Alternate History Thread II...

Status
Not open for further replies.
IMHO Stresemann didn't matter so much... A rather more interesting development will come if Stresemann manages to stay in power, perhaps even using the dire circumstances to become a dictator (he was quite pragmatic and the circumstances demanded a strong government).

You also don't mention Poland, whereas that was a vital part of Stresemann's foreign policy.
 
Im not sure that much would come of Stresemann's refusal to accept the eastern borders at this time, the threat of invasion from France, Germany's small army and the depression would have stopped any kind of military action. If there were to be any kind of peaceful action it would take time IMO or a big change like a revolution in Poland.
 
Why military action where there's always economic leaning, subtle destabilization and so forth?

Ironically, Stresemann's policies would've likely have been quite similar to Hitler's in general, apart from the policies towards minorities. Rebuilding the army, retaking the Ruhr, annexing Austria, reviving German influence in Eastern Europe... He probably wouldn't have annexed Poland and Czechoslovakia wholesale, letting their rump states exist as German puppets.
 
This is a newspaper article, and I didn't write it. It is titled "The Origins of the Great War of 2007" and is quite good. It gives a prediction of the the future course of events in the Middle East if Iran is allowed to get nuclear weapons. It is quite althistorical.

The article is disturbing in the fact that it's probability of being correct is high, but also provides an interesting comparison between the West of the late 1930's and the West of today. They are following a doctrine of appeasement.

In fact, it postulates that a devastating nuclear exchange could be avoided if the U.S or Israel uses military action instead of caving to leftist pressure for "diplomacy".

It could make a good NES.

Here it is:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml;jsessionid=3EY11ZPK0CBJPQFIQMFSFFOAVCBQ0IV0?xml=/opinion/2006/01/15/do1502.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2006/01/15/ixopinion.html

EDIT: I find this quote to be the most important:

"Yet the historian is bound to ask whether or not the true significance of the 2007-2011 war was to vindicate the Bush administration's original principle of pre-emption. For, if that principle had been adhered to in 2006, Iran's nuclear bid might have been thwarted at minimal cost. And the Great Gulf War might never have happened."
 
I want to see an alt history where nazi germany collapses in on itself becuase hitler and himler are caught in an inappropreiate position with one another, with incriminateing photographs to prove it.
 
North King said:
That's actually about it. Justinian initially struck east instead, and Ocader managed to rebuild the Western Roman Empire in large part, converted to Orthodoxy, and declared himself Emperor. But his Arian subjects got a little pissed, threw him off the throne and into exile--he asked Justinian for help, who sent Belisarius. Belisarius claimed the crown for his own when it became clear that Justinian was a little mad, and defeated the Eastern Roman Emperor in battle, restoring the throne to another dynasty. The Selucid Empire broke off after it was clear the Byzantine Emperor couldn't hold it all. Of course, without Belisarius, the Western Roman Empire isn't in too good shape anymore.

I love it- wouldnt have made the western empire so large, IMO though.
 
Thlayli said:
This is a newspaper article, and I didn't write it. It is titled "The Origins of the Great War of 2007" and is quite good. It gives a prediction of the the future course of events in the Middle East if Iran is allowed to get nuclear weapons. It is quite althistorical.

The article is disturbing in the fact that it's probability of being correct is high, but also provides an interesting comparison between the West of the late 1930's and the West of today. They are following a doctrine of appeasement.

In fact, it postulates that a devastating nuclear exchange could be avoided if the U.S or Israel uses military action instead of caving to leftist pressure for "diplomacy".

It could make a good NES.

Here it is:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml;jsessionid=3EY11ZPK0CBJPQFIQMFSFFOAVCBQ0IV0?xml=/opinion/2006/01/15/do1502.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2006/01/15/ixopinion.html

EDIT: I find this quote to be the most important:

"Yet the historian is bound to ask whether or not the true significance of the 2007-2011 war was to vindicate the Bush administration's original principle of pre-emption. For, if that principle had been adhered to in 2006, Iran's nuclear bid might have been thwarted at minimal cost. And the Great Gulf War might never have happened."

I completely disagree with that scenario; I've already stated why in Off-Topic.

myself said:
However, I also don't think that we should actively prevent Iran from gaining nuclear technology; why? Because it makes the world a safer place. Yes, that seems like an inherent contradiction, but I would beg to differ. We were much safer during the Cold War than we are now.

Despite our fears of getting blown up, no one but a completely insane ruler would inflict MAD on the world, and even in totalitarian states, there is the fact that it is filled with people just like you and me. Iranians and North Koreans are not robots. They have families, homes, children just like we do. And rest assured, they do NOT want them to die in nuclear destruction.

Now we have no nuclear deterrant, so there is much less reason for us to negotiate. Thus, we threaten and bully, and thus, they fight back in the most distasteful, but for them, the only way: terrorism.

I hope you'll take the time to read this post, instead of just taking snippets out of them and bashing it; either take the thing as a whole or put me on your ignore list, but don't take one sentence out of a paragraph and then bash that; it's something we've seen far too often and leads only to flame wars.
 
