What if? (Historical Events version)

[Scarlett_Rayne 0]

So I guess I'll start this off.

 

What if the Crusades never occurred?

 

What if France refused to help the 13 colonies with the war for independence?

 

 

[At Home 0]

Wut if lyke hilter 1 ww2?

[Guest Vitamin X]

This is way too broad. You could make a shitload of what-ifs on just one country during a certain era, let alone the entire history of the world. I'll try to answer and put in a couple of my own.

 

What if France refused to help the 13 colonies with the war for independence?

 

At sea, the British Navy squashes the rebellion. The French intervention was grossly overstated- their contribution was minimal on the ground, and by the time that they had intervened, the Americans had already won the turning point in the war in the Saratoga campaign. What the French (along with Spanish and Prussian) intervention did was mainly to serve their own interests, in hopes of weakening British power. They didn't officially sign an alliance treaty with the USA until a few years after they had already been providing financial assistance quietly to the colonies.

 

If they refuse, simply put, the colonies still win the war, but at a much higher cost and possibly a longer war since King George III was adamant in refusing to acknowledge the colonies' independence.

 

Wut if lyke hilter 1 ww2?

Impossible unless he had a stronger ally on his side. A better what if would be if they hadn't invaded the Soviet Union, and furthermore, used them as an ally against the West. What would most likely end up happening is the Japanese take control of the Pacific, the Soviets control of central Asia and possibly the Middle East as well, the Germans all of Europe and Africa, and the countries in the Americas would most likely fend off an attack and ask for a cease fire, with many portions of the two continents controlled by the even stronger Axis powers.

 

Here's two what if's:

 

What if the 300 Spartans didn't manage to hold off the Persian Army at the Battle of Thermopylae, or give time for the Greeks to gather their forces?

 

And related to the Americas again, what if the Socialist Party had a stronger following (particularly during the Great Depression) and managed to become a stronger force in American politics? Would they replace the (then-liberal) Republican Party as the second big party, or compete as a third party? Would a dominance in politics affect the Cold War afterwards?

[At Home 0]

I actually have a good what if:

 

What if Stalin never came into power?

 

Consider Germany's invasion into Russia. Let's assume that Trotsky won. This came up in my political science class at UC berkeley and literally took 3 weeks to come to somewhat of a conclusion.

[Richard 0]

Well Hitler might not have signed a pact with the USSR as allying with a Jewish head of state would look bad to the German public (assuming they would have known; The Nazi propaganda machine may have been able to hide the fact or spin it in a positive way).

[2GOLD 0]

Here's two what if's:

 

What if the 300 Spartans didn't manage to hold off the Persian Army at the Battle of Thermopylae, or give time for the Greeks to gather their forces?

 

 

Persia would have rolled through Europe for a long period of time. I mean, they lost a rather large chunk of their army (well, in terms of what they were facing) and morale really got the hell beat out of it (getting held up by 1900 men will do that to you).

 

The hold up by the 1900 actually allowed the Greeks to build an army and assemble a Naval fleet. Plus a good number of the Greek states were believed to be ready to surrender before the battle instead of facing a force they did not believe was stoppable. It was kind of interesting how much the one battle changed the morale on both sides. It went from "We can never defeat them" to "Hey, maybe we can". While the Persians went from "Our God will lead us to defeat of these puny mortals" to "My god, what have you gotten us into?"

 

Without the hold up and the morale change, the Persians would have taken complete control of southern Europe and probably begin to take over the northern parts later in the year when Xerxes quest for power and god-like status demanded it. You would have had a mostly Persian Europe and if they decided to sail on the UK, who knows. He might have accomplished his goal of World domination really. Which would have completely altered history in about a billion different ways. Too many to count. Plus it's hard to say what happens when Xerxes dies. How does it all dissolve? What does the in-fighting do to the newly controlled Europe?

[World's Worst Man 0]

There were like, 25 crusades. Not really, but there were a lot. The first Crusade was the only successful one anyway, at least of the ones where the intention was to capture Jerusalem. The Fourth Crusade was probably the most important, as that's the one where the Byzantine Empire ended up getting annexed, and even though they returned later, they never really recovered. So that leads into a "What if Constantinople wasn't sacked and annexed during the fourth Crusade, and subsequently, what if the city didn't fall to the Ottomans in 1453?" It's quite possible it could have still been around in modern times, just as the Ottoman Empire still existed up until World War I.

 

The Germans would have never lost WWII if they hadn't invaded the Soviet Union. If they could have concentrated all of their forces in Normandy, D-Day would have ended up being a wholesale slaughter. If Hitler had any sense, he would never have done this. Of course, if he had any sense, WWII wouldn't have started, but you know.

