/his/ - History

I'll start with a classic.

What could have done Germany to win WW2?

>>34570

1.Get rid of Hitler.

2.Unfriend Japanese

3.Don't attack both left and right sides. Do one thing at a time.

>>34570

That would depend when they started trying to win.

The obvious answer is to not invade the USSR for as long as possible (preferably never) but that isn't going to happen given the ideological nature of the Nazis. The Soviets were a big trading partner and actually quite friendly with the Germans.

If we're talking about 1939 the only option is to do as much as is physically possible to knock the UK out of the war. Put all your shit into Africa then, once it's almost secure, convince Spain to join and take Gibraltar. Long-term Spain is a big drain on your resources but short-term it'll have a nice effect on British morale. Even Churchill would struggle to keep the country in the war and he only just managed it in reality.

The Battle of Britain also needs not to happen until, at least, Africa is down but again preferably never. Not only did the Germans lack proper bombers but fighting over the UK puts them at a significant disadvantage: anyone who is shot down is gone forever. They wasted most of their veteran pilots along with a fuckton of planes for no effective gain. German fighters also don't get to last as long in the air.

Finally winning Africa and not bombing the UK are important from a morale point of view. Before they lost these two battles the general impression of the British public was that the German army was invincible outside of invading the UK. Also without bombing the UK directly you can let the British public think their soldiers are dying to protect faraway lands of the Empire. This is much less agreeable than them dying to defend your house from indiscriminate bombs.

Putting Speer in charge as soon as possible and centralising production of as few models of equipment as possible is another big change they could have made. They were still fitting rifles with scopes by hand until fucking 1944 for snipers and had something like 7 different scope models in use. Similarly they had a truly excessive number of different tanks with different calibres in use all produced inefficiently. Logistical fucking nightmare.

Stopping Hitler from personally touching any military matters is important too. Not only did he fuck up their strategies but he directly messed with (and subsequently delayed) development of better small arms and more importantly jet fighters.

Finally don't gass the Jews (or any other groups) or stick them in camps. It's a massive waste of resources particularly rail transport which is incredibly important for logistics in an industrial war. If you really must kill them wait until you've won.

If we're starting earlier they could have kept being friendly with the Chinese instead of fucking idiotically swapping to the Japs. The diplomats involved actually begged Hitler not to swap from the chinks.

Also if we're starting earlier don't pass race laws that make many of your smartest scientists fuck off to the UK/USA and hurt troop recruitment. This is silly. Again if you have to do this do it post-war.

so tl;dr:

1. More efficient industry.

2. Focus on the Med. Bring Spain in only when it is politically sensible to finally force the UK out.

3. Don't bomb the UK.

4. For gods sake don't fucking attack the USSR until at least the UK is out of the war. What the fuck are you smoking?

5. If possible keep away from the Japs as they are a worthless ally. They didn't even attack the USSR which might have helped change the Eastern Front.

6. Keep Hitler away from anything military other than, maybe, handing out medals.

7. Don't waste time and resources killing valuable soldiers and scientists.

>>34574

To add on to my point about the Battle of Britain: it was not uncommon for British pilots to be shot down and back in the air the same day. Given that their most used plane was largely made of wood and canvas and that any that crash will land on their territory for salvage you really can't win a war of attrition in the air against the UK. Even when they were bombing the airfields exclusively this wasn't happening.

Really though WW2 is done to death. There are more interesting what ifs? out there.

For example what if the Battle of Hastings had gone differently? Or if the Darien shit had worked and Scotland hadn't felt the need to go beyond a personal union with England?

>>34574

>1. More efficient industry.

I haven't got a lot of knowledge about German industry, why was it so shit when pre-war it was pretty great?

>2. Focus on the Med. Bring Spain in only when it is politically sensible to finally force the UK out.

More easier said than done, if Hitler couldn't bring Spain into the war then how could he in this alternate scenario?

>3. Don't bomb the UK.

Agree with you on this one, how about the use of U-Boats, carry on with them or not?

>4. For gods sake don't fucking attack the USSR until at least the UK is out of the war. What the fuck are you smoking?

More like "don't attack USSR until gained international recognition and support" otherwise you're completely fucked, work with Americans to develop an atom bomb in secret before attacking from East and West, when fierce resistance is faced and the war becomes a stalemate then nuke the fuckers.

