the if´s of history

[DeadRunner]

Sometimes i think about the if´s in history ,is funny to see the if´s.
one of them that many times come to me head is the if´s Hitler had remember about the napoleon campaign in Russia maybe we get is man more ready to winter in Russia.
is funny and sad to see historical mistakes been repeated constantly

[Rosacrux]

Well, as for the case you mention, I wouldn't call it "sad". On the contrary, I would call it "fortunate". But in this case, there isn't even a repetition: Hitler didn't really repeat Napoleon's mistake, he just underestimated the Soviets and overestimated the anti-communist sentiments of USA and Britain (he considered they'd cut him some serious slack when he was doing his move against USSR... boy was he wrong...) and the capabilities of the Wehrmacht (who was, indeed, the best army the world had seen since the Spartans or the Legions, but luckily for us was not invincible and could not win when outnumbered and outequiped in a 5 to 1 analogy).

[spmetla]

Erasing the past...

[Lazul]

well I personly think alot about what would have happened if Scandinavia would have been united and turned in to one state during the Kalmar Union. Intresting to think about it accualy... Sweden-Finland, Denmark, Norway (also Isalnd, Greenland i guess). All one nation of proud vikings http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

But no its just a dream we scandinavianists have thanks to that damn EU project... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/angry.gif

But its intresting to think how that could have changed European history. Scandinavia could have been a super-power during the 16-17-1800 http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/bigthumb.gif

[Leet Eriksson]

Quote[/b] (Lazul @ April 19 2004,08:37)]well I personly think alot about what would have happened if Scandinavia would have been united and turned in to one state during the Kalmar Union. Intresting to think about it accualy... Sweden-Finland, Denmark, Norway (also Isalnd, Greenland i guess). All one nation of proud vikings http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

But no its just a dream we scandinavianists have thanks to that damn EU project... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/angry.gif

But its intresting to think how that could have changed European history. Scandinavia could have been a super-power during the 16-17-1800 http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/bigthumb.gif
I don't really know if Fins are actually vikings...but anyways a united scandinavian country would definitly have crushed any opposition geared towards them.

[Rosacrux]

Quote[/b] (spmetla @ April 19 2004,07:31)]We're damned lucky though that the Italians lost the war for the Germans though, might being wearing jackboots if they hadn't. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-confused.gif
Actually, the Italians didn't lose any war, we (Greeks) wone them and we've been on our way driving them all the way back to Italy, when ze Germans came in... end of game.

Good argument about the delay, but still Germany would lose anyway. Even if Moscow would fall, not much would've changed. Stalin could not (and would not) be questioned, not at least until a man was standing alive against the Germans. Remember it's Russians (mainly) we are talking about. They have a tradition for staying with their leader to the (bitter or otherwise) end. And the loss of Moscow was far from being the End.

Also, the bulk of the Soviet industry was intact anyway, moved in Siberia. Why would they give up fighting? The Germans had overextended their lines by then, had serious problems of spreading thin in a huge front, keeping at bay the Red Army who was inferior in every way but so Huge and Determined and Brave that it just could not loose.

[The Wizard]

Two if's of history that intrigue me greatly:

What if Ogedei had not drunken himself to death?
or:
What if the Mongol empire had not fractured?

Also, another one:

What if Xerxes was not an idiot and was as great and steadfast a ruler as his father Darius?

Persia would have conquered Greece in due time, the gigantic blunders made in the war would never have happened, Persia would stretch from Greece to India and maybe even further



~Wiz

[VikingHorde]

Quote[/b] (Lazul @ April 19 2004,15:37)]well I personly think alot about what would have happened if Scandinavia would have been united and turned in to one state during the Kalmar Union. Intresting to think about it accualy... Sweden-Finland, Denmark, Norway (also Isalnd, Greenland i guess). All one nation of proud vikings http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

But no its just a dream we scandinavianists have thanks to that damn EU project... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/angry.gif

But its intresting to think how that could have changed European history. Scandinavia could have been a super-power during the 16-17-1800 http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/bigthumb.gif
The viking age was long gone when the kalmar union was made, so no viking (even thogh MTW has vikings). I allso think the Kalmar Union could have been very powerfull, but sweden did not like danish rule.

