Alternate History Ideas and Discussion

D

Deleted member 88

Guest
It'd probably rival the DMZ in Korea in regards to how weaponized the area would be, but invading Alaska, even with a viable land route, would be counterproductive, and wasteful. There's very little up in Alaska to occupy, and the terrain is shit. Not to mention whatever forces the Russians have in the far east, will always be outnumbered by the Americans and Canadians.


Here's the picture for visualization.

The same would cut both ways. Invading the Russian far east is also not worth it. Except for Vladivostok. Which would be at the end of a long logistical train.

Does make me wonder, how many more resources would be diverted from other theatres.
 

PsihoKekec

Swashbuckling Accountant
There would be a lot more border guards for starters. And due to paranoia of both sides there would be an effort by both sides to fuhrterly develop the infrastructure needed to deploy reinforcements if the other side invades through all that tundra and taiga.
 
D

Deleted member 88

Guest
Thing is, its a remote area for both sides. Neither Alaska or the Russian Far East are close enough to say Seattle or Los Angeles, Vladivostok and Omsk are also long ways off from where the Americans are.

An invasion by either is going to have massive logistical issues covering thousands of miles of remote taiga and tundra terrain, well before anything of value is reached.
 

PsihoKekec

Swashbuckling Accountant
However paranoia and political pressure to do something are never rational. There would soon be screaming about Beringia defense gap or the soft underbelly.
 

Doomsought

Well-known member
An invasion by either is going to have massive logistical issues covering thousands of miles of remote taiga and tundra terrain, well before anything of value is reached.
Also the Alaskan mountains. Hundreds of miles of mountains. So many mountains that nobody has ever bothered to even try to make roads through them, we just fly over them or use dog sleds instead.
 
D

Deleted member 88

Guest


So watching this series has got me on a Napoleonic history kick.

What if after Leipzig, Napoleon managed to rally the French people for a people's war against the sixth coalition? As opposed to the populace being passive to indifferent, if not outright opposing him.

As in peasants and farmers attack allied armies, and kill allied soldiers whenever possible, every French city has to be taken in vicious street to street and house to house fighting.

First off, this goes beyond realism as the French people were exhausted and just wanted the wars to stop. But screw that, we want a guerre populaire totale. I don't know-maybe have it be known the allies intend to partition France and break their country into either small domains or outright annex chunks of the country for themselves. So a war for the sake of the nation.

What I imagine is this makes the campaign last longer-perhaps later into 1814, as every able bodied French man joins the cause, in either the army or in guerilla action.

Napoleon's genius with the people behind him allows him to smash the coalition, in battle, and hold the line...longer. Maybe have the French hold Paris longer-and fight to see the city a smoldering ruin.

Eventually though, by the middle of 1815-Napoleon is defeated, and exiled to the Azores, with France dismembered-The British gain Normandy, Brittany, and Aquitaine, The Prussians gain everything from Alsace to Calais, the Austrians gain Alpine France up to Burgundy, while Bourbon Spain acquires Languedoc, and Gascogne, with a rump Bourbon France holding the rest.

France's dismemberment leads to great suffering amongst the population, as the allied powers squabble over the spoils-leading to an outbreak between an Austro-Russian alliance and an Anglo-Spanish-Prussian alliance which shatters France even further, and exhausts the allies.

Leading to the destruction of the European state system-with Britain exhausted, and the monarchy overthrown, the French bourbons lynched, and the war between Prussia and Austria leading to their mutual ruin.

By 1830-Europe is devastated, with the old order and new ideals alike devolving into warlordism, ad hoc city states, and roving bandits made up of former soldiers.

Russia and the Ottomans are the last powers standing-with the Ottoman Sultan reforming the army and seeing the chaos in Europe-decides to revive the Turkish dream for a decisive push into Central Europe-the victory of the Crescent being at hand, only to met by Russian Empire which extends all the way to Berlin(in theory if not in practice). Leading to the struggle for the east, which ends with the Russians taking Constantinople and the Czar declared Roman Emperor, and Emperor of the Greeks, only to be assassinated in a palace coup a month later(this takes place in 1840).

Leading to Russia collapsing into another time of troubles, while an alt Muhummad Ali figure uses Egypt as a base to destroy the Ottomans for good-establishing a new middle eastern empire(call it the Alian Sultanate or something), while the industrial revolution and the age of Empire in Europe is delayed for at least two hundred years, dramatically changing world history.
 

PsihoKekec

Swashbuckling Accountant
I guess after first reversal. the 1814 campaign would drive along the coast, instead of towards Paris, securing the ports for supplies and then moving from Le Havre along the Sienne to Paris for the final showdown.
 
D

Deleted member 88

Guest
Napoleon re-emerging and total anarchy: the 19th century edition ignored, I do think the French people resisting at the street level and in guerilla warfare would incense the allies into just partitioning France, or keeping troops in the country for a much longer time than they did-perhaps believing the French people were incurably infected with the ideas of the French revolution and thus restoring the Bourbons would lead to them just being overthrown again.

In that vein-I suspect if the allies had to fight guerillas in the country side and tooth and claw for every city-they would be less willing to offer Napoleon anything and more set on punishing France and preventing it ever re-emerging to threaten the balance of power and old order.

So yeah-they'd probably try to secure the coasts, and come back with double the troops.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

AndrewJTalon

Well-known member
Founder
A late US Civil War proposal (1865) on the Confederate side was to offer slaves freedom to fight for the Confederacy. At that late a stage in the war, it would have changed nothing.