>5. If possible keep away from the Japs as they are a worthless ally. They didn't even attack the USSR which might have helped change the Eastern Front.

Definitely, leave them to their war with the US, perhaps try to encourage the US.

6. Keep Hitler away from anything military other than, maybe, handing out medals.

Agree, useless deviant art faggot.

7. Don't waste time and resources killing valuable soldiers and scientists.

oy vey

>>34578

>I haven't got a lot of knowledge about German industry, why was it so shit when pre-war it was pretty great?

It was pretty terrible pre-war too. Despite the misconception, for example, the German invasion of France was done mostly with shitty tanks. Radios and superior tactics/strategies won that fight. The cause was the infighting and general inefficiency of the Nazi regime as a whole. There were something like 4 different organisations trying to control production before Speer and the country was producing almost as much consumer goods as it had been before the war. Even once they had him in charge every other arsehole in the inner circle wanted his powers for themselves. Basically no central control and so every company and personality got to do whatever they wanted. This is also what led to there being so fucking many different types of tank with little-no shared parts. Towards the end of the war Speer and co did try to standardise on a few models but too little, too late.

Partly it was ideological, I suppose, since centralisation = commie. They also kept women away from factories and other useful work that could have freed men up for fighting since they're supposed to raise the next generation of German soldiers and all that. The higher up Soviets who, frankly, cared little for a permanent ideology had it easier since they just redefined what it was to be a good Marxist instead of fucking over their production.

Modern Germany actually still functions like this industrially. It gives you high quality products with no regard for efficiency, compatibility or cost. Germans are not actually efficient as much as obsessed with optimisation with no regard to practicality.

Take the MP38/40/41. The Germans were never able to produce it in large enough numbers while the Soviets could equip entire fucking divisions with the PPSH if they felt like it.

Also you've got to forget the whole 'Germany was mechanised and elite' myth that gets passed around. They were still using fucking horses as their main logistical transport and never had near enough halftracks to go around even when shit was going well.

>More easier said than done, if Hitler couldn't bring Spain into the war then how could he in this alternate scenario?

Well step one would be not sending Canaris as a diplomat though I suppose that requires hindsight. When the man you send to persuade Franco to join is actively telling him you'll never win the war you're fucked. Regardless once you've won Africa you could probably get Spain in with some territorial concessions. At the least you could get their support to fuck up Gibraltar. Remember they are of use mostly to fuck the UK's morale rather than a military power. Special mention goes to Portugal though for their incredibly skilful diplomatic game in keeping Spain neutral. The unspoken hero of the allied side because their role required them to remain 100% neutral.

>how about the use of U-Boats, carry on with them or not?

Definitely keep them up for as long as is practical. Great way to demoralise Britain as there's no glory in starving to death. Seeing your fighters shoot down Germans is much more inspiring.

>More like "don't attack USSR until gained international recognition and support" otherwise you're completely fucked, work with Americans to develop an atom bomb in secret before attacking from East and West, when fierce resistance is faced and the war becomes a stalemate then nuke the fuckers.

Anything is practical once the UK is out but the Soviets are no issue in the short-mid term and long term all bets are off.

>oy vey

If you feel the need to kill them you do it after the war anon. Despite this the basic laws, I suppose, don't hurt international diplomacy as most countries in the world were fairly anti-jew as it was a baseline belief of the period. It might even help and doesn't hurt you much economically. A good scapegoat is nice for political stability too.

Sticking them in a ghetto and then a camp costs you a fuckton of shit that should be used elsewhere. Again if you have to do this stick them in a ghetto and use them as slave labour (this was actually done in the early war) over killing them but it's still inefficient.

Remember that, Speer and Goebbels excepted, the people in charge of the Third Reich were there because of luck or political skills not competence at their particular role. Himmler was good at fucking over rivals more than anything else, for example and Goering was a massive twat who couldn't run an airforce for shit. This type of environment does not breed competence.

The Soviets had a similar problem but for a whole variety of reasons could deal with it. Geography is one mitigating factor.

>>34579

If you want to go really in-depth into how shitty German industry was though you'll need to grab a few books.

They Germans (and Axis as a whole) did also have a fairly major problem with resources. This wasn't so much the fault of a shitty system as geographical truth but it hurt them badly.