[bighairyman]

in my opinion, there are too many If's in history, what if the South won the Civil War? what if the British crushed the rebel forces in 1776. What if Cortez was killed by the Aztec. what if Eastern Europe was conquered by the Ottomans, what if Tamerlane Conquered the ottomans and kept it. What if Rome was crushed by Alexander if he didn't died in the Arabian Peninsular. what if France didn't lose to Germany? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-gossip.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-gossip.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-gossip.gif

[Lazul]

Hey VikingHorde... I wasnt very serius about the whole viking thing http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

But fact remains that a United Scandinavia could have been a superpower... One of the way for that to have happened was the Kalmar Union, or If Sweden or Denmark did it the Imperialistic way. Sweden almost took Köpenhamn but thanks to those damn Dutch ppl it never happened *damn, anoying dutch ppl* http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

For exampel what if Charles X, XI, XII had the armys of whole Scandinvia, they where superb commanders.
bye bye Russia, Polen and Hollands navy http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-2thumbsup.gif

[Kaiser of Arabia]

Here's one...
What IF England won the 100 years war?
No France = No WWI
Just a war between Russia and Germany,
Germany would have won.
-Capo

[VikingHorde]

Quote[/b] (Lazul @ April 20 2004,10:14)]Hey VikingHorde... I wasnt very serius about the whole viking thing http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

But fact remains that a United Scandinavia could have been a superpower... One of the way for that to have happened was the Kalmar Union, or If Sweden or Denmark did it the Imperialistic way. Sweden almost took Köpenhamn but thanks to those damn Dutch ppl it never happened *damn, anoying dutch ppl* http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

For exampel what if Charles X, XI, XII had the armys of whole Scandinvia, they where superb commanders.
bye bye Russia, Polen and Hollands navy http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-2thumbsup.gif
I like the Dutch http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif nice guys, thanks for the help http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif
The biggest problem with danish history is stupid kings who throw most of the kingdom away (South sweden, north german provinces, norway and more). Denmark has a lot of if's.

[Efrem Da King]

Quote[/b] (Caporegime1984 @ April 20 2004,15:56)]Here's one...
What IF England won the 100 years war?
No France = No WWI
Just a war between Russia and Germany,
Germany would have won.
-Capo
If England had won 100 years war then no napoleonic wars, No franco prussian war AND NO GERMANY.

[Boulis]

Interesting discussion. Counterfactual history, although profitless, is always entertaining. I did want to make one comment though concerning the German Balkan campaign and Operation Marita (the invasion of Greece).

spmetla,

I'm interested to know the source of your argument about the Germans' fatal delay in the Balkans. I know it is an old historical debate, but it is my impression that the debate is, more or less, over today and the consensus is that the Balkan operation (including Crete) did not contribute in any way to altering Hitler's Barbarossa timetable. Even those who supported this view in the past claimed that Barbarossa was delayed for about a month, not "months" -- the original Fuhrer directive (I believe no.21 but I could be wrong) on Operation Barbarossa stipulated a mid-May invasion while the actual one happened on 22 June. The preliminary plans had already been drawn up more than a full year before. I quote from perhaps the most authoritative military historian to have written a comprehensive history of the war, John Keegan.

"The Balkan campaign, often depicted by historians as an unwelcome diversion from Hitler's long-laid plan to attack the Soviet Union and as a disabling interruption of the timetable he had marked out for its inception, had been in fact no such thing. It had been successfully concluded even more rapidly than his professional military advisers could have anticipated; while the choice of D-Day for Barbarossa had always depended not on the sequence of contingent events but on the weather and objective military factors. The German army found it more difficult than expected to position the units allocated for Barbarossa in Poland; while the lateness of the spring thaw, which left the Eastern European rivers in spate beyond the predicted date, meant that Barbarossa could not have been begun very much earlier than the third week of June, whatever Hitler's intentions."(1)

Current historiography largely agrees with this position. This is not of course meant to deny the Greek Army's miraculous accomplishments against the Italians. In terms of Rosacrux's argument that the German defeat was in any case inevitable, well, who knows? Maybe. Again, it is hard to lose or win a counterfactual historical argument since all we can know is what actually happened...although the courage and tenacity of the Russian soldier is, I believe, undeniable.

Wizard,

A Persian victory against the Greeks is, indeed, another interesting "what if" question. Certainly, if the Greeks had lost, the world would look a lot different today. And although I agree that Xerxes was inept, your argument basically centers on what the Persians did "wrong." Would it not be as valid to examine (as historians) what the Greeks did "right"? Again, historical arguments that argue for "inevitable outcomes" are hard to counter since we are all using hindsight to assert the validity of our contentions. And hindsight (especially in history) is always 20/20 (i.e. infallible and perfect).

(1)John Keegan,The Second World War, (London: Viking Press, 1989), p.174.

