What If?

[privatehudson]

On a general note what I tend to find with Alternate histories is that the most common kind tend to be about the loosing side turning the tables and winning. The South winning the Civil War, Germany defeating the Allied powers, Napoleon defeating Wellington and Blucher at Waterloo. There is usually (but not always) a sense of romanticism surrounding the losers which permeates down into the scenarios. Perhaps what we could try to discuss here is the lesser discussed alternatives such as how the Allies could have won WW2 quicker, or how the North could have ended the Civil War sooner?

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

And if the North had won the war sooner, what then? For example, it didn't become "about" slavery until the war started to drag on. If it hadn't, maybe slavery would have taken longer to end - but then also maybe blacks wouldn't have become quite the scapegoat they did.

 

[privatehudson]

One of the other points is that a shorter war may not have brought as much devastation to the South as happened under Sherman for example. This may have lead to an easier post war period and lessened some of the problems that were seen in the reconstruction period. I do however think that slavery was always going to be a thorny issue, so had it not been resolved during the conflict it would still retain the capacity to cause tension further down the line. Whilst emancipation and slave rights took a greater importance to the North as the war continued the right to own slaves was always important to the South.

 

[Steph]

What if the British had lost Trafalgar, and Napoleon gain control of the channel long enough to land his army in Britain?

Could he have forced a long peace turn in Europe? Long enough to fully reform France and "contaminate" other countries through more peaceful means?

 

[privatehudson]

Interesting scenario, although I would believe that any such invasion would be considerably delayed would it not Steph? The Grand Armee was near Ulm on the day of Trafalgar and would be more or less kept busy on the continent until the defeat of Russia in 1807. The intervening period could have been used by the British to call in reserve ships and rebuild the fleet. The most serious blow however would have been in lost personnel as the Royal Navy had a hard time getting sailors back then (then again so did France, so any captured ships would have been difficult to man).

Assuming Boney could pull off an invasion though, and assuming it was sucessful then knocking out Britain from the conflict would have had a major knock on effect. We may not have put as many troops into the field as Russia or Austria, but we did play a vital financial role, and with the Portugese and Spanish proved a constant thorn in his side that cost him almost as many troops as the Russian campaign did

In all honesty though given the poor state of the Franco/Spanish navy, the experience of the British navy and the presence of Nelson the chances are pretty slim that Villeneuve could turn the tables.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Perhaps what we could try to discuss here is the lesser discussed alternatives such as how the Allies could have won WW2 quicker, or how the North could have ended the Civil War sooner?

Well I would certainly say that would provide colonialism a few more decades of breathing space.

 

[Steph]

Interesting scenario, although I would believe that any such invasion would be considerably delayed would it not Steph? The Grand Armee was near Ulm on the day of Trafalgar and would be more or less kept busy on the continent until the defeat of Russia in 1807. The intervening period could have been used by the British to call in reserve ships and rebuild the fleet. The most serious blow however would have been in lost personnel as the Royal Navy had a hard time getting sailors back then (then again so did France, so any captured ships would have been difficult to man).

Assuming Boney could pull off an invasion though, and assuming it was sucessful then knocking out Britain from the conflict would have had a major knock on effect. We may not have put as many troops into the field as Russia or Austria, but we did play a vital financial role, and with the Portugese and Spanish proved a constant thorn in his side that cost him almost as many troops as the Russian campaign did

Sure, Trafalgar happened the 21 of October 2005, but Villeneuve was forced into Cadiz in July. Please allow me to modify slighlty my scenario, Trafalgar was more a "catchy" word than anything. What if the French fleet have been able to control the Channel long Enough for the French army to invade from Boulogne, before the hostility really started with Austria?
Let say if French manage to invade England at the time it was still the only ennemy left? Would Russia and Austria had gone to war sooner or later? Would the French had been able to defeat them, if part of their army had been tied elsewhere? Or on the opposite, did the defeat of Trafalgar gave the opportunity to Nappy to be there at Austerlitz to secure several years of victories?

 

[privatehudson]

Sure, Trafalgar happened the 21 of October 2005, but Villeneuve was forced into Cadiz in July. Please allow me to modify slighlty my scenario, Trafalgar was more a "catchy" word than anything. What if the French fleet have been able to control the Channel long Enough for the French army to invade from Boulogne, before the hostility really started with Austria?

