Heroes of Might and Magic Community
visiting hero! Register | Today's Posts | Games | Search! | FAQ/Rules | AvatarList | MemberList | Profile


Age of Heroes Headlines:  
5 Oct 2016: Heroes VII development comes to an end.. - read more
6 Aug 2016: Troubled Heroes VII Expansion Release - read more
26 Apr 2016: Heroes VII XPack - Trial by Fire - Coming out in June! - read more
17 Apr 2016: Global Alternative Creatures MOD for H7 after 1.8 Patch! - read more
7 Mar 2016: Romero launches a Piano Sonata Album Kickstarter! - read more
19 Feb 2016: Heroes 5.5 RC6, Heroes VII patch 1.7 are out! - read more
13 Jan 2016: Horn of the Abyss 1.4 Available for Download! - read more
17 Dec 2015: Heroes 5.5 update, 1.6 out for H7 - read more
23 Nov 2015: H7 1.4 & 1.5 patches Released - read more
31 Oct 2015: First H7 patches are out, End of DoC development - read more
5 Oct 2016: Heroes VII development comes to an end.. - read more
[X] Remove Ads
LOGIN:     Username:     Password:         [ Register ]
HOMM1: info forum | HOMM2: info forum | HOMM3: info mods forum | HOMM4: info CTG forum | HOMM5: info mods forum | MMH6: wiki forum | MMH7: wiki forum
Heroes Community > Other Side of the Monitor > Thread: Alternate Histories
Thread: Alternate Histories This thread is 4 pages long: 1 2 3 4 · «PREV
bort
bort


Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
posted October 26, 2002 05:36 PM

Here's the question - could Russia have been "subdued."  We talked earlier about how Britain is naturally defensible.  So is Russia.  Like I said, nobody has ever managed to invade Russia succesfully besides the Mongols and let's face it, the Mongols probably thought they were in the tropics.  Would Russia have had it worse if Germany could direct their full attention to Russia?  Yes, but I don't think they would have fallen in the end.  

As to Japan, well, for the most part, the US took on Japan alone.  (by that I mean, the US was the only powerful nation to be fighting Japan.  The Chinese and Koreans took it pretty bad from Japan.)  In fact, without the UK, the US might have focused their entire attention on the Pacific theater and won that half of the war earlier.

There would never have been a Soviet bloc, though.  I think that after Japan fell and Germany and the USSR beat each other up, Germany would have sued for peace with the US and since the US never was really in conflict with them, the US would have been perfectly content with this.  There would have been another cold war, though - this one between the US and Germany.  Don't know the outcome.  I'd be inclined to bet on the US, though.  Here's why - the USSR finished WWII as the unstoppable juggernaut rolling across Europe from the East.  It had "momentum" so to speak.  In the scenario I described above, Germany would have finished WWII exhausted whereas the US had just defeated an Empire.

There wouldn't have been a UN.

Instead of the UK making comments about the US being late to wars, we'd make comments about the UK bailing out on wars to early.

How about this one -  Pontius Pilate refuses to crucify Christ.  Christ is never a martyr.  Does Christianity ever become the major world religion it is now?

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
privatehudson
privatehudson


Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
posted October 26, 2002 07:15 PM

Russia could not have fallen perhaps totally to the german onslaught, but minus both britain and america involving themselves in Europe I highly doubt Russia could have defeated Germany to the extent she did if at all.

Perhaps like Napoleon prior to him Hitler would have done better to sue for peace after the conquests of 1941 and early 1942 (prior to the nightmare of stalingrad). This with the oil of the caucasus region could have stregnthened the hand of Hitler. Unfortunately Hitler was a meglomaniac lunatic and accepting such a deal was unlikely.

As for japan, hmmmmm that depends as japan was also fighting the UK (Burma, India etc) sure we were not as influential, but we played a signifigant part in the east. Mind you had Japan not wasted time attacking India and the empire etc it's attention could have fallen totally on america. It would have proved interesting to say the least.

As for America, yes it had little or no main conflict with Germany, and anyway without Britain could never have fought the might of Hitler's europe (eg where would they invade from?).

The result which perhaps you didn't touch on is if the war in europe came to a stalemate in 1942 the Nazi state would have had a free hand to slaughter even more of the Jewish population of Europe and other minorities. The Allies through Enigma knew of this prior to this date.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
privatehudson
privatehudson


Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
posted October 27, 2002 01:46 AM
Edited By: privatehudson on 26 Oct 2002

There's nothing wrong with invading russia, where people go wrong is in trying to conquer russia. That is next to impossible. Only once to my knowledge has anyone set out with this intention (Hitler) as Napoleon aimed for a quick and decisive victory close to the border in order to force the russians to comply with his wishes. He only carried on to moscow because the russians refused to fight prior to within sight of moscow (IE borodino).

