Alternate History NESes; Spout some ideas!

[Insane_Panda]

*Looks at Insane_Panda.*

Bwaha...If I modded, the world would turn a dark blue.

 

[erez87]

das put in the map thread the empty map with the new rivers, it could be helpfull... btw I could try and mod one of your nes's... but I think i'll stink in it like all NES's I moded...

 

[Xen]

@Das- I agree; your map with your own new rivers is quite nice

 

[Insane_Panda]

Das, I shall take you up on your offer to mod your timeline.

StPandaNES soon! It wont crap out like almost-first one either.

 

[Communisto]

I have an idea for a new timeline, for what its worth, What if Marx's mother died in childbirth and the little Karl died with her? Communism would never come to be. All the major problems of the 2nd half of the 20th century would be averted. Per haps there would be new problems?

 

[Xen]

nah, we woudl have a whole different set of problems; without communism, thier is nothing for the uber-rich to fear thier wordl coming to, and so wont be forced to make concessions to the working poor to try to avert it; this A)means that less of a middle class woudl eventually devlop, as people have less means to save money for thier childrens education, so they can get middle class jobs B)because of the lack of a middle class, the economies are severlly wekaned, as the main buying element in society in short supply and, most seriouslly, C)workers wotn want the conditions of work around that era forever- they will react, and if not peacefully, then violentlly; without Marx, IMO, its even mor elikelly that you would violent overthrows fo the rich upperclass around the world, just mianlly with the goal of killing the rich, and giving what they own to the poor, rather then establishing a communist country

 

[das]

Technically, Marx was barely the creator of communism. It existed before that, and in the 19th century form (i.e. WORKER socialism) it began to rise in mid-18th century, with a whole variety of people propagandizing it. Marx only helped popularize it to the masses (HELPED, as the process was already started by then). I'm sure someone else would do that just as well, if not better.

 

[Dachs]

What about one where the chancellor of WWI Imperial Germany, Theobald Bethmann-Hollweg, doesn't oppose unrestricted submarine warfare in 1915, two years earlier than OTL beginning in 1917? With unrestricted sub warfare, Germany could dominate Allied shipping. America would enter the war, but keep most of its men in Mexico looking for Pancho Villa, and the great convoys of 1918 wouldn't appear. England took two years in OTL to make enough hydrophones and depth charges to find and destroy U-boats, and unrestricted sub attacks would make that number skyrocket. Eventually, Germany could force a victory on the Western Front with no need for Falkenhayn's desperate attack on Verdun. A Germany fighting a depleted Britain and France might be able to finally reach Paris in an offensive similar to Ludendorff's of 1918, only there would be no American Marines to oppose it. Ultimately, the unrestricted sub warfare would annihilate British will to fight and force them into an unfavorable treaty with France and Russia out of the fight.

This same strategy was posited by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle in his novel Danger of 1913, where he proposed a war between Britain and a fictional European state named Nordland. Nordland is on the verge of losing when the naval officer John Serious proposes using their 8 submarines to the Nordic King, who replies, "Ah, you would attack the English battleships with submarines?" Serious' reply: "Sire, I would never go near and English battleship." He outlines a proposal to attack all seaborne foodstuffs: "What do I care for the three-mile limit, or international law?" Needless to say, England is forced into a humiliating peace

If Bethmann-Hollweg is removed in May 1915, the German totals might have risen from 127,000 tons in May to 250,000 tons in August (183K actual). At this point the number of U-boats stayed the same until 1916, so we can keep it a a quarter million tons/month for the rest of 1915. Obviously, Britain wouldn't be able to stand up to this ruthless destruction.

 

[Xen]

I think your time line answeres itself; with an early US entering the fray, britian dosent have to do anythign alone anymore, and this includes Hyfrophone production; with the added boost the US production could give, and the lack of materials completelly going to Germany from the US, including funding, a full reversal of Germanies tactic might take place, rather then its domination

 

[das]

I don't think it will change much IN the war. USA will be more battered (trench warfare), but UK will be better off. Possibly a much more isolationist (or much less isolationist) USA.