This is true, however the outcome of this scenario hinges on one crucial factor.

The sanity of the Iranian president.

When was the last time the West refused to do anything about a megalomaniac anti-Semitic dictator coming to absolute power in his nation?

That would be the lead up to WWII, Hitler specifically, and there are too many telling similarities between the two conflicts.

Despite the fact that I'm sure Iranian families do not wish to die in a nuclear holocaust, Ahmedinejad (or however you spell it) is not going to care, his stated goal being the total destruction of Israel.

I agree with your point that the U.S is less safe (externally) now then during the Cold War...for the most part.

The reason, however, is that Islamic radicals do not CARE about Mutual Assured Destruction. The Soviets did.

And the only one "threatening and bullying" has been the Iranian president, making such outrageous statements as to deny that the Holocaust even existed! Certainly this man isn't the sharpest tool in the shed.
 
Thlayli said:
This is true, however the outcome of this scenario hinges on one crucial factor.

The sanity of the Iranian president.

And the willingness of the Iranian people to follow his directions.

Despite the fact that I'm sure Iranian families do not wish to die in a nuclear holocaust, Ahmedinejad (or however you spell it) is not going to care, his stated goal being the total destruction of Israel.

I'm quite sure he wouldn't care. But... Would his people let him? Power only lies where people believe it to lie, and if he looked like a madman, with the end of the world nigh, then they would stop supporting him in the meantime.

I agree with your point that the U.S is less safe (externally) now then during the Cold War...for the most part.

The reason, however, is that Islamic radicals do not CARE about Mutual Assured Destruction. The Soviets did.

Islamic radicals aren't the whole nation of Iran.

And the only one "threatening and bullying" has been the Iranian president, making such outrageous statements as to deny that the Holocaust even existed! Certainly this man isn't the sharpest tool in the shed.

Nope, he's not. :p

But totalitarian states do not survive if they are steering for catastrophy. Hitler's Germany believed he was fully capable of winning the wars. There is no victory from a nuclear war; Iranians would know they are leading them to destruction. To draw from another historical parallel, the French at the time of the Revolution lived under a similarly undemocratic regieme; when it became clear the monarchy did not care about the people, they were overthrown by the people; the government's troops refusing to fire upon their own families.
 
Xen said:
I want to see an alt history where nazi germany collapses in on itself becuase hitler and himler are caught in an inappropreiate position with one another, with incriminateing photographs to prove it.

I agree with this guy.
 
well, i mean before Germany even conqoures anything you know, Germany got a case "we're the sturtruppen ubermensh" and the Hitler turns about be a crisco loving gay; the fatherland is turned upside in a turmoil of self pity and national embaressment as Hitlery and Fraun Himler (or the otherway around?) go to brazil to spend thier honey moon in song, dancen and interior design.
 
That would be interesting if Germany had won WWI because it would be like 2 hitlers in France and Bitain WW2 maps would be redrawn
 
History Freak said:
That would be interesting if Germany had won WWI because it would be like 2 hitlers in France and Bitain WW2 maps would be redrawn

That would really depend when the Central Powers (Or just Germany alone) would have won. And also it depends on the peace resolution that is signed between the Central Powers and the Allies.
 
the French at the time of the Revolution lived under a similarly undemocratic regieme

Not necessarily. There is an opinion that it was something called a "democratic dictatorship" (compare with aristocratic dictatorship or proletarian dictatorship, for instance).

IMHO the main problems in historiography (especially althistoriography) are categorism and determinism. "if X is totalitarian then it will do Y and collapse because of Z". That said, there don't seem to be any REAL totalitarian states around nowadays, which onlyp roves my point.

I want to see an alt history where nazi germany collapses in on itself becuase hitler and himler are caught in an inappropreiate position with one another, with incriminateing photographs to prove it.

And... who will believe said photographs? Yeltsin was caught completely drunk many times (in public), yet managed to succesfully remain in power until he decided to resign because of old age...

That would be interesting if Germany had won WWI because it would be like 2 hitlers in France and Bitain WW2 maps would be redrawn

There was a nice book about it, "The Cross on the Tower" (in Russian). In WWII, USA, Germany, Austria-Hungary, China and some others fight Britain, France, Russia and Japan (and some others). Halfway through it devolves into an international revolution...

IMHO a rather more likely version is a "Cold War" between Germany and Great Britain during 1920s (and maybe 1930s), the appearence of a German-led European Union (or, rather, a revived Continental System), several diplomatic and military defeats for Britain, the British allying with USA (which is eager to maintain the balance of power) as a result, Germany allying with Japan, Russia and France trying to turn against Germany and WWII beginning. Chances are, it will end in a nuclear armaggedon...

There won't be any "hitlers" in France or Britain as Hitler was a German phenomenon, the "twillight German genius" applied to populist ultranationalism.
 
Well the Germans were almost breaking through before America intervened so right before the Americans intervened would be there victory date(you know mid-1916)and the peace treaty was almost identical to the treaty of versallies
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom