Historical "What Ifs"

[tslex]

Let's have some fun.
Today's theme: Battles that might well have gone the other way and which -- had they done so -- would have changed everything.
I'm going to cheat in my answer and combine Dunkirk with the Battle of Britain, which began a month later. Had Hitler not halted his advance on the beaches, he could have destroyed the British army in place. Then, had he pushed the air war just that much farther -- and especially if he had concentrated on the British airfields, instead of bombing the cities -- that would have been that for the RAF. (Many people have no idea how close it was. "The nearest run thing you ever saw," was how Wellington described Waterloo. The same could be said for the Battle of Britain.)
Invasion or surrender would then have been foregone conclusions. With England out of the war, the US never enters the European war at all. You can spin the possibilities out into some interesting results.
What other battles, that might have gone the other way, were hinges in history?

 

[condorlover1]

Gettysburg?

 

[tslex]

Show your work condorlover.
How might the battle have come out differently and why? what result if it did?

 

[saintpeter]

Pizarro (1532) The leader of the 6,000,000 Incans was dead and the kids fighting to see who got to be boss. If not for that and the shock and awe of the boom sticks, Pizarro and his merry band would have been toast.

 

[tslex]

OK, saintpeter. Good premise. Half credit so far.
Now play out the implications. Any real impact on the speed/depth/nature of Spanish colonization or exploitation?
(Can you guys tell that I'm sort of eager for the semester to start so I can torment my law students?)

 

[jitterbugdude]

Gettysburg: What if Stonewall Jackson was not injured (and later died) at Chancellorsville?
He would have been at Gettysburg. He would have known not to attack the first scouting party he came across (thus alerting the enemy to the CSA's location). He would have immediately seized the high ground ( which the South failed to do). With the high ground he would have beat the USA. With a Gettysburg victory other nations would have given aid and support to the CSA. The Northern people would protest more and more. Lincoln would have had to recall more troops to DC for defense. The North would call a truce. Now wind all the way up to WW2. The US is fractured. The South doesn't really participate in the war. No Higgens boats are built in New Orleans resulting in a failure of the Allies to establish a beachhead. The U.S. ends up dropping some Nukes on Hitler (after taking care of Tojo). Large expanses of Europe are uninhabitable. Back in America everyone in the CSA smokes like chimneys and they all whistle Dixie.

 

[jpmcwjr]

Lots of things come to mind re: WWII. If the little man hadn't taken on Russia; if the V-2 program had begun six months earlier; if he hadn't been so concentrated on building big war machines; if he didn't concentrate his invasion plans based on an attack at Calais, then the Brits would be speaking German.
But as to US entering war, I thought it was because as soon as we declared war on Japan, the Germans declared on us. So it's pretty likely we would have entered the European front at some point, if only to help our dear Russian allies.

 

[cosmicbobo]

If the South won the War of Northern Aggression, the South would have had a rough time keeping slavery into the latter half of the 20th Century. I'm a Past Commander of Sons of Union Veterans, yet much of me is in Dixie. MO was under Union control, but even in the northern most parts of the state people were Southern Sympathizers. Think Jesse James and the people who made a hero out of him.

If you travel in the South, no matter what your race, you are referred to as Mr. David or Miss Julia. This is one of the reasons you have so many African Americans still living in the South.

I am not defending any part of slavery or Jim Crow. I've spent most of the last half of my life working on not being the idiot I was growing up.

The war was a land grab. If the South had won we would be smoking like Chimneys and whistling Dixie... or was that said already. jk

Born on Stonewall Jackson's Birthday, the day Louis XVI was beheaded as well. I love dubious distinctions. Glory!

 

[tslex]

Jitterbug, A+ answer. Exactly what I'm after.
JPM, I can't imagine even Hitler would have been crazy enough -- if he had Britain in hand by December 1941, and he would have for almost a year in my scenario -- to have declared war on the US. [Although one seldom loses betting on Hitler to be crazy.]
David, do you agree with jitter? One bullet -- well, OK, three hit SWJ, all fired by his own troops who mistook his returning patrol for a Union scouting party -- lost the war for the south?

 

[tslex]

jitter, I've got a similar thread running on FB. If you agree I'm going to quote your answer there, with credit to "a very smart guy on my pipe discussion board."

