Alternate History Ideas and Discussion
- Thread starter AndrewJTalon
- Start date
Val the Moofia Boss
Well-known member
Hm, as in: what if the alliance system didn't cause the entirety of Europe to go to war? So wars between just one nation vs another? You'll still have trench warfare, as that already happened in the American Civil War and the Boer Wars. I'm guessing we wouldn't see widespread use of gas, though. I'm guessing we'd still see cities levelled by (early on) artillery and (later on) bombing campaigns. Japan will still probably be taken over by war cultists so bioweapon research might happen there first.
The Hindenburg crash was caused because the US put trade restrictions on Germany, causing a helium shortage, so the Hindenburg was fueled with hydrogen instead. Since everyone isn't fighting each other in this hypothetical TL, then it is easier to acquire helium, and thus a big fireball might not kill airship technology in the eyes of the public. It is possible that flying aircraft carriers continue to be refined. Indeed, they might become an invaluable asset in land wars as they can fly over land, especially if the war happens very far inland.
If Germany isn't totally destroyed, then the Nazis might not happen, which means that Von Braun might not get support for his rocket development, which means missile technology might not develop, which means that dogfighting could still be a thing later.
Zyobot
Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
Thanks for responding. Bit tired right now and will be off to bed soon, but will respond to one point that really dovetails with a quibble I have here.
Perhaps I could be generalizing your predictions as applying to technological advancements in general, but I’d think that the “War advanced technology more than peacetime” narrative is compromised by the deaths of so many potential scientists, engineers, technicians, and other innovative professionals during wartime. Ditto with how much money and economic productivity is poured into waging wars rather than R&D ventures, as well as how people’s priorities go from being competitive innovators to rebuilding their rubble-ridden countries, when so much of their infrastructure has been shelled or bombed into oblivion.
If we averted this by butterflying massive or otherwise game-changing conflicts, wartime technology may be neglected. However, I’d also imagine that more potential innovators living, coupled with intact economies and infrastructure allowing people to prioritize innovation more, would see massive strides in civilian advancements. There may also be cases where technologies that had roots in wartime applications are invented under more peaceful, civilian-commissioned circumstances, so I think it’s presumptuous to simply assume that RADAR or what have you couldn’t arise in any scenario other than what happened IOTL, for example (though it may go by a different name, despite essentially being the same thing).
Zyobot
On this issue I would say that intense warfare - or a tense/prolonged cold war type scenario - will accelerate some especially militarily associated technology in the short term simply because so much resources are thrown into them. However in the longer term the destructiveness of large scale modern warfare simply consume so many people and resources.
Even so I wouldn't say specifically military technologies would lag that much for two reasons.
a) A lot of the civilian tech is likely to have military uses. Railways, electrical and electronic developments, mass production as a whole for instance.
b) Prolonged peace is likely to see more wealth generated and hence people have more to spend on defence and possibly feel they need more protection so are more willing to.
Steve
Zyobot
Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
Haven't thought of those, but thanks for pointing them out.
I suppose that, if you get a lasting Great Game that becomes this alternate twentieth century's equivalent to the Cold War, you'd certainly see more defense spending and thus, more military innovation without too many shots being fired. Although, smaller proxy conflicts notwithstanding, I imagine that there would still be a dearth of actual field-testing. Unless, of course, I massively overestimate the amount of sustained mass-action these advancements would need.
Even if I'm not, I suppose one loophole that my initial parameters would technically allow for is gargantuan conflict that's confined to a certain region or two, rather than drawing nations from all over the world into a global bloodbath that becomes an equivalent stand-in for OTL World Wars. A Great War without American intervention notwithstanding, I mean something more along the lines of a Sino-Soviet War gone hot, though the exact players and circumstances would likely be different (even if the scale and destructiveness of the fighting is similarly enormous, nukes or no nukes).
Zyobot
Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
‘Worst Possible Joseph Stalin’.
Specifically without him having suffered a stroke or some other malady that warps his psyche. No disrespect to Twilight of the Red Tsar, but I’m (morbidly) curious as to what a (somewhat) sound-minded Stalin can do to establish himself as the greatest villain of the twentieth century (up to and including Hitler).
Specifically without him having suffered a stroke or some other malady that warps his psyche. No disrespect to Twilight of the Red Tsar, but I’m (morbidly) curious as to what a (somewhat) sound-minded Stalin can do to establish himself as the greatest villain of the twentieth century (up to and including Hitler).