 

The Persians may have been able to go North, but had they tried going west, the Celts would have crushed them. It's possible they could have annihilated the Romans before they ever really branched out though. At that point they had just instituted the Republic, and they hadn't even conquered the Italian peninsula. So kind of related, what if the Celts had annexed or annihilated Rome after their victories in 390BC? The power balance in Europe would have been held in Gaul, and it's possible that Carthage and the Celts would have ended up warring with each other over Iberia.

 

What if Muhammad had died during the battle of Uhud (as almost happened)? Islam would have been crushed and the Middle East would have likely been overtaken by Christianity (as it already had a foothold in the region).

[Scarlett_Rayne 0]

This is way too broad. You could make a shitload of what-ifs on just one country during a certain era, let alone the entire history of the world. I'll try to answer and put in a couple of my own.

 

What if France refused to help the 13 colonies with the war for independence?

 

At sea, the British Navy squashes the rebellion. The French intervention was grossly overstated- their contribution was minimal on the ground, and by the time that they had intervened, the Americans had already won the turning point in the war in the Saratoga campaign. What the French (along with Spanish and Prussian) intervention did was mainly to serve their own interests, in hopes of weakening British power. They didn't officially sign an alliance treaty with the USA until a few years after they had already been providing financial assistance quietly to the colonies.

 

If they refuse, simply put, the colonies still win the war, but at a much higher cost and possibly a longer war since King George III was adamant in refusing to acknowledge the colonies' independence.

 

 

 

What about with the aftermath soon thereafter with the French Revolution?

 

Wasn't it France's money problems they incurred and were heightened by their financial involvement with the American Revolution that kinda caused it in the first place?

 

What if the colonies lost the revolution? Would the revolution movements of the early 1800's have even occured?

[The Metal Maniac 0]

Wasn't it France's money problems they incurred and were heightened by their financial involvement with the American Revolution that kinda caused it in the first place?

 

That, plus the fact that they suddenly had a bunch of French soldiers going "Hey, we're fighting for these people to become independent and run their own government...but we stil have to listen to whatever the King tells us. That doesn't make sense..."

[Guest Vitamin X]

Maybe it's just good ol' American arrogance talking here, but I think that if the American revolution fails, the revolutions in the early 19th century don't occur. The French Revolution and the American Revolution are tied very closely together, as Voltaire, Paine, and Jefferson were at the forefront of all that.

 

Of course, the French just like revolting and rioting against anything, so who knows. It's kind of like what would've happened if the Tsar's armies crushed the Bolsheviks in 1917. Would communism even be a real strong movement in other countries without them?

[Red Baron 0]

What if Normandy failed.

[RepoMan 0]

What if Normandy failed.

War ends two years latter, USSR contorls bigger chunk of Germany.

[Scarlett_Rayne 0]

And related to the Americas again, what if the Socialist Party had a stronger following (particularly during the Great Depression) and managed to become a stronger force in American politics? Would they replace the (then-liberal) Republican Party as the second big party, or compete as a third party? Would a dominance in politics affect the Cold War afterwards?

 

Depends, does FDR still become president after Hoover? If so, then nothing would have changed probably, he was pretty much borderline socialist. Now if socialism and communism had a stronger following with native born Americans instead of just with immigrants during the tail end of the Gilded Age and during the Progressive Era, I think they would have been a 3rd party to reckon with and if they came into power, I don't think the Cold War and anti-communism movement would have held as much weight nor would have lasted as long.

 

[tominator89 0]

What if Al Gore never invented the Internet?

[Scarlett_Rayne 0]

what if lincoln and kennedy would have lived? how different would things have turned out with reconstruction and with vietnam?

[At Home 0]

what if lincoln and kennedy would have lived? how different would things have turned out with reconstruction and with vietnam?

 

Lincoln...

 

Well, that's a shaky path. Considering that the house basically controlled all of the facets of reconstruction, there's a pretty good possibility that it still would have failed. I think it was a pretty doomed venture no matter how you look at it. Lincoln may have been all "straighten your asses up in hurr" but the house was the main factor in reconstruction; they ran right over Johnson and might have done the same thing to Lincoln. I mean, the only thing that they really cared about was punishing the South into utter submission, which they kind of did in a really fucked up way.

