If You Could Change History

[Joey Crows]

Well, in light of recent international events, I think I would attempt to prevent the Red Army from installing Kim Il Sung as chairman in North Korea. If I waited until just the right moment before interceding, it is unlikely that the Soviets would have been able to raise someone else to power in time to influence enough people to go to war with the southern part of the peninsula. 

I haven't thought too hard about it, but at first glance it seems there would be little negative effect with this alteration.

[Sullen]

11 hours ago, James Arryn said:

You can't simultaneously cry relativism and defend Versailles because the Germans planned worse. Either/or.

I wouldn't call comparing the intentions of both sides relativism when it comes to figuring out what counts as harsh or not, especially when accompanied with comparisons with other relevant treaties of the past and of the time on both sides (treaty of Frankfurt, dissolution of A-H and the Ottomans, robbing and vassalisation of Romania).

The fact that the Germans planned far worse is not the crux of my argument in defense of Versailles in any case.

[James Arryn]

43 minutes ago, Sullen said:

I wouldn't call comparing the intentions of both sides relativism when it comes to figuring out what counts as harsh or not, especially when accompanied with comparisons with other relevant treaties of the past and of the time on both sides (treaty of Frankfurt, dissolution of A-H and the Ottomans, robbing and vassalisation of Romania).

The fact that the Germans planned far worse is not the crux of my argument in defense of Versailles in any case.

I don't agree with the distinction you're drawing here, but tbh it was just something I caught on the fly and I probably didn't read the discussion enough to comment. That is in part because, while it's normally the kind of subject I love, this particular bent rings a specific bell. Back in undergrad in a course on social/political concepts specific to propaganda, I had a prof who had an interesting theory about sort of benchmark 'litmus tests' that tell you where a society is and/or is heading by how specific historical events are being interpreted. 

Broadly, his idea was that realpolitik in politicians is great, but the more it permeates into popular conversation, the more (kind of chicken/egg) that society either causes or allows it's government to be aggressive. One comment he made to illustrate the point, though it was an aside and we didn't really explore it nor have I ever examined in much detail since, but it stayed with me, was 'the more you hear people talk about how the trouble with Versailles was it not being harsh enough, the more likely it is that your (society? Country? Can't remember exactly) is buckling up for military aggression.'

So that alarm being sounded probably had me prone to a fly-by criticism that I would normally, if that makes sense. I'm sure you'll say your opinion is long-standing and therefore not indicative of anything, but even if true the ready audience it found might be more telling. Not that I'm really substantively arguing for/against your take on Versailles (or my prof, really...he wasn't interested in whether/how something like Versailles was fair/unfair, but rather how it is perceived over time and how/why that changes.) 

 

 

[Sullen]

42 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

I don't agree with the distinction you're drawing here, but tbh it was just something I caught on the fly and I probably didn't read the discussion enough to comment. That is in part because, while it's normally the kind of subject I love, this particular bent rings a specific bell. Back in undergrad in a course on social/political concepts specific to propaganda, I had a prof who had an interesting theory about sort of benchmark 'litmus tests' that tell you where a society is and/or is heading by how specific historical events are being interpreted. 

Broadly, his idea was that realpolitik in politicians is great, but the more it permeates into popular conversation, the more (kind of chicken/egg) that society either causes or allows it's government to be aggressive. One comment he made to illustrate the point, though it was an aside and we didn't really explore it nor have I ever examined in much detail since, but it stayed with me, was 'the more you hear people talk about how the trouble with Versailles was it not being harsh enough, the more likely it is that your (society? Country? Can't remember exactly) is buckling up for military aggression.'

So that alarm being sounded probably had me prone to a fly-by criticism that I would normally, if that makes sense. I'm sure you'll say your opinion is long-standing and therefore not indicative of anything, but even if true the ready audience it found might be more telling. Not that I'm really substantively arguing for/against your take on Versailles (or my prof, really...he wasn't interested in whether/how something like Versailles was fair/unfair, but rather how it is perceived over time and how/why that changes.) 

It's an interesting concept, but I don't really think it applies in my case to be honest.

I won't try to deny that I didn't always have that specific point of view concerning Versailles and the guilt of Germany in general in World War One, more precisely I used to think that Versailles was too harsh/unfair on the German people and that the war was an inevitability for which you couldn't blame any particular nations, that view was likely tinted by my parents positive view of the German Empire, the Kaiser, and the subsequent Weimar Republic (both sides of the family fled Germany after WW2). It's at university that I really delved deeper into the subject and figured that most of what I was told about Germany before, during, and after the war was wrong, or at the very least, extremely white-washy. 