Assuming you mean worst possible Stalin for the world, rather than the USSR? Lets see. He's less blinded by his own paranoia and willing to listen to advice without being so eager to 'shot the messenger'. As such.
a) While still a ruthless dictator he decides not to slaughter millions by artificial famines, accepting a slightly slower industrialisation as a result.
b) He doesn't push the personality culture quite as much or at least doesn't start believing it himself. As such no or markedly weaker purges and less rule by terror. Attempts to root out corruption and demonstrate some support for ordinary people.
c) Probably also revives some aspects of Lenin's NEC to tolerate some local initiative - think China from ~1978 onward.
All in all by ~1939 the USSR is more populous and probably somewhat more technologically advanced. It also has a stronger military and slightly stronger industrial base as well as markedly more popular support, especially away from the big cities.
Basically he's still a dictator in a totalitarian state but he maintains more rationality that OTL.
Assuming he still makes the pact with Hitler he's not caught by surprise by the German invasion. Nor is the Red Army in quite the same mess. As such while the Germans make some rapid early inroads that's by their mobile forces especially which stops say ~150-200 miles from the border when they reach prepared defences and while hitting them get counter attacked by the Red Armies own mobile units. Could well see the Germans manage some successes but their going to lose a lot of their most irreplaceable men.
Thinking that while unlikely to see a German collapse in 1941 you could see the Soviets overrun most of the continent by say 1943 before the western allies, assuming that the US still joins the war, get more than limited bridgeheads on the continent. As such not only is the USSR in a much better position it gains a hell of a lot of additional economic resources in Europe than OTL.
Quite possibly this is followed up in say 1944 with a dow on Japan and the occupation of all Manchuria and Korea as well as aiding the communist to an earlier victory in China. Stalin might be in a position to demand a share in the occupation of Japan here.
As such the Soviet empire is markedly larger and more powerful than OTL. Then either Stalin really loses it or one of his successors does. You get a state as brutally opposed as OTL but with far more people suffering A USSR that gains nuclear weapons not long after the US and things could then get very nasty.
Anyway initial thoughts.
Bassoe
Well-known member
Archduke Franz Ferdinand survives. He's still shot, but not fatally, and he urges peace, making a speech to all the empires during which he accurately predicts that open warfare between them would prove pyrrhic, leading to mass death and destruction, bankruptcy forcing decolonization and desperation-induced spread of revolutionary sentiment among their plebeian populations and rolls a bunch of natural twenties on his charisma checks.
The alternative Great Game ends up as essentially the cold war ahead of schedule, with spies from the various colonial empires infiltrating the colonies of their rivals to stir up and assist revolutionaries/freedom fighters/terrorists in proxy wars to drain resources and manpower. This probably ends in an alternative World War when either a pan-national revolutionary movement/communistic dieselpunk GLA is accidentally formed or a colonial empire resorts to fascistic tactics of 'kill them all and move in your own colonists' for preventing revolution among colonial subjects and their rivals take it as an opportunity to justify invading to
Not possible,everybody wonted WW1. But if.....planes would remain toys for 10 years more,and progress in building would be,let say,minus 30 years.
Tanks would be built 20 years later,and progress would be even slover.
Calvary would live 20 years more.Battleships would be main warships for 20 years more,too.
So, in alternate 2021 - still no calvary ,last battleships would be in line but not important,tanks from 1970 and planes from 1990.
Bear Ribs
Well-known member
The Battle of Kadesh alt-outcome. I know this one's slightly obscure so the setting:
The Hittites and Egyptians were at war. Pharoah Ramses II brought 20,000 troops while King Muwatalli had 27,000, who were better trained, better organized, and better led than the Egyptians.
Muwatalli sent a sacrificial group of his soldiers to be captured, who revealed to Ramses that the Hittite army was still far to the north. Ramses II used this knowledge to advance and divide his forces, taking half the army well in advance of the other half. At this point, the (not actually far to the north of course) entire Hittite army descended on him and picked apart the Egyptian army in detail.