As an interesting side note Sweden, of all countries, supplied them with the quality steel they needed to keep fighting up until 1944. You don't hear the Swedes talk about that much nowadays…

Two other fun facts:

1. The MG34 (by all accounts a great weapon) was actually mostly a project of the Weimar government, not the Nazi one.

2. The B.A.R. was a fucking terrible weapon designed for an idiotic tactic. Advanced for its time, maybe, but that time was 1918 not 1941. Still a sexy gun though.

>>34578

>useless deviant art faggot.

>mfw Hitler's deviant art gallery

Aryan! The Hedgeheg!

>>34574

>1. More efficient industry.

>7. Don't waste time and resources killing valuable soldiers and scientists.

You forget about how jewish scientists and factory workers were used in concentration camps, holocaust aside they were work camps and composed the main industrial force of WW2 germany, how do you think they had an industry in the first place? they didn't have the US selling them weapons and they had a double front.

>2. Focus on the Med. Bring Spain in only when it is politically sensible to finally force the UK out.

Spain was just out of the fucking civil war, if Italy wasn't ready to join in 1941 then how do you think was Spain able to join the war?

>3. Don't bomb the UK.

Agreed, but I'd blocade it from making anything pass.

>4. For gods sake don't fucking attack the USSR until at least the UK is out of the war. What the fuck are you smoking?

They would've attacked anyways, let's not lie here, they were preparing to wage war as much as Germany was, in fact they had a shit ton of Tanks when the war was declared, and what would you do with tanks if you have no war to fight?

>5. If possible keep away from the Japs as they are a worthless ally. They didn't even attack the USSR which might have helped change the Eastern Front.

I would've sent them to India as soon as possible, the USSR isn't as much of a threat as the Empire. Also charge what? Siberia? And you don't think they're all gonna die frozen by the devastating temps?

>6. Keep Hitler away from anything military other than, maybe, handing out medals.

Agreed.

>>34586

>You forget about how jewish scientists and factory workers were used in concentration camps, holocaust aside they were work camps and composed the main industrial force of WW2 germany,

A good number of the more advanced scientists pissed off to other countries long before camps were introduced though. And that doesn't deal with their major industrial problems. I cannot stress enough how shitty the industrial situation was. Finally remember camps are costly in terms of resources and the initial cost of moving a massive number of people into them is silly when you have a war to fight.

>how do you think they had an industry in the first place?

By basically taking what was left from the German Empire and Weimar republic and boosting it with slave labour? Pre-Speer (and others like him) they didn't do shit but build motorways and let industrialists go crazy with whatever they wanted. The German economic recovery wasn't particularly special though they got unemployment down heavily by putting everyone in the military.

>they didn't have the US selling them weapons and they had a double front.

They were, however, trading with the USSR right up until the invasion. They also developed a good number of their weapons there while they still obeyed the treaties. Also they still had fairly shitty equipment while invading the USSR. One KV-2 held them up for a few days due to a lack of effective AT. The KV-2 was a shit-tier tank but as a semi-mobile bunker it excelled.

>Spain was just out of the fucking civil war, if Italy wasn't ready to join in 1941 then how do you think was Spain able to join the war?

I'll again stress when it was politically sensible. You get them in only post-Africa to take Gibraltar and push the 'UK is isolated' angle to force the British to make peace. They're more useful for their position and political impact than their military (also open sub bases). It is worth noting though that the Spaniards that did fight were fairly competent.

>Agreed, but I'd blocade it from making anything pass.

Ofc.

>They would've attacked anyways, let's not lie here, they were preparing to wage war as much as Germany was

Nigger they were trading with the Germans until the last minute, the NKVD had direct relations with the Gestapo in 1941 and Stalin himself was surprised. The USSR couldn't care less about invading the Germans for a whole fuckton of reasons.

>in fact they had a shit ton of Tanks when the war was declared, and what would you do with tanks if you have no war to fight?

Building a military doesn't mean you are going to fight the Germans just that you percive them as a threat. This also ignores how shitty a lot of those tanks were. The USSR could have happily been left alone for years with the right diplomatic moves.

>I would've sent them to India as soon as possible, the USSR isn't as much of a threat as the Empire.

