What Might have been?

[john964]

This thread is to 'Turtledove' points in history and speculate what might have happened.

Like what might have happened if Lincoln had suddenly turned his head and John Wilkes Booth had missed.

What might have happened if FDR had not decided to run for a third term.

What might have happend if a British sharpshooter had shot Washington.

[Saffron]

One of my favorites is:

What would've happened if Hitler had been accepted to art school?

[Mart]

One of my favorites is:

What would've happened if Hitler had been accepted to art school?

He'd have painted an even bigger version of "The Scream", but with a little moustache on it. :D

Martin

[john964]

One of my favorites is:

What would've happened if Hitler had been accepted to art school?

Along the same line, what if Castro had been a better baseball player.

[Mike Malanaphy]

He'd have painted an even bigger version of "The Scream", but with a little moustache on it. :D

Martin

Yes, but would a painting of a jaegermeister bottle been better than Warhols' Campbell soup painting. :)

[asnrobert]

When Churchill was visiting the US in the 1920s, he was hit by a car (he forgot American cars drive on the right, not the left). He recovered, but how would events have been different if he'd been killed?

[bridav58]

1. What if Ronald Reagan died when he was shot in 1981??1982???
2. What if Lee Harvey Oswald had missed John F. Kennedy?
3. What if Al Gore won Florida?
4. What if Kennedy supported the Bay of Pigs???




5. What if I never would have blessed this board with all my brilliant posts???? LOL!!!!!


Soryy just thought I needed to add some humor!!!!:D

[keschofield]

Along the same line, what if Castro had been a better baseball player.

Even more likely, what if Castro's revolution got the US aid that he asked for first before turning to the Soviets.

Its not all that far fetched. Castro was fighting to topple a dictator propped up by the mafia and US business interests. He came to us for help first, because that's where Cuban rebels always turned for help. We rebuffed him and THEN he decided he was communist and turned to the Soviets.

Opportunity lost - big time!

[Ed Rotondaro]

One of my favorites is:

What would've happened if Hitler had been accepted to art school?

Saffy:

This sort of falls under the heading of "Do men/women make history"? "Or does history make men/women?" In regards to Hitler keep in mind that the National Socialist Party aka the Nazis were already in existence when he joined them. Ernst Roehm who headed the SA, the paramiltary arm of the party who beat up opponents, etc. certainly could have filled the void. Would the Nazis have been as militant without Hitler? Certainly. All Hitler did was tap into the anger and the uncertainty of the German people and direct it outward. Without Hitler you might have not seen the Final Solution, but again Hitler didn't act alone. There were others with similar beliefs. Would Goering have started WWII if he was the leader? Most likely. There were too many outside forces at work. The way WWI ended guaranteed that there would be a rematch. Charles DeGaulle sagely called the period from 1914 to 1945 the Forty Year War.

[Ed Rotondaro]

This thread is to 'Turtledove' points in history and speculate what might have happened.

Like what might have happened if Lincoln had suddenly turned his head and John Wilkes Booth had missed.

What might have happened if FDR had not decided to run for a third term.

What might have happend if a British sharpshooter had shot Washington.

John:

I'll take a shot at these.

If Lincoln survives, Reconstruction would have been a far more healing process rather than the exploitative event that left lingering bitterness. One historian said that it took the Spanish American War to finally reunite the nation after the Civil War. I would hope that race relations would have better, but I can't say for sure.

If FDR only serves two terms, we would still see the US at war, maybe not in 1941, but it was inevitable. Something would have provided the spark, we were too big not to be involved in a struggle like that.

Washington getting shot and presumably dying might have caused more grief than the other events. He was probably one of the most indispensible men in American history. At times he held the Continental Army together by sheer force of will and with money from his own pocket. If the Continental army collapsed, the colonies would have been dependent on state militias that varied in quality. Victory would have been much harder to achieve. I don't think the Continental Congress would have thrown in the towel, but the colonies would have been dependent on French intervention for any chance of victory. Also I'm of the opinion that Washington as our first president set the vital tone of how that office would govern. So much could have gone wrong without him as the first president.