During the Battle of Kadesh itself, some 5,000 of Ramses II's soldiers were killed, a horrific level of casualties for that kind of warfare. Then, as the Hittite chariots were about to go through the camp and finish off the Pharoah himself, a group of unknown charioteers called the Ne’arin showed up and smashed into their lines from the flank with a surprise attack, disrupting their formations and putting the Hittites on the run.
Historically this led to the first peace treaty ever recorded and the Hittites began to decline from their previous holdings and gradually vanished. But suppose the deus ex machina Ne'arin never appeared. Ramses II is captured or killed, the Egyptian army suffers even greater casualties, and the Hittites advance on to conquer Egypt itself. How would the history of the ancient world change with a Hittite Empire about as large as the Persians at their height, wrapped around the Mediterannean in 1274BC?
The Hittites and Egyptians were at war. Pharoah Ramses II brought 20,000 troops while King Muwatalli had 27,000, who were better trained, better organized, and better led than the Egyptians.
Muwatalli sent a sacrificial group of his soldiers to be captured, who revealed to Ramses that the Hittite army was still far to the north. Ramses II used this knowledge to advance and divide his forces, taking half the army well in advance of the other half. At this point, the (not actually far to the north of course) entire Hittite army descended on him and picked apart the Egyptian army in detail.
During the Battle of Kadesh itself, some 5,000 of Ramses II's soldiers were killed, a horrific level of casualties for that kind of warfare. Then, as the Hittite chariots were about to go through the camp and finish off the Pharoah himself, a group of unknown charioteers called the Ne’arin showed up and smashed into their lines from the flank with a surprise attack, disrupting their formations and putting the Hittites on the run.
Historically this led to the first peace treaty ever recorded and the Hittites began to decline from their previous holdings and gradually vanished. But suppose the deus ex machina Ne'arin never appeared. Ramses II is captured or killed, the Egyptian army suffers even greater casualties, and the Hittites advance on to conquer Egypt itself. How would the history of the ancient world change with a Hittite Empire about as large as the Persians at their height, wrapped around the Mediterannean in 1274BC?
Zyobot
Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
What about the points @stevep and I made up-thread, though?
In summary, mine boiled down to wars killing off lots of young people who could've become scientists, engineers, technicians, and other members of the "innovator class", with the money that goes to feeding, supplying, and training troops unable to be spent on research grants, for example. Ditto with how people's priorities are elsewhere when they're struggling with refugee crises and trying to rebuild their ravaged communities in the aftermath, rather than earn their PhDs or become the next Alexander Graham Bell.
Steve also added that a Cold War materializing between the Great Powers would also boost military spending, as the empires--though not actively throwing men and munitions at one another in an all-out bloodbath--would still keep pace with one another. With that spending and sustained competition will come innovation, though how much actual field-testing the latest weapons will receive compared to OTL is more up in the air to me. Civilian technologies will also have military uses, with the main examples being electrification, railroad systems, and mass-production. That, and compounded wealth generation from not destroying so much productivity through two earth-shattering wars that happened within twenty-one years of each other will give those governments considerably bigger bank accounts, some of which will be diverted to defense budgets.
Bear Ribs
Well-known member
Ah, that was actually exactly what I was personally thinking on for this Alt though. The Hittites were the first civilization to develop ironworking (maybe, it's not easy to be absolutely certain about anything that long ago) and we have fragments of iron tools in Hittite lands as early as 1800BC. So the possibilities of an alt Kadesh are going to strongly alter the bronze age collapse, because now the 800 pound gorilla in the room has iron available to replace it and Egypt's mercantile contacts and shipping capable to move iron around, potentially leading to an earlier and much more robust iron age.
Buba
A total creep
No WWI means no WWII.
Besides that I expect the Art of War to progress more or less like in OTL, simply slower.
Weapons and manners of their usage appear some 10 to 30 years later, depending on area.
E.g. tanks - which were conceptualised c.1910 - would make an appearance in the 1920s.
Maybe some fads, like "war winning strategic bombing", do not crop up.
@Bear Ribs - but didn't the Hittites collapse c.1200BC too?
Besides that I expect the Art of War to progress more or less like in OTL, simply slower.
Weapons and manners of their usage appear some 10 to 30 years later, depending on area.
E.g. tanks - which were conceptualised c.1910 - would make an appearance in the 1920s.
Maybe some fads, like "war winning strategic bombing", do not crop up.
@Bear Ribs - but didn't the Hittites collapse c.1200BC too?
