What if......

[Gawdzilla Sama]

What if, prior to the US Revolution, the British had given the colonies all the representation they desired and hadn't taxed them heavily, do you suppose the American Revolution would have happened anyway?  Or do you suppose that the US would be more like Canada and slowly severed ties over the years?   How would a more pronounced British presence influenced our history.  Would the French have been willing to sell the Louisanna territory?  

There are so many "what if's" in history.  It's fun to speculate.

You might actually be able to make a decent cup of tea. 

I tried to make tea once, but I think I boiled the bags too long.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

What if we had lost the battle of Britain? That would have been a very bad outcome for the whole world.

Especially the Germans.

[Minimalist]

Or do you suppose that the US would be more like Canada and slowly severed ties over the years?

The old bugaboo would still have reared its head.  In 1833 Britian abolished slavery in its colonies.  The shit would have hit the fan in the south.... and the northern industrialists who supported the plantation owners financially would have had a hard decision to make.

[Dancefortwo]

Or do you suppose that the US would be more like Canada and slowly severed ties over the years?

The old bugaboo would still have reared its head.  In 1833 Britian abolished slavery in its colonies.  The shit would have hit the fan in the south.... and the northern industrialists who supported the plantation owners financially would have had a hard decision to make.

So then what might have happened is the South would have seceded from the British Empire in response to the abolishment of slavery but it would have happened sometime in the 1840's and the uniforms would be Red vs the Gray with the British wearing something like this.....  

[adey67]

Or do you suppose that the US would be more like Canada and slowly severed ties over the years?

The old bugaboo would still have reared its head.  In 1833 Britian abolished slavery in its colonies.  The shit would have hit the fan in the south.... and the northern industrialists who supported the plantation owners financially would have had a hard decision to make.

So then what might have happened is the South would have seceded from the British Empire in response to the abolishment of slavery but it would have happened sometime in the 1840's and the uniforms would be Red vs the Gray with the British wearing something like this.....  

I could be wrong but I think that's a napoleonic era uniform.
Edit:Nope, I was wrong that's an 1840s uniform, sorry m'dear

[abaris]

I could be wrong but I think that's a napoleonic era uniform. Nope, I was wrong that's an 1840s uniform, sorry m'dear

No, you're right. Late Napoleonic, for that matter. The regulars wore these uniforms at Waterloo. May have been in use for some time.

[TheGentlemanBastard]

Unlikely to happen bro, but tea is so much better anyway lol  

The first part is correct, the second sadly mistaken.

Cheeky bugger   You guys drink so much of that stuff it's a miracle any of you ever get to sleep lol.

Sleep?!? Dafuq is that?

[TheGentlemanBastard]

History is almost like evolution but in a weird way.   Historical events creates pressure which makes something happen which causes other things to happen and that causes something else to happen.  If the huge meteorite hadn't hit the earth 66 million years ago and wiped out the dinosaurs we probably wouldn't be having this conversation.  I think about stuff like this all the time.

What If isn't a historical question. If only one world moving event hadn't happened, there are far too many possible branches to make an informed judgment.

Well, "informed judgment" isn't possible so that's why it's a "what if" or "imagine, if you will...."  That's what makes it interesting to me.   I think about the small events too.  What if I hadn't met my husband and met someone else instead and married them, what would my life be like?  My children, if I'd had children (and I really wanted children) they would be very different and I would probably have different friends and live in a different city.  I'd live in a different house in a different neighborhood.  Everything would be different but because I happened to sit down and talked to my future husband,  my life happened the way it did.    Fascinating, as Spock would say.

There's a whole genre of speculative fiction, alternative history, that I bet you'd absolutely love.

[SYZ]

What if.....

The Electoral College was disbanded, and the result of presidential elections better
represented the true will of the people? Would the US experience more competent
federal governments? Or would it still suffer under Trump-like virtual autocracies?

[Thumpalumpacus]

I grant you all of this, sealion was a horrible poorly thought out plan and I agree would have almost certainly failed however, if we had lost, then RAF Fighter Command is destroyed and it’s lost control of its air space in day time and that meant no defence for the many towns and cities and most critically ports and harbours from German bombers. The coastal waters of the UK become much more hazardous to the vital shipping, both international with fuel and food and domestic with coal, without which Britain cannot sustain a defence.

