The Best And The Worst Of Your Countries History.

[C0ckney]

Bugs I am curious as to why you think Hastings was bad for England. Without William I becoming king we would have remained a 'Baltic nation', more attacted to Denmark and Norway than France.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Do I have to point out that, rather than be attracted to France and vice versa, we spent the next 900 years kicking the crap out of each other?

In no way would we have been a Baltic nation. The Anglo-Saxons were very firmly in control by 1066 with the Danelaw issues pretty much resolved. The previous two centuries saw increased integration between England's Saxon and Danish population, and this cooled things off considerably, so the Saxons could have wielded effective control.

[Chris 62]

Time for some thread-jaking...

Originally posted by Garth Vader
That does make an interesting what if. Say Germany does not attack the Soviet Union, but still stupidly declares war on the US.

Germany would be able to clear the Brits from North Africa and the Mid East and solve some of it's resource woes.

Hmm, this doesn't exactly follow.
They would still need to get past the Royal and US Navies, no mean feat.

Their avation advances were impressive considering all the resources they blew in Russia. With all the East Front planes, crew and flak available I don't see the west clearing the skies. Especially considering the additional resources that wouldn't need to be spent on transport through Russia and thousands of tanks and artillery lost there.

Again true, but the allies wouldn't need to maintain giant supply lines to Russia either, maintained at great cost and effort.
I also doubt that Hitler's attitude toward fighters would change all that much, and as an interesting point, most of the Luftwaffe was busy trying to defend the skies over the Reich, little was left for Russia historically after 1943 anyway.
There is every chance that Superforts would be used in Europe if their are no Soviets, and the A bomb was built with Hitler in mind, not Japan.
It is very likely that this weapon would have been used on Berlin in 1945!
Also, Der Fuher interfeared with research, I doubt he would change his stripes, so no Jets till 45 anyway.
Maybe the Germans get to Suez, but then they would be at the tail end of a giant logistics chain, easily interdicted by air and sea power. How would they get mid east oil back to Germany?

How long do you think the west would want to continue the fight?

That's why it's a what if, I doubt Britain would surrender unless Germany took the British Isles, and that wasn't happening without command of both sea and air, and even at Germany's high water mark, it couldn't pull this off without considerable risk.
Germany's impressive army could not really be deployed beyound Europe, and how long could Hitler hold out against massive bombings, including the Nuclear kind?
Not long, IMO.

As for Patton and the Soviets, from a realpolitik standpoint it probably would have made sense to attack. But from a military honor standpoint I expect the west was cutting the Soviets some slack considering the appalling losses and devastation they suffered. It would be dishonorable to support an ally one day, and turn on them and attack the next.

And such nicities doomed the people of Eastern and middle Europe for a generation to Soviet repression.

[Natan]

I think it's fairly clear that America could have defeated the USSR in 1945. The Russians were running out of men and they really were reliant on western aid - this is masked by the emphasis placed on the Murmansk run (as opposed to the route through Iran) and ignoring the weapons of Soviet design made in western-allied nations, like the PPSh submachine guns made in Iran. American support for nationalist partisans accross eastern europe would have created further problems. The opposition of the American public to unending war could have been a problem though.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Chris,

NE was pro-British and anti-French, that was the line of the Federalist party, which was the boss of New England. Like or not, that was their belief.

As for the US smashing Russia, I seriously doubt that. The revisonist is actually your point of view. The traditional belief is that the Russians should be greatly thanked for bearing the brunt.

Are you claiming that Mao wasn't a dictator?
Is it your postion that a tiny communist Army would smash a larger force in the face of massive airpower? (tread carefully here, Mao's popularity came through battlefield victory, not through ideology)
Took it from whom?
Last time I checked, Chang was Chinese.

Mao was THEIR dictator. Back to the Shah. Are you saying the Ayatollah wasn't a dictator? Chang, like the Shah was our boy. And I disagree with you that Mao's popularity came from battlefield success and not ideology. Much of Mao's communism is related to Hong's philosophy during the Taiping Rebellion. That rebellion had one third of China's population rise up against the ruling classes. Chang was a part of the traditional class, the warlords that rose up because of that rebellion, and embodied what they were rebelling against.

