|
| Thread: Alternate Histories |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
posted October 20, 2002 08:52 AM |
|
|
Interesting discussion
PH I was wondering since you are such a history buff....do you have any good recommedations about a bibliography of Hitler. I have been dying to read a historically accurate and insightful book about him.
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted October 21, 2002 01:22 AM |
|
|
Thanks for the feedback PH, you bring up a lot of stuff that I was either unaware of or hadn't thought through very well.
Okay, how about this -- Spanish Armada wins (or atleast makes it to their goal...). Does Spain end up being the dominant power in the period that England ended up dominating?
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted October 21, 2002 10:51 AM |
|
|
Dargon - I wish I did my friend, unfortunately I tend to spend more time looking into millitary history rather than individual people. If you do find one please let me know as it is very hard to find a non-biased account of hitler given the actions he took during WWII and his policies on Jews. What I do find interesting is that all too often people say they cannot understand the germans for supporting Hitler, whereas considering their country was financially ruined and was no more powerful than say belgium (appologies in advance to the belgians ) prior to his taking power it is not too hard. Hitler promised to restore Germany to glory, financially and also as a world power, which he acheieved. He destroyed the versailles treaty and found a scapegoat for the defeat of WWI (many germans, especially former millitary people did not understand why they had lost WWI). I say this not to excuse the Nazi party or the actions of Hitler, but simply that when people say "it could not happen here" I honestly believe them to be wrong. If your country was in the state of germany and a man restored it to glory, most people's would follow the man as well, which is why we have to watch vigilantly that such a man is never allowed to do what Hitler did after restoring germany (IE war and the holocaust to name but 2) again.
Uhm, sorry got carried away there...............
Bort - I don't think it's a case of not thinking things through, but unless you follow that period of history and look into the "what if" situations as either a hobby or job you will be mostly unaware of the situation, so don't feel bad. My thoughts are only my interpretation on the matter and you could find a large number of wargamers/historians who would claim what I said was complete rubbish, but that's life I geuss......
The Armarda - I Don't think england did quite dominate this period as although the empire dates back to around then, the millitary might of England/Britain does not quite come to the forefront of European politics until the 18th Century. What is clear though is if the Armarda had reached England and removed Elizabeth from power (she was after all excommunicated by the pope some years prior to the main armada) England may well have not become a staunch protestant country, which any way you look at it would have changed the world forever. As for spain, her wealth derived from her ability to plunder the Americas, and with england (and her pirates) subdued she may well have at least had a larger say in European affairs than she did after the 1600's.
OOOOOO and Can't resist adding another sorry
Who'd like to say what would have happened if Napoleon had won Waterloo? I'll leave it to you guys to discuss first before lobbing my 2 pence in
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted October 21, 2002 03:59 PM |
|
|
|
Hmm... Unfortunately, I don't know enough about the Napoleonic Wars to be able to say anything even vaguely intelligent about this. I can tell you that French military prowess probably wouldn't be a running joke (What's the first thing they teach in the French army? How to say 'I surrender' in German!) if Napolean had decided "you know what? I'm going to let the Russians keep Russia, that winter looks like it might be pretty bad, why don't we go spend the winter in Corsica instead." Has anybody other than the Mongols ever successfully invaded Russia? (Which brings up another question -- if the Khan hadn't died along the way, would the Mongols have continued all the way through to the Atlantic?)
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted October 21, 2002 05:25 PM |
|
|
If napoleon had not invaded russia, the army he formed to fight there could have been diverted to subduing the Anglo/Portugese army fighting in Portugal/Spain at that time. Given that say 50% of the force would have made it's way there (due to the fact that a large percentage of the army to invade russia was drawn from eastern europe and prob wouldn't have been used to fight in spain) and around 50% of those would have been diverted to fighting Spanish geurillas and holding the supply lines open this would have left some 250,000 men arriving in the field army. Britain and Portugal never fielded more than 125,000 and the french army facing them often came to a similar figure.
Put simply the only major obstacle to a mainland wide system of napoleonic government (ie spain and portugal) would have been crushed and Britain would have been left isolated. France would have become a dominant nation for many years following, but would have faced major problems governing their different ethnic backgrounds as in 1812 the french controlled (either directly or through alliance) The Nethelands (inc Belgium), Italy, Poland Most of the Rhineland and large chunks of modern day Austria and Germany. Oh and for weird the French sponsored the Confederation of the Rhine during this period, a group of rhineland nations, but it included POLAND! Not a nation known for it's closeness to the Rhine.............
Interesting thought though bort, IE how you fit 500,000 men onto an island the size of Corsica and have enough room on the beaches for them all to sunbathe 
On the mongols, I'll get back on that as my area of knowledge really centres on Napoleonics, ACW and 20th Century. Beyond that I'm kinda vauge.