Oh yes and in reply to Bort no, christianity as a religion at the time following Christ was a sect of judaism and was highly unpopular. The chances of it rising as a world religion (ie taking the roman empire by storm, hence it's spread to europe) without the persecution of Christ or his followers is highly doubtfull.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
bizud
bizud


Known Hero
Mighty Donkey
posted October 28, 2002 05:45 AM

Yeah, but historically, nations that initiate conflict with Russia tend not to do well...Turkey lost most of their European holdings, largely due to their attempt to control the black sea.

And, the fact remains that for both Hitler and Napoleon, invading Russia was a strategic blunder.

____________
Permanent resident of <a href="http://www.ziggy-shwa.com/forums">The Idiot Box</a>

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
privatehudson
privatehudson


Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
posted October 28, 2002 10:21 AM
Edited By: privatehudson on 28 Oct 2002

Hmmmmmm speaking from a purely british standpoint we did batter them in the crimean war

Edit: oooooooooops for all you turks, sardinians and French out there I should point out that we had them as allies back in the crimea

My point being the invasion of, or war with russia in itself is not a strategic blunder, but the attempt to conquer it is. Napoleon made a strategic error by following the russians deep into russia when he failed to get a decisive victory near the border. He began with a good strategy and failed to carry it out. Countries like Britain (crimea) and Germany (WWI) etc have beaten russia, but have done so by limiting their obejctives and making sure that when that was acheived they sued for peace.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
bort
bort


Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
posted October 28, 2002 04:50 PM

Didn't Japan also hand the Russian navy's ass to them on a platter round about the turn of the century?  (that is, round about 1900)

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
privatehudson
privatehudson


Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
posted October 28, 2002 05:03 PM

Yup they kicked the hell out of the russian navy in 1901 (I think, not to hot on turn of the century history). The war was a victory of sorts for japan, but the lost thousands in their human wave attacks (even then they practiced this kind of warfare). Again japan was not out for conquering russia, but victory on a small, limited scale.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
topgun
topgun

Tavern Dweller
posted April 11, 2003 10:08 AM

Civil War goes Global

A couple of the earlier posts had to do with the American Civil War, and what could, or would have happened had Britain and or France come to the aid of the South.  I've been conducting extensive research into the subject for a term paper, and I've come up with the following scenario were that to have happened.  This is based entirely upon credible, factual information.

November, 1861, the US warship "San Jacinto" stopps the British mail steamer "Trent" while returning to England.  Aboard she carries two Confederate diplomats en-route to the courts of London and Paris-James Mason and John Slidel, respectively.  The two men are taken into US custody, and imprisoned in the US.  Word reaches London, the British Government issues an ultimatum to release the Confederate diplomats at once or face war.  At the same time, 8,000 British troops are sent to to the Canada-US border where they make a demonstration of force.  (This is all true so far)  The US Government refuses to release the diplomats, and responds to the ultimatum that the men are not diplomats, but are traitors to the US government.  Resolutions are passed and exchanged between the two governments, and on January 1, 1862.  Great Britain declares war against the United States.  Gen. George B. McClellan, leaving a large force to guard Washington, D.C., with a force of nearly 50,000 men invade Canada in the east.  In the West, 20,000 men under Gen. Don Carlos Buel invade Canada.  With only 20,000 men spread out across Canada, and with inferior weaponry and leadership, Canada is within American hands in less than six months.

To the South, Great Britain sends an expeditionary force to fight alongside the Confederates.  The war is essentially a stalemate, however, events overseas and in Canada, cause Britain to pull out of the war in less than a year, and because not enough troops could be sent to North America in time, the war ends the same for the South.

On the high seas, Britain reigns supreme, at least at first.  Although large, the United States Navy is not as large, and not as good as the Royal Navy.  US merchant shipping is crippled, and the blockade cannot be put in place-at least not until Britain is forced out of the war.  The blockade is eventually put in place, only it takes until 1863 and not 1862 before it is effective.

France joins in the war, two weeks after Britain's declaration of war.  Already heavily involved in Mexico by late 1861, she cannot provide much support beyond that of financial aid.  However, some French troops to arrive to help the Confederates.

