The wall of Warsaw

[Squall]

I have a timeline that changes many areas of the world map. My timeline is not based on a divergence point, it is a rewriting of the history.
Thus, I often change an event that breaks the balance of the power and I have restore it later.

This is a small part of my timeline. The cold war starts with Germany and Soviet Union.

This is the basic idea:
*In 1804, the British invade Louisiana and prevent the expansion of the USA.
*In 1865, the Confederate States of America becomes independent.
*In 1918, the Germans wins the war and the French are severely punished.
*In 1929, the crisis starts in Berlin.
*In 1931, Hitler is successful in his campaign that started with the Munich Putsch (postponed to 1931) and becomes the fuhrer.
*In 1939, the French start a war for revenge.
*In 1945, Hitler successfully unifies Europe, except for the Slavic areas. The war ends with the UK being nuked by the Germans.
*The Soviet Union immediately develops nuclear weapons and Hitler and Stalin start the cold war.
*A wall is built in the border between Germany and the Soviet Union. The wall divides Warsaw into two.
*Hitler makes alliance with the Americans and gives them nuclear weapons. CIA is founded to help against the Russians.
*In 1950, Hitler dies naturally because of cancer.
*In 1952, revolts happen in all parts of the German empire. The rest of Europe wishes independence from Germany. The Germans are displeased with the Nazi regime, because all non-German people hate them.
*During that same time, the Holodomor (postponed to 1952) happens in the Soviet Union. It is a terrible time to start a war against Germany.
*In 1953, the Nazi regime falls. The independence of the European countries is restored. NATO is founded immediately to avoid any sudden Soviet attack.
*And the cold war continues cold...

I ignored Japan for now. It could be an ally of France in the WWII and be nuked by the Germans in the end.

 

[TRH]

Anglo-American war in 1804, and still Hitler? Won't somebody think of the butterflies!

 

[Historyman 14]

The English can't take over Louisiana, and stop the US moving west.

 

[Squall]

The English can't take over Louisiana, and stop the US moving west.

The goal of that event is to stop the American expansion. France and the USA were enemies of UK, then UK decided to take Louisiana and give weapons to the indigenous people. Any suggestion of a better event to prevent the American expansion is welcome.



Actually, the purpose of this thread is to tell an alternate history of the world wars.

 

[CthulhuFhtagn]

The goal of that event is to stop the American expansion. France and the USA were enemies of UK, then UK decided to take Louisiana and give weapons to the indigenous people. Any suggestion of a better event to prevent the American expansion is welcome.



Actually, the purpose of this thread is to tell an alternate history of the world wars.

Are you familiar with the butterfly effect? With a point of divergence in 1804, World War I will never happen (at least, not with the same countries as OTL). Neither will World War II. Hitler and Stalin will probably never be born. Hell, with a different Napoleonic Wars, it's entirely possible that Germany will never even become a unified country.

 

[Historyman 14]

The goal of that event is to stop the American expansion. France and the USA were enemies of UK, then UK decided to take Louisiana and give weapons to the indigenous people. Any suggestion of a better event to prevent the American expansion is welcome.



Actually, the purpose of this thread is to tell an alternate history of the world wars.

It is impossible to stop American expansion.

 

[TRH]

Apologies for putting your post into a blender like this but it makes it easier to go point by point.

The goal of that event is to stop the American expansion.

Britain had tried and failed to stop westward expansion back when the states were still colonies; giving up the Northwest territories in the Treaty of Paris was basically their admitting defeat on that end. What convinces London that they do, in fact, have the means to stop hundreds of thousands of settlers traveling along a frontier many hundreds of miles wide?

France and the USA were enemies of UK, then UK decided to take Louisiana and give weapons to the indigenous people.

Not remotely that simple; the US had in fact just finished an undeclared war with France because they resented French attacks on their shipping to Britain: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasi-War

The US was the largest neutral economy in (most of) the Napoleonic Wars, and they wanted to be able to trade with both sides. Entering the war would jeopardize that trade, and it only happened IOTL after years and years of repeated provocation (plus years of embargoing France+Britain which made the blow relatively lighter).

As for arming the natives, that could be done without an open war, which wouldn't accomplish all that much. Actually, the big problem here is that your political end is so open-ended as to be unfeasible; stop American expansion westwards...forever? Surely I don't need to tell you that the British can't achieve that by tying down thousands and thousands of soldiers for years or even decades, which would be necessary for a direct approach. As for arming Native Americans to do it for them, there really wasn't enough political unity among them to carry it out. They came the closest with Tecumseh's attempts at some sort of Confederation, but I'm skeptical as to whether that would actually have stood a chance in the long run. Regardless, IOTL the British were perfectly happy to do whatever they wanted in the Northwest without actually declaring war, so I fail to see what invading Louisiana gains them. It's not like they can do more than occupy New Orleans and St. Louis until they eventually get bored and leave, anyways, and those are still too far away from the Shawnee/Creek/other tribes they could actually make contact with anyways.