Many people still thought the ideas of that past rebellion were important (equality for men and women, the abolution of the scholar-gentry class), and Mao took those ideas. A massive amount of the Chinese would probably follow.

[Garth Vader]

Hmm, this doesn't exactly follow.
They would still need to get past the Royal and US Navies, no mean feat.


In the Atlantic I agree, but in the med I think Germany could have used their dive bombing fleet to make ships life miserable rather than bust Soviet tanks.

I also doubt that Hitler's attitude toward fighters would change all that much, and as an interesting point, most of the Luftwaffe was busy trying to defend the skies over the Reich, little was left for Russia historically after 1943 anyway.


You may have me there, I don't have the numbers. But if everything was available to defend the west in 42 they would have had a lot more available after 43.

If the skies were still contested in 45 would the US have risked putting up a bomber with a nuke?

I can't see Hitler surrendering even if nuked, I shudder to think of what Europe would look like given that scenario

That's why it's a what if, I doubt Britain would surrender unless Germany took the British Isles, and that wasn't happening without command of both sea and air, and even at Germany's high water mark, it couldn't pull this off without considerable risk.


I wasn't talking about surrender, just a peace. If both sides were stalemating over the skies would they have been able to come to an agreement? I have a hard time seeing it given WWI. But eventually one or both sides would get tired of fighting.

Maybe the Germans get to Suez, but then they would be at the tail end of a giant logistics chain, easily interdicted by air and sea power. How would they get mid east oil back to Germany?


True, but in reality getting it back wasn't needed. Just denying the allies usage would have been good. I read somewhere that mid east oil was like 60-80% of the UK's total. Without having to drive tanks across Russia and back Germany would have done fine with what they had. Hmm, I just realized that everything that was sent to Russia could probably have replaced the mid east, so there goes my point.

[C0ckney]

Originally posted by Bugs ****ing Bunny
Do I have to point out that, rather than be attracted to France and vice versa, we spent the next 900 years kicking the crap out of each other?

Yeah but during that time we became the greatest Maritime power on Earth, acquired an empire, became the worlds leading industrial power etc. If we hadn't owned large parts of France, it is likely (IMO) that France would have unified a lot quicker and come to dominate Europe, eclipsing England.

In no way would we have been a Baltic nation. The Anglo-Saxons were very firmly in control by 1066 with the Danelaw issues pretty much resolved. The previous two centuries saw increased integration between England's Saxon and Danish population, and this cooled things off considerably, so the Saxons could have wielded effective control.

What I mean we wouldn't have looked towards Western Europe as much and more towards Scandinavia, we'd been involved in the succession of Norway rather than Brittany for example

[ravagon]

Originally posted by MrWhereItsAt

And ravagon, was that incident the underarm bowling one? I don't know cricketers from before my time.

Yes indeedy. And it was almost before my time too but thats no reason to let the Aussies forget about it.


GV, on the issue of a stalemate between Germany-Britain, by 1943 the overall tide had turned in the Allies favour but this was including the tremendous drain of the Eastern Front on the Reich.
I think Hitler (historically) would have welcomed a peace with the UK to concentrate on the "one-front" war with the USSR.
In the absence of the Eastern Front (and presumably with more resources allocated to the Air War) Germany probably should have prevailed.
On the issue of a Mid-east invasion they would have still been able to contest (albeit poorly) the Med with the RN but would have been able to afford far more losses and hence probably should have succeeded also (And this doesn't include possible resource reallocations to the Reichs "blue-water" navy in lieu of the non-existent Eastern Front though).
An invasion overland would have had to go through Turkey (or the USSR I suppose) which would have meant an invasion if the Reich couldn't get military "access rights" (Don't know if this was a viable concept in the 1940's).
I'd think an assault on Turkey would have presented similar problems as an invasion of the UK.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Snapcase
Surely AH's "Liberation of East Timor" is one of his nicest trolls so far. The fact that Australia helped maintain the occupation for decades, both through training indonesian forces and through signing agreements to turn a blind eye to atrocities for economic gain seems to have escaped him. East Timor is Australia's Haiti, as someone said.

