south of France where the 15 August "follow-on" landing took place?

I'm not sure.
Another thing I hadn't thought was the relative "safety" of Romania,  etc from bombing raids.  Also a Luftwaffe that wasn't as badly mauled as we faced in 1944.

Maybe we decide to avoid their strength and just wait for The Bomb? Or invade in Normandy (for the same reasons as in our timeline), and let them blunt themselves against us. Even without the USSR, we had greater depths of resources.

I think that once the war ends (in stalemate or otherwise), the post war world would be quite interesting.

 

[Old Sweat]

I had considered the state of the Luftwaffe. What is moot is the prospect of another "trench warfare" stalemate in Western Europe. I do think Churchill and perhaps Roosevelt would have pondered the possibility of negotiations with a Nazi-less Germany. The former would also have considered the requirement to contain the USSR, although the latter was more "progressive" in his outlook. Both would have looked forward to turning their attention to Japan, the Americans to avenge Pearl Harbor, and the British to re-establish the Empire.

Re the Bomb, the very few people aware of the programme, and that included MacKenzie King as we were providing much of the fissionable material, must also have had wondered if it would work. Yes, and the Allies were working to derail the German efforts in the same area.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

Plot twist:

Its 1944. Things are going badly for the Germans on all fronts. Hitler realises he cannot win unless he slows the Allied advance. So he does something unthinkable; He uses captured Jews as human shields.

Not in the literal sense, however, rather than transporting them to Dachau or Auschwitz; thousands of sick, injured, and malnourished refugees flood Allied held territories. This sudden humanitarian crisis brings the advance to a crawl and buys Hitler time to either capitulate or counter attack.

Forgetting the fact that the Nazis were fanatical about commiting these attrocities, in what if terms; what if the Nazis put aside ideology in favour of a military stalemate or possible victory? How much man power would it have freed up, and also, how big of a drain would it have been on the allies to cope with a humanitarian crisis of that scale?

 

[Rifleman62]

The war in the Pacific continues, the two atomic bombs are used, the Russians "steal" the bomb secrets, develop their own bomb - all actual. Stalin, being Stalin, uses their atomic bombs without notice on numerous (many) cities in Germany continuing to prove he treacherous/ruthless. Germany surrenders to Stalin. Stalin says to the western allies, you will get the same medicine if you bother me. Russia/Communism takes over the rest of Europe (the UK started with the Labour party anyway). Arms race commences - actual.

Trudeau never has children. ;D

 

[vonGarvin]

Trudeau never has children. ;D

So...a happy ending?  ;D

 

[Infanteer]

A few random thoughts:

1.  No landing in Europe is possible in the way we understand it to have happened due to the fact that the Soviets were tying up 188 (1943)/150 (1944) German divisions in the Eastern Front.

http://www.axishistory.com/axis-nations/134-campaigns-a-operations/campaigns-a-operations/2085-number-of-german-divisions-by-front-in-world-war-ii

2.  Perhaps, with Russia out of the war, the US realizes it cannot take the "90 Division gamble" and aims to produce the 213 division Army to make up for the loss of the Red Army.

http://www.history.army.mil/books/70-7_15.htm

3.  By the time it is able to mobilize that number, it has already nuked Nuremberg to get a surrender out of a Germany still in possession of some of its conquests but exhausted from continual US Bombing and economic blockade (like Japan in mid-45); so the end result of occupation of Germany is the same.....