North Africa is probably enough. It forces you to ship shit around the (very) long way round and hurts morale. Better than invading they could keep helping Indian nationalist groups.

You must remember that the UK isn't going out of the war in purely military terms. You have to give them an out and attacking India makes it almost impossible for them to accept a peace. They've got to save some face after all.

> Also charge what? Siberia? And you don't think they're all gonna die frozen by the devastating temps?

The Soviets had significant reserves on the Asian front that were moved to the East once they realised Japan wasn't going to do shit all. This is fairly well documented and contributed to their successful counter-attacks. Japan was a shit-tier ally.

>>34590

>>34586

Also invading India is a logistical nightmare.

This isn't a video game. Each and everyone soldier needs ammo, equipment suitable to the climate/season and food. Assuming you can even produce this shit you can't ship it to India without the RN fucking it up so it all has to go from Germany, across the Med and from there by land (across the desert) to India.

Logistics matter and the Axis couldn't even supply Africa effectively.

>>34574

Why did the scots go to panama of all places?

>>34590

Japan might not have been te best ally, but China wouldn't have been better at all.

Japan just as Germany commited a series of mistakes, they just needed some more coordination.

On a somewhat smaller scale retrospective.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Crater

>Letting your soldiers charge into a pit with the enemy in front of you.

>>34622

>Why did the scots go to panama of all places?

Politics and economics mostly. It's all tied into the Union of the Crowns and Scotland wanting to remain politically independent (religion plays a role too).

>Japan might not have been te best ally, but China wouldn't have been better at all.

China wouldn't have upset the USA (in fact it was rather friendly with it). Japan fighting the USA was almost inevitable due to resources and competing interests in the pacific.

>>34629

>This is what happened. Hitler pushed the invasion back as far as he could, until he couldn't wait any longer.

He could have waited fucking years. Hell the Soviets were practically axis-aligned.

>That's contradicting what you just said.

The Battle of Britain cost the Germans more in trained pilots, planes and morale than it did the British. It was impossible for the Germans to win it. It also gave the British their first big win (hyped up by propaganda). Taking Africa without bombing the UK is actually going to be easier since you'll have an entire airforce free.

Give me one advantage the BoB would give the Germans?

>But Hitler was extremely reluctant about bombing the UK for this reason.

Ignoring the fact that Hitler could be persuaded to change his mind on things by almost anyone (see: The Night of the Long Knives) Operation Sealion (also something Germany would never win) necessitates fighting the RAF. Sealion was largely on the initiative of Hitler and the other strategically incompetent higher-ups and was known to be impossible. It's true he originally did not want to bomb the UK but then he expected the UK to surrender after Dunkirk.

>Where are you getting your history?

Books and education. Where the hell are you getting yours?

>What? Hitler was a terrific general who was sabotaged by his treasonous intelligence agents and some of his more lackluster commanders.

In the assumption this isn't bait where do you assume these magical skills came from? Experience as a foot soldier in a war long, long ago doesn't magically make him a strategic genius (hell it doesn't even make him tactically competent). And that's before I ask you for evidence of his supposed skills.

>Didn't happen.

The numbers have been somewhat inflated certainly. Regardless you'll surely accept that large-scale camps/ghettos were created and they are a drain on resources (and a waste of manpower put in there) themselves.

>And be dragged into a two-front war?

Which is what happened anyway. Just because you aren't actively fighting the UK (they were, in Africa) you can't just leave Europe empty. See Force in Being/Fleet in Being as a concept.

> Let's face it: after Dunkirk, the war in the West was effectively won

Clearly not. The UK has a huge navy, a worldwide empire (bad for German trade) and can supply resistance movements in Europe. Also bombing the fuck out of Germany though the effectiveness of strategic bombing is somewhat debatable.

Africa is important too for both resource and strategic reasons (the med and keeping Italy happy).

On top of that lend-lease was idiotically important for the Soviets early on and a good chunk of that came from the UK.

>There were no major invasions afterwords until D-Day

Apart from North Africa, Sicily and Italy. You've also got the inherent cost of keeping Europe garrisoned against invasion or constant resistance movements which, again, were supplied directly by the UK. And the cost of building idiotically large defensive structures. Also anti-UK propaganda, the cost of housing British PoWs and the PoWs you aren't getting back from the UK until the war ends. And you can't trade with the UK (or anyone else if it involves boats).