 

Kennedy. I don't know. He would have died anyway. His cholesterol rating was in the 300's, according to something I saw on the history channel. He was a pretty damned good leader though. I don't know about vietnam, though. I don't think much would've changed, considering that he said America would "pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and success of liberty." The whole vietnam policy rested the responsibility on Diem, which completely failed. From the beginning, we were kind of in that shit for the long run. Kennedy made paltry withdraw bids (ultimately reversed by Johnson) and even told MacNamara that he was seriously considering pulling out. However, how realistic was that? It would have been a political and military nightmare for the Kennedy administration (even though it later just became a nightmare for the Johnson and Nixon administrations). Eh. I'm not sure.

[Scarlett_Rayne 0]

what if lincoln and kennedy would have lived? how different would things have turned out with reconstruction and with vietnam?

 

Lincoln...

 

Well, that's a shaky path. Considering that the house basically controlled all of the facets of reconstruction, there's a pretty good possibility that it still would have failed. I think it was a pretty doomed venture no matter how you look at it. Lincoln may have been all "straighten your asses up in hurr" but the house was the main factor in reconstruction; they ran right over Johnson and might have done the same thing to Lincoln. I mean, the only thing that they really cared about was punishing the South into utter submission, which they kind of did in a really fucked up way.

 

 

Although Congress was controlled by the Radical Republicans, I think Lincoln might have tried to stiff them up via veto powers, or since things were still under marshall law, he may have just sent an executive order their way and done things like that... I know his plan for reconstruction was kinda like a kiss and make up plan and in no way did he nearly want it to be as harsh as Congress. I think had his plan gone through, a lot of the Jim Crow mess wouldn't have been as bad honestly. I mean racism and inequality would have still existed but, I think some of the reason why it lasted so long was due to the fact that the Radical Republicans were really trying to shove the issue down the throats of the South and thus in some aspects it was more of a retaliation towards that. I dunno...

 

 

Kennedy. I don't know. He would have died anyway. His cholesterol rating was in the 300's, according to something I saw on the history channel. He was a pretty damned good leader though. I don't know about vietnam, though. I don't think much would've changed, considering that he said America would "pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and success of liberty." The whole vietnam policy rested the responsibility on Diem, which completely failed. From the beginning, we were kind of in that shit for the long run. Kennedy made paltry withdraw bids (ultimately reversed by Johnson) and even told MacNamara that he was seriously considering pulling out. However, how realistic was that? It would have been a political and military nightmare for the Kennedy administration (even though it later just became a nightmare for the Johnson and Nixon administrations). Eh. I'm not sure.

 

 

I'm not sure if Kennedy would have escalated the war further nor am I sure he would have won re-election due to the Bay of Pigs disaster, but had the remaining years of his presidency been fruitful and had he overcome the embarassment of the Bay of Pigs, I'm not sure some of his Civil Rights legislation would have been as liberal as Johnson's was. Poor, poor LBJ, he was a great president but Vietnam was his downfall.

 

Now, what if Alexander Hamilton was never killed by Aaron Burr?

 

 

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Now, what if Alexander Hamilton was never killed by Aaron Burr?

 

He probably would have retired from public life after the Jeffersonian Revolution of 1800 and, especially, after the Federalists were disgraced during the War of 1812 with the Hartford Convention.

[Danville_Wrestling 0]

what if lincoln and kennedy would have lived? how different would things have turned out with reconstruction and with vietnam?

 

With Lincoln you have to take into consideration that the only reason the Radical Republicans dominated the Johnson administration was their sweep of elections in 1866 which gave them a two-thirds majority in Congress and the ability to overrule every veto that Johnson put against their various civil rights bills. With Lincoln still in control he would have had a lenient Reconstruction plan.

 

In fact, Lincoln's plan I believe was the so-called "10 percent plan" which said that only ten percent of the people in each southern state had to repledge allegiance to the U.S. in exchange for getting their state government back off the ground. There were other conditions but it was a VERY lenient plan. No doubt this would have pissed off the Radical Republicans BUT I think they fail to win the 1866 election in the way they did against Johnson for two reasons: #1-Lincoln's speaking skills were WAY better than Johnson and Johnson's lack to passion on the stump didn't endear him to voters when he campaigned versus Radicals in '66 and #2-Lincoln was a more shrewd politician. You have to remember, Johnson never had much formal schooling, was taught to read/write by his wife, and wasn't even close to being even an upper tier politician during his era.

 

All of these factors combined lead me to believe that Lincoln's plan would have succeeded over the Radicals which then opens up a whole new case of worms. Do we still get the 14th and 15th amendments to the constitution added without the Radicals? Do we get any future civil rights bills that were passed during the Radical Reconstruction period? Without federal troops in the South, does the "redemption" period occur far sooner and black politicians who initially reaped the benefits of protection in the South never come into power? Better yet, by having these newly Democratic states being reintroduced into the Union, do the Republicans still continue their dominance of the White House which occurred post-Johnson with Grant, Hayes, James Garfield, and Chester Arthur or does a Democratic candidate such as Samuel J. Tilden (who was robbed of the presidency versus Hayes in 1876) break that dominance and what impacts does that have on the country?