Not sure I'd consider myself, or the society/country I live in, especially war-prone as I live in Canada and find myself aligning best with the thoroughly pacifist New Democratic Party, I simply think that in the case of Versailles specifically, Germany was let go considerably too easily. It's not really about having an appetite for war, it's about an ambitious political entity like Germany being too large and far too powerful for the simple dissuading measures of Versailles to ever work in preventing another Great War while also staying fair to countries that were victims of a war of wanton aggression.

Also, yeah, the role that Versailles had in propaganda was massive. It's definitively one of the aspects of the interwar period (and after) I want to read about more.

[James Arryn]

1 hour ago, Sullen said:

It's an interesting concept, but I don't really think it applies in my case to be honest.

I won't try to deny that I didn't always have that specific point of view concerning Versailles and the guilt of Germany in general in World War One, more precisely I used to think that Versailles was too harsh/unfair on the German people and that the war was an inevitability for which you couldn't blame any particular nations, that view was likely tinted by my parents positive view of the German Empire, the Kaiser, and the subsequent Weimar Republic (both sides of the family fled Germany after WW2). It's at university that I really delved deeper into the subject and figured that most of what I was told about Germany before, during, and after the war was wrong, or at the very least, extremely white-washy. 

Not sure I'd consider myself, or the society/country I live in, especially war-prone as I live in Canada and find myself aligning best with the thoroughly pacifist New Democratic Party, I simply think that in the case of Versailles specifically, Germany was let go considerably too easily. It's not really about having an appetite for war, it's about an ambitious political entity like Germany being too large and far too powerful for the simple dissuading measures of Versailles to ever work in preventing another Great War while also staying fair to countries that were victims of a war of wanton aggression.

Also, yeah, the role that Versailles had in propaganda was massive. It's definitively one of the aspects of the interwar period (and after) I want to read about more.

Another Canadian? We really are the best people, aren't we? If you're also a Munk grad my worldview is totally affirmed.

Okay, quickly to step away from my prof's point as it applies to your own personal view...I am going to use an extreme analogy for the purposes of illustration, not in any way equating it with your view...my prof would have said it means very little about a town if a guy walks into a bar and announces that Hitler had a good point about the Jews, but if he's met with a chorus of agreement and/or acceptance it probably means a lot more. Again, not at all saying your view is comparable, just extremes make for clearer illustration.

So, that said, to get into my view on your current view on Versailles...fair warning, my tangent/ramble potential here is off the charts...I'd probably key in on the term 'war of wanton aggression', and cite context. I think there's a great danger here for Nuremberg type consequentialism/post-applied morality. Ie, the 'orders are no excuse' judgment of German soldiers that literally flies in the face of everything soldiers had been told/shot for not getting up to that point. 

With WWI, the context is important. Remember no one foresaw the scale of the event at the time. Most observers basically expected Franco-Prussia Redux. And the Franco-Prussia, Dino-Russia and probably most aptly Napoleonic Wars are the context within which we can fairly assign blame and assess consequences for WWI given that's what they themselves would have known at the time. Slight deviation: the idea of 'wanton aggression' is interestingly applied here if you look at the closest parallel; Napoleonic. The Coalition Wars were almost invariably started/declared by Britain, and Britain was clearly the aggressor throughout, constantly funding coalitions to break w/e treaty Napoleon's victories had achieved in the last war. And yet...part of this is winners write history, but even contemprarily, the British always painted Napoleon/France as the aggressor and wrote off Britain being the one to constantly actually break the treaty/declare war as a technicality. Essentially, the argument went, you had 2 parties inevitably headed towards war, so whoever actually starts it is almost irrelevant. (Note, they say this about being the instigator at in least 5 straight Coalition Wars, lol, so you get my drift. Saying it about 1 is arguable...but a series of the same thing happening strikes me pretty clearly as revisionism) 

So, that...rationalization...is also imo pretty apt for the WWI scenario. It had long been conceded that war was coming, and an entire network of alliances to some extent diffuses actual responsibility once the spark was lit somewhere. While it's undoutedly true that the Schliemann Plan had been kicking around the German High Command for some time, that fact should not necessarily mean too much. Look up War Plan Red for a comparison. It really comes down to the German dilemma in any broad war, ie how to fight on 2 fronts. The idea was IF war was inevitable, Germany's only chance at pulling off a war to front and rear was a quick knock-out of either. Otherwise they are doomed by geography/math. So, in modern terms, preemption might be more apt than aggression, if you agree with preemption (I generally don't, but minority view) as an arguable concept.

