Hmm...I thought of how many different layers a viking would wear. IDK why just random. XD

Haha! Guess that might depend on whether the viking was sacking Scotland or Cadiz at the time 8l

I always thought it would have been interesting to see the 'what if' of WWI if General Galleni had still been placed in the French colonies instead of France thus unable to to organize the defense of Paris and in the same instance General Joffre troops encountered bad weather while he rushed his troops the the Battle of the Marne.

I also always wondered what would have happened if General Meade would have persuade General Lee and his troops after Gettysburg and trapped him at the swollen river he had to cross. Would the Civil War ended two years (more of less) early.

Both excellent questions! Do you suppose a German capture of Paris would have resulted in their victory on the Western Front, or would the war have dragged on along some other battle line farther south and west? For that matter, would a Central Powers victory in the war have been healthier for Europe in the long run, or was another World War inevitable no matter who won? Regarding your other idea, had the Civil War ended early, do you have any thoughts on how Lincoln would have handled Reconstruction (sadly, I'm dismally ignorant of Civil War-era history, so I'd have no clue ^^)?

I think it would drag on for a time, with the German supply line for Paris caught in a pincer between the British (assuming that Prime Minister Asquith would have kept the troops on the main land and also assuming General French didn't go against orders), Belgium, and the remaining French forces. However, sensing it would be in their best interests, Italy would have come in on the Central powers side sealing the fate of the French in the South of Paris and thus the British and Belgians in the North. So yes, I think the German would have won the war on the western front, and the eastern as well given from what I have read the German had no thought of invading England only moving their freed up forces to the Russian Front giving them more a victory then history has already given them. At war’s end I think compromise would have ruled the day Britain restoring the German colonies splitting the French ones with the Germans, and there would have been a Vichy like France established at the end (to keep the balance of power and so Italy could have a buffer between itself and its more powerful 'Allie'. In addition, Czarist Russia would have stayed in place, for not only were the Kiser and Czar close but the German Government and Army would never allow a Communist power on its boarder if it could prevent it and would have helped sustain the Czarist regime.

Would all this though have been good overall though for Europe…NO. The German political state was weak to start out with and the added territory would have made the inadequacies more glaring thus resulting in either a German Civil War or the state finding a new enemy to unify them internally or externally possibly Britain or America in this regard. So yes, another war would have been inevitable but it would have been much more deadly than the actual WWII, given the new German colonies, a more embolden Italian state, and with Russia staying neutral until it could see the possible defeat of Germany.

Ah, a proto-Vichy - that's an interesting prospect! How about this: what if the Western Front collapsed in that initial 1914 offensive, and the Germans got another easy victory over France like in 1871. Confident, triumphant, and fairly unscathed, having achieved the prestige of now being Europe's greatest power, would they have been so harsh in their peace treaty with France? Perhaps then, without the bitterness that led to WWII in Europe, the Austrian, Russian, and German Empires could have focused their energies inward to prevent collapsing? After all, it hasn't even been a hundred years - without the length and scope of both World Wars to provide the political and social catalysts for the demise of the world's empires, might any still exist today?

And, in any scenario around this time frame, let's not forget the Pacific! WWJD: What Would Japan Do? :3

We must remember that it was the Kiser’s and General Von Bulow thought that that taking French land was a must at the beginning of the war and the taking would breed, more resentment by the French people towards the Germans. Especially the indium they would have to pay to the Germans for the loss of their manpower which was common practice between them at the time (also to ensure they would not rise again and help their countrymen behind the new German lines in resisting their government). So France could have been a breeding ground for a Nazi party or communist party and seek to undo the injustices of the German victory.

As for focusing their power internally to better their governments the Kiser believed in absolute power, as did the Russian Czar (which is why he was reluctant to support the Duma) so I think the Kiser would have consolidated power more. Angering his citizens (we also have to remember they would be paying higher taxes for the army occupying ‘New Germany’ in France) and moving the Government towards a skate goat (their hated for the Jews are abundant in the Kiser’s writings and his Generals) or for another war. In other words the Flaw in the Plan is the Kiser who did not become more humble with victory but more arrogant and we must remember he now has possibly a fresh water sea port that cannot be so bottled up as it can in the North Sea (historically the British Navy loves and hates a big brother next door).

The Czar, if we assumed the Germans propped up his government during the Revolution then maybe there would have been internal governmental change and more power granted to the duma. However, the Germans would still have taken great swaths of their land and this would breed resentment in the Russian mind, their still angry is some sense with them about their WWI defeat, and they would I think still take a chance to regain their Empire. Nevertheless, yes I think they could have lasted to this day assuming that Nickolas was deposed and one of his brothers made the new Czar. Austria now, I think that possibly under Charles the First would have moved more towards a parliamentary system and could still have lasted to this day (assuming it withstood the next war between the Russians, the Germans, British, and the Americans) assuming Charles was anything like his assassinated cousin.

