![]() |
|
|
#326 |
|
Side-Kick
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 7,578
|
UN and NATO? Don't you think you're jumping ahead... a few world wars?
They wouldn't have made it into the 20th century. The only reason the war lasted as long as it did is because the North was completely unprepared for a real war. Their best officers were Southerners. An armistice would actually work against the South, because it would give the North a chance to get a proper army together, mass produce weapons, and then they could simply march on Richmond on a whim. The North's industrial output alone would destroy the South. |
|
|
|
|
|
#327 | |
|
Creature of the Knight
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Jersey City,NJ
Posts: 17,382
|
Quote:
In short, McClellan was removed as commanding general because of that error. Also, one more thing to note was that Robert E Lee, the commanding general of the confederacy hated Slavery with a passion. Slavery wouldn't have last too long in the South. I would have given it another 15-20 years at most. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#328 |
|
Side-Kick
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 7,578
|
Well, let's not give Lee too much credit. He wasn't opposed to ending slavery. But he was hardly an abolitionist.
But the whole thing was pointless. The South seceded because of slavery (well that, and their hatred for the North), but, for reasons I have already explained), they would have had to end slavery sooner or later anyway. So, the whole war was utterly pointless. |
|
|
|
|
|
#329 |
|
Creature of the Knight
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Jersey City,NJ
Posts: 17,382
|
I once read a book about Lee's life that said that Robert E Lee wanted to free slaves and help them head to Liberia for freedom.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#330 |
|
Side-Kick
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 7,578
|
His wife and mother did. By most accounts, he was fairly indifferent. At least, when it came to actually doing anything about it.
Though he did support recruiting slaves for the Confederate army in the last years of the war. In return for their service, they would have been given their freedom. At best Lee was mildly sympathetic to the abolitionist cause. |
|
|
|
|
|
#331 |
|
Banned User
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 4,166
|
Brazil was the last country in the Western Hemisphere to outlaw slavery in 1877. The reason for this was not because of a war, only the United States went through that, but because of increasing industrialization and the rise of a population big enough for a working class instead of peasants. This was the case in Europe and Canada too. If the Civil War never happened and the Southern States were allowed to keep their slaves much longer on this would have eventually happened to. Not in factories or mines, but in agriculture. The slaves would have eventually been freed, but remained tenant farmers for years to come and would have worked at the lowest of the low on increasingly industrial farms. Machines would have made planting cotton and farming in general more profitable and been quickened by removing the slaves. Some mines and factories would have started to appear in the South too, with the introduction of the transcontinental railroad which would have needed freed laborers and men to operate some of the machinery.
Besides with the opening of the West in the 1870s many Southerners would have gotten on the railroad and started to find life for themselves out there on ranches in new ways. Many of them might have wanted to leave the South to the North where industry was starting just for the greater wealth it would have produced rather than stay on a cotton plantation. |
|
|
|
|
|
#332 |
|
Banned User
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 4,166
|
Switching gears in regards to the Vietnam War and JFK. I think we can say positively that had Kennedy lived past 1963 and would have been reelected in 1964 that the Vietnam War might not have occurred during his Presidency. The President still has to have Congress vote on a declaration of war in order to put ground troops in a nation. There was never a direct attack by North Vietnam on US forces that constituted an act of aggression except that Johnson mistook the Gulf of Tonkin Incident for a direct attack by North Vietnam patrol boats on US destroyers and thought a direct declaration of war would have spurred up China to roll down and possibly start World War III. So he created the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution instead to give him sole authority to use his own discretion for Vietnam. He authorized bombings of North Vietnam which angered this country and caused more Vietcong to infiltrate the North. Johnson put in bombers with bases and kept bombing, the Vietcong responded by attacking these, and the marines were put in the first time to defend the air bases which then got them chased into the jungle and so the story goes.
