Utterly Implausible

fred_smith · Jun 1, 2004

I was just thinking of how the Egypt timeline includes a bit where there's a website and a discussion fuorum about our world. And it occurred to me that to people in a world ruled by the same large empires for so long, our entire history would seem utterly impossible. This got me thinking. Fromn outside of our own timeline, which events in our own history would seem utterly unreasonable?

Tyr · Jun 1, 2004

The American Revolution which is why I dislike TLs with a POD back in Roman times where it still turns up.

carlton_bach · Jun 1, 2004

Napoleon is the classic case (invariably quoted), though Augustus bringing the Roman Republic under control and Mohammed managing "Instant Empire: Just Add Water" must be close.

Otis Tarda · Jun 1, 2004

Adolph Hitler. Idea of mad painter becoming leader of "Nation of Philosophers" is completly implausible.
Even if he had became one, still, it would had been improbable that he hadn't been stopped by England and France

Suez Crisis in 1956. What? Western Hemisphere not united against Red Menace? Silly idea.

Thatcherism.

Gulf Wars

knightyknight · Jun 1, 2004

I don't think the Gulf Wars are so implausible, I mean, countries fight each other over the control of natural resources all the time.

Otis Tarda · Jun 1, 2004

I mean First AND Second Gulf War. Both.
I couldn't explain my grandchildren, why Saddam wasn't overthrown in 91', but in 2003, when he was no real threat.

Faeelin · Jun 1, 2004

carlton_bach said:
Napoleon is the classic case (invariably quoted), though Augustus bringing the Roman Republic under control and Mohammed managing "Instant Empire: Just Add Water" must be close.

I don't see how Napoleon was improbable. The French were casting about for quite a few leaders.

zoomar · Jun 1, 2004

in 1904, anyone who seriously predicted the following events would be considered a lunatic:

(1) Germany (possibly the least officially anti-semitic state in Europe at the time) giving rise to the holocaust by 1940 and murdering 10 million people.

(2) A European Union centered around a close alliance of France and Germany

(3) A European Union which included Great Britain

(4) A European Union which explicitly excludes mention of God and Christianity in its charter

(5) Voluntary dissolution of the British Empire

(6) The presence of US military bases in many countries of Europe

(7) The rise of christian fundamentalism in the USA

(8) A United Nations with an African Secretary General

knightyknight · Jun 1, 2004

Faeelin said:
I don't see how Napoleon was improbable. The French were casting about for quite a few leaders.

It's improbable because no one will believe the French actually had have any success in warfare.

fortyseven · Jun 2, 2004

Columbus's voyage succeeding in that time period especially.

Mr. G · Jun 2, 2004

This threads reminds me of the "alien bats flap around in OTL" thread that was posted a while back.

As for what's utterly implausible, I fine it's a matter of opinion. What makes sense to me might not make sense to others.

Mr. G · Jun 2, 2004

If that's the case

Leej said:
The American Revolution which is why I dislike TLs with a POD back in Roman times where it still turns up.

If the American Revoultion is implausible, so is the Canadian Confederation. The dominion of Canada would not have come into existance without the existance of the USA.

Peter · Jun 2, 2004

knightyknight said:
It's improbable because no one will believe the French actually had have any success in warfare.

That's just anti-french (neo-con) bashing.

Tyr · Jun 2, 2004

Mr. G said:
If the American Revoultion is implausible, so is the Canadian Confederation. The dominion of Canada would not have come into existance without the existance of the USA.

I think Canada was pretty much inevitable- the lands over the sea want semi-independance so it makes sense for them to be united as one when they get independance.

I think Hitler was inevitable if you get a view of WW1 considering a defeated nation rising up again with a extremist leader wanting revenge.

Admiral Matt · Jun 2, 2004

"I think Hitler was inevitable if you get a view of WW1 considering a defeated nation rising up again with a extremist leader wanting revenge."

That is nonsense. Hitler was unique to his time. Look at it this way: Hitler survived trench warfare through little but luck. Now, if he had died, where would this alternate Hitler come from? Who was capable of his kind of speeches, had equivalent delusions of grandeur, followed an explicitly socialist and nationalist platform, and was well-read enough to make anti-semitism sound like there was something to it?