Overall, I think it would have been possible for at least two of these empires to survive possibly all three if the people of Germany had a civil war or major uprising before external and external government actions could have come to another war. Still, there would be another war for big navy’s breed big fears and those who control the water control the world so at the very least there would have been a Navel/Colonial war in the next 30 years after the 1915 German win. Where would this war started? In the pacific by Japan, who wanted more land and taken on China and even take on a weaken Russia, embolden by their victories and angered by the fact they could not get the supplies they needed they would have declared war upon Britain. Why, because they would have Germany on their side, with Italy, and even Austria maybe thus giving them a chance to get what they need while the British navy was on the other side of the world going after the bigger threat. However, they would still make their big mistake by making war upon the United States later on but the defeat would not have been do damaging for the Empire. Given it takes a long time to learn how to fight, the Americans have not fought one for a long time (no WWI to fight) and allot of the military innovations you need to fight an island hoping war have not been discovered yet. Given their was not a long WWI to inspire them yet (the tank and the flamethrower just to name a few).

All sounds reasonable! When a scenario is this fleshed out, sometimes I think it'd be fun to make a mock history textbook (but that's the geek in me talking ^^ ). Maybe even put it in a classroom, and see how long it takes the kids to realize something's not right!

Oh, that would be fun! I figure they would finally realize something was wrong between the discovery that Napoleon won at Waterloo and Hitler was elected President of Canada (although allot of people have a hard time just believing he was elected, more or less, Chancellor of Germany).

Oh, as for Civil war don't worry about it for I really don't know 'jack' about Napoleonic Wars (can't find too much about them in America allot on Napoleon though) say outside of Nelsons victory's and Waterloo.

What if Alois Schicklgruber hadn't been allowed or able to change his name...? ;)

*pictures thousands of smartly dressed military men standing at attention and shouting* "Heil Schicklgruber!!" XD

hahahahaha XD Never knew that!!! Oh, man, that's the funniest food for thought I've had in a while!

I'm glad you enjoyed it! XD

The thing is, from what William Shirer says, the name "Schicklgruber" sounds funny even in its native tongue... Given that, would even a charismatic and ambitious Adolf Schicklgruber be able to amass a following, or even be taken seriously at his political speeches? :P

Could the entire Second World War have been averted (or at least, delayed) if that priest in 1876 had not accepted Alois' petition to take his long-dead stepfather's family name? Could the very course of human history have been altered if a name was not changed? :3

Or perhaps Adolf Schicklgruber would have led an angry mob of awkwardly named individuals that fateful day in Munich! "This is for all of the times Albrecht Speer laughed at my name!"

But that brings up an interesting point: had Hitler not been around, could anyone else have brought about the chain of events he did? Goering, Himmler, Röhm of the SA, Ernst Thälmann of the German Communists, or Johann the dock-worker from Hamburg? How much was WWII a product of the Treaty of Versailles, and how much was it the momentum of an individual's determination and charisma, do you think?

What if Hitler had never died and escaped to live and fight another day?

Ah, now that one is a classic. What do you think - could he have mustered a following after losing the war?

Possibly, or influenced others to carry on his footsteps, or maybe even have heirs..evil ones.

I also would like to know how the world would be different today if 9/11 had never happened.

If the Berlin wall still stood.

If North and South Korea took down the currently standing barriers and found peace.

If the Rwandan Genocide had been stopped.

I want to know what America would be like today if the 1890 massacre of Sioux at Wounded Knee had never happened.

If the U.S.S.R. had not fallen.

Etc.

BONDS - "So infinite regression is-"

HASSLEIN - "The moment when our artist, having regressed to the point of infinity, himself becomes a part of the picture he has painted and is both the Observer and the observed."

BONDS - "What, in that peculiar condition, would he observe if he were observing Time?"

HASSLEIN - "He would perceive that Time is like a freeway with an infinite number of lanes."

- Escape from the Planet of the Apes

Ah yes, what if the movie "Planet of the Apes" had never been made?

Eeeeeee! 8D

Welcome back, Leon (I hope you don't mind me shortening that)! ^^;

That's right, whittle those subs! :O

WHITTLE THEM! \(>.<)/

It would seem that you enjoyed your trip IMMENSELY (mostly); glad to hear it man, and glad to have you back safely. ^^

Thank you kindly, Señor D! I shall certainly strive to whittle those subs into something suitable - a small statuette, perhaps?