Russia, wishing revenge for the Crimean War.  Seeing this as the perfect opportunity, she signs a treaty of alliance with the United States in late February, 1862, and declares war on England and France.  Russian troops arrive in California and push into western Canada and Mexico to fight the French, alongside American and Mexican Republican troops under Benito Juarez.

Britain is now cut off from her two most important suppliers of gains-the midwestern US states and the Ukrain-and within a few months begins to feel the pressure.  Forced to seek other sources, she tries Canada, but that soon is lost to US troops.  Africa, India, and China are cultivated for the production of grain for Britain, however Russian troops move in towards India.  By late 1862, Britain is facing a famine, as not enough grain is reaching it to feed its highly urbanized population.

In January, 1863, a rebellion in Russian-controlled Poland breaks out.  Britain and France openly support the liberation movement against Russia.  In response, Prussia comes to the aid of Russia, first economically, then, seeing its chance to move on a weakende France, Prussia declares war, and invades France.  Germany is not yet fully united-as that will take a war against Austria-however, the Empire of Germany is announced, which includes all of northern and central Germany and western Germany, and some territories annexed from France.  France is forced out of the war.  French troops are pulled out of Mexico, and a combined army of American, Russian, and Mexican troops invade Texas.

Britain and the Confederacy are now on their own.  Britain tries to use the Confederate states as a source of grain, and that might have worked, but by the end of 1863, the combined armies of the United States, Russia, Mexico, and Canada (recruits who are anti-slavery, French Canadians, and Scotish and Irish immigrants) have managed to overwhelm the Confederate-British forces in North America.

Back in Britain, the jig is up.  Irish independence sentiments are on the rise, and with the majority of their troops in North America, the British Government is unable to put down the Irish independence movement.  With Prussia (now Germany) in the war, Turkey allows Russian troops and ships to pass through the Bosporous (Prussia and Turkey had very close ties).  A combined Russo-German force attacks Egypt.  With nowhere else to go but down, Britain exits the war, leaving the Confederates to face complete defeat, which they meet.

Results

American domestic:  The Union is restored.  Because the war goes differently, the Emancipation Proclomation is never issued, as it is not necessary.  However, the slaves are freed through a constitutional ammendment.

International:  Britain, robbed of many of her colonial gems, her government in ruins after starvation and hunger causes riots in London, drops from being the most powerful empire on the planet to a level similar to Spain in the 1890s.  France ends up pretty much the same as she was after the real Franco-Prussian War of the 1870s.  Germany, with the help of Russia, defeats Austria to unite the German states in the late 1860s.  Mexico, having been freed of French rule, and with financial support from the United States and Russia becomes a stable Republic, led by Benito Juarez.  Instead of an entente of England, France, and Russia, the new alliance leading into the 20th century becomes Britain, France, Spain, and Austria against the Russia, the United States, Germany, Turkey, and Italy.

If that had been the outcome of the American Civil War-or World War I, as it would probably now be known-imagine how different the balance of world powers would have been going into the Balkins Crisis of the 1900s.

Of course, much of this is conjecture that depends on a few things happening-like McClellan not being a total weeny like he was on the James River-but two facts remain the same:  1) Even if England and France came in on the side of the South, they still would have lost; and 2) The loss of American and Russian food supplies alone would have in time brought England to its knees---look at Germany in WWI, and what almost happened to England during WWII.

So, there are some things that might have changed, and there are some things that could not possibly have changed.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
SirDunco
SirDunco


Responsible
Supreme Hero
posted April 13, 2003 08:43 AM

I'll give you one...Hilters forces run over Russian and leave England standing alone...Hitler wins WWII...result 85% of us are not here
____________

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Saruman
Saruman


Famous Hero
On academic leave
posted April 14, 2003 01:59 AM

I've often wondered this myself. One thing I'd really like to know is what would be different if the Vikings had stayed in North America, or if the Viking colonies in Greenland didn't fail so horribly.
____________
Thank god I'm an atheist.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Gothmog
Gothmog


Adventuring Hero
Honorable
posted April 14, 2003 04:49 AM

Some isolated settlements without Europe supporting them would hardly make any difference.  Maybe you would see one viking skull or two hanging on the neck of some Inca chieftain ...

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
privatehudson
privatehudson


Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
posted April 15, 2003 12:58 AM
Edited By: privatehudson on 14 Apr 2003

Some points to raise with topgun's argument methinks:

Quote:
Gen. George B. McClellan, leaving a large force to guard Washington, D.C., with a force of nearly 50,000 men invade Canada in the east. In the West, 20,000 men under Gen. Don Carlos Buel invade Canada. With only 20,000 men spread out across Canada, and with inferior weaponry and leadership, Canada is within American hands in less than six months.