[Ed Rotondaro]

He'd have painted an even bigger version of "The Scream", but with a little moustache on it. :D

Martin

Martin:

That's too funny LOL!

[Ed Rotondaro]

Along the same line, what if Castro had been a better baseball player.

John:

Revolution probably would have occurred, but maybe not a Communist one. Or Cuba could end up like many Central American so-called republics with a military strongman every few decades.

[Ed Rotondaro]

When Churchill was visiting the US in the 1920s, he was hit by a car (he forgot American cars drive on the right, not the left). He recovered, but how would events have been different if he'd been killed?

Robert:

There's an outside possibility that without Churchill, Great Britain might have entertained overtures of peace once they evacuated France.

[paladin5]

One of my favorites is:

What would've happened if Hitler had been accepted to art school?




WW2 would have been more colorfull perhaps

/end bad humor

[asnrobert]

Saffy:

This sort of falls under the heading of "Do men/women make history"? "Or does history make men/women?" In regards to Hitler keep in mind that the National Socialist Party aka the Nazis were already in existence when he joined them. Ernst Roehm who headed the SA, the paramiltary arm of the party who beat up opponents, etc. certainly could have filled the void. Would the Nazis have been as militant without Hitler? Certainly. All Hitler did was tap into the anger and the uncertainty of the German people and direct it outward. Without Hitler you might have not seen the Final Solution, but again Hitler didn't act alone. There were others with similar beliefs. Would Goering have started WWII if he was the leader? Most likely. There were too many outside forces at work. The way WWI ended guaranteed that there would be a rematch. Charles DeGaulle sagely called the period from 1914 to 1945 the Forty Year War.

Leo Tolstoy, in his book "War and Peace" argued basically that events made men, not the other way around (i.e. France would have invaded Russia regardless of what Napoleon did).

Regarding the World Wars, French General Foch commented at the close of WW1 that there was no peace, just a 20 year armistice. He was rather prophetic. I'm currently reading S.L.A Marshall's book WW1 on my breaks at work, and he said WW1 and WW2 could be consider the Thirty Years War of the twentieth century.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Leo Tolstoy, in his book "War and Peace" argued basically that events made men, not the other way around (i.e. France would have invaded Russia regardless of what Napoleon did).

Regarding the World Wars, French General Foch commented at the close of WW1 that there was no peace, just a 20 year armistice. He was rather prophetic. I'm currently reading S.L.A Marshall's book WW1 on my breaks at work, and he said WW1 and WW2 could be consider the Thirty Years War of the twentieth century.

Robert:

When you finish Marshall's book, let me know your opinion of it. Thanks.

[old_pop2000]

Robert:

When you finish Marshall's book, let me know your opinion of it. Thanks.
Be careful about SLA Marshall, he is prone to making conclusions that don't follow the facts. His book on Men under Fire, is an example of that. We can make the case, that WWII was the result of the poor post war diplomacy or simply a result of a confluence of economic events. One event probably did lead to another, but I have doubts that one was a continuance of the other.

[asnrobert]

Be careful about SLA Marshall, he is prone to making conclusions that don't follow the facts. His book on Men under Fire, is an example of that. We can make the case, that WWII was the result of the poor post war diplomacy or simply a result of a confluence of economic events. One event probably did lead to another, but I have doubts that one was a continuance of the other.

Was that the book where he said that 75% of infantrymen involved in close combat during WW2 never fired their weapons?

In any case, his book on WW1 so far jives with John Keegan's book "The First World War" (Keegan also came to the conclusion that "the Second World War...was unquestionably the outcome of the First, and in large measure its continuation.").
I think the humiliating terms at Versailles and the belief of many in the German military that they had been "betrayed" by the politicians made Germans eager for payback (I believe they referred to it as "Der Tag"), plus the economic conditions that hurt Germany further (and led to the rise of fascism in Italy) made round two inevitable.