Any suggestion of a better event to prevent the American expansion is welcome.

Something involving a failed Constitutional Convention and the US splitting into regional groups might help some, but the Thirteen Colonies are still the most attractive target of European immigration, so I don't think it can really be stopped. Besides, it doesn't seem to have any bearing on the rest of your scenario, so I don't get why you want this.

Actually, the purpose of this thread is to tell an alternate history of the world wars.

I'm not sure why you think you need a POD at the start of the 19th Century for the alt-World War stuff you posted so far. Some more details might make this more clear.

 

[Agent of SHIELD]

It is impossible to stop American expansion.

This.

Even if the British took Louisiana and New Orleans and held onto it, there is no way they could keep the U.S. from simply expanding into the rest of OTL Louisiana Purchase and would eventually find themselves boxed in on the east and north by the U.S. and the south and west by the Spanish/Mexicans.

And all of that is assuming the U.S. doesn't take it (or at least attempt to) in a future war with Britain. There was quite a bit of tensions between the two already without Britain purposely trying to limit American expansion/growth.

Edit: Ninja'd

 

[Dan Reilly The Great]

Another issue is the fact that in 1804, the British were far more concerned with the French under Napoleon. Now, history has shown that Boney was not enough to keep the British from fighting a war against the United States, there was at least some realistic reasons for such a conflict, whereas this TL requires sending a considerable force on the end of a very long logistical chain to accomplish a very vague and open ended geopolitical goal. Hell, despite the fact that the British managed to put in quite a good showing against the US during OTLs War of 1812, there was never any real drive to actually hurt the United States or gain any extra territory in North America. The British didn't want to stop the United States from expanding westward because there was very little for them to gain by doing so while there was considerable cost.

 

[CthulhuFhtagn]

So we're all getting hung up on the plausibility of Britain invading Louisiana in 1804? Not WWI still occurring more than a century later and the Nazis and the USSR both rising afterwards?

 

[Devolved]

Just another wish list.

 

[Dan Reilly The Great]

So we're all getting hung up on the plausibility of Britain invading Louisiana in 1804? Not WWI still occurring more than a century later and the Nazis and the USSR both rising afterwards?

Well, debating the interior architecture of a house doesn't mean much if the house was never built with any doors.

 

[Anaxagoras]

Actually, the purpose of this thread is to tell an alternate history of the world wars.

With a POD in 1804, butterflies in the timeline would ensure that the world is so completely different than the world wars, as they occurred IOTL, would not happen at all. With a POD as big as the United States not expanding across the western portion of North America, the balance of power in the world would impact European history so profoundly that everything would be radically different.

Hitler would never have been born, because his parents would never have been born. And even if they had, they would never have met.

 

[Squall]

I'm not sure why you think you need a POD at the start of the 19th Century for the alt-World War stuff you posted so far. Some more details might make this more clear.

That was needed in order to prevent the USA from becoming a superpower. Thus, they would not be important in the world wars and would not lead the capitalist block during the cold war.

I am more concerned about the world wars without the USA.

It is impossible to stop American expansion.

The Americans tried to conquest Canada and failed.

If Louisiana had been more colonized by a European country (Spain, France or UK) during the 18th century, they would be populous and unified enough to resist the American invasion.

With a POD in 1804, butterflies in the timeline would ensure that the world is so completely different than the world wars, as they occurred IOTL, would not happen at all. With a POD as big as the United States not expanding across the western portion of North America, the balance of power in the world would impact European history so profoundly that everything would be radically different.

Hitler would never have been born, because his parents would never have been born. And even if they had, they would never have met.

As I said in the first message, my timeline is a rewriting of the history and therefore I ignored the butterfly effect. Hitler could be born from different parents.

It does not need to be so realistic, but it is interesting to fix some implausible things and ignore what is very difficult to fix.

 

[Historyman 14]

The Americans tried to conquest Canada and failed.

If Louisiana had been more colonized by a European country (Spain, France or UK) during the 18th century, they would be populous and unified enough to resist the American invasion.

No. The Louisiana territory was too big for that. America would take it over time. Or the UK sells it to the US.

 

[TRH]

I am more concerned about the world wars without the USA.

There are easier ways to do this. Note the lack of American participation in either World War at the start. See if you can find a way to extend that neutrality further, and you probably have an easier and more plausible solution.

The Americans tried to conquest Canada and failed.

If Louisiana had been more colonized by a European country (Spain, France or UK) during the 18th century, they would be populous and unified enough to resist the American invasion.

The big difference here is that Louisiana doesn't have to be "conquered", it was purchased a year before your proposed POD, and settlers will be coming along whether anybody likes it or not. Hell, even the US government often couldn't stop this movement on the (few, if any) occasions it might have wanted to, no one else could block it by armed force. And Louisiana isn't as attractive a target for immigration as the Thirteen Colonies, so Brits/French aren't going to stream in just because you want them to. It's fine to have events happen for particular out-of-story reasons, but they need to also have justifications that make sense in-story. Strangling America in its crib because it might be a nuisance in a century or two doesn't fit the bill.

