By Cameron Pribyl
I’ve always
felt one of the more entertaining aspects of history as a school subject is how
easy it is for historical discussions to become really goofy, really
quick. Many of our most beloved
historical figures were absolute nut jobs, many of our most glorified moments
in history happened for weird reasons and so many ridiculous commodities were
sought after by the masses (Dutch logic: Your tulip petals = the deed to my
house!) So when you get into these weird
moments in history, it often makes one wonder, what if Hitler wasn’t completely
nuts? What if Robert E. Lee didn’t say
“if practicable”? What if bodyguards
actually guarded bodies? This is
generally how “what if” discussions and debates come up between history
buffs. However, as fun as these articles
can get, many people can get a little carried away (like my 9th
grade English paper where I argued that if the Japanese won at Noryang Point in
1598, Japan would’ve conquered the world.
That’s right. The WHOLE FRIGGIN
WORLD) and make horrifyingly farfetched conclusions. And that is what this article is dedicated
to. This is for everyone out there who
thinks that we’d all be speaking German and worshipping Jupiter the Sky God if
only a few things hadn’t gone differently… Like 9th grade me. I’m going to rank these one through five
based on how frequently come up, how ridiculous the conclusion typically is and
how little things would’ve actually changed