|
Raskolnikov38 posted:Well there's "Ten Days that Shook the World" by John Reed for a first hand account but it is definitely biased. "A People's Tragedy" by Figes is good and relatively unbiased (he dislikes everyone) but there was some scandal involving him and amazon reviews IIRC. Hey, thanks! Ten Days That Shook the World's Kindle edition was free!
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 07:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 7, 2024 01:56 |
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Hey, thanks! Ten Days That Shook the World's Kindle edition was free!
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 07:26
|
|
|
I was going to go back and add that marxists.org had Ten Days up for free but they probably published the free e-book edition. Additionally, for iBooks at least, many public domain books are available for free such as Heart of Darkness and some other older books I've looked up, if they're not free they'll be for only a few bucks since they're public domain and all.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 07:52
|
|
|
Umm, I don't know if a book on the Russian Revolution endorsed by Marxists.org would be the most objective history.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 08:22
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:Umm, I don't know if a book on the Russian Revolution endorsed by Marxists.org would be the most objective history. Its not, but it also happens to be one of, if not the only, english firsthand account of the October revolution. e: Reed in addition to being there when the revolution happened is one of the few Americans interned in the Kremlin Wall Necropolis. Raskolnikov38 fucked around with this message at 08:34 on Jan 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 08:29
|
|
|
One thing I seem to find myself pointing out a lot when it comes to "what if Britain won the war of independance" alt-history is, assuming in this hypothetical that the 'USA' stayed a colony under Britain until the 1960's (although all the history that lead to decolonisation wouldn't have been the same). It would not be the USA you know today in almost any way shape or form. Right from the start, can you see France selling Britain Louisiana during the relevant time period? Thats big potatoes different right there.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 09:07
|
|
|
I think the French would have rather sold it to the Spanish if given the choice, but this is alt history now.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 09:52
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:As an aside, here's an interesting article on Tours. Seems sound to me. http://deremilitari.org/2013/09/the-battle-of-tours-poitiers-revisited/ Its a great article, but the arab sources listed were Abassid, and the Franks and Abassids were literally fellating each other to get rid of their biggest immediate threats (the byzantines and ummayads) this is why tafarnajing was OK, as long as you're not a filthy rum or umawi 
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 11:49
|
|
|
Cast_No_Shadow posted:One thing I seem to find myself pointing out a lot when it comes to "what if Britain won the war of independance" alt-history is, assuming in this hypothetical that the 'USA' stayed a colony under Britain until the 1960's (although all the history that lead to decolonisation wouldn't have been the same). It would not be the USA you know today in almost any way shape or form. It would simply have been seized at some point during the Napoleonic wars. It isn't defensible and the colonists would have wanted it and it would have fit in with Britain's periphery strategy when fighting wars with Continental powers.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 11:53
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:I think the French would have rather sold it to the Spanish if given the choice, but this is alt history now. Given that they took it from the Spanish in the first place, I doubt they'd be too keen on selling it back. Especially since they were in control of Spain at the time. They probably would have sold it too... There aren't really any other neutral parties to sell it to, except maybe the Sioux or something. And they couldn't have paid in cash. So yeah, the colonists and the Brits would have just taken it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 16:50
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:It would simply have been seized at some point during the Napoleonic wars. It isn't defensible and the colonists would have wanted it and it would have fit in with Britain's periphery strategy when fighting wars with Continental powers. Assuming there still are Napoleonic Wars in this universe. Not necessarily inevitable if Britain quashes the revolt before French involvement.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 22:34
|
|
|
Squalid posted:Assuming there still are Napoleonic Wars in this universe. Not necessarily inevitable if Britain quashes the revolt before French involvement. Let's say Napoleon happens. Also Bismarck. Would Hitler have defeated Russia if Britain still had the 13 colonies?
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 23:12
|
|
|
I doubt direct control of the US can be maintained long term, anyway. Eventually a Canada type arrangement will probably develop.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 23:16
|
|
|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:Let's say Napoleon happens. Also Bismarck. Even assuming that the revolution fails, I don't think it's plausible that the colonies don't move very rapidly along the path to full autonomy and then independence.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 23:16
|
|
|
This has already moved into some serious Turtledove poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 23:28
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:This has already moved into some serious Turtledove poo poo. Now let's say Hitler wins the war and gains the 13 colonies, do they revolt, and is George Washington a car salesman in this scenario?