But all that aside, let's say it was German aggression. Without consequentialism for scale, the comparisons are again Napoleonic, F-P and J-R and by those standards...ie by the standards which existed at the time Germany chose to be aggressive...Versailles was pretty shockingly severe. Remember that WWI is the great divide, re: war. Well, outside of America anyway, WWI was the last real war entered into in the spirit of adventure and kind of seen as being the normal business of nations broadly and a real man's greatest occupation, individually. Obviously the attitude coming out was entirely different, and war was understood to be hell on earth and really, really ought to be the very last resort after everything else has been exhausted. And Versailles was written with an eye towards this view...plus the French very much thumbing the scales, and I'm generally a France apologist...and if we say Versailles was written as a warning to the world that new rules applied and Germany was the sacrificial ram, I could get behind it. But to say it was morally proportional without consequentialism strikes me as a very hard argument to back, as none of the prior comparable wars had been addressed in that fashion since the inception of the nation state.

Okay, cutting myself off before I get too tangential, at least for now.

[Jo498]

Schlieffen Plan. Schliemann was the guy who dug up Troy.

[James Arryn]

26 minutes ago, Jo498 said:

Schlieffen Plan. Schliemann was the guy who dug up Troy.

Lol, typo. Though to be fair, Schliemann did kinda attack Mycenae along the same lines. 

[GAROVORKIN]

On 9/1/2017 at 0:22 PM, Jo498 said:

Schlieffen Plan. Schliemann was the guy who dug up Troy.

The Schliefen Plan was based on  Hannibal's envelopment strategy which brought him victory over Rome in the battle of Cannae in 216 BC .

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

1 hour ago, GAROVORKIN said:

The Schliefen Plan was baed on  Hannibal's envelopment strategy which brought him victory over Rome in the battle of Cannae in 216 BC .

Good thing the Germans didn't have elephants.

[Antonius Pius]

4 hours ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Good thing the Germans didn't have elephants.

Other echoes from the past

[Jo498]

Supposedly Schlieffen repeated his mantra "Macht mir den rechten Flügel stark!" (Make the right flank [that should complete the pincer movement for his "true Cannae"] strong) even on his deathbead. This became  a popular saying so detached from context that I had a teacher (certainly no nationalist conservative) in the 1980s who used to say this if in the classroom one side was suspiciously passive and not volunteering for Latin translation...

[DireWolfSpirit]

On August 18, 2017 at 5:59 AM, GAROVORKIN said:

What events would you change  and Why. and what do you think do you think the probable  historical repercussions would be from change the timeline ? 

Thoughts?

 

Under the events I would change category:

I'm certain I would make it a mission to thwart religious fanaticism in its various forms.

[GAROVORKIN]

On 9/4/2017 at 1:46 AM, DireWolfSpirit said:

Under the events I would change category:

I'm certain I would make it a mission to thwart religious fanaticism in its various forms.

 

Given the scope of human history, that would be  a huge undertaking.

[GAROVORKIN]

On 9/3/2017 at 0:57 AM, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Good thing the Germans didn't have elephants.

The German plan for a number of reasons, was doomed from the start.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

1 hour ago, GAROVORKIN said:

The German plan for a number of reasons doomed it from the start.

Chief among them? Lack of elephants.

[GAROVORKIN]

2 hours ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Chief among them? Lack of elephants.

 

Chief among them logistics and execution.

[Spring Bass]

I don't think the comparison to breaking up the Austro-Hungarian Empire and Ottoman Empire really fits. The latter two were dynastic empires with internal nationalist tensions that helped shred their empires once the states were heavily weakened and defeated in war (although the former was not a basket-case and absent a major war it probably would have persisted). Imperial Germany, on the other hand, had a whole ton of pan-German nationalism welding most of it together (sans Bavaria with its whole "southern Germany and catholic" compared to the Prussians), so breaking it up would have immediately led to a different kind of "stabbed in the back" legend and push for reunification. The Entente couldn't bring themselves to sit on defeated Germany forever in RL - they're not going to do in the alternate history as well. 

As for the OP topic-

1. Connive some way for knowledge about water disease epidemiology to spread earlier than it did in real life. That could save a ton of lives. 

2. Bring Silphium to the present, figure out if it can be grown as a domesticated plant with modern capabilities, and send the successful product of that (if any) back to the Classical Era to save people a ton of grief on reproductive health and family planning. 

3. Somehow establish contact between the "principate era" Roman Empire and the Americas, maybe with some boat technologies? 

4. Bring potatoes (all variants) and maize to Europe/Africa/Asia

5. Distribute breeding populations of horses, pigs, sheep, etc in the Americas

6. Introduce stirrups to the Romans, or even earlier

 

[Tears of Lys]

I suppose someone's already mentioned Trump's parents aborting him.  If not, consider it said.   

[Falcon2909]

I would mention plenty of people here but I'm not sure the forum rules will allow me to.

[Red Tiger]

Would push Truman to help Chiang Kai-shek take out Mao.