You could probably put it down as a best and a worst. Australia did turn a blind eye to Indonesia's invasion of East Timor in 1975 - though it was the United States that gave them the greenlight - fearing a Cuba in South East Asia . We subsequently recognised Indonesia's incorporation of East Timor as a province and this was considered by Australian Governments as the best solution to the East Timor problem for a long time because East Timor was not considered a viable state. The trouble was, the East Timorese never accepted Indonesian rule and the Indonesians completely mismanaged the integration.

On the positive side, Australia provided hundreds of millions of dollars of aid to East Timor whilst it was under Indonesian rule, did what we could to lessen atrocities, and it was an Australian initiative to persuade Indonesia to hold a plebiscite on independence. When the plebiscite went against Indonesia the province started descending into chaos, Australia informed the Indonesian government that we were sending in troops. That was a very brave decision given that the Indonesian military was still occuppying the province. It could have led to war.

East Timor would not be independent today if we had not sent in troops. Now we are spending millions rebuilding the country and also ensuring its security with a battalion taskforce stationed there. Australians are very proud of this. The East Timorese helped Australian forces that were trapped on the island fight a guerilla war against the Japanese during WWII so there is a feeling we owe them a debt. Also, most Australians now feel sorry for our role during the period of Indonesian invasion and rule.

[uh Clem]

If we hadn't owned large parts of France, it is likely (IMO) that France would have unified a lot quicker and come to dominate Europe, eclipsing England.

Actually, with the Normans still entirely in France, it seems LESS likely to me that there would have been unification. The 100 Years War would have been a civil war, with England supporting whoever was weaker and getting involved only when it suited her interests.

And I agree with Bugs that 1066 was a step down, not up.

[Shi Huangdi]

Would it have been realalistic to expect the US to go on and try take out the Soviet Union? We just had several years of propoganda portraying Stalin as a nice guy, and seeing as how we had already spent 4 years cleaning up Europe's mess, I don't know that the people would tolerate continuing onward to Moscow.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Bugs ****ing Bunny

England would not exist

Would that have been a bad thing?

[Giancarlo]

Spain´s best moments:

1. The swearing in of Conservative PM Aznar.
2. 1960s - Economic boom started to occur
3. When we had a large empire.

Spain´s worst moments:

1. The entire civil war. It was a devastation to our economy.
2. Tejero Coup Attempt. I was tempted to put this in the best moment, but at the time the economy was in a recession and I don´t think a coup was the answer.
3. Right now because of Argentina messing up our investments.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
Would it have been realalistic to expect the US to go on and try take out the Soviet Union? We just had several years of propoganda portraying Stalin as a nice guy, and seeing as how we had already spent 4 years cleaning up Europe's mess, I don't know that the people would tolerate continuing onward to Moscow.

Also if we did not use nuclear bombs we would have lost.

And imagine what would happen if we started using them everywhere and Stalin started using them everywhere when he got his hands on them (late 40s or earlier).

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by ravagon


Yes indeedy. And it was almost before my time too but thats no reason to let the Aussies forget about it.


GV, on the issue of a stalemate between Germany-Britain, by 1943 the overall tide had turned in the Allies favour but this was including the tremendous drain of the Eastern Front on the Reich.
I think Hitler (historically) would have welcomed a peace with the UK to concentrate on the "one-front" war with the USSR.
In the absence of the Eastern Front (and presumably with more resources allocated to the Air War) Germany probably should have prevailed.
On the issue of a Mid-east invasion they would have still been able to contest (albeit poorly) the Med with the RN but would have been able to afford far more losses and hence probably should have succeeded also (And this doesn't include possible resource reallocations to the Reichs "blue-water" navy in lieu of the non-existent Eastern Front though).
An invasion overland would have had to go through Turkey (or the USSR I suppose) which would have meant an invasion if the Reich couldn't get military "access rights" (Don't know if this was a viable concept in the 1940's).
I'd think an assault on Turkey would have presented similar problems as an invasion of the UK.

By 43 Germany had pretty much lost the war in the east. If Britain pulled out it might have evened things up for a while, but I do not see Germany winning in the end.

Jon Miller