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 00:34
|
|
|
Oh this is hardly time traveling apartheid South Africans with Ak47s go to the CSA...yet. e: ^ and there we go
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 00:34
|
|
|
And then a comet hits the earth, annihilating all higher life. The first being to land on the moon is a member of a species of squid-rodents that evolves 4.9 million years later. It activates a hidden nazi moon base that unleash cyborg gay black Hitler on an unsuspecting civilization.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 00:40
|
|
|
Edit: This post was retarded. Even for me. Baloogan fucked around with this message at 00:53 on Jan 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 00:42
|
|
|
So long as we're in gay black Hitler territory, what does everybody think about this quote about WWI from Bertrand Russel, renowned not-a-historian? Yea or nay?Bertrand Russel posted:Consider by way of contrast what would have happened if Britain had remained neutral in that war. The war would have been short. It would have ended in victory for Germany. America would not have been dragged in. Britain would have remained strong and prosperous. Germany would not have been driven into Nazism, Russia, though it would have had a revolution, would in all likelihood have not had the Communist Revolution, since it could not in a short war have been reduced to the condition of utter chaos which prevailed in 1917.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 01:20
|
|
|
Probably fair to say that without the blockade Germany would have won although I think he might overstate how short it would have been.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 01:24
|
|
|
I have a lot of sympathy with that sort of view. Don't forget also the absence of the Spanish flu and the millions of deaths that caused.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 01:30
|
|
|
DerLeo posted:Probably fair to say that without the blockade Germany would have won although I think he might overstate how short it would have been. Yeah the BEF is not why the German plan failed. Von Kluck's rashness and Joffre's unexpected removal of his head from his rear end ruined the German offensive.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 01:37
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:So long as we're in gay black Hitler territory, what does everybody think about this quote about WWI from Bertrand Russel, renowned not-a-historian? Yea or nay? France would be humiliated and driven further into crazed nationalism, Austria-Hungary's problems would only really have been put on a burner, and a strong victorious Germany could only butt heads with a strong, unscathed Britain. It would just lead to another great war down the line, or maybe a horrible '30s hybrid of a World War. I don't see how Spanish Flu would have been avoided.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 02:32
|
|
|
Pretty laughable to say that Russia would not have had a communist revolution purely because the war would have been shorter. Things like that happen because of the perfect storm of many factors, not just one tipping point. History rarely hinges on single moments and events, and the overall direction of flow of things is usually much more robust than people give it credit for. It's also a stretch saying Britain would've remained strong and prosperous.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 02:33
|
|
|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:I don't see how Spanish Flu would have been avoided.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 02:39
|
|
|
Trenches aren't hygienic so it was probably transmitted a lot there but the Spanish flu is weird because it kills mostly young healthy people rather than the immuno-compromised by over provoking the bodies immune response causing a cytokine storm.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 02:45
|
|
|
Arquinsiel posted:Some people think that it largely incubated in the trenches and had such an effect on people because of wartime shortages and lowered immune systems after living in mud for years. I ain't no doctor, but that's what I've seen people claim. Wouldn't be surprised if it really took off in the trenches (perfect environment for that sort of thing), but I always thought it was theorized to have originated in Ft. Riley, Kansas before it showed up anywhere else.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 03:15
|
|
|
Handsome Ralph posted:Wouldn't be surprised if it really took off in the trenches (perfect environment for that sort of thing), but I always thought it was theorized to have originated in Ft. Riley, Kansas before it showed up anywhere else.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 03:52
|
|
|
Arquinsiel posted:Raskolnikov38 points out a good reason why it's not likely to be true. All I was doing was citing the correlation people think is there, and pointing out that I ain't no doctor. No I understood what you meant, my post wasn't clear on that, sorry. I guess I was just seeing if anyone had any reason that the Ft. Riley theory wasn't the likely ground zero for the epidemic.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 04:06
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:Yeah the BEF is not why the German plan failed. Von Kluck's rashness and Joffre's unexpected removal of his head from his rear end ruined the German offensive.  Ahem. FAUXTON fucked around with this message at 06:08 on Jan 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 06:04
|
|
|
The key component of Joffre's head-rear end-ectomy of course being when he decided to actually listen to Gallieni. e: oh wait I've confused him with Lanrezac, still the point still stands, Joffre was poo poo until the very end of August. Raskolnikov38 fucked around with this message at 06:39 on Jan 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 06:36