>That is why Barbarossa was launched precisely then

Well ignoring the fact they still didn't need to invade the USSR this is clearly false. The Germans wasted a large percentage of their airfoce, time and training preparing to invade the UK despite the sheer impossibility of that as an idea. This hardly matches your narrative.

>Hitler had to wage an all-out lightning-war and knock Russia out quickly before Britain and Russia would come to an agreement and pincer Germany.

>Britain and Russia

>Agreement

The UK had been funding and supplying people to fight the Soviets for years while the Germans had been trading military technology, resources and intelligence with them (not to mention secretly dividing up Eastern Europe). There exists evidence that Stalin and co were actually rather pleased than France and particularly the UK were getting fucked up to which is unsurprising given their ideology.

Ignoring the ideology of Hitler and co there was no major thread of an upcoming war with the Soviets.

>>34629

>This is what happened. Hitler pushed the invasion back as far as he could, until he couldn't wait any longer.

He could have waited fucking years. Hell the Soviets were practically axis-aligned.

>That's contradicting what you just said.

The Battle of Britain cost the Germans more in trained pilots, planes and morale than it did the British. It was impossible for the Germans to win it. It also gave the British their first big win (hyped up by propaganda). Taking Africa without bombing the UK is actually going to be easier since you'll have an entire airforce free.

Give me one advantage the BoB would give the Germans?

>But Hitler was extremely reluctant about bombing the UK for this reason.

Ignoring the fact that Hitler could be persuaded to change his mind on things by almost anyone (see: The Night of the Long Knives) Operation Sealion (also something Germany would never win) necessitates fighting the RAF. Sealion was largely on the initiative of Hitler and the other strategically incompetent higher-ups and was known to be impossible. It's true he originally did not want to bomb the UK but then he expected the UK to surrender after Dunkirk.

>Where are you getting your history?

A variety of books and education. Where the hell are you getting yours?

>What? Hitler was a terrific general who was sabotaged by his treasonous intelligence agents and some of his more lackluster commanders.

In the assumption this isn't bait where do you assume these magical skills came from? Experience as a foot soldier in a war long, long ago doesn't magically make him a strategic genius (hell it doesn't even make him tactically competent). And that's before I ask you for evidence of his supposed skills.

>Didn't happen.

The numbers have been somewhat inflated certainly. Regardless you'll surely accept that large-scale camps/ghettos were created and they are a drain on resources (and a waste of manpower put in there) themselves.

>And be dragged into a two-front war?

Which is what happened anyway. Just because you aren't actively fighting the UK (they were, in Africa) you can't just leave Europe empty. See Force in Being/Fleet in Being as a concept.

> Let's face it: after Dunkirk, the war in the West was effectively won

Clearly not. The UK has a huge navy, a worldwide empire (bad for German trade) and can supply resistance movements in Europe. Also bombing the fuck out of Germany though the effectiveness of strategic bombing is somewhat debatable.

Africa is important too for both resource and strategic reasons (the med and keeping Italy happy).

On top of that lend-lease was idiotically important for the Soviets early on and a good chunk of that came from the UK.

>There were no major invasions afterwords until D-Day

Apart from North Africa, Sicily and Italy. You've also got the inherent cost of keeping Europe garrisoned against invasion or constant resistance movements which, again, were supplied directly by the UK. And the cost of building idiotically large defensive structures. Also anti-UK propaganda, the cost of housing British PoWs and the PoWs you aren't getting back from the UK until the war ends. And you can't trade with the UK (or anyone else if it involves boats).

>That is why Barbarossa was launched precisely then

Well ignoring the fact they still didn't need to invade the USSR this is clearly false. The Germans wasted a large percentage of their airfoce, time and training preparing to invade the UK despite the sheer impossibility of that as an idea. This hardly matches your narrative.

>Hitler had to wage an all-out lightning-war and knock Russia out quickly before Britain and Russia would come to an agreement and pincer Germany.

>Britain and Russia

>Agreement

The UK had been funding and supplying people to fight the Soviets for years while the Germans had been trading military technology, resources and intelligence with them (not to mention secretly dividing up Eastern Europe). There exists evidence that Stalin and co were actually rather pleased than France and particularly the UK were getting fucked up to which is unsurprising given their ideology.