 

Definitely more questions than answers.

[Perfxion 0]

Alexander Hamiliton would have been the only non US mainland president in history and would have kept the Federalist party alive for years to come. And he would be the one of, if not the last, fore father of this country to lead this country.

 

What if the War of 1812's peace treaty was done two week AFTER the battle of New Orleans?

[Scarlett_Rayne 0]

Do we still get the 14th and 15th amendments to the constitution added without the Radicals? Do we get any future civil rights bills that were passed during the Radical Reconstruction period? Without federal troops in the South, does the "redemption" period occur far sooner and black politicians who initially reaped the benefits of protection in the South never come into power? Better yet, by having these newly Democratic states being reintroduced into the Union, do the Republicans still continue their dominance of the White House which occurred post-Johnson with Grant, Hayes, James Garfield, and Chester Arthur or does a Democratic candidate such as Samuel J. Tilden (who was robbed of the presidency versus Hayes in 1876) break that dominance and what impacts does that have on the country?

 

Definitely more questions than answers.

 

 

I'm not sure if we would have seen the 14th and 15th amendment as soon as when we did with the Radical Republicans in control of congress. The 14th and 15th amendment were truly radical in itself even for probably some of the strongest abolitionists from the Ante-Bellum era. I'm sure without federal occupation in the South, Jim Crow may have still occurred but I honestly don't think it would have nearly been as bad given the absence of an overbearing military force and the Radical Republican control of congress. I doubt the Republicans would have dominated the Presidential races as strongly as they did with Grant and Hayes and we probably would have seen more of a populist shift around the time of Garfield.

[BruiserKC 0]

OK...I know people have to have something to say about this.

 

What if Al Gore won the 2000 election instead of the Dubya? How would the world be different...how would the US be different and how would Gore have responded to 9/11 and the Iraq situation?

[reign 0]

Gore still would have galvanized the country and the world with support for the US and we still would've gone into Afghanistan after Bin Laden and the Taliban. What we would not have was Iraq. Sadam would still be there as a nuisance in the governments eyes but hopefully they would realize that he hadn't killed a single American in over a decade, he had no wmd or was impotent to use them, was too wrapped up in the wealth he was getting from the oil for food deal and was a buffer against Iran. If the war went too long then the public would still be having a fit but I think we'd be in a better position than we are now.

[Guest Vitamin X]

Yeah, the Iraq thing would be pretty huge. I wonder if we had concentrated all our forces in Afghanistan instead of spreading them to Iraq as well, if we would have found bin Laden by now.

 

I'm not as up to speed with the whole deal that happened the morning of or in the days leading up to 9/11, but would Gore have found a way to prevent/stop it, had he read the reports being given to him by the FBI? Also, being that the Iraq War was a major part of the 2004 election, would he have been re-elected? Who would have run against him from the Republican party? Giuliani?

 

Gore would've definitely signed off on that Kyoto treaty as well. I wonder if national health care would come into play somehow as well.

[Obi Chris Kenobi 0]

Just watch Sliders (if you dare), all your questions will be answered!

[BruiserKC 0]

I think Gore would have still had to deal with the oil-for-food issues with the United Nations, plus the nations like France and Germany refusing to help in the War on Terror per their interests in the ME, especially in Iraq.

[Vampiro69 0]

What if Moctezuma II didn't beileved that Cortez was actually the Aztec god Quetzacoatl?

[Guest Vitamin X]

Then the Spaniards still would have slaughtered their ass, much like they did with the Incas who DID feel Spain was invading their territory, and laughably thought they still had the upper hand regardless.

[Scarlett_Rayne 0]

What if Moctezuma II didn't beileved that Cortez was actually the Aztec god Quetzacoatl?

 

 

The better question would be what if cortez did not meet malinche and make friends with various tribes that were the enemies of the aztecs

 

if he didnt meet malinche and make friends with enemy tribes, cortez may have failed in the conquest

[EricMM 0]

I think an even better question would have been: what if the native Americans had either horses or gunpowder weapons up front? Or at least steel.

 

Conversely, what if the first transcontinental ships came from America to Europe?

 

I wonder if there were any American plagues on the level of smallpox that could have decimated Europe the way smallpox decimated the Americas? There must have been...