I thought he arrived in Cadiz on the 11th August? Napoleon also turned the army out of the channel camps in late August, which doesn't leave much time to work with (15 days or so). Villeneuve's fleet was lacking in supplies when it arrived in Cadiz as well, so leaving immediately was difficult. If they waited for the British to arrive that was too late (they turned up in mid September) and if they tried to move north into the channel that would also probably take longer than Napoleon was prepared to wait. Meanwhile the threat to France from the continent had been rising since April when Russia signed an alliance with Britain. The addition of Austria a few months later probably made the problem too acute for Napoleon to put off whilst he invaded Britain.

The most plausible opportunity was either during the feint into the West Indies and return, prior to Villeneuve scampering into Cadiz, or even sooner, because anything later really doesn't leave long enough to give a good chance of sucess. If the time period is taken any sooner (say 1804) though would the Grand Armee be fully trained and ready to launch the invasion?

Let say if French manage to invade England at the time it was still the only ennemy left? Would Russia and Austria had gone to war sooner or later? Would the French had been able to defeat them, if part of their army had been tied elsewhere? Or on the opposite, did the defeat of Trafalgar gave the opportunity to Nappy to be there at Austerlitz to secure several years of victories?

I don't think Austerlitz was at all effected by Trafalgar other than the fact that the Grand Armee had been raised and trained with the specific intention of invading Britain. Had Trafalgar not been fought at that point Napoleon still would have felt secure enough to turn on Britain's allies, and had the French won Trafalgar Napoleon would have been even more secure. Assuming however an earlier invasion of Britain that was sucessful it rather depends on what Napoleon intended to do with the country after victory as to how Austria and Russia would react. Had he attempted to overthrow the Hanovarians and occupy the country that would require a major investment of troops, something likely to give the Austrians and Russians heart. Had he merely intended to trounce the British army and then extract certain concessions before withdrawing that would not have given the Austrians and Russians much time in which to exploit the absence of the Grand Armee. I don't see them being eager to rush into the conflict, but perhaps they may have attempted some diversionary campaign to try and draw France's attention.

 

[Steph]

I
I don't think Austerlitz was at all effected by Trafalgar other than the fact that the Grand Armee had been raised and trained with the specific intention of invading Britain. Had Trafalgar not been fought at that point Napoleon still would have felt secure enough to turn on Britain's allies, and had the French won Trafalgar Napoleon would have been even more secure. Assuming however an earlier invasion of Britain that was sucessful it rather depends on what Napoleon intended to do with the country after victory as to how Austria and Russia would react. Had he attempted to overthrow the Hanovarians and occupy the country that would require a major investment of troops, something likely to give the Austrians and Russians heart. Had he merely intended to trounce the British army and then extract certain concessions before withdrawing that would not have given the Austrians and Russians much time in which to exploit the absence of the Grand Armee. I don't see them being eager to rush into the conflict, but perhaps they may have attempted some diversionary campaign to try and draw France's attention.

And would we have this discussion in French?
Hmm... Do you think a move of Napoleon, if he was successful in invading Britain, could have been to make Scotland / Ireland, and perhaps other countries like Canada, independants, and perhaps allies?
Would it have been accepted by the inhabitants of these countries? By the British? Could it have weaken the British enough so Napoleon could then dominate in Europe more easily?
With England checked, there could have been no continental blocus, no Spanish revolts, no Russian adventure

If you look at it closely, it's ALL ENGLAND FAULT

 

[Verbose]

Steph and Hudson:
What if someone like Surcouf had been able to persuade Napoleon that the way to fight Britain on the seas was commercially, i.e. to go for large scale privateering to cut UK supplies and damage the economy beyond what was already done by the Continental System?
Would it even be remotely feasible? It's something along the lines of the German U-boat campaigns of WWI and II, excpet prior to the subs themselves.

 

[Steph]

He already did:

In 1803, at the breaking of the Treaty of Amiens, First Consul Napoleon Bonaparte personally offered him the title of captain and command of a frigate squadron in the Indian Ocean. Surcouf, however, refused, for two reasons: first, he would not have been allowed to operate as independently as he desired; and second, he believed that the war against England should be waged with economic means (i.e. by attacking its merchant navy) rather than direct naval assault. His arguments did not fall on deaf ears; in 1805, Napoleon chose a blockade against England rather than direct confrontation, and allowed privateers to operate with relative impunity. Surcouf left in good terms, and was made officer of the Légion d'Honneur on 18 July 1804.

However, France simply lacked maritime power and privateers to make it efficient.