So, let's think about things earlier in the conflict.

The Confederacy in the early stages of the war tried to use their cotton to get support from the British and French. But neither country wanted to ally with a Confederacy with the institution of slavery and started buying more agricultural goods from Egypt. The cooler heads of the CSA leadership realize that the institution that forced them into independence is hobbling them strategically.

So to appease the slave owners, a deal is proposed: Slaves are given the chance to fight for their freedom and become CSA citizens. Inspired by the Roman Empire's concept of slavery, in essence.

What happens?
 

AndrewJTalon

Well-known member
Founder
And for those tired of scenarios related to the American Civil War:

Mustafa Kemal, Turkey's first president, died in 1938 after modernizing Turkey from the ashes of the Ottoman Empire. He left no heirs and instead his work at secularizing Turkey fell to his prime minister, Ismet Inonou. Suppose he had left a son though? One with ambitions of making Turkey not just a modern state, but a world power in the same vein as Mussolini, Hitler and Stalin?
 
D

Deleted member 88

Guest
Hmm...I suppose it could be done-especially if the slaves are promised something in return for service. Namely land. Whether that be in the west or in future Confederate filibusters.

Ignoring issues with concerns of loyalty, much less armed slaves as that pertains to the social order-it would increase the South's manpower. I imagine slave regiments would be commanded by white confederate officers, to prevent desertion or anything...dangerous.

That aside-I don't see why with the proper incentives a large portion of the slave population couldn't be convinced to fight for the confederacy.

How this affects the outcome of the war is unclear-it might negate union numbers, especially in the mid to late war. And it would counter the notion Abraham Lincoln used propagandistically that they were fighting a moral crusade to abolish slavery.

Problem is...after the war the CSA would have an armed ex slave population with military experience and arms. Even if land grants pacify any discontent in the short term-it would be a constant concern in the long run.

The South's leadership was not unfamiliar with history, and they definitely would want to avoid a Mamluk situation-where the militarily trained slaves or ex slaves rise up.

There's also the issue of what land to give them. Divide plantation owners' land? Out west? In the caribbean? What happens if there isn't enough land for the black veterans who were promised it and their freedom for their support?
 

AndrewJTalon

Well-known member
Founder
Hmm...I suppose it could be done-especially if the slaves are promised something in return for service. Namely land. Whether that be in the west or in future Confederate filibusters.

Ignoring issues with concerns of loyalty, much less armed slaves as that pertains to the social order-it would increase the South's manpower. I imagine slave regiments would be commanded by white confederate officers, to prevent desertion or anything...dangerous.

That aside-I don't see why with the proper incentives a large portion of the slave population couldn't be convinced to fight for the confederacy.

How this affects the outcome of the war is unclear-it might negate union numbers, especially in the mid to late war. And it would counter the notion Abraham Lincoln used propagandistically that they were fighting a moral crusade to abolish slavery.

Problem is...after the war the CSA would have an armed ex slave population with military experience and arms. Even if land grants pacify any discontent in the short term-it would be a constant concern in the long run.

The South's leadership was not unfamiliar with history, and they definitely would want to avoid a Mamluk situation-where the militarily trained slaves or ex slaves rise up.

There's also the issue of what land to give them. Divide plantation owners' land? Out west? In the caribbean? What happens if there isn't enough land for the black veterans who were promised it and their freedom for their support?

The sheer amount of land in North America and the Caribbean would make it unlikely for them to run out of land to give to black veterans-The real issue would be internal relations in the longer term. If the CSA won, industrialization would be a big priority, and competition with the USA would accelerate for the Western territories. Slavery would slowly become far less economically attractive compared to the advances in industrial technology, and soon slaves would be more of a liability than an asset.

As a result, slavery might slowly over time be unofficially abolished, save for the hold out states that clung to the old ways out of sheer pride despite how much it cost. Those states might become more authoritarian in how they treated their slaves, and might try to get more slaves from overseas. Which would just exacerbate tensions between rich whites, blacks, and poor whites.

Between this and competing with the United States and there's no guarantee there wouldn't be another War between the States within a few years.

Is this pure RL alternate history or can we bring fiction settings and concepts into this?

You can bring fiction settings and concepts into this, yes.
 
D

Deleted member 88

Guest
Speaking of bible PODs. How about this.

the kingdom of Israel does not split after Solomon’s death-going to his heir Jeroboam.

This means Israel and Judah remain united going into the first millennium BC.

First effects are probably the Israelites retain hegemony over neighboring Semitic people’s-Edom, Ammon, Moab, and so on.

Assuming the Israelite monarchy lasts another few hundred years intact-it should have the loyalty of these groups-if only sullenly.

I can see Assyria still smashing Israel, but with Israel united-probably takes longer due to the Israelites forming anti Assyrian coalitions in the southern Levant.

Maybe Jerusalem doesn’t become as important, or maybe it’s just the southern capital.

I’d be interested in a TL where Israel retains its independence in the face of Assyria and Egypt. Through war and diplomacy.

Though the butterflies going into the Babylonian period and afterwards are impossible to predict.
 

gral

Well-known member
Speaking of bible PODs. How about this.

the kingdom of Israel does not split after Solomon’s death-going to his heir Jeroboam.

My understanding is you probably butterflied away Christianity(at the very least, it will not be Christianity as we know it).
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top