Anyone else with Waterloo thoughts?
Edit: Can't count (ME BAD) 500,000 -50% is 250,000 then 250,000 minus another 50% is 125,000. Anyway you get the impresion, the army fielded could easily have overwhelmed the Anglo/Portugese army lead by Wellington
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted October 21, 2002 07:01 PM |
|
|
Quote:
What I do find interesting is that all too often people say they cannot understand the germans for supporting Hitler, whereas considering their country was financially ruined and was no more powerful than say belgium (appologies in advance to the belgians ) prior to his taking power it is not too hard.
Not to justify anything, but it's actually amazing how evil people will be if they think higher ups or even peers think something is okay. There was this psychology experiment where they told people that they were testing electroshock therapy on learning. The test subjects were put in a room with a guy in a lab coat, a control panel and a speaker that was allegedly connected to another room where somebody was allegedly being tested for learning ability with a punishment system of shocks for failing to answer questions correctly. Anyway, the test subjects were supposed to administer the shocks. The terrifying result was that virtually everybody would eventually administer lethal or close to lethal doses of electric shocks even when they could "hear" the other person pleading that they stop or saying they had heart conditions, or even stopped talking entirely. The only encouragement they got was the guy in the lab coat would say "the experiment must continue," since most would ask if they were supposed to keep going as soon as any pleading happened. Just goes to show that we're not as naturally good as we'd like to think. (Nobody was actually hurt in the experiment, nobody even received electrical shocks.)
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted October 22, 2002 12:06 AM |
|
|
Yup I heard of that one and yes it is pretty weird
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Snogard
Known Hero
customised
|
|
posted October 22, 2002 04:41 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Not to justify anything, but it's actually amazing how evil people will be if they think higher ups or even peers think something is okay. There was this psychology experiment where they told people that they were testing electroshock therapy on learning. The test subjects were put in a room with a guy in a lab coat, a control panel and a speaker that was allegedly connected to another room where somebody was allegedly being tested for learning ability with a punishment system of shocks for failing to answer questions correctly. Anyway, the test subjects were supposed to administer the shocks. The terrifying result was that virtually everybody would eventually administer lethal or close to lethal doses of electric shocks even when they could "hear" the other person pleading that they stop or saying they had heart conditions, or even stopped talking entirely. The only encouragement they got was the guy in the lab coat would say "the experiment must continue," since most would ask if they were supposed to keep going as soon as any pleading happened. Just goes to show that we're not as naturally good as we'd like to think. (Nobody was actually hurt in the experiment, nobody even received electrical shocks.)
Interesting. Are the test subjects solely Americans? What about age groups? What about their backgrounds - social, cultural and educational? It is not fair for me to speak for all, but personally, I would suppose that a good number of Singaporeans and Japaneses (as I'm only familiar with these 2) might have chosen to continue the test. Reasons due to social, educational and/or cultural - specifically (I am tempted to say) educational. I would however, be surprised if the test subjects are solely Europeans (western?) or Americans (of US and/or Canada) of the younger age group... yet, it cannot be justifiable as I am not familiar with these groups...
Anyway, do you know where I can read about this experiment?
As for "the experiment goes to show that we're not as naturally good", I am not too sure about that. Like I have said, I do not think that the "unfortunate results" of the experiment is due entirely or mainly to human nature (instinct?). However, I may agree to that as in the "Hitler's case".
To all:
Do you think you would continue the experiment if you were the testee? Or would you take the test at all? Or at which "stage" do you think you would stop the experiment?
Er... the above is just for... my "experiment".
____________
Seize The Day.
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted October 23, 2002 03:25 AM |
|
|
I would continue the expariment.
Here is an alternate history: what if Bort was never born, would we be talking about this?
____________
|
|
Wub
Responsible
Famous Hero
|
|
posted October 23, 2002 11:22 PM |
|
Edited By: Wub on 23 Oct 2002
|
Obedience to authority
The experiment which Bort describes is executed by Stanley Milgram in 1963 and researches obedience to authority. It may well be one of the most alarming experiments in psychology. Believe me, I have seen a video of when the experiment was actually taking place. It is impressive! Although Bort has explained most of it quite accurately, I'd like to give some additions.
Before the actual experiment, the subject is introduced to another 'subject' who is in fact a confederate. For all the participant knows, it is randomly decided who is to administer the shocks and who is to learn the words. In other words: the subject is (allegedly) giving shocks to a person he knows and he thinks it could as well have been him who had to take the shocks! Moreover, before the experiment the subject is administered a low voltage shock to know how it feels! And even worse, the confederate says something like: 'I must warn you, I have this heart condition...'
Alright, the confederate of course is making quite some errors while he allegedly is learning the words by heart, so he is punished quite often. For every error, the 'guy in the white labcoat' orders the subject to give shocks, starting out with 'just' 75 Volt. From that moment on, the intensity of the shock is increased by 15 volt each time until the lethal(!) voltage of 450 volt is reached.