I can't resist to quote Surcouf:

Discussing with a British officer:
"You French fight for money, while we British fight for honour."
"A man fights for what he lacks the most!"

 

[privatehudson]

And would we have this discussion in French?

Only until Blackadder went back in time and changed things

Hmm... Do you think a move of Napoleon, if he was successful in invading Britain, could have been to make Scotland / Ireland, and perhaps other countries like Canada, independants, and perhaps allies?

I'm not sure Napoleon would want the kind of investment that dismantling the empire would entail whilst still busy on the continent. He might have made overtures towards Ireland (as in fact happened in the late 1790s) but Scotland was no longer the same country that had fought the Jacobite rebellions of 70 years beforehand. Ireland had leaders prepared to rebel against the union, I don't think Scotland did at the time.

I personally think that he would have gone for the same war aims as he did in Russia, to thrash the British army and use the sucess to force the British into concessions. Accepting the continental system, signing a peace treaty and becoming a semi-ally come to mind. I doubt this could have been long lasting though, but any further aim would have required an occupation of the country and/or the installation of a monarch friendly to Napoleon. I'm not certain Napoleon was willing to comitt to such a venture.

Ultimately I really think that Napoleon was prepared to let Britain take the back seat whilst he concentrated on the more pressing problems of his continental foes. It could arguably be seen as his biggest blunder.

If you look at it closely, it's ALL ENGLAND FAULT

Well what can we say, we always fight against Tyrants dominating Europe

What if someone like Surcouf had been able to persuade Napoleon that the way to fight Britain on the seas was commercially, i.e. to go for large scale privateering to cut UK supplies and damage the economy beyond what was already done by the Continental System?

There's evidence to suggest that some sucess would have followed if the right ships (i.e. frigates and privateers or similar) had been used. Take a look at the naval war against the USA (the 1812 war) sometime, extensive privateering forced the British to operate in convoys, and even then we had more than 1500 ships captured by US vessels. Its difficult to see much more damage being inflicted than the Americans managed however, and what they achieved wasn't enough to seriously undermine our trade. As Steph said the French navy probably didn't contain sufficient ships to pull it off.

As for Surcouf's remark one would think in that case that the thing the French Navy fought most for was to win...

 

[El Justo]

...1 question for you all, what if after the seven years war the British parliament had requested representitives from India and America to represent themselves in parliament- say 25% of parliament from each country. Would there have been an American Revolutionary war at all or at the very least it would have been postponed- quickening the decline of slavery and thus perhaps following their Independance would there have been need of a civil war? (i appreciate the civil war wasn't slavery orientated)...

i'd guess that the Rev would've been delayed if that was the case (ie representation). i mean, it was, after all, one of the primary themes of discontent.

i'd also think that any scenario like this may have hastened the north-south divide due to any slavery debate. the founding fathers in the US were notorious for pushing the matter under the carpet so to speak. so if any type of prohibition against slavery were introduced or even bandied about, i'd think that the southern colonies would've vehemently objected on economic and personal property grounds.

so in a nutshell, if this scenario were to unfold and the topic of slavery were to be at the forefront, i'd say that a civil war would've been sooner rather than later or not at all

 

[Clausewitzian]

Re: Napoleon

I think a what if scenario would have been, what if Napoleon hadn't had his insane need to invade England, and had instead tried to make the Treaty of Amiens work. Without a hostile Great Britain to cause headaches and finance continental enemies, he might have gotten a lot further in his dreams of continental domination.

In real history, of course, he had to have it all, including England, but with a little more moderation France could have been the greatest nation in, and de facto master of, continental europe, for a very long time. She would never have collapsed into the second rate Great Power she became. You have a vastly different future right there, with perhaps french being the most influential language on the planet, Germany never unifying etc.


Re: WWII

If the Nazi's hadn't done their little number on Russia, well, some claim Russia had invasion plans all of its own for the 1941/42 timeframe. The Russians had around 35.000 tanks v.s the German 6.000 at the onset of the war in the Eastfront. I don't remember the exact numbers but it's in this ball park. The russians had an amazingly advanced offensive army for that time, at least as far as tanks/paratroopers/number of air assets goes. Now Stalin does a little blitzkrieging of his own, capturing the critical to the Nazis Ploiesti oilfields. High russian morale. No implosion of the russian army. The Nazi warmachine without oil. He catches both the western capitalist pigs and the nazis with their pants down, at their weakest, completely unexpected and the western nations thouroughly demoralized.