[Crimson Castle]

Quote[/b] (spmetla @ April 20 2004,01:31)]Also the German campaign was supposed to happen earlier in the year but the Germans had to rescue the Italians in the Balkans in order to have their southern flank secure which delayed Operation Barbarosa several months and deprived the Germans of lots http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-confused.gif
Apparently not so. If the Germans had attacked Russia earlier - they would have done it in the Spring season. The Spring rain would have made the roads of Russia muddy and very hard for the German vehicles which were designed for Western Europe roads.

The only way the Germans could have won - was to treat the captured Russian cities and POWs nice, offer the Russians a good peace treaty a month or so after they had overran most of Western Russia, ie shoot Stalin, become our allies, give us more of your natural resources, stop Communism, etc.. But Hitler and the Nazis were not sane enough to allow that.

[Crimson Castle]

Quote[/b] (Rosacrux @ April 20 2004,03:33)][quote=spmetla,April 19 2004,07:31]Remember it's Russians (mainly) we are talking about. They have a tradition for staying with their leader to the (bitter or otherwise) end.
Yeah, like they did with the Tsar right? LOL

[Rosacrux]

Quote[/b] (Crimson Castle @ April 21 2004,02:10)]Yeah, like they did with the Tsar right? LOL
If you knew anything at all about Russian history, you'd only laugh with your ignorance, if you felt like laughing at something.

[Red Peasant]

'Counterfactual history' ?

That's nonsense. Accuracy demands the correct term: Fiction. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif This can be interesting, but is nothing to do with history.

[squippy]

Quote[/b] (Rosacrux @ April 21 2004,05:06)]
Quote[/b] (Crimson Castle @ April 21 2004,02:10)]Yeah, like they did with the Tsar right? LOL
If you knew anything at all about Russian history, you'd only laugh with your ignorance, if you felt like laughing at something.
Nah not really. Its one ideology, it has had moments of dominance, but there is no causal relation between ethnicity and ideology.

Red Peasant, 'Counterfactual History' can be seen as a genre of fiction. There have been a couple of works operating under that rubric for a few years now. some are indeed works of fiction, some of nominally serious analyses of historical turning points.

Too much "Great Man" nonsense runs through the current batch tho IMO.

[Rosacrux]

Quote[/b] (squippy @ April 21 2004,06:07)]Nah not really. Its one ideology, it has had moments of dominance, but there is no causal relation between ethnicity and ideology.
Ideologies can have quite a momentum, and seven centuries of serfdom have produced a quite obediend bunch of people. The October Revolution was conducted, in every practical sense, by half a million people... in a country with more than 200 million subjects.

[squippy]

Quote[/b] (Rosacrux @ April 21 2004,06:50)]
Ideologies can have quite a momentum, and seven centuries of serfdom have produced a quite obediend bunch of people. The October Revolution was conducted, in every practical sense, by half a million people... in a country with more than 200 million subjects.
Umm, no, thats not true at all I'm afraid. There were at least, umm, six different revolutionary groups - mensheviks, bolsheviks, Social revolutionaries, the Kadets, and some peasant groupings. This is the old conspiracy model again. I think half a million would not even account for the members who voted for only the soldiers part of the committee of workers and soldiers deputies. It was a revolution as revolutions are - the mass reject the status quo. It an uprising and subsequent civil war, it was not a coup.

Prior to the October revolution, there were 900 soviets in existance, one per 25,000 townies or 125,000 peasants. Taking the lower figure gives us a minimum quantity of 22.5 million organised via soviet methods.

I'll agree about the general point of ideologies having momentum and becoming ingraqined; but these are always overcomable and was in this case overcome.

[Nomad]

Hmmmm,
Hi Squippy, "Counterfactual History" may be a genre of fiction, but strictly speaking this is an oxymoron (e.g Beautifuly ugly) Thus does not make for good english. e.g He was tallishly short. With blackish blond hair and a very large tiny head.
However if you want to argue that most history is closer to fiction than fact that I'd agree with.

[squippy]

I might suggest then that "science fiction" is also oxymoronic, no?

Anyway, I'm not defending it, merely poiting out that it is a word in use, for good or ill.

[Nomad]

What if,
more like "what really" happened with history. Histories are invariably the romances of the victors (or the current dominant political idealogians)

[Nomad]

Science fiction, yep technically its an oxymoron. But it's also become a technical noun within its genre. Which I suppose Counterfactual history is becoming but is not yet generally accepted as such. Thus it ("counterfactual history") could either be Jargon, not good english or an oxymoron....

[Efrem Da King]

History is just writing.


YOu can have factual writing and counter factual writing... why can't you have counter factual history??


I could write a book saying that england won the 100 years war but didn't tell anyone about it and kept it secret so as to avoid rebellion. And that would be why they were so pissed at napoleon.


WOuld taht make it true??? No, does that mean my book wasn't a "history book" no.