 

[Dachs]

The US still had many of its men in Mexico on the Pancho Villa wild goose chase. It took a year to call up enough troops to make a difference on the ground on the Western Front, and by that time Britain would be much like Germany in 1918, slowly starving to death.

 

[Xen]

Ponho Villa hardly qualifies as a real war; its naive to assume that if the US entered WWI early, that the wouldnt just initiate a major draft, so as to able to persue both actions at the same time.

 

[Dachs]

They had issues getting people there even in 1918, when the Army was out of Mexico. General Pershing repeatedly had to bang his head against the bureaucracy in Wahington to get even more than one division. Billy Mitchell had no Army Air Service until about June 1918, and even then had to use French aircraft. I'm not saying Pancho was a real threat, but the Americans tied down a lot of men trying to catch him. The American government wasn't really behind the war at all, and that was when public sentiment had had time to simmer after the Zimmermann telegram's interception a year earlier. Support for a draft to save Europe this early in the war would have been lukewarm at best. Even in the first months of 1918, after America had been at war for almost a year, there were thousands of people being rounded up for active opposition to the government's policies under the Sedition Act. Going to the last bit, they'd withdraw from Mexico a little early, with no more loss of prestige than when they left after two more years. There'd be no need to pursue a war on two fronts, but still, try moving several corps from a desert to the East Coast to Ireland (without getting sunk by the U-boats) or Wales, then across the Channel to France, and then trying to make a difference in war that would've already gone sour for the Allies anyway.

 

[Xen]

however; US support early on in the war implies that the citizenry was in favor of going to war; as the president certinally wasnt until the Zimmerman telegram.

 

[Dachs]

America was greatly split over this during the war, mainly between isolationists and the people who wanted to use America's power to its advantage on the world stage. You're probably right about the public supporting a war, but the problem still remains: A Germany without the losses of Verdun and the Somme, and allies running low on supplies and food, who's going to probably win? Ludendorff would have been able to hold the Russians with the amount of troops he had, and the Brusilov offensive would have been much similar to OTL. However, the new German manpower preponderance would have allowed them to concentrate in a good spot, like the St. Mihiel salient, and use that as a breakout point to swing around the huge numbers of Brits ready for slaughter at Ypres and possibly seize Paris in fall of 1915. With Paris gone, the French would make any concession to get it back, just like after the Franco-Prussian War. Britain would be forced to leave when France capitulates, and soon Germany can concentrate forces on a weakened Russia. That's not to say that the Russians wouldn'tve resisted like with the Grande Armee, but support for the tsar was waning, even before the fateful years of 1916-7. Germany would easily take Moscow and maybe St. Petersburg, but Russia would stop them, or territorial concessions would go to Germany. Hitler would have his Lebensraum twenty years early.

 

[Xen]

but you seem to factor in the american support as being nothing, while comparitivlly, Germany getting all the advatages; this is hardley the case, as if anything, its stacking the odds agianst germany; unrestricted sum warfare hjust isnt going to please americans, and as th elosses rack up, so will the fervour present in the US citizenry, in Lusiotantia coudl get as many riled up in the states as it did, imagine how horribly the shock agianst germany woudl be if such things happend 10 fold in number in the first week of war with germany? Amercians woudlnt stand for it, and if anything, Germany woudl seal a fate doomed at the hands of US industry similer to how it did itself in in WWII

 

[silver 2039]

I'm planning on starting a Modern or Industrial Age alternate history NEs and am looking for some ideas.
Anyone?

 

[das]

See your thread, and page 53 here.

 

[silver 2039]

I have it according to max posts per a page so I see only 30 pages in this thread.

 

[das]

Well, um, some pages before.

Ah, darn, here it is anyway: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2618948&postcount=1042