It's a little known fact that Stalin ramped up Soviet military production to wartime mode at the onset of WWII, fully expecting to take advantage of any opportunities offered. How do the dice fall next?

 

[Verbose]

Re: Napoleon

I think a what if scenario would have been, what if Napoleon hadn't had his insane need to invade England, and had instead tried to make the Treaty of Amiens work. Without a hostile Great Britain to cause headaches and finance continental enemies, he might have gotten a lot further in his dreams of continental domination.

Yeah well, as I'm sure you know, opinions are divided (mostly between British and French) who it was who actually capsized the Treaty of Amiens. I think it's fair to say both the French and the British weren't exactly in good faith about it.

The "insane need" from a French POV looked very reasonable, since the key to getting the incessant wars to stop, as in "victory through superior fire-power", was to take out England.
Napoleons problem, like lots of militarily successful states in history, was of course facing up to the fact that no matter how many wars he won for France, it wouldn't remove the cause of the conflict — France becoming way too powerful for the others to accept it.

But as far as Amiens goes, France was pretty happy with it, and Napoleon too — assuming he was free to sort out small neighbours of France like Switzerland to his liking.
From the French perspective they were taking care of business, setting up the post war situation in the immediate neighbourhood, settling down to reap the benefits of a prosperous peace with the newfound stability under Napoleon, and suddenly BAM — our of nowhere the UK declares war! Go figure?

 

[St Exupère]

Britain would have never, never, accepted one of the continental Nations to become too powerful. All their plan of trade/maritime domination was based on a rather peaceful balance of powers in Europe. Napoleon knew this very well, and knew in the end he had to submit England. So IMO it is not a question of who broke Amiens but rather the fact that Amiens was pure bluff from both sides and had no grounds for holding.

Napoleon then thought he could never catch back on maritime power with England, and he always neglected his navy. He estimated, probably rightly so, that the historical fault was with Louis XV and Louis XVI at times when France still could have outrun England into the major sea power. So he gambled on submitting Britain on pure land power, and lost. Could have he won had Villeneuve followed orders and attracted the English navy outwide? could have he broken the back of the English despite the odds if investing into maritime power and more privateering? I doubt it, personally. I think France was doomed from the start, because of the nature of its Revolution and because of geopolitics. At the very best, France could have pushed its borders to the Rhine and consolidate peace with not too much damage. And keeping political and cultural control of that Rhine-land and lowlands would have been very, very tough, with high chances of future rebellions and civil wars.

 

[privatehudson]

I doubt that either side saw the Amiens treaty as anything more than a temporary cease-fire to draw breath. The idea that it was likely to lead to a period of extended peace is a little fanciful to be frank.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Re: WWII

If the Nazi's hadn't done their little number on Russia, well, some claim Russia had invasion plans all of its own for the 1941/42 timeframe. The Russians had around 35.000 tanks v.s the German 6.000 at the onset of the war in the Eastfront. I don't remember the exact numbers but it's in this ball park. The russians had an amazingly advanced offensive army for that time, at least as far as tanks/paratroopers/number of air assets goes. Now Stalin does a little blitzkrieging of his own, capturing the critical to the Nazis Ploiesti oilfields. High russian morale. No implosion of the russian army. The Nazi warmachine without oil. He catches both the western capitalist pigs and the nazis with their pants down, at their weakest, completely unexpected and the western nations thouroughly demoralized.

It's a little known fact that Stalin ramped up Soviet military production to wartime mode at the onset of WWII, fully expecting to take advantage of any opportunities offered. How do the dice fall next?

I forgot that part as well. Also to add to Adolf's worries: If he hadn't done his number on the Soviet Union, a good deal of Eastern Europe would have Stayed neutral or Sided with the Russians (Most likely Bulgaria)

 

[BEHIND_THE_MASK]

Couldn't Napoleon have knocked out the British if he had kept to one of his earlier plans, except going at it from a diffrent approach.

Instread of striking at Russia. Couldn't Napoleon just have attacked the Ottomans, secure the Bosporus. Cross over into Asia, march into India while seizing Egypt...

Im not a tactician but if I recall Egypt was largely depended on by the Britians so they could get riches from Asia. This would have cut them off from their riches and then they might have been able to take India itself...

Without Indian Riches such as silver the British would not have been able to support their navy and things would only fall apart from there.

Does this sound realistic or does it just sound like BS.

 

[Steph]

Didn't he take Egypt ?