It would mean by late summer of the three British armed forces the UK was down to just one as a defensive force; the RN and I'm given to understand they only had 5 capital ships in UK waters. The army was still struggling to rearm and reorganise after Dunkirk was short of even basic rifles and machine guns and the RAF has lost Fighter Command. Against the pitiful German preparations for a seaborne invasion, it’s still probably enough militarily but politically a second humiliating loss with months ahead of immense loss and deprivation to the civilian population is hard to overcome.

Churchill would now have presided over two defeats and he most likely would be unable to stay in office.

With no allies closer than Canada and so no relief in sight from the incessant bombing, the new political leadership may well think they have no choice than to seek terms, (most favorable to the Germans certainly) and take the UK out of the War.

That gives Germany a mastery of Atlantic Europe, access to resources such as South American oil and food and as consequence everything it needs to make Operation Barbarossa much more successful, also it gives Germany time and resources to make development of nuclear weapons a distinct probability (especially as the attacks on its heavy water production likely wouldn't have taken place) and I'm also sure given Hitlers megalomania his attention in time would have turned towards designs on the resource rich US. 

So yes everything you say about the almost certain faliure of sealion is true but understand I never mentioned sealion but only that us losing the BoB would potentially have been devastating for the world and I'm still convinced it is true.

Capital ships don't matter so much when defending against the German crossing; that's destroyer work there. Britain traded for fifty of 'em in July to add to the 184 they already had -- and most already on the rolls were patrolling the approaches, and not the ocean lanes. They would have been handy to respond to an invasion. The RN had nine battleships/battlecruisers, three carriers, and 19 cruisers available between Scapa and Gibraltar if they did need heavier units. Those ships would certainly be kept out of the narrow waters, and therefore out of range of most German aircraft.

Granted that the political consequences of losing BoB would be the primary source of worry. But I don't think that's going to happen. The British have airfields in the north that are beyond the range of German fighter planes flying from France where Fighter Command would not only be able to recuperate, but still be able to defend the South, though less efficiently. There's also the fact that an RAF pilot bailing out over Blighty could likely be back in the air the next day, while LW aircrew were out for the duration.

Y'all came close to losing, but I think Fighter Command would have held even if Goering hadn't switched targets to cities. And with Fighter Command extant, no invasion.

The German nuclear program was a joke.

I no longer have the books, but in Vol 2 of Churchill's memoirs, Their Finest Hour, WSC reprints a memo he sent to the GHQ after the French surrender (three weeks after Dunkirk) in which he lays out a strong case for the UK's ability to repel invasion. If you can get hold of it in full, read it. If not, here's an overview online: https://ww2today.com/10th-july-1940-chur...r-invasion I don't normally credit Churchill with much strategic acumen, but I think he's spot-on here.

[abaris]

Y'all came close to losing, but I think Fighter Command would have held even if Goering hadn't switched targets to cities. And with Fighter Command extant, no invasion.

I'm not so sure, since the industry was mainly in the south. One of the major reasons for losing the Battle of Britain, was switching targets and most of all, only one major strike against the radar installations at the coast. The Germans underestimated their significance, which made it possible for the RAF to be in the air before the German bombers even reached the coastline. And the bombers were easy targets, since the German main fighter, the BF109, didn't have the range to support them all the way. In '43 the allied bombers faced the same problem. There were no allied fighters with sufficient range to support the bombers until the Mustang was deployed in force.

[Phaedrus]

What if most people are accepting that things are as they are when these same people should know better?

[Thumpalumpacus]

Y'all came close to losing, but I think Fighter Command would have held even if Goering hadn't switched targets to cities. And with Fighter Command extant, no invasion.

I'm not so sure, since the industry was mainly in the south. One of the major reasons for losing the Battle of Britain, was switching targets and most of all, only one major strike against the radar installations at the coast. The Germans underestimated their significance, which made it possible for the RAF to be in the air before the German bombers even reached the coastline. And the bombers were easy targets, since the German main fighter, the BF109, didn't have the range to support them all the way. In '43 the allied bombers faced the same problem. There were no allied fighters with sufficient range to support the bombers until the Mustang was deployed in force.

