Question to history lovers

[miko2d]

This curious "what if..." question surfaced in my mind in the course of the "I am more patriot then you are" discussion on AGW board.

 What would have happened if americans in 1776 did not raise/succeeded in bloody rebellion and won freedom for themselves from british rule?

 1. Right now we would be living in a free democratic society in an independent country - just like Great Britain, Australia and Canada and a few other former colonies. Our money would have sported a different pucture but I can see no reason that our economy would not have been the same.

 2. US would have been spared the bloody and divisive Civil War.

 3. US would have abandoned slavery a few decades earlier then it did - when the brits did it - instead of running trans-atlantic slave trade through brits' anti-slavery patrols. That would have been another reason for Civil War not to happen - as the South would not have been able to develop a slave-labor based economy to such extent. Let alone it would have spared us the racial troubles we have now that Britain, Canada and Australia do not.

 3a. Many more native americans would have survived.

 4. WWI could have beeen averted because US would have been on the good side from the very beginning and the bad guys would have known it.

 5. Russia would not have fallen to communism/bolshevism as a result of it WWI.

 6. Germany would not have fallen to nazism as a result of it WWI.

 7. If Hitler or anyone else still appeared, WWII could have been averted because US would have been on the good side from the very beginning and the bad guys would have known it. Also russians would not have allowed "Hitler" to do what they allowed and helped him to do.

 8. Of course no need for nuclear weapons or at least not in thousands of them or arm race.

 On the negative side, knowing Brits, we would have probably been involved in an odd war or two with french, but that couldn't have been that bad. Those guys are pretty soft and civilised and fighting them is fun. Besides, we still had to do it when they supported germans in WWII and it wasn't that bad.

 Also a few states may have not been a part of USA - though I am pretty sure they still would. In the worst case, other then necessity to exchange money when traveling on vacation to mexican Texas, russian Alaska or Hawaii how would we care?

 Don't get me wrong - if I could change history right now I would not ever do it. Interference with any of those events could have caused a different spermatozoid to penetrate the egg cell during my conception (provided it ever occured or my parents even met or were born) and someone else could have been born instead of me.
 That is why I am very happy how things turned out to be and far from holding gruge against anyone for things done in the past to my or anyone's ancestors. The past is objective, immutable, makes an entertaining reading and I am content about that fact.

 But as for using history to try charting the future and the effect our current actions will have on it, why not let our imagination run wild?
 Come on, what are your thoughts?

 miko

[ 11-28-2001: Message edited by: miko2d ]

[AKDejaVu]

How can you discuss/argue this set of completely hypothetical facts you've presented.  Its pure speculation and assumption and is only subject to a "I write better than you" comparison.

You might as well be arguing philosophy.

AKDejaVu

[miko2d]

Society develops according to the set of natural laws that are as valid as the laws of physics.

 By building mental models based on those laws and running them back and forth we can compare results with actual similar events that happened outside our model. This way we can see if our understanding of the laws of history is correct and/or complete.

  A discrepancy could make us to look for some better understanding of the laws of nature - much like discrepancy in planetary orbits caused humanity to discard Ptolemy system in favor of Copernikus.
  Alternatively, a discrepancy could make us search for some overlooked fact in history - much like supposed discrepancy in planetary orbits cause closer examination and discovery of new plnets by the effects they have on known planets' orbits according to the known valid laws.

 More immediately, such discussions can help shut up some ignorants who are quick to point out how we all obliged to them becasue their ancestors fought for liberty and freedom. It may be that they fought for their liberty and freedom and if they didn't, we (or people living now) would still have freedom according to the inevitable laws of society development.
 Freedom is not a deal done by someone's ancestors - it's something every generation gains, upholds or squanders.

 Same with the supposed "compensations" for things done in the deep past.
 If slavery was not present, people living now would not have been born to enjoy it's abcence.
 If Jefferson did not sleep with his black slave, their grand-grand-children would not have been here to accuse him and barge into other families' lives by demanding admission to family reunion they were not invited to.
 If romans did not scatter jews and the rest of the nations not prosecuted them for millenia, there might not have been any jews now, let alone the same people.