Ignoring the ideology of Hitler and co there was no major thread of an upcoming war with the Soviets.

>>34590

>Nigger they were trading with the Germans until the last minute, the NKVD had direct relations with the Gestapo in 1941 and Stalin himself was surprised. The USSR couldn't care less about invading the Germans for a whole fuckton of reasons.

Yeah, you're right anon, I don't know where /pol/ got the "Russia was preparing to invade" meme from, Stalin almost shot the messenger when he was told and refused to react for hours after the invasion.

>>34586

>Also charge what? Siberia? And you don't think they're all gonna die frozen by the devastating temps?

Japan did this before during the Russian Civil War so it wasn't actually as impossible as you're making out. Also, once you take the Trans-Siberian railway you're pretty well set.

>>34646

>I don't know where /pol/ got the "Russia was preparing to invade" meme from

probably from the fact that the last five year plan was weaponization — but guess what, that was supposed not to invade but to defend from, guess who, Hitler.

>>34646

>>34649

The USSR actually tried to join the Axis, believe it or not. Stalin got pissy when the Allies published evidence of this post-war and personally authorised a book denying it all.

Hitler himself (with a few other twats) basically refused all offers of this in the face of advice from diplomatic experts for ideological reasons.

This is also a fair part of the reason the 4th of July plot was largely carried out by those same diplomats. The few who survived the subsequent purge were executed after the Nuremberg Trials on the insistence of the Soviets to keep it all quiet.

Eventually Stalin started to suspect that all attempts to negotiate, however reasonable, were going to fail and planned for a possible defence but this was maybe a month or so before Barbarossa.

>Japan did this before during the Russian Civil War so it wasn't actually as impossible as you're making out. Also, once you take the Trans-Siberian railway you're pretty well set.

They also had a fairly sizeable battle with the Soviets just before WW2. Japan's failure to put pressure on the USSR is just one more reason they were a terrible choice of ally.

>>34625

I mean why Panama specifically? why not some place that's more like scotland.

>China wouldn't have upset the USA

True, but i think germany needed an ally in the far east to mess with the Soviet Union, China was in no position to aid Germany that way, Japan was imo, of course that never happened but the possibility was there, Japan also disrupted a good deal of Britain's war effort by capturing and threatening some of it's most important colonies.

Just as Germany should've delayed their invasion of the Soviet Union, Japan should've done the same with the US, helping Germany first, once it's time to attack the soviets, so the possibility was there, but since neither of them bothered to coordinate their war plans Japan didn't know about Barbarossa and Germany didn't know about Pearl Harbour they missed huge opportunities.

>>34654

>I mean why Panama specifically? why not some place that's more like scotland.

Same reason there's a big canal there nowadays. They were late to the game and wanted money quickly from an area nobody was too active in. The problem is backing the colony up and that wasn't going to happen for a whole bunch of political reasons. Mainly Spain's claims on the region and English diplomatic realities.

>True, but i think germany needed an ally in the far east to mess with the Soviet Union, China was in no position to aid Germany that way, Japan was imo, of course that never happened but the possibility was there, Japan also disrupted a good deal of Britain's war effort by capturing and threatening some of it's most important colonies.

The other problem with Japan was its silly internal politics. The army faction wanted to invade the USSR for resources but after (more or less) losing a battle with them in 1939 the naval faction's plan was adopted instead. This plan pretty much guaranteed war with the USA at some point and if you're going to go to war with them your only chance is something like Pearl Harbour which only has a slim window to work in.

>Just as Germany should've delayed their invasion of the Soviet Union, Japan should've done the same with the US, helping Germany first, once it's time to attack the soviets, so the possibility was there, but since neither of them bothered to coordinate their war plans Japan didn't know about Barbarossa and Germany didn't know about Pearl Harbour they missed huge opportunities.

This to. The Axis were terrible at coordination and often had actively conflicting goals. The Italians refused help from the Germans a whole bunch of times for example. Japan also upset the Vichy French at a time when Germany needed them neutral.

well disregarding the /pol/ circle jerk of "Muh Hutler was terrific general, attacking on many fronts when your low on resources is a very tactically sound idea" Lets look at some things that should ( Or at least would have been cool to have):

>Vinland

Norse nations in America would have been neato

>Tokugawa Ieyasu doesn't start shit

Japan would have had a chance of taking another wack at annexing Korea and possibly becoming Christian

>Akkadian Empire lasting longer

Imagine if the Akkadian empire had instead of trying to take syria went for Elam and basically become a proto-Persian empire and take over Egypt and using the Canal of the Pharaohs and maintain it to keep Mediterranean and Indian oceans connected?