The RAF had plenty of airfields in the north that, while out of the 109's range, were still in a position to allow the RAF to defend the factories in the Midlands, as well as London.

This is the fun, and the problem, with counterfactuals.

[Minimalist]

If you have a spare million Euros... and read French....

https://www.rawstory.com/napoleons-accou...s-on-sale/

Napoleon's account of legendary Battle of Austerlitz goes on sale

Napoleon Bonaparte's account of his victory at the Battle of Austerlitz, dictated during his exile on the island of Saint Helena, went on sale Wednesday in Paris for one million euros ($1.2 million).
The account of the 1805 "three-emperors clash" with Russo-Austrian forces, which is considered Napoleon's greatest military victory, takes readers through preparations for battle, the fighting itself and is completed by a battle plan drawn by his loyal aide-de-camp General Henri-Gatien on tracing paper.
The densely packed 74-page manuscript, dictated to Bertrand, contains several corrections by the exiled emperor, who crossed out words and added remarks in the margins in tiny writing.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

When Churchill asked "What reserves have we?" the RAF officer replied "None." He was, however, referring only to 11 Group. 10th and 12th Groups could have pitched in if needed.

[adey67]

I grant you all of this, sealion was a horrible poorly thought out plan and I agree would have almost certainly failed however, if we had lost, then RAF Fighter Command is destroyed and it’s lost control of its air space in day time and that meant no defence for the many towns and cities and most critically ports and harbours from German bombers. The coastal waters of the UK become much more hazardous to the vital shipping, both international with fuel and food and domestic with coal, without which Britain cannot sustain a defence.

It would mean by late summer of the three British armed forces the UK was down to just one as a defensive force; the RN and I'm given to understand they only had 5 capital ships in UK waters. The army was still struggling to rearm and reorganise after Dunkirk was short of even basic rifles and machine guns and the RAF has lost Fighter Command. Against the pitiful German preparations for a seaborne invasion, it’s still probably enough militarily but politically a second humiliating loss with months ahead of immense loss and deprivation to the civilian population is hard to overcome.

Churchill would now have presided over two defeats and he most likely would be unable to stay in office.

With no allies closer than Canada and so no relief in sight from the incessant bombing, the new political leadership may well think they have no choice than to seek terms, (most favorable to the Germans certainly) and take the UK out of the War.

That gives Germany a mastery of Atlantic Europe, access to resources such as South American oil and food and as consequence everything it needs to make Operation Barbarossa much more successful, also it gives Germany time and resources to make development of nuclear weapons a distinct probability (especially as the attacks on its heavy water production likely wouldn't have taken place) and I'm also sure given Hitlers megalomania his attention in time would have turned towards designs on the resource rich US. 

So yes everything you say about the almost certain faliure of sealion is true but understand I never mentioned sealion but only that us losing the BoB would potentially have been devastating for the world and I'm still convinced it is true.

Capital ships don't matter so much when defending against the German crossing; that's destroyer work there. Britain traded for fifty of 'em in July to add to the 184 they already had -- and most already on the rolls were patrolling the approaches, and not the ocean lanes.  They would have been handy to respond to an invasion. The RN had nine battleships/battlecruisers, three carriers, and 19 cruisers available between Scapa and Gibraltar if they did need heavier units. Those ships would certainly be kept out of the narrow waters, and therefore out of range of most German aircraft.

Granted that the political consequences of losing BoB would be the primary source of worry. But I don't think that's going to happen. The British have airfields in the north that are beyond the range of German fighter planes flying from France where Fighter Command would not only be able to recuperate, but still be able to defend the South, though less efficiently. There's also the fact that an RAF pilot bailing out over Blighty could likely be back in the air the next day, while LW aircrew were out for the duration.

Y'all came close to losing, but I think Fighter Command would have held even if Goering hadn't switched targets to cities. And with Fighter Command extant, no invasion.

The German nuclear program was a joke.

I no longer have the books, but in Vol 2 of Churchill's memoirs, Their Finest Hour, WSC reprints a memo he sent to the GHQ after the French surrender (three weeks after Dunkirk) in which he lays out a strong case for the UK's ability to repel invasion. If you can get hold of it in full, read it. If not, here's an overview online: https://ww2today.com/10th-july-1940-chur...r-invasion  I don't normally credit Churchill with much strategic acumen, but I think he's spot-on here.