In the spirit of this journal, may I pose to you a poetry what-if? I hear there are two camps on this one, one side claiming that Robert Frost was preaching non-conformism and the other side saying he was simply being ironic. So, what if Bob had taken the road more-traveled - would it have made a difference? :3

Hmm, well, if generically generated Bob did take the road more-traveled, that poetic time period would have been a bit more dull, wouldn't it have? 8<

Can you say DIVERSITY?! 8D

Mmm, romantic diversity. \(-_-)/

Haha, good point! And he certainly wouldn't have gotten my old high school's English wing named after him ^^

I love both history and alternate history. Playing Paradox games like Victoria and EU2 is pretty much the perfect way to play out one's alternate history scenarios. The biggest history what-if I ask myself is what would happen is the Byzantium Empire never fell or at lest lasted another 400 years. Today's political climate in the Balkans and possibly the rest of Europe would be radically different.

Ha, there's nothing more fun than bringing Byzantium back from the brink in EU2 :D How does it turn out for you - do you rebuild a modest state, or try to re-found the Roman Empire?

Paradox games aside (such a fitting name), do you think that in reality anything short of a miracle (like Timur's 1399 invasion) could have prevented the Turks from storming Constantinople once the Ottomans were settled on both sides of the Bosporus? How far back from 1453 would one have to go to find a reasonable turning point where the Byzantine Empire could have revitalized itself? And, if it had, would we be looking at a Byzantine state the size of Greece, the size of Turkey, or the size of the Ottoman Empire today?

(Also, if you'd ever be interested in playing EU2 or 3 multiplayer online, I would be thrilled )

I'm afraid I don't mutliplayer games. I usually try to build a reasonable country and some unrealistic hyper-empire.
As an empire, the Byzantine was pretty much crushed at the battle of Manzikert. It hard to what could bring back a Byantine state. All you need is a continuous line of people with the foresight to make the right decisions for a nation to prosper, but only one person to make really bad decisions for it to come crashing down. Realistically I would hope for a Byzantine state controlling Greece and the Balkans up to the 20th century and maybe even today.

wow.. how did i miss this journal? i must've been really out of it!! never the less.. welcome back!!

also my what if... what if France had taken over NZ instead of Brittain? Apart from me speaking french instead of english, I'm not entirely sure. I think a lot of things would've changed. politics, certainally inital politics would've been different. a lot more wars would've happened. maybe we'd be speaking english? who knows

Haha, thanks! :) Woulda been way cooler to have visited NZ though!

And that's a very interesting one! Out of curiosity, have you done much genealogy? Do you know if any of your family came over in that initial wave of merchants and settlers? Because you're right - being initially under company control, one of those rare cases where many colonists came before it was officially part of any European empire, your ancestors may have arrived before the islands were annexed into any of the established 19th century maritime powers. You sure could have been speaking French right now!

Do you suppose the French would have treated the Maori any differently? And would the wars NZ has participated in have been much different? After all, with the exception of the Franco-Prussian War, Britain and France were allied in all major world conflicts since the time NZ became a crown colony!

Just think - as a fellow French possession, maybe that would have meant free tickets to Tahiti for everyone! :3

that would've been cool. i'd have shown you around with Raknar

I haven't done much genealogy as it hasn't been much in my interests, but I do know that I have some english blood in me and like naught Maori blood. Well.. the Maori were here well before the Brittish colonists reached here and it was because the French threat (i.e. the Brittish not wanting France to get their hands on the land they'd just come across) that convinced the individual tribes to sign the Treaty of Waitangi and thus unite somewhat against the French taking over the land (there are other major points in the Treaty but yeah...)

I'm not sure how the French would've done it. I imagine it would've been very different, though things here were handled much better than what it was over in Australia (i don't know how much Australian history you know, but it wasn't very pleasant for the natives there). Possibly not as to the war thing. The major wars we were in, WWII we were mostly in the Pacific and fighting as ANZACs (in fact all wars NZ has been in (with the only exception being the Iraq invasion because the UN deemed it an illegal war and our PM at the time wanted nothing to do with that) we have gone with the Australians as ANZACs.

here is a big if? how long would the British home Gard delayed the German invasion of England until the royal navy reach the channel to destroy the landing barges and supply ships or the germans reach London?
( there was a plan by to use gas on the invading forces )

one more if the Titanic did hit the iceberg head on instead of on the side would she has survived the first world war?

The first one is a bit frightening to contemplate! I'd hope that Sealion would have been foolhardy enough to have failed shortly after execution had it been tried, but who knows? It certainly would have escalated the war very quickly, very early on! How awful it would have been had the reservations toward gas been thrown aside :S

And the second is a really, really good question! Suppose it would have been pressed into service, or sat out the war?