 You have problem with my suggested "I write better than you" comparison? Fine, participation is not mandatory. Go back and watch your reality shows and documentaries - everything else is full of "speculation and assumption". If you change your mind, you are welcome to submit an essay here.

 miko

[ 11-28-2001: Message edited by: miko2d ]

[Boroda]

Just read a "what-if" book about Katherine II "helping" Britain in the war with USA, and sending Pugachyov's cossaks to America, to solve a rebellion problem and try to establish a pro-Russian state in America. They help the American army and sign the Declaration of Independance together.  The funniest thing is Salavat Yulayev with his Bashkir and Kalmyk nomads coming to America through Alaska.
 http://www.ozon.ru/detail.cfm/ent=2&id=50872

It's interesting, why are such books very popular now. 3/4 of them are very unrealistic, like Henry Turtledove's "Worldwar"... From the "good" 1/4 I can name Holm van Zaitchik's books about Orduss, the strange Russian-Tatar-Chineese Eurasian state that appeared after Alexander Nevskiy established peace with Tatars... www.orduss.ru

[Raubvogel]

Only decent "what-if" book I've ever read is "Marching Through Georgia"...the Loyalists from the American Revolution establish a colony in South Africa. Over the next 100 odd years they conquer the continent of Africa and serve as the ruling class, with all the conquered peoples as workers or slaves. When Hitler attacks Russia, they lie in wait for the war to grind to a stalemate...then they attack and defeat both sides.  http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0671720694/qid=1006973736/sr=1-3/ref=sr_1_10_3/102-9770948-7358524

It's the first book in a series, and it's an interesting work of fiction.

[Bluefish]

I've always found alternative history pretty fascinating (for military history buffs I'd particularly recommend "What If?", edited by Robert Cowley; it features alternative examinations of various events by heavyweights like John Keegan).  A couple random thoughts about the potential implications of the alternative proposed by Miko:

1. Emulation: without a successful American Revolution, how long would the French Revolution or the liberation of South America from Spanish colonial rule been delayed?  A delayed French Revolution would have meant no Napoleon, with all of his impact on European nationalism.

2.  Immigration: if the British had ruled the colonies until well into the 19th century, would most of the immigration that created the U.S. as we know it have gone elsewhere, like Argentina (which was considered a serious rival to the U.S. for leadership in the Western Hemisphere at the time).

3.  Technology: would a delay in the "democratic revolution" (started in the U.S. and continued, somewhat messily, by the French and then the rest of Europe in 1848)
have also delayed the onset of the industrial revolution?

Ahh, well, good speculation for long winter evenings.  It is well that, as some foreign observer (I think it might have been Bismarck) noted, God appears to take special care of drunks, orphans, and the United States of America.

[Boroda]

The Draka -- men and women both -- are trained from birth to be outstanding fighters, both individually and collectively.

Funny   "Draka" in Russian means "fight", like "fist fight" or "street fight".

[mrfish]

i think you are trying to comb neatly thru another chaotic system miko2d.

i dont doubt these things follow a natural law but if we knew what that law was we could play the stock market and predict weather more than 5 days out couldn't we  

you presume history would stay the same in every other respect but all it would take was a small change to give us another history altogether.

[Serapis]

WWI could have beeen averted because US would have been on the good side from the very beginning and the bad guys would have known it.  

Hmmm, I didn't think "good" and "bad" was so clearly defined from a U.S. perspective where WWI was concerned (unlike WW2). It was just the last of those inbred monarchy wars that Europe had endured for so long, and we eventually got suckered in. Some interesting speculation though.

I prefer more traditional "future" science fiction myself. Some of the many conclusions authors like Turtledove make are are bound to be a bit of a stretch and once you identify a few (at least some that disagree with your personal processing of potential outcomes) it's harder to stay involved. Also, as Mrfish noted, there are too many variables to draw conclusions that go much beyond raw speculation.

Charon

[ygsmilo]

If my aunt had balls, she would be my uncle.