|
|
|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:France would be humiliated and driven further into crazed nationalism, Austria-Hungary's problems would only really have been put on a burner, and a strong victorious Germany could only butt heads with a strong, unscathed Britain. So we have a fascist France hell-bent on reacquiring her territory and a multi-ethnic monarchy in Austria-Hungary tethering on the brink of a revolution that may well go communist. Meanwhile Germany is pouring more money into the fleet now that France is out of the picture, so conflict with Britain is a near certainty, and the Russian Czar tries desperately to stay in power after losing yet another war. Sounds like a decent scenario.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 07:07
|
|
|
ArchangeI posted:So we have a fascist France hell-bent on reacquiring her territory and a multi-ethnic monarchy in Austria-Hungary tethering on the brink of a revolution that may well go communist. Meanwhile Germany is pouring more money into the fleet now that France is out of the picture, so conflict with Britain is a near certainty, and the Russian Czar tries desperately to stay in power after losing yet another war. Sounds like a decent scenario. That's pretty much how the Kaissereich mod for Hearts of Iron plays out. That and the US descends into a 4 way civil war for some reason. Though arguably a fascist France is better than a Fascist Germany because France wouldn't be able to do nearly as much damage.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 07:11
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:The key component of Joffre's head-rear end-ectomy of course being when he decided to actually listen to Gallieni. Besides Gallieni and Lanrezac picking up after Joffre, I'd also like to throw in Moltke being an indecisive flip-flopper. That right flank, man ...
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 07:25
|
|
|
Russia had a serious revolution in 1905. It was simultaneously crushed and reforms were made. There's no indication that with no war, any other revolution would have created a different result. The weakening of the mechanisms of control caused what happened in 1917.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 07:55
|
|
|
cheerfullydrab posted:Russia had a serious revolution in 1905. It was simultaneously crushed and reforms were made. There's no indication that with no war, any other revolution would have created a different result. The weakening of the mechanisms of control caused what happened in 1917. Removal of the Tsar was inevitable. However the Bolshevist takeover is far from being a certainty in all what-if scenarios. Bolsheviks were very weak and the October revolution probably would not have succeeded if Germany hadn't helped Lenin back to Russia.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 08:03
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:Removal of the Tsar was inevitable. However the Bolshevist takeover is far from being a certainty in all what-if scenarios. Bolsheviks were very weak and the October revolution probably would not have succeeded if Germany hadn't helped Lenin back to Russia. I always felt Grand Duke Michael got the short end of the stick when the guy was smart enough to not accept the throne after Nicholas abdicated, since he wanted the Duma to ratify him becoming Czar first, but he got killed anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 08:37
|
|
|
It's difficult to say what would have happened in Russia without the serious stresses of the war. The February revolution which deposed the tsar was very much driven by the effects of the war - the shortages of basic foodstuffs, the loss of lives, the loss of faith in the rulers etc. The October revolution, in turn, was initiated largely because of the Provisional Government's failure to end the war. Now, Russia had some serious social tension that would have to be settled sooner or later, and which might even have resulted in a socialist/communist revolution of sorts. But I don't think that the Bolsheviks would have achieved such a prominent position within the revolutionary movement in the absence of a drawn-out World War.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 08:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 7, 2024 01:56 |
|
|
Nenonen posted:Removal of the Tsar was inevitable. However the Bolshevist takeover is far from being a certainty in all what-if scenarios. Bolsheviks were very weak and the October revolution probably would not have succeeded if Germany hadn't helped Lenin back to Russia. Even the civil war that followed was not a guaranteed victory for the reds. At least from what I've read, one contributing factor to the reds winning was that Tzarist officers threw in their lot with the reds in order to stabilize the country. One hilarious thing about the Russian civil war was a Czech Regiment, that started as POWs captured by the Russians, and ended up controlling the Transibirian Railway thanks to being a cohesive unit. In the end, the regiment negotiated their way out and ended up leaving Russia by Vladivostok. Mr. Sunshine posted:Now, Russia had some serious social tension that would have to be settled sooner or later, and which might even have resulted in a socialist/communist revolution of sorts. But I don't think that the Bolsheviks would have achieved such a prominent position within the revolutionary movement in the absence of a drawn-out World War. Well, the Bolsheviks did oust the rest of the Revolutionaries in a second revolution, which just shows the difficulties of being a moderate faction in a struggle where extremists are present. Like the Egyptian Revolution and Syria today, and Iran in 1979. On WW1, if I recall there were 2 other crises before 1914 that could as well have started the war.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 09:24
|
|
