The Alternate History Thread.

[Antar Bolaeisk]

I'm sure I read that there was some consideration of the UK invading Ireland during WW2?

Yeah here we go

Definitely, both Hitler and Churchill were going to invade Ireland during the war.

Churchill because the IRA were being unruly and to secure Britain's flank, Hitler to use Ireland as a staging point for the invasion of England.

 

[Abraham]

Well, if the Japanese won, China wouldn't have the power it does now. Japan would probably be a superpower.

Really? surely they couldn't have reached the heights of China because of the difference in workforce

 

[markweatherill]

I read a story once where John Lennon had not joined the Beatles and Peter Sutcliffe had.

But what if the transistor had never been invented? What if a vacuum-tube company had deliberately suppressed development and silicon chips never existed?

 

[Antar Bolaeisk]

I read a story once where John Lennon had not joined the Beatles and Peter Sutcliffe had.

But what if the transistor had never been invented? What if a vacuum-tube company had deliberately suppressed development and silicon chips never existed?

I think technology like that would be invented anyway even if the original inventors didn't do it. Sure it might be a few years or maybe even decades later but it would still happen mainly because inventions tend to be applications of current ideas with just a hint of novelty as opposed to randomly pulling a rabbit out of a hat.

 

[Gaidin109]

I have absolutely no proof that he did, but you can't prove that he didn't.

Therefore, he did.

Anecdotal evidence points toward another culprit however, Eve. According to the only source of information we have, Eve picked the Apple not Adam. So although no-one can prove categorically either way, there is absolutely nothing to suggest Adam picked the Apple, or indeed if it was an Apple.

Genesis doesn't specify which fruit it was beyond it being from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Genesis does however state Eve as the one who picked the fruit.

Therefore He didn't.

 

[Gaidin109]

If the Great Library of Alexandria wasnt burned to ground level by the christians then i reckon we would have been at least 500 years ahead technologically.

This event was, imho, a huge step backwards in the evolution of science

Was it the Christians?, was it not the act of Julius Caesar burning his fleet in the harbour in 48BC that caught the library in it's conflagration.

Or alternatively: Aurelians conquest of 275AD, In his suppression of Zenobia destroyed the Library when he sacked the city.

Amr Ibn Al 'Aas is also reputed to be responsible for it's destruction in 675AD

The only Christian to have reputedly destroyed the library was Theophilus in 391AD on the orders of Emperor Theodosius I.

In short, no one knows how the library was destroyed or what it contained, so to extrapolate an alternative reality from it's destruction would be in itself based on an assumption.

 

[Iraklis F.C.]

In 391, Emperor Theodosius I ordered the destruction of all "pagan" (non-Christian) temples, and the Christian Patriarch Theophilus of Alexandria complied with this request

 

[footman]

If Hitler had been assassinated in the 1944 plot and the Generals had reached some kind of accommodation with the US, would there have been an "Allied" attack on the USSR?

Alternatively, if Hitler had been removed much earlier and disastrous decisions not been taken would Germany been victorious given their record of successful campaigns when the Generals had been given a free-er hand?

 

[stockhausen]

Many years ago, I read a novel which if memory serves was called "The Other Side". It depicted a world in which Britain had capitulated to Nazi Germany in 1940. As a result, Germans assumed positions of authority in the UK which was nominally now an "ally" rather than an enemy.

I remember it as being very good but can only remember one small detail; a couple of British police officers and a German police officer were having lunch in a restaurant in Calais, as the waiter took their food out of the kitchen, the French proprietor stopped him and spat carefully onto each plate, commenting "garni pour les Anglais" when he had done so - I have felt uncomfortable about upsetting ANY restaurant proprietor ever since

 

[Gaidin109]

@Iraklis FC:


Plutarch, Aulus Gellius, Ammanius Marcellinius and Orosius all agree the Caesar burned the Lirary accidentally during 48BC, all these accounts suggest that the Library was a thing of the past when Plutarch wrote Parallel Lives:

when the enemy endeavored to cut off his (Caesar) communication by sea, he was forced to divert the danger by setting fire to his own ships, which, after burning the docks, thence spread on and destroyed the great library.

Like I said to state that it was Christians that destroyed the Library is based on Historia Ecclesiastica written by Socrates of Constantinope in around 440AD, and had no more validity than Plutarch, Aulus Gellius or Orosius. In fact it is clear that the Library existed at the time of Caesar, but there is no proof to say that it existed during Theophilus' time.

It is hard enough to establish beyond doubt that there was a library in the Serapeum at all but if there was, Ammianus makes clear that it was no longer there by the mid-fourth century. This is confirmed by the silence of all the sources, including one that would be keen to report Christian atrocities, for the destruction of the temple in 391AD. Note that this is not an 'argument from silence' because there is no reason at all to expect a mention of books in the Serapeum when it was demolished. An invalid 'argument from silence' is when we claim something that is not mentioned did not happen, even though other evidence suggests it did. There is no positive evidence for the existence of the library and instead near conclusive eye witness evidence against.