Last edited:
Zyobot
Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
Perhaps not, though I will again reiterate the points Steve and I made above. Besides, I also noted that my scenario technically doesn't exclude massive conflicts that are confined to a certain region or two (but preferably without a Great War in which the US remains neutral, since that's too much of a cop-out for my tastes).
That being the case, I'd think that something on the scale of a Sino-Soviet War gone hot (but probably not the actual thing, thanks to butterflies) would be sufficiently big and fiery to change how warfare is fought. If we exclude nukes from the picture, anyway (which, depending the arsenals involved, is game over for anywhere from one to all sides).
We don't know enough really about Hittite culture and civilization but if they did occupy Egypt, which I think would be a huge leap even after a crushing victory at Kadesh, their probably not likely to hold it long. Its too far from their centre of power in Anatolia and trying to hold on might cause a clearer imperial overstretch and hence a decline for them before things totally come apart.
Part of the problem as I understand it from the 'bronze age collapse' is that it occurred because iron became commonplace and hence iron weapons much cheaper. Not sure they were that much better than bronze ones at the time due to limited skills in smithing and the like but bronze weapons tended to be expensive - I think because tin was relatively scarce. As such the bronze age were dominated by small military elites - such as the heroes and champions in the Iliad for instance. Iron becoming common enough for widespread weapons meant a major social change in warfare and hence society so you got a huge social upheaval, which threw everything into chaos for a century or two.
As such to be honest it might alter a few factors, possibly even give a new Hittite dynasty in Egypt but I suspect its not likely to prevent the OTL collapse of all the cultures in the region.
There is one cultural aspect that might have some impact come to think of it. It has been suggested that the Hittites has a tributary state further west and that their decline, possibly starting after Kadesh prevented the Hittites coming to their aid. What changes might have affected culture in the wide Med world if Troy had 'won' the Trojan war? If Homer - assuming anything is written about it - records a Greek defeat? Or what Troy, in control of the straits between the Black Sea and Aegean might become?
Very important issues.More inventions,for example electronics would advance as fast as OTL or faster.In OTL steam cars vanished from roads - here they could still remain.
Rockets would probable advance faster,to take people into cosmos.But this time it would be 7,not 2 states doing so.
A bomb would be made later and probably never used against humans - which mean ORION spaceships made by all participants.
Russia was at the beginning of economical progress,so they would dominate Europe/1950 or so/ and later entire world.
China would remain divided,and since british Empire still exist India would be part of it.
But,more important from my perspective -
1.Since first rocket would take time to made,somebody would build superguns - initially to bomb another continents,later to deliver satellites.
2.At least few Landbattleships would be made/and never used/
3.Before planes would be made to deliver passangers,airships would do that on much greater scale then OTL.Maybe even somebody made militart airship with cruiser guns !
4.Since battleships would remain longer,somebody would made 150.000 t monster with 500mm or bigger guns.Which would be never used,too.
But - i always wanted to see super duper battleships,Landbattleships and Continental guns made,becouse they are cool.
Most important thing - no soviet revolution mean no leftist or lgbt +52 revolutions,so people would be normal.And that is what really count - No WW means no revolution,and relatively normal world.
I would agree with this and its probably doubtful, even if no great conflict occurred in the 1910's that some major conflict would occur centred on Europe given the tensions in place, the development of 'social-darwinism' ideas and that inevitably changes in power balances are likely to trigger something. Also that there hadn't been a great destructive war in the European heartland for a century while a number of wars in the period since had been relatively bloodless and decisive for the victor I fear that too many would think too lightly of a great war, as occurred with many in 1914.
Zyobot
Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
This may be straying into even more murky waters now, but I'm wondering if you have something more specific in mind? I understand if it's just a sketch a few paragraphs long, but barring a back-to-back series of wars that are later lumped together into one collective bloodbath, I'm not sure what'd fit the bill without turning into a true world war.
Granted, we could technically still have the Great War break out, with everything proceeding more or less the same up until the US sits it out. Which would then have consequences of its own, in addition to the conflict never becoming a full-blown world war, in which all the first-rate powers of the age trade punches with one another. Again, though, I think that's too much of a cop-out due to how obvious it is, though I can certainly understand a massive pan-European conflict (or series of related, chronologically "packed-together" conflicts) materializing down the road, in any case.