 

[cosmicbobo]

I don't believe the South had as great of a war machine. The North had ways to choke the South. One was in medicine. Another was in prisoner transfers. The North, who took such great umbrage at Andersonville, had their own issues with their prisons. Lincoln stopped the prisoner swaps, thus causing bad conditions to be worse at prisons on both sides.

Seldom mentioned is that many of the Founding Fathers' descendants were on the southern side of the Mason/Dixon line.
Worse is deifying someone with claims he freed the slaves. He only freed the slaves in the Rebel States, over which he had no power. Maryland was one example of a Northern State that had slavery.
Also, people don't realize the country of Liberia was supported by many, including Abe, which was made up of freed blacks. No problem, save that Liberia allowed slavery for another hundred years. Freed slaves? Go figure.
To me it matters not a whit who won. I would still be me. I would not own slaves. I was not offended when my daughter married an African American. I would still listen to the Archies and Rachmaninoff.
Thus is and always will be The United Brain Cells of David

 

[prairiedruid]

Revolutionary War: Battle of Long Island
Washington was out generaled and lost but British General Howe didn't press his attack and stopped for the night with Washington's troops trapped against the river with British frigates moving to seal off the river. The weather became dreadful and the frigates were unable to deploy. Washington was able to get his troops across the river with the weather covering his escape with fog.
If Howe had pushed the attack another hour or 2 longer or if the British frigates had been able to enter the river and block Washington's escape the entire American army would have been destroyed/captured and the revolution would fail in it's early days. England maintains control of the colonies, slavery may have ended sooner under British rule or an earlier advent of the Civil War between southern colonies versus the British Empire.

 

[jitterbugdude]

jitter, I've got a similar thread running on FB. If you agree I'm going to quote your answer there, with credit to "a very smart guy on my pipe discussion board."

tslex: Sure, go ahead.

I don't believe the South had as great of a war machine.

David: Up until Jackson was shot, the South won every major battle. Antietam (Sharpsburg)was basically a tactical draw, even though the North had Lee's plan of attack and deployment. Probably a combination of superior Generalship from the South and plain old lousy Generalship from the North. As to "great war machine", yeah the North definitely had the manufacturing superiority and a big-ass Navy.

 

[jpmcwjr]

With a Gettysburg victory other nations would have given aid and support to the CSA.

I have to think this is very suspect.

 

[mawnansmiff]

"then the Brits would be speaking German."
We already are to a certain extent. Much of our vocabulary is of Teutonic origin.
Regards,
Jay.

 

[deathmetal]

With England out of the war, the US never enters the European war at all.

In my view, this could be quite a disaster. Hitler would have conquered the Soviets, which would have been a plus, but then would have found himself facing two other rising powers: China and the US, who would have formed the same partnership they did during WWII. FDR was itching for war and China, at least under the Communists, wanted to be a world power. The likely scenario there then seems to me to be an expanded war in Indo-China with the Nazis participating as well, and nuclear weapons lofted over Europe.

 

[aldecaker]

John, France and Britain came a lot closer to endorsing the CSA than most people suspect. It's actually one of the more fascinating aspects of the war to those interested in political and diplomatic facets of the conflict.

 

[Sjmiller CPG]

Battle of Midway - with the loss of four carriers that was the beginning of the end for Japan. While there were some naval battles to come in the Pacific, the Japanese navy never recovered from the losses suffered there. If the US would have lost Midway, it would have been a long time before the US could have built a naval force that could have stopped the Japanese. An invasion of Hawaii would have been the next logical step for Japan.

 

[tslex]

David/jitter: I think the core point – that Gettysburg going the other way might not have been enough – is a good and arguable one. There’s no doubt the South could out-general and out-shoot the North on its worst day. But a wise man once said that amateurs talk tactics and professionals talk logistics. Northern industrial and naval superiority are a hard argument to overcome.
jpm/aldecaker: I do have to wonder what the British disposition toward the CSA – from whence their cotton came – might have been if they’d thought a Southern victory were possible. And then, what impact would alliance with the anti-slavery British have had on the South?
prairiedruid: Excellent and agreed. In my similar thread on Facebook, another Revolutionary War buff has posited the Battle of Kings Mountain, which the better armed, high-ground-holding, Tory militia should have won. He points out that a British victory there would have allowed Cornwallis to consolidate control of the south with far-reaching consequences.
Deathmetal: interesting take. The fundamental question, from which the others grow: could/would Hitler have defeated the USSR if left to concentrate solely on the Eastern Front. Stalin would have lost all chance of pushing anyone to invade Europe and open the second front (as it was, the US/UK didn’t do that until some 16 months later than Stalin begged them to). The easy answer is that an undistracted Whermacht could have beaten USSR. But. . .I dunno. Ask Napoleon.
Great discussion, gang.