The first point is on McCellan. Putting that slow cautious commander in charge of a main thrust into Canada would have been fatal. McCellan was prone to delaying advances at the best of times, stopping them entirely at the worst. He constantly over-estimated his enemies forces and this would have increased considerably with the uncertainty of the numbers of indian allies posessed by the british (more on these later). McCellan was constantly beaten by armies he outnumbered such as in the seven days or Sharpsburg Campaign* I very much doubt he would have been capable of commanding such a force to victory given his very nature.

Not that I'm suggesting he was useless, he was indeed a marvelous trainer of troops and a popular commander. But a battlefield commander he most certainly was not.

The figures quoted also utterly miss out the total numbers of willing indian allies posessed in the canadian provinces by the english. Many tribes of indians fought in the 1812 wars and were responsible partly for the downfall of the invasions then. These would have added somewhat to the british numbers and scared the hell out of McCellan.

Overall though, whilst the scenario you put forward is plausible, there could be 100's of things that could prevent it. I contest that we were garunteed to loose against the union as for example, with McCellan out of washington Lee could very well have marched again on the city, forcing a withdrawl of McCellan through his own caution. The scenario you place is a "worse case" for the british and her allies, and almost entirely ignores either the element of chance, or the element of ability of the british/french/confederates which had been shown by the likes of Lee.

* Technically the union won the Antietam/Sharpsburg campaign as they drove the rebs back into virginia. But look at the facts for a second, and you'll see why I claim McCellan couldn't lead an army in battle to save his life. Roughly summarised below, appologies for any slight innacuracies etc as this is totally off the top of my head.

When Lee invaded the north in 1862 his armies took huge gambles, most of which paid off, others didn't. Unfortunately, as mentioned before Lee's orders for the campaign fell into union hands, and was passed to McCellan. McCellan now had the ENTIRE order of battle of the enemy and their moves for the coming campaign. A quick basic check on the moves so far would have confirmed that the orders were accurate.

Despite having these and a clear chance to smash the rebel army piecemeal again and again (when he got the orders the army was split into at least 2 seperate parts, each less than 1/5 of McCellan's total forces. McCellan dithered and after some minor battles the rebels gathered around Sharpsburg to concentrate. When McCellan first arrived at the town, despite outnumbering the enemy and knowing that fully 1/2 of Lee's army was still beseiging Harpers Ferry, he dithered again, waiting a day and a half for reinforcements to arrive! By this time the HF garrison gave way and the rebel army was all but concentrated at Sharpsburg bar some 8,000 troops of the light division arranging the surrender of the garrison, due to march on the day of the battle.

Despite overwhelming superior numbers, McCellan barely co-ordinated the assaults launched, allowing individual commanders to attack alone and be driven off one by one. He placed his arguably most useless commander in an important position on the left (burnside) and despite the lack of fighting there seemed unconcerned that the assault there was delayed until the others had failed. By the time burnside did attack properly (after spending 2-3 hours crossing a bridge defended by less than 1/20th of his numbers) the rebels had all but expended their reserves and it seemed clear a good hard push by McCellan's forces would decimate Lee's army beyond repair. By that time though Lee had brought up the troops at HF who pitched into burnside's men and drove them back. This though could still have been reversed, but McCellan refused to throw in his remaining reserve, which was an entire other corps of troops!

McCellan then refused to follow Lee south giving a string of excuses, none of which seemed to affect the Rebel army so badly or stop them from moving. Lincoln was driven to despair waiting for McCellan to move and when he visited the army he was so infuriated by the delays he was said to have remarked that the army of the potomac was little more than McCellan's personal bodygaurd! Soon after repeated refusals to move, Licoln fired McCellan and chose Burnside to take his place.

So no, I don't think McCellan was at all the right man to invade Canada.


____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
pandora
pandora


Honorable
Legendary Hero
The Chosen One
posted September 03, 2004 10:09 PM

~moved to Other Side~

interesting topic!

(feel free to delete this post Other Side Mods )
____________
"In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends."

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | PP | Quote Reply | Link
privatehudson
privatehudson


Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
posted September 05, 2004 11:08 PM

Doesn't seem like there's much left to discuss.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Jump To: « Prev Thread . . . Next Thread » This thread is 4 pages long: 1 2 3 4 · «PREV
Post New Poll    Post New Topic    Post New Reply

Page compiled in 0.0643 seconds