The story that Theophilus destroyed a library is clearly a fiction that we can very precisely lay at the door of Edward Gibbon. It is in his monumental Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire that we first find the allegation made. Gibbon seems mainly concerned to clear the Arabs of the responsibility of destroying the library and allows his marked anti-Christian prejudice to cloud his better judgement. His excellent footnotes show he had exactly the same sources as we do but drew the wrong conclusions. The story has recently been popularised by Carl Sagan who includes it in Cosmos. He spices the story up with a role for the murdered philosopher Hypatia, even though there is no evidence connecting her to the library at all.

 

[Von Smallhausen]

Many years ago, I read a novel which if memory serves was called "The Other Side". It depicted a world in which Britain had capitulated to Nazi Germany in 1940. As a result, Germans assumed positions of authority in the UK which was nominally now an "ally" rather than an enemy.

I remember it as being very good but can only remember one small detail; a couple of British police officers and a German police officer were having lunch in a restaurant in Calais, as the waiter took their food out of the kitchen, the French proprietor stopped him and spat carefully onto each plate, commenting "garni pour les Anglais" when he had done so - I have felt uncomfortable about upsetting ANY restaurant proprietor ever since

Was the waiter given an improvement order by the local authority ?

 

[stockhausen]

Was the waiter given an improvement order by the local authority ?

I believe that he was disembowelled and the restaurant served up his entrails with a tasty Blackbird and vomit salad

 

[TheMightyTen]

What if Richard Cromwell hadn't been so inept a leader at the death of Oliver in 1658. Would General George Monck have supported him militarily as he nearly did instead of biding his time then facing down Lamberts Army in the field with the aid of Sir Thomas Fairfax, Ultimately leading to the return of Charles II as King of England?

Even if the Cromwells had remained in power would one of them have eventually taken up the Crown anyway? or would we have remained a Republic to this day?

 

[lucky13]

What if everyone had an atheist view on life? The concept of religion not even thought of?

a lot of massacres would not of happened.

 

[Gaidin109]

What if everyone had an atheist view on life? The concept of religion not even thought of?

a lot of massacres would not of happened.

Not neccessarily true, one of the justifications would have been removed, but in all likelihood those massacres would have either been justified some other way or other massacres would have happened in their place.

 

[TheMightyTen]

a lot of massacres would not of happened.

Yes they would. Humanity will fight over anything, always has and always will.

 

[lucky13]

Yes they would. Humanity will fight over anything, always has and always will.

I agree bit of a strong comment, I think without religion though some of the enthusiasm would be taken out especially amongst the lower orders. The leaders always have something to gain. Though the mere foot soldiers can get themselves loot I don't think so many would have flocked to the crusades for example.

 

[Gaidin109]

I agree bit of a strong comment, I think without religion though some of the enthusiasm would be taken out especially amongst the lower orders. The leaders always have something to gain. Though the mere foot soldiers can get themselves loot I don't think so many would have flocked to the crusades for example.

Religion was the least of the reasons the Aristocracy travelled to the Crusades, it was mainly about sending their sons and retainers to gain wealth and escape a Europe infested with plague and poverty. Urban II knew this and used the fact to strengthen his own claim as Pope.

In all likelihood the Crusades would have also been just as bloody and invasive with or without the justification given by the Catholic Church.

 

[lucky13]

Religion was the least of the reasons the Aristocracy travelled to the Crusades, it was mainly about sending their sons and retainers to gain wealth and escape a Europe infested with plague and poverty. Urban II knew this and used the fact to strengthen his own claim as Pope.

In all likelihood the Crusades would have also been just as bloody and invasive with or without the justification given by the Catholic Church.

I was not talking the crusades specifically and i do not think any forces would have had the unity or size to create as much trouble in the middle east as they did with out the money, and the influence but then im not an expert was merely thinking.

Plus thinking now a counter argument would be Genghis Khan did he not hate religion?? Some of the acts his armies did...

 

[cork-spotters]

I don't think Britain would have been defeated, from a quick research awhile back its likely the Nazis would have pushed 30 miles or so inland and become bogged down in urban and isolated pockets of fighting, with so many other fronts on the go unable to expend the resources required to bulldozer through, eventually pulling back to Belgium, Holland, etc. the coastal parts of which would have become a DMZ well into the 60s/70s. Likewise with Russia they would never completely subdue it, forcing them eventually to pull back to more concentrated lines around moscow.

Well one of Hitler's biggest mistakes was that he didn't follow the British across the channel at Dunkirk. The defence forces were in complete disarray after defeat in France and Hitler could have surged through Britain within a few weeks.

At that time he didn't have a Russian front, so he could have dealt Britain a massive clout in a short period of time.

The fact that he delayed was because he wanted to defeat the RAF before any potential invasion - big mistake! This delayed the invasion long enough so that defensive measures could be taken.

The attack on the RAF was also a shambles. The Luftwaffe switched from attacking airfields and aircraft factories to attacking London and other cities. This gave the RAF time to rebuild and repair. The Germans could have eliminated the RAF if they only stopped changing tack mid-battle.

Another theory I often thought about was that if D-Day got delayed again due to weather, it would have taken another 2 months or so before all the right conditions for landing were met again (regarding tides etc). I wonder would this have delayed the war enough for the Germans to get an atom bomb finished and wipe out London?