Kennedy was now known to have not intervened in taking down the Berlin Wall, putting the marines into Laos and Cambodia, putting in 200,000 ground troops into Vietnam as advised by his generals, providing air support to the CIA during the Bay of Pigs, etc. because he feared World War III breaking out, especially after how close he came during the Cuban Missile Crisis, he personally feared nuclear war. After that he questioned he traded cautiously and took steps to reduce nuclear weapons during the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. Kennedy was now fearful and cautious to prevent a major escalation that could lead to World War III and questioned his intelligence very carefully after the Bay of Pigs and Cuban Missile Crisis almost caused mistakes that could have led to war. Most likely Kennedy would have questioned the intelligence about the Gulf of Tonkin especially after it was being questioned by some members of his cabinet as inaccurate and not have acted on bombing then and escalating the war. An investigation by the Pentagon would have revealed either it was radar blips or a military forgery to start the war. Johnson had no direct involvement in the decision making Kennedy made when he was alive and was not aware of what his decision would have been or who could have been trusted in the cabinet for accuracy it's reasonable his mistake by coming would not have happened under JFK who was experienced. There would have been no bombings and no air bases to in essence provoke the Vietcong to attack them, no act of aggression from North Vietnam, and no ground troops to escalate the war, and no draft. Like Johnson too I don't think Kennedy would have wanted to start a war just three months before the November election in 1964. Too, Johnson kept plans for adding another 5,000 advisors to South Vietnam Kennedy had implemented in 1964 to which it stood at around 23,000 when the first marines were put in. It's likely Kennedy would have continued to do this until the end of his second term. The situation in South Vietnam continues to fall apart as several cous led by their military overthrows the new leaders. The number of Vietcong in the jungles of the south would not have increased without the bombings of the north ordered by Johnson and the chances of another event that might lead to a direct act of war does not happen. China detonating it's first atomic bomb in October of 1964 and Khruschev being removed from office in a cou probably would have also made Kennedy much more cautious about causing too much involvement in actions that could increase Cold War tensions, especially with a new regime in the USSR. Kennedy seems to have regretted the cou against President Diem because he turned pale white according to witnesses when he learned it had happened and then isolated himself in the White House for the rest of the day after getting the news it had happened. He didn't seem to have anticipated it going off successfully even though he signed off on the order to support it when needed to prevent the repressions against Buddhists under this regime. If he had experienced the multiple cous that took place in South Vietnam during 1964 and 65 that further destabilized the country and made the war more of an American effort I think he would have seen the flaw of this action and tried to prevent too much involvement for something to backfire again and to escalate the war. This though would have caused Kennedy to have to take over the war more and widen the US role, but only to dramatically increase the funding to South Vietnam as Johnson did in 1964 and by continuing to put in advisors there and not ground troops. Kennedy is the President that really started detente with the Soviet Union with the promise not to invade Cuba and then signing of the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. It is fact he sought to cooperate in the moon landing with the Soviets because he thought the Apollo program would have been too expensive for the US to accomplish itself and the American people would have lost interest in it. He had proposed it in a speech given in September 1963 and likely would have done so later on. Whether or not the Soviets would have accepted or not especially after Breshnev replaced Khruschev as the premier of Russia is a different matter entirely. Johnson kept the offer open when he was president, but it went nowhere because they didn't trust him. It seems given that the scenario for Vietnam Kennedy would have pursued in his second term would have reflected elements of attempts at detente and when he neutralized Laos. JFK would have probably tried to do the same for Vietnam if he could get the Soviet Union and Red China to end their support for the North. Johnson tried these talks to get a ceasefire in the war in 1968 which went nowhere because the two sides completely refused to accept the other's existence. Johnson escalating the war certainly didn't help. If Kennedy had a second term surely attempts would have been made to pull off this type of arrangement and it would have been more peaceful because the US would not have bombed North Vietnam yet. But Kennedy was not the communicator legend has given him and not likely would have been able to accomplish this goal and would have instead kept adding advisors and passing on the war to his successor in 1968. Who would that have been? Chances are Richard Nixon would have still run and Lyndon Johnson was interested in being the candidate and was most likely to get the Democratic ticket that year. No matter which one wins, they both take part in detente still and at some point in the early 1970s it would have likely been another attempt at either getting a ceasefire or neutralization accomplished. Both would have been strong negotiators and managed to get the Outer Space Treaty, Nonproliferation Treaty, SALT I and II, cooperation in the International Space Station, and more accomplished at the time. Chances are a successful end to the Vietnam War with through neutralization would have occurred. Whether Saigon fell or not was another matter completely. Kennedy though would not have withdrawn from Vietnam unless there was a agreed on peace settlement with China and the Soviet Union, he would have kept adding advisors and passed on the war as did Truman and Eisnehower before him. Detente would have likely brought upon this scenario sometime in the 1970s when the US could live with the Soviets not funding North Vietnam. |
|
|
|
|
|
#333 |
|
Veritas veritatum
SHH! Global Moderator
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Between a rock and a hard place.
Posts: 17,911
|
Just wondering what y'all think of this scenario:
What if the 1908 Tunguska fireball had hit Russia a few hours later and destroyed St. Petersburg? How would the surprise ending of the Russian monarchy by such "supernatural" means (as many people would likely have seen the event as being) have effected the quickly approaching First World War? Of course, losing such a massive adversary could be seen as a huge triumph for Imperial Germany but what else can really be said? The destruction of St Petersburg would have been extremely destabilizing for Russia, maybe leading to civil war over who would become the next leader and a mass exodus of Russian people leaving their country.
__________________
I'm open to my emotionsmost of them range from anger to rage. -Denis Leary |
|
|
|
|
|
#334 |
|
Banned User
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 4,166
|
Even if the royal family had been totally destroyed in St. Petersburg, the treaties with Serbia still existed no matter who the emperor was. Once Austria invaded Serbia and Russia would have gathered its army to repel the invasion and then Germany would have still declared war in the same manner. Even if Czar Nicky had died, his brother Grand Duke Michael would have assumed the throne and become emperor, he likely would have been as eager for war as his brother had been.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#335 |
|
Banned User
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 4,166
|
What does everyone think of this idea?