Every time the shock is administered, the subject can hear the (programmed) response of the confederate, who is allegedly tied on a chair(!). For example, after 75 volts, the subject hears 'Ugh!'.
Here are some more examples of what the subject hears:
120 Volts: Ugh! Hey this really hurts.
150 Volts: Ugh!!! Experimenter! That's all. Get me out of here. I told you I had heart trouble. My heart is starting to bother me now. Get me out of here, please. My heart's starting to bother me. I refuse to go on. Let me out.
180 Volts: Ugh! I can't stand the pain. Let me out of here! (shouting)
195 Volts: Ugh! Let me out of here. Let me out of here. My heart's bothering me. Let me out of here! You have no right to keep me here! Let me out! Let me out of here! Let me out! Let me out of here! My heart's bothering me. Let me out! Let me out!
270 Volts: Agonized scream Let me out of here. Let me out of here. Let me out of here. Let me out. Do you hear? Let me out of here.
300 Volts: Agonized scream I absolutely refuse to answer any more. Get me out of here. You can't hold me here. Get me out. Get me out of here.
330 Volts: intense and prolonged agonized scream Let me out of here. Let me out of here. My heart's bothering me. Let me out, I tell you. Hysterically Let me out of here. Let me out of here. You have no right to hold me here. Let me out! Let me out! Let me out of here! Let me out! Let me out of here!
After that, the subject doesn't even hear any response(!). And remember, after 330 volt, still 8 shocks have to be administered before the experiment ends! If you are not convinced yet, believe me, the video was really shocking (no pun intended)!
In total, 40 American subjects participated in the experiment. Now, for a moment, ponder about when the participants would stop. What was on average the maximum voltage that they administered? And try to guess how many volt you would administer if you were in that situation. Look back at the confederates responses if you hesitate.
Well, here come the results.
Nobody stopped before 300 volts! Remember how the responses of the confederate were by then! But it becomes worse....of all 40 participants....26 ultimately administered a lethal shock....that's 65%!!!! Just consider that for a moment. 65% of all people in the test was willing to kill a person, just because a guy in a white labcoat said them to do so!
That is astonishing, right!? Imagine that instead of pushing on a button to administer a shock to a normal person, you are in the position of pushing on a button to launch a nuke on an enemy country. It is probably the same.
This experiment has been repeated with other persons, in other countries and years later. I don't have numbers of it here but I recall something like they were not too different. And to go back to the original topic, knowing the results of the experiment it is not at all surprising how the nazis were capable of killing so many Jews. And indeed, quite a lot of executioners during World War II said about their deeds: I was ordered to do so... And if people like you and me don't learn from history, this could happen to us too...
____________
|
|
Snogard
Known Hero
customised
|
|
posted October 24, 2002 02:41 AM |
|
|
Quote:
The experiment which Bort describes is executed by Stanley Milgram in 1963 and researches obedience to authority.
Thanks Wub for the information. Do you (or anyone) know that if there is a similar experiment conducted to people who have learned about this experiment or conducted at a later date?
____________
Seize The Day.
|
|
Wub
Responsible
Famous Hero
|
|
posted October 24, 2002 03:22 AM |
|
Edited By: Wub on 23 Oct 2002
|
Quote:
Thanks Wub for the information. Do you (or anyone) know that if there is a similar experiment conducted to people who have learned about this experiment or conducted at a later date?
You're welcome I can give you a huge load of information on this issue if you wish. Because of the importance of these experiments, much follow-up research has been done. For example, the looks of the authority has been changed, direct contact with the victim has been made possible etc. etc. To answer your question: if this experiment was explained to people and then asked how far they estimated they would go (like I asked in my previous post), they would go on average until 135 volt. Nobody would administer a lethal shock.
At a later date, similar experiments were performed. The original experiment isn't really carried out anymore, since its ethics have been questioned. After all, participating is quite stressful for the subjects of course. It has been observed that the participants trembled, stuttered, groaned, perspired, bit their lips, dug their fingernails in their flesh and occasionally burst out in nervous laughter. On one occasion, said Milgram, 'we observed a [participant's] seizure so violently convulsive that it was necessary to call a halt to the experiment'.
Therefore, the experiment has been altered and reperformed in 1995. While an alleged job applicant was taking a decisive test, the subjects were ordered to make psychological harmful comments such as: If you continue like this, you will fail the test. Or: This job is much too difficult for you. You are more suited for lower functions. And of course, the comments became more and more negative all along. Yes, psychologists can be real jerks  . Anyway, 92% of all subjects, both male and female, exhibited complete obedience, even though they saw the task as unfair or stressful. This suggests that in those 40 years since Milgrams experiments, not too many has changed.