[DeadRunner]

Sometimes the writing material is not so Correct, the best egg of that is the Bible is only the book more "corrupted and raped" in history the church always changed her to serve better the church

[Crimson Castle]

Yeah, and you've done copious examples of research to prove your theory? We await with bated anticipation.

[Crimson Castle]

Quote[/b] (Rosacrux @ April 21 2004,23:06)]
Quote[/b] (Crimson Castle @ April 21 2004,02:10)]Yeah, like they did with the Tsar right? LOL
If you knew anything at all about Russian history, you'd only laugh with your ignorance, if you felt like laughing at something.
Why whats wrong? Your example was poor - you said Quote (Rosacrux @ April 20 2004,03:33) Remember it's Russians (mainly) we are talking about. They have a tradition for staying with their leader to the (bitter or otherwise) end.

So now... what about the Tsar, Rosacrux? Tell me the Russians stayed with their leader til the bitter end. I think it is you that needs an education.

[DeadRunner]

Quote[/b] (Crimson Castle @ April 23 2004,12:30)]Yeah, and you've done copious examples of research to prove your theory? We await with bated anticipation.
M8 is proved by Historians m8 and archeology.
M8 one o my Prof always told us that the information in ancient books(bible one of them) where to be taken always n great doubts.

[DeadRunner]

Quote[/b] (Crimson Castle @ April 23 2004,12:34)]
Quote[/b] (Rosacrux @ April 21 2004,23:06)]
Quote[/b] (Crimson Castle @ April 21 2004,02:10)]Yeah, like they did with the Tsar right? LOL
If you knew anything at all about Russian history, you'd only laugh with your ignorance, if you felt like laughing at something.
Why whats wrong? Your example was poor - you said Quote (Rosacrux @ April 20 2004,03:33) Remember it's Russians (mainly) we are talking about. They have a tradition for staying with their leader to the (bitter or otherwise) end.

So now... what about the Tsar, Rosacrux? Tell me the Russians stayed with their leader til the bitter end. I think it is you that needs an education.
The Russians that stayed with the tsar side was is followers several them enter to The white Army(army made with English help).

And are always that stayed loyal.Where several groups against the Bolsheviks Movement ,the white army the Tsar loyal troops.

[Crimson Castle]

No, I'm talking about Ros' blanket assertion that the Russian tradition of sticking with their leader. Case against - the Russian Tsar. Wait don't tell me - Martians took over control of Russia and assasinated the Russian Tsar and his family. LOL

[DeadRunner]

when the Revolution take place,of course was that still loyal to Tsar m8,and when the Tsar family where executed the loyal still was fighting against the Bolsheviks ,m8 when a revolution happens there still defenders of the ancient power.

your you belief in the propaganda that all the governments put to is people.

[squippy]

Quote[/b] (DeadRunner @ April 24 2004,05:34)]when the Revolution take place,of course was that still loyal to Tsar m8,and when the Tsar family where executed the loyal still was fighting against the Bolsheviks ,m8 when a revolution happens there still defenders of the ancient power.
True, there are still defenders of the ancien regime - mostly, those people who benefitted from it or stood to benefit.

Nonetheless, the bulk of the population detached themselves from loyalty to the Tsar. He had, after all, been willing to send them to the front of WWI with almost no equipment.

[Efrem Da King]

But stalin did the exact same thing in WW2 only with the express aim of beating the germans through force of numbers.

[Red Peasant]

Quote[/b] (Efrem Da King @ April 22 2004,06:19)]History is just writing.


YOu can have factual writing and counter factual writing... why can't you have counter factual history??


I could write a book saying that england won the 100 years war but didn't tell anyone about it and kept it secret so as to avoid rebellion. And that would be why they were so pissed at napoleon.


WOuld taht make it true??? No, does that mean my book wasn't a "history book" no.
And that kind of argumentation we label 'sophistic' (adj.) or 'sophistry' (noun). http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif Or just rubbish....take your pick. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[squippy]

Quote[/b] (Efrem Da King @ April 26 2004,08:02)]But stalin did the exact same thing in WW2 only with the express aim of beating the germans through force of numbers.
Yes, but it is in my opinion a bit naive to think there is necessarily a consistent thread of the same ideology, even if we have apparently similar symptoms.

As I've pointed out before, if you look at the heroic statuary and the rhetoric about a motherland, Stalin advocates an ostentatsoiusly nationalistic agenda - not aristocratic as the tsar did. It's not a special property of the Russian psyche, because the same phenomenon is identifiable in Germany and Italy and arguably in Britain too. Or, look today at the defenders of the US president merely because he is the president.