As I said in the first message, my timeline is a rewriting of the history and therefore I ignored the butterfly effect. Hitler could be born from different parents.

It does not need to be so realistic, but it is interesting to fix some implausible things and ignore what is very difficult to fix.

Not that there isn't variability in the level of plausibility in the timelines on this site, but ignoring the Butterfly Effect completely isn't going to sit well with us. Honestly, not using it probably hits our collective 'bullshit meter' harder than anything else.

 

[Ultimate Paragon]

I have a timeline that changes many areas of the world map. My timeline is not based on a divergence point, it is a rewriting of the history.
Thus, I often change an event that breaks the balance of the power and I have restore it later.

This is a small part of my timeline. The cold war starts with Germany and Soviet Union.

This is the basic idea:
*In 1804, the British invade Louisiana and prevent the expansion of the USA.
*In 1865, the Confederate States of America becomes independent.
*In 1918, the Germans wins the war and the French are severely punished.
*In 1929, the crisis starts in Berlin.
*In 1931, Hitler is successful in his campaign that started with the Munich Putsch (postponed to 1931) and becomes the fuhrer.
*In 1939, the French start a war for revenge.
*In 1945, Hitler successfully unifies Europe, except for the Slavic areas. The war ends with the UK being nuked by the Germans.
*The Soviet Union immediately develops nuclear weapons and Hitler and Stalin start the cold war.
*A wall is built in the border between Germany and the Soviet Union. The wall divides Warsaw into two.
*Hitler makes alliance with the Americans and gives them nuclear weapons. CIA is founded to help against the Russians.
*In 1950, Hitler dies naturally because of cancer.
*In 1952, revolts happen in all parts of the German empire. The rest of Europe wishes independence from Germany. The Germans are displeased with the Nazi regime, because all non-German people hate them.
*During that same time, the Holodomor (postponed to 1952) happens in the Soviet Union. It is a terrible time to start a war against Germany.
*In 1953, the Nazi regime falls. The independence of the European countries is restored. NATO is founded immediately to avoid any sudden Soviet attack.
*And the cold war continues cold...

I ignored Japan for now. It could be an ally of France in the WWII and be nuked by the Germans in the end.

Look, you're new here, so I'll be gentle.

1. The British were too concerned with Napoleon to worry about what America was doing on the other side of the Atlantic.

2. Without expansion westward, would there even be a recognizable American Civil War? And how would the Confederates win?

3. I don't think World War I would happen the way it did with a POD that far back.

4. How would the Nazis come to power in a victorious Germany?

5. I seriously doubt that the French would be in any position to start a war against Germany.

6. The Nazi nuclear program was notoriously bad. Internal divisions, anti-intellectualism, and the Nazi dismissal of nuclear physics as "too Jewish" were all major handicaps.

7. Considering how much Hitler hated communists and Slavs, I really have to ask why he didn't nuke the Soviet Union too.

Like I said, you're new here, so maybe you don't quite understand yet.

 

[Tizoc]

Beside the points raised by other posters above, I think you need to get a map and check some geography, because:

*A wall is built in the border between Germany and the Soviet Union. The wall divides Warsaw into two.

There's a wide river (Vistula) running straight through Warsaw, south-north. So there's no point on wall dividing the city. Unless you want to put a wall in the water...

 

[Squall]

Like I said, you're new here, so maybe you don't quite understand yet.

Actually I am a hobbyist. I am not professional in history and sociology.



1. The colonization of Louisiana could start during the 16th or 17th century. Wars in Europe and religious persecution are some reasons to make people leave Europe.

I have been thinking about the rise of something like an indigenous Mississippi Empire before the 17th century. They would use ships on the river to reach distant areas. During the 17th and 18th centuries, they would learn some European technologies.

2. The need to abolish the slavery would still exist. Many people have already written an ATL about the victory of the Confederates. It is easier to repel invaders from a territory than invading a territory.

4. The effects of the crisis of 1929 would make the people believe in the Nazi bullshit.

5. The bad consequences of the WWI could make a fascist dictator take over the power in France.

6. If the German nuclear program were reformed, they would be able to have nuclear weapons. If they knew the potential of the nuclear technology, the Nazis would be motivated to develop it.

7. Hitler was very stupid IOTL, because he attacked the Soviet Union without finishing the war against the allies. In my timeline, he will finish the war against the allies before starting new wars, but he will not have time to attack the Soviet Union, because the Soviets will have developed nuclear weapons too.

Maybe the butterfly effect that was ignored in 3 makes 5, 6 and 7 happen.

There's a wide river (Vistula) running straight through Warsaw, south-north. So there's no point on wall dividing the city. Unless you want to put a wall in the water...

A structure of iron bars would be built across the river.

 

[Imladrik]

Holy butterfly genocide Batman !

Seriously, if you want to ignore every pretense of alternate history and only dwell in you nazi victory fantasies you should post in ASB.