Hitler and Eva Braun fled Berlin and died (divorced) of old age in Argentina |
|
|
|
|
|
#336 | |
|
The Triumvirate
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Mortalville!
Posts: 24,905
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#337 |
|
Banned User
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 4,166
|
Panama Deception (Highlights) - 1989 US Invasion Of Panama
Watch this in whole. Does any of this sound like the current War on Terror, especially the invasion of Iraq? |
|
|
|
|
|
#338 | |
|
Side-Kick
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 186
|
Quote:
I agree. The north missed several opportunities to end the war through the incompetence of it's generals. The south might have had a chance the first year or two, really after the first battle of bull run when the could have marched on Washington. The problem was the Rebels were tired and they had no more reinforcements to put into the field. That's basically how most of the war played out. Btw has anyone else seen The Pacific mini-series? Last edited by Thor The Mighty; 08-16-2012 at 06:24 PM. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#339 |
|
Banned User
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 4,166
|
An old John F. Kennedy. He looks too much like Jimmy Carter. Last edited by 8wid; 08-17-2012 at 03:25 AM. |
|
|
|
|
|
#340 |
|
Side-Kick
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 7,578
|
Not really sure I follow you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#341 |
|
Side-Kick
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 7,578
|
I had the misfortune of seeing part of the Red Dawn remake today, and it started a bit of a debate with a friend. Could the United States ever be conceivably invaded by a foreign power?
Obviously the notion of North Korea invading the United States is idiotic. No one would debate that. But China? In twenty years when it's a real super power? I don't see a Chinese invasion of Japan as farfetched at all (nor do the Japanese, apparently). But America? |
|
|
|
|
|
#342 | |
|
Side-Kick
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 9,435
|
Quote:
__________________
The Most Astounding Fact (Neil deGrasse Tyson, HD): VIDEO-CLick to Watch!:
Debt Limit Explained in Under 4 Minutes VIDEO-CLick to Watch!:
Last edited by Marvolo; 02-08-2013 at 10:52 PM. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#343 |
|
Side-Kick
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 7,578
|
I think they could conceivably take Hawaii, provided they take Japan and South Korea first (which is quite manageable).
There's also the Alaska option if Russia is helping them. Sort of a classic World War III scenario, but it still holds true. They would presumably take out / occupy the Panama Canal first. I can't see any invasion going beyond the Rockies. Be stretched too thin. |
|
|
|
|
|
#344 |
|
Veritas veritatum
SHH! Global Moderator
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Between a rock and a hard place.
Posts: 17,911
|
I think any direct Chinese military action against the mainland U.S. is just too unlikely to think about. Our countries are too far apart for their supply lines to hold, our country is too big and too populous. Many of us are armed to the teeth and have been playing Black Ops for so long that we welcome the chance to "play the game" in real life.
Besides, if the Chinese really wanted to hit us, there are better ways to do it, besides militarily. They own a hell of a lot of our debt, as well as our businesses. They could easily screw with us financially, or even with cyber warfare.
__________________
I'm open to my emotionsmost of them range from anger to rage. -Denis Leary |
|
|
|
|
|
#345 | |
|
I'm symbiotic!
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Pittsburgh,Pa.
Posts: 1,520
|
Quote:
The Fuhrer died in Berlin in 1945. That's it.
__________________
-I'm a Freddy Krueger,Spider-man and Venom(the Eddie Brock version) FANATIC! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#346 | |
|
Side-Kick
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 9,435
|
Quote:
__________________
The Most Astounding Fact (Neil deGrasse Tyson, HD): VIDEO-CLick to Watch!:
Debt Limit Explained in Under 4 Minutes VIDEO-CLick to Watch!:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#347 |
|
Veritas veritatum
SHH! Global Moderator
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Between a rock and a hard place.
Posts: 17,911
|
I do see your point. A fat nerd eating Doritos and playing video games is a far cry from a real, battle hardened insurgent. Many people would fall in that category but many others would not.
__________________
I'm open to my emotionsmost of them range from anger to rage. -Denis Leary |
|
|
|
|
|
#348 |
|
Side-Kick
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 7,578
|
Well, never underestimate a well armed group of hicks. The British did, and we all know how that turned out.
I just thought it was an interesting hypothetical. I can't really see World War III happening without nukes. However, the proliferation of missile defense systems, and their increasing sophistication, does mean that it could turn into a protracted semi-conventional war. |
|
|
|
|
|
#349 |
|
Side-Kick
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 3,483
|
Just Saw Bill Maher mention this last night I sort of thought it was funny
http://www.loonwatch.com/2011/12/we-...en-since-1776/ (basically saying all but 21 years of the US' 235+ year history we have been involved in a war of some kind) Year-by-year Timeline of Americas Major Wars (1776-2011) |
|
|
|
|
|
#350 | |
|
Side-Kick
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Greece, Athens
Posts: 723
|
Quote:
__________________
In a Resource-Based Economy, all goods would be available through automation without the use of money, credits, or exchange for all people. My Portfolio - The Venus Project - Zeitgeist Films - Truth About Meat & Dairy - Vegan Diet |
|
|
|
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|