Interesting and great points Thump thanks for the imput and thanks to Dances for starting the thread it's really fascinating and great fun. 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Regarding the Nazi Nuki, the scientists sent to German after the surrender reported back "Baby never born. Mother never pregnant." The code phrases had to do with the development of atomic fuel for the bombs and actual attempts at construction of them.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Interesting and great points Thump thanks for the imput and thanks to Dances for starting the thread it's really fascinating and great fun. 

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to geek out!

[Chas]

There's a whole genre of speculative fiction, alternative history, that I bet you'd absolutely love.

I particularly liked Guns of the South, Harry Turtledove.

A bunch of white South Africans steal a time machine and send crates of AK-47s and ammo back to the South in the American Civil War to preserve slavery.

[Aliza]

There's a whole genre of speculative fiction, alternative history, that I bet you'd absolutely love.

I particularly liked Guns of the South, Harry Turtledove.

A bunch of white South Africans steal a time machine and send crates of AK-47s and ammo back to the South in the American Civil War to preserve slavery.

That was a good one. I've read at least one other from him as well.

[TheGentlemanBastard]

There's a whole genre of speculative fiction, alternative history, that I bet you'd absolutely love.

I particularly liked Guns of the South, Harry Turtledove.

A bunch of white South Africans steal a time machine and send crates of AK-47s and ammo back to the South in the American Civil War to preserve slavery.

Haven't read those, yet, but I really enjoyed his Worldwar series. What if aliens invaded during the early days of World War II? I was especially impressed by his research. Writing nearly 40 years after the fact, most authors would simply have referred to Colorado A&M as Colorado State University. A change that didn't occur until more than a decade after the war.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

"With the Bent Fin Boomer Boys in Little Old New Alabama" anyone?

[Dancefortwo]

What If isn't a historical question. If only one world moving event hadn't happened, there are far too many possible branches to make an informed judgment.

Well, "informed judgment" isn't possible so that's why it's a "what if" or "imagine, if you will...."  That's what makes it interesting to me.   I think about the small events too.  What if I hadn't met my husband and met someone else instead and married them, what would my life be like?  My children, if I'd had children (and I really wanted children) they would be very different and I would probably have different friends and live in a different city.  I'd live in a different house in a different neighborhood.  Everything would be different but because I happened to sit down and talked to my future husband,  my life happened the way it did.    Fascinating, as Spock would say.

There's a whole genre of speculative fiction, alternative history, that I bet you'd absolutely love.

Yes, the butterfly effect is fascinating to me.  There are movies that deal with this type of alternative history. There was one movie I happen onto one Saturday afternoon  but I can't for the life of me remember what it was. The character kept going back and forth between being a child and an adult and some crucial decision he made as a boy that altered his life.  I wish I could remember the name of it.

[TheGentlemanBastard]

Well, "informed judgment" isn't possible so that's why it's a "what if" or "imagine, if you will...."  That's what makes it interesting to me.   I think about the small events too.  What if I hadn't met my husband and met someone else instead and married them, what would my life be like?  My children, if I'd had children (and I really wanted children) they would be very different and I would probably have different friends and live in a different city.  I'd live in a different house in a different neighborhood.  Everything would be different but because I happened to sit down and talked to my future husband,  my life happened the way it did.    Fascinating, as Spock would say.

There's a whole genre of speculative fiction, alternative history, that I bet you'd absolutely love.

Yes, the butterfly effect is fascinating to me.  There are movies that deal with this type of alternative history. There was one movie I happen onto one Saturday afternoon  but I can't for the life of me remember what it was. The character kept going back and forth between being a child and an adult and some crucial decision he made as a boy that altered his life.  I wish I could remember the name of it.

The movie's name was "The Butterfly Effect."

[Dancefortwo]

There's a whole genre of speculative fiction, alternative history, that I bet you'd absolutely love.

Yes, the butterfly effect is fascinating to me.  There are movies that deal with this type of alternative history. There was one movie I happen onto one Saturday afternoon  but I can't for the life of me remember what it was. The character kept going back and forth between being a child and an adult and some crucial decision he made as a boy that altered his life.  I wish I could remember the name of it.

The movie's name was "The Butterfly Effect."

How stupid can I get!