>Charlemagne Reunifying the WRE

Imagine if Charlemagne's successors weren't such assclowns and would have reclaimed Iberia, Marched into Denmark and Sweden to tell Norse to stop pillaging shit, and even make an attempt at annexing a part of England; and then to top it all off with a royal marriage between the Byzantine Empire (Should be Before the schism)

>>34681

>I shouldn't have done that. Really, really shouldn't have done that.

The sad thing is this applies to almost every single decision he made. Even his choice of moustache was laughable.

>>34674

>if you're going to go to war with them your only chance is something like Pearl Harbour which only has a slim window to work in.

Yeah, Pearl Harbour was a huge missed opportunity, and when that opportunity presented itself again Midway then it went completely against them.

>>34680

>canal of the pharaohs

What's that?

>>34681

I think the Austrians bear more of the responsability for fucking everything up, but yeah willy wasn't a very smart guy either.

>>34694

>>canal of the pharaohs

>What's that?

there is something called google and wikipedia

>>34681

Yeah you fucked up my man.

>>34680

>Charlemagne

That would have been too OP, i think the fact that his heirs were assclowns was God's way of nerfing the Franks, cuz like, Byz+Charlemagne's Franks. Oh my god thats making me cum

>>34699

Not retreat after losing one raiding party. But considering how densly forested France is they prolly had it better by staying on the western side of the Pyrenees

>>34706

>But considering how densly forested France is they prolly had it better by staying on the western side of the Pyrenees

Would forest heavily effect the invasion though? I know forest is not the best place to fight, but their army wasn't entirely cavarly-dependent like mongols

>>34725

Forgot to add, in his defense a lot of the issues and numbers were being covered up during his invasion of Russia since by that time most of the people who told it to him straight in his other campaigns were dead.

>>34725

Its ironic that he attempted to create his own dynasty after seeing how fucked the previous one had become.

>>34727

You mean he executed them or were people just suspecting that he killed them?

>>34725

>Shouldn't have been a manlet

>>34744

>implying

>>34696

If i used that all the time then it would be pointless to be here wouldn't it?

>>34715

Would they be used to that kind of warfare though? at that point they had mostly fought in the desert.

>>34743

>You mean he executed them or were people just suspecting that he killed them?

I believe he meant incidental deaths (in battle etc) though I could be wrong.

>>34747

Well if you want to know then you'll have to learn how to use something called a search engine.

We're here to discuss history not explain it

>>34755

God forbid people ask questions.

>>34755

/his/ is slow enough it doesn't matter too much and the first link from a search engine is going to be the ever-shitty wikipedia.

What would of happened if the seljuqs lost at manzikert?

>>34890

Byzantines continue to be a major power in the middle east.

>>34755

sometimes the problem is that you don't know what to look for

search engine is useful if you want to learn details about something you're aware of, but you can't actively decide to learn something you don't even know exists

that's why we still need /his/, so that we can also exchange knowledge about stuff we never heard about before

>>34890

>Things that in retrospective should have happened differently or not at all, sort of alt history, but instead of a "what if x was y?" is "what x should've done in y situation?".

>>34890

>>34897

What could the bizantines had done to win manzikert?

>>34743

its not like france has been better off post revolution though. this is fact

>>34747

>at that point they had mostly fought in the desert.

>There are no forest in the middle east

They also invaded Iberia

>>34938

Only because the rest of Europe declared war on them. Also, they're better off now than continued reign under a monarchy, because that really doesn't fucking work.

>>34954

Which has lots of semidesert areas and plains.

But now that i think about it, it should be all that different i guess or perhaps it is i don't know anough about it so whatever.

>>34965

>Only because the rest of Europe declared war on them

And they did surprisingly well considering that.

>>34970

There are lots of forests in Persia and alpines in Lebanon. Some parts of Lebanon even has snows

>>34995

Sure but that's a pretty small area, doubt they waged battles there.