[Dinger]

Um.  If George Washington's second cousin decided to take a dump on the south side of the road instead of the north on July 8, 1772, the world would have been changed completely.

The past is necessary, folks.
Miko, your arguments do not conclude that we should engage in hypothetical discussions concerning the past.  The fact is that we as humans and as members of a social order are constantly redefining ourselves.  Our history is part of that definition, and guess what? we are constantly rewriting it.

History is not the "trail of facts" of the past, but rather the past as we choose to remember it.  So, "what if the American Revolution never happened?" is not nearly as interesting a question as "why do we remember the American Revolution the way we do?"

I actually agree with DejaVu on this one.  It's a philosophical question.  History has nothing to do with speculation on contrary-to-fact situations.  The moment you change an event, you change the causality leading up to it, as well as that descending from it.  In the end, the results are worthless.

[Dead Man Flying]

The problem with an exercise like this is that it's a lot easier to envision how things could have changed for the "better," but it's nearly impossible to see how they could have been worse.

For instance, how do we know that if Hitler hadn't come along, someone ten times worse would have?  You just can't predict things like that given what we know.  We can predict how he might not have come along, but beyond that, it's pure unadulterated fiction.  Who's to say that despite all of the things you've mentioned, the world could be a horribly worse place today than it is currently is?

-- Todd/Leviathn

[miko2d]

Originally posted by Dead Man Flying:
For instance, how do we know that if Hitler hadn't come along, someone ten times worse would have?  You just can't predict things like that given what we know

 The virtue of "exercise like this" is that it allows me to subject some ignorant people to a bit of knowlege, provided they are interested in aquiring any.
 Also a chance for me to exercise my English (which is not my native language) and get exposed to views of people I would not have chance to meet.

 You think the fact that the country was devastated by years of a war foreign to the interests of population, people angry, demoralised and distrustfull of the government had nothing to do with appearance of the autoritarian leaders?

 That nationalistic Hitler, communist Lenin, muslim fundamentalist Taliban, anti-civilization Pol Pot, xenocidal Miloshevich, murderous Hutu rebels had the same chance to come to power in prosperous and free USofA in roaring 1990s or in Britain or in Canada as they had in their respective countries?

 And you are a graduate student interested in political science? Did you by any chance confuse political science with probability theory? Whatever you've paid for your diploma, you've been swindled.

 There are plenty of Hitlers and Lenins in any country. More in US then anywhere else. It's the people who make them rulers that make the difference. And those things do not happen by chance.

 miko

[ 11-28-2001: Message edited by: miko2d ]

[miko2d]

Originally posted by Bluefish:
3.  Technology: would a delay in the "democratic revolution" (started in the U.S. and continued, somewhat messily, by the French and then the rest of Europe in 1848)
have also delayed the onset of the industrial revolution?

 Would have society had time to develop to more enlightened level based on already spreading literacy (books were invented already) wnd not throwh out of kilter and forced to accomodate all those constant technology changes accelerated by wars?
 Greeks did not need nuclear or steam technology to have representative democracy, advanced culture and philosophy. Neither did romans, novgorodians, etc.

 May be we would have learned about germs and vaccination before we came into contact with native populations of other continents? Probably would have been too late for that.

 Facinating food for thought.

 miko

[Hangtime]

Greeks did not need nuclear or steam technology to have representative democracy, advanced culture and philosophy. Neither did romans, novgorodians, etc.
 

I find the popular modern mythos of greek and roman culture and its democratic govermnet kinda funny. It seems like the mental picture folks haul up of greek democracy invokes some sparkling vision of a scolarly dude in a robe pontificating wisdom before enraptured citizens..

..when in fact 'greek democracy' entailed appeasing a batch of bloodthirsty ignorant dirt poor pesants with the blood of their neighbors by their politicans and generals.. 'make war or die poor'. And woe betide the politican or general who having been elected by acclimation by that same bloodthirsty mob wasted not a second killing them at the first sign of recession or defeat.

Greek democracy ain't anything to write Homer about. ( )

And neither are any of the other popular examples of anchient democracys.