 

[warren]

The CSA army in Northern Va. did not win every battle up until Jackson was killed. McCellan may have left the Peninsula but, Lee was beaten badly in the first and last battle of the "Seven Days." Some of Jackson's actions/inactions contributed to both defeats.
The North also had railroads of the same gauge, more bodies to draw on, a better economy, and, what may be most important, a central government. The South, to its determent, was a bunch of governments constitutionally superior to Richmond/Montgomery, which severely limited the power of the so-called President and therefore could not unify with regard to a single, cohesive war plan. The power of the individual CSA states precluded moving troops to where they were needed and could be best used. It prohibited nationalizing among other problems for President Davis. He was not a consensus maker, he was a stubborn individual and therefore not the man for the job. A confederation requires consensus to work.
The Confederacy usually had the advantage of interior lines and could not develop a consensus as to how to exploit. Lee's move into Pennsylvania gave the Union interior lines which they exploited to Lee's discomfort. Lee, as much as I admire and even revere him, was the perfect leader for a defensive war. Offensively? Not so good. Then, once Grant was put into control the Confederacy had no chance. A war of attrition was not something they could engage in. Grant basically had unlimited resources which he could only lose if the public lost interest in the outcome of the War. Neither France nor Great Britain ever seriously considered coming to the aid of the Confederacy. Ever! Especially when the Czar sailed his fleet into British and French ports as a show of support for the Union.
After First Manassas/Bull Run it was simply a matter of time until the South was whipped. Too many negatives. No central government. Little industrial power. Very limited foreign interest/support.
Lack of manpower resources, which they cut down further by illogically refusing to use "blacks" in their army until way too late. Gorgas? Brilliant with severely limited resources. Lee? Brilliant defensively. Hood? An idiot! Bragg? Another Hood. Jos. Johnson? More than adequate but, shy when using his assets. I could go on. Forrest? A minor actor, a thorn in the side of one Northern army but, little else. The South was blessed with a ton of good wing commanders but only two, possibly three leaders of armies.
The North, although it took a while to find them, was blessed with some outstanding Army commanders. Meade gets little credit. He deserves more. Sherman? He knew the objective was not the Confederate Armies. He went after the will to fight. A plan proven to be correct. Grant had a wide and cohesive plan and, with the right lieutenants, was able to wage "total war" across all fronts. Something the South was never ever able to come close to nor wished to.
It was a war the rich in South Carolina could not conceive of when they kicked it off. They sorely underestimated the fighting qualities of men from the north, the Norths' ability to mobilize and sustain a war machine and, while valorious, the few fighting men of the South could not overcome a lack of support from the inept central government, a poor economy (cotton proved to be less important as the war dragged on, something inconceivable to the Southern planters), lack of equipment, horses, succor, etc. It was a war the South was destined to lose with the adoption of a confederacy style of government.
The Confederacy's constitution, with its decentralized government, precluded any hope of victory once the North decided to win and mobilized all of their assets. The result was, in hindsight of course, a foregone conclusion. The North selected "total war." The South couldn't and wouldn't fight a "total war." Such a destructive war went against years of "genteel" thinking. Chevaliers simply did not wage war in that manner. Laying waste to entire valleys, burning crops and leveling cities was anathema to Southern (read, patrician) sensibilities. Many in poor old Atlanta still cannot come to grips with the destruction of their city a hundred plus years ago.
The rich landholders ran, a handful even fought, the various state governments, controlled the forces and simply could not surrender their prerogatives for the good of the nascent country.
Just the two designations, Confederate States v. United States, are indicative of why the Confederacy was doomed to failure from the git go. The strongly centralized Union was able to harness all their assets, the loosely controlled Confederacy could not even get a consensus as who commanded the troops, Governors or the President and his Generals.