____________
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted October 24, 2002 04:44 AM |
|
|
|
Thank you kindly for proving that I wasn't just making stuff up, Wub. As you can probably tell, my psych knowledge is limited to a single undergraduate class some years ago... You in the field or just happen to know a lot about it?
|
|
bizud
Known Hero
Mighty Donkey
|
|
posted October 24, 2002 12:34 PM |
|
|
Yeah, that experiment was a shocker (HA!), though I attribute it not to lack of human goodness, but rather to a lack of education, resulting in people being conditioned to think that doing what they're told is the best thing to do. "Go along to get along, remember to thank god during acceptance speeches, etc."
The fact is, if people were raised with a more independant, less deferring attitude, they'd be able to make their own moral decisions, and inevitably come to the right conclusion, that being, hurting people = wrong.
As least, that's what I think.
Alternate history? WHAT IF:
Austrian Archduke Franz Ferdinand was NOT assassinated (he was assassinated by a Serbian nationalist; this caused Austria to attack Serbia, Russia intervened on Serbia's behalf, Germany backed Austria, France backed Russia, ladies and gentlemen, we have WWI)
I actually had a big theory planned out; I seem to have forgotten it. Umm...
Although a war was inevitable (nationalism, imperialism, alliances, tension in the balkans, etc), had it been delayed, the Austro-Hungarian empire most likely would have continued to weaken. A conflict ten years later might have been over much quicker, as without Austria-Hungary holding off the russians, the germans would have been in much more serious trouble.
More interestingly, it's conceivable that the communist revolution in russia might never have occured; without the war, the bolsheviks might not have been able to gain the popular support. Who knows what might have happened to Lenin in the next ten years? Admittedly, Russia was begging for a rebellion, communist or otherwise. Most of its people still lived in near-feudal conditions. Who knows what might have happened?
WHO KNOWS??!?!!
____________
Permanent resident of <a href="http://www.ziggy-shwa.com/forums">The Idiot Box</a>
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted October 24, 2002 02:42 PM |
|
|
|
If there was no WWI then there would be no WWII. And by the time WWII happened we would probably be using nukes like we do normal missles.
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted October 24, 2002 02:51 PM |
|
|
AHHHHHH an on topic post
WWI yes war would have occured anyway, and most likely Russia would still at some point rebelled. Considering what fools for monarchs they had it was no shock that rebellion would occur. I mean the czar left his wife in charge of the nation under the control of a hypocritical devil like monk, which when you consider that his wife was austrian.................
As for the germans, I dunno as Austria performed abysmally against russia and it fell mostly to the germans to stop them anyway.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted October 24, 2002 03:17 PM |
|
|
On topic, that's right
-----bows-----bows-----bows
But what system of government and economy would they have if Karl Marx died as a child?
____________
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted October 24, 2002 03:23 PM |
|
|
Again that is up for debate as Engels wrote the work as well......... also communist theory exists in very primitive format throughout history. All Marx and Engels did was write down a solid format and set of ideals. I think had they not, sooner or later someone else would have.
And without communism the inevitable revolution in russia would have resulted in 1 dictatorship of another form, as that is all that arose from the russian revolution, a dictatorship.
Oh whilst we are on a communist subject, I once heard a parody of communism based on the principles of Marx and Lennon...... ie Groucho Marx and John Lennon! I geuss the question is would that have been better huh?
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted October 24, 2002 04:06 PM |
|
|
Yeah hahaha
I have rules for Socialist and Communist Monopoly
SOCIALIST Monopoly
-Everything the same as Capitalist Monopoly except:
1) In socialism the government uses taxes to provide services to people. When you pass go you do not get $200 you pay $200 in taxes
2)Anytime you land on Community Chest or Chance and you are rewarded money you must pay that amount in taxes to the bank. Example: Win $25 for Beauty Pagent; pay $25 in taxes to the bank.
3) If you land on Community Chest or Chance and are asked to pay money, Don't the government has already taken care of it.
4)If there is money in the middle of the board and you land on Free Parking you take half the money and pay the rest to the bank as taxes.
5) Since the government pays for your basic needs no one may own the railroads or utilities, they are owned by the government. If you land on one of these squares you pay the price of the deed in taxes but put in the middle of the board for Free Parking.
6)If you land on Income Tax or Luxury Tax you must pay $500 to the bank.
7)If you land on a property and can't pay, pay what you can and the bank will pay the rest.
8) If you roll doubles you pay $20 to the bank in taxes.
COMMUNIST Monopoly
1)In a communist country the government controls every aspect of of the economy. The person with the least amount of money at the end of Socialist monopoly now becomes the government. They are in control. They make the rules. It is there game now.
____________
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted October 24, 2002 04:11 PM |
|
|
LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL!
That's funny
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
| |
|
|