Before Hitler, the German Workers Party was 40-strong and shrinking, and badly in need of a leader to prevent collapse. But that's not to say that all it needed was a leader. Perhaps someone else could have kept it together, but to make it grow at the rate Addy managed was something else all together.

Obviously, a replacement for the Austrian could happen, but I see no reason why it could be expected.

Edit: Hmmm...did you just mean that a revanchist and nationalist German government was inevitable?

Steffen · Jun 3, 2004

knightyknight said:
It's improbable because no one will believe the French actually had have any success in warfare.

Maurice de Saxe, Turenne, de Broglie, Vauban anyone?

Tyr · Jun 3, 2004

Admiral Matt said:
Edit: Hmmm...did you just mean that a revanchist and nationalist German government was inevitable?

Yes. Hitler wasn't inevitable, no individuals are. Hitler was just the one who managed to get to the top of this reborn Germany. Someone else would have done something similar without Hitler.

fred_smith · Jun 3, 2004

knightyknight said:
It's improbable because no one will believe the French actually had have any success in warfare.

This is a good example of how culture effects our opinion of a time-line. In a time-line where America had lost the War of Independence, say, we may have reached a stage by now where Europeans would find the idea of a north American super-power utterly laughable.

Paul Spring · Jun 3, 2004

I've noticed that Hitler is often used as an example in the argument between the "individuals have a huge impact on history" and "history is about broad trends, individuals don't matter that much" schools of thought. Personally, I think that Hitler's life and times show that the truth is somewhere between these two extreme arguments. If Hitler had never been born or been killed in WWI, the conditions were still ripe in Germany for some sort of ultra-nationalist, revanchist movement to arise. On the other hand, if a different person led it, this political movement might have a different emphasis than Nazism in OTL. It might not focus so much on anti-semitism. It might emphasize a war of revenge against Britain or France more than a war of conquest in the east. It might be more genuinely socialist than OTL Nazi movement, or it might be more closely tied to the old military elite. Such a substitute for Hitler might be more or less likely to gain power, depending on his temperament, political philosophy, opportunism, and skill. He might also be more or less likely than Hitler to adopt a strategy that would enable Germany to come out ahead in any world war.

zoomar · Jun 3, 2004

Paul Spring said:
I've noticed that Hitler is often used as an example in the argument between the "individuals have a huge impact on history" and "history is about broad trends, individuals don't matter that much" schools of thought. Personally, I think that Hitler's life and times show that the truth is somewhere between these two extreme arguments. If Hitler had never been born or been killed in WWI, the conditions were still ripe in Germany for some sort of ultra-nationalist, revanchist movement to arise. On the other hand, if a different person led it, this political movement might have a different emphasis than Nazism in OTL. It might not focus so much on anti-semitism. It might emphasize a war of revenge against Britain or France more than a war of conquest in the east. It might be more genuinely socialist than OTL Nazi movement, or it might be more closely tied to the old military elite. Such a substitute for Hitler might be more or less likely to gain power, depending on his temperament, political philosophy, opportunism, and skill. He might also be more or less likely than Hitler to adopt a strategy that would enable Germany to come out ahead in any world war.

Good points, however, it makes me still lean heavily on the "great man" (or even demon possessed!) view of Hitler. To the six million murdered Jews, as well as the even larger number of Slavic "untermenchen" murdered or allowed to starve in slave labor just because they were slavs, Hitler's regime was a nearly unique experiment in racism, evil, and beastiality - at least in modern western Europe. To someone living in 1900, the rise of such a regime in the nation of Bach, Goethe, and Beethoven (and even Bismarck and William II) would have been virutually unimaginable. In 1918, a revenge-seeking dictatorial Germany eager to start a new war would be a predictable event in European geopolitics. However, one which subordinated military necessity and strategy to the hateful racist obsessions of a failed Austrian painter would certainly not be expected. Hitler is one of those relatively few people in human history who have been able to take a general trend and turn it in a wholly unique direction.