Conslaw
Senior Airman
It's gotten a little dull around here, guys gals. What if scenarios always get people riled up. If someone doesn't suggest one, then I will. . .
We need a new "what if" thread . . .
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
There's a new one going on now:
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/luftwaffe-vs-ija-43102.html
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/luftwaffe-vs-ija-43102.html
Njaco
The Pop-Tart Whisperer
What if we made a new thread?
Lucky13
Forum Mascot
What if never what iffed? 
......or a slimline of bacon!
......or a slimline of bacon!
Just don't get to "riled up"...
What's always disturbed me about "what if" threads is that they always seem to ask the question how things could have come out better for the Axis, they never present a scenario where things might have went better for the allies.
Never does someone propose instead of a token invasion of Germany by France, in very early WW2, what might have happened if France had done a all out invasion. Impossible as it might have been.
Nobody ever seems to wonder what might have happened if Staffenberg had managed to kill Hitler, and the rest of the Nazi hierarchy killed or confined. How that might have radically changed the extremely costly, in casualties, ending of WW2 in Europe.
Why does no one propose a scenario that could shorten the war or with a more favorable ending for the Allies ?
Why is that ???
Never does someone propose instead of a token invasion of Germany by France, in very early WW2, what might have happened if France had done a all out invasion. Impossible as it might have been.
Nobody ever seems to wonder what might have happened if Staffenberg had managed to kill Hitler, and the rest of the Nazi hierarchy killed or confined. How that might have radically changed the extremely costly, in casualties, ending of WW2 in Europe.
Why does no one propose a scenario that could shorten the war or with a more favorable ending for the Allies ?
Why is that ???
Probably because the Allies won, but I agree with your point.
A lot of these threads descend into arguments that Germany had all these advanced projects ready to go at a moments notice, yet seem to ignore Allied advanced projects that might have been pushed forward if the Axis forces were winning !
Not saying they all might have worked or been ready in any sort of timeframe needed but neither were a lot of Germany's !
A lot of these threads descend into arguments that Germany had all these advanced projects ready to go at a moments notice, yet seem to ignore Allied advanced projects that might have been pushed forward if the Axis forces were winning !
Not saying they all might have worked or been ready in any sort of timeframe needed but neither were a lot of Germany's !
wiking85
Staff Sergeant
So propose one yourself. The fun of what ifs is if there is major changes, which usually comes from the other side; if the Allies do better the war ends sooner without any interesting new technology or even historical technologies that came late in the war.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Typically, "what-If" conversations usually revolve around the loser of a conflict, not the winner.
It's been done in literature since time began. I read a great book many years ago that carried the timeline forward based on Carthage winning the Punic wars against Rome. Very thought provoking.
Same can be said for how history's timeline would have fared had the Spartans and their composite force failed at Thermopylae or if Saxon King Harold would have won in 1066 or if the Confederacy had managed to remain in control and engage Union forces as Lee had intended, at Gettysburg.
Very rarely do people say:
"Hey, you know how Wellington crucified Napoleon at Waterloo? Well, what if the Prussians struck Napoleon harder??" And so, the victory is more of a victory? Not all that exciting, really
It's been done in literature since time began. I read a great book many years ago that carried the timeline forward based on Carthage winning the Punic wars against Rome. Very thought provoking.
Same can be said for how history's timeline would have fared had the Spartans and their composite force failed at Thermopylae or if Saxon King Harold would have won in 1066 or if the Confederacy had managed to remain in control and engage Union forces as Lee had intended, at Gettysburg.
Very rarely do people say:
"Hey, you know how Wellington crucified Napoleon at Waterloo? Well, what if the Prussians struck Napoleon harder??" And so, the victory is more of a victory? Not all that exciting, really
Last edited:
I did propose a couple.
Or what if Pearl Harbor and the Philippines hadn't been caught so flat footed. It seems in the early Pacific war everything that could go wrong for the allies, did go wrong. What if things had been different ? What if our submarine torpedoes actually worked as designed, and so on ?
What if the USAAF hadn't the idea early WW2, that bombers could protect themselves ? What if Mustang development had be accelerated 6 months, and been in Europe 6 months before they were historically ?
What if nuclear development had been 6 months quicker ?
Seeing as a greater percentage by far of WW2 casualties happened in the last 6 months of the war, it just mystifies me why no one seems to see any interest in the possibility that those casualties could have been much less.
3 members of my own family, uncles, were lost in WW2. All were in the last year of the war, 2 in the last 6 months.
Or what if Pearl Harbor and the Philippines hadn't been caught so flat footed. It seems in the early Pacific war everything that could go wrong for the allies, did go wrong. What if things had been different ? What if our submarine torpedoes actually worked as designed, and so on ?
What if the USAAF hadn't the idea early WW2, that bombers could protect themselves ? What if Mustang development had be accelerated 6 months, and been in Europe 6 months before they were historically ?
What if nuclear development had been 6 months quicker ?
Seeing as a greater percentage by far of WW2 casualties happened in the last 6 months of the war, it just mystifies me why no one seems to see any interest in the possibility that those casualties could have been much less.
3 members of my own family, uncles, were lost in WW2. All were in the last year of the war, 2 in the last 6 months.
Last edited:
wiking85
Staff Sergeant
Start a thread then and see what happens.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Understandable, but in my case...I'm always curious to see "what could have happened".
- Thread starter
- #14
Conslaw
Senior Airman
What kills me about the "what if" threads is a certain contingent says how much they hate them - but they always participate. It's like, I know this chocolate cake is junk - but I just can't resist. "What if" threads are junk food but they don't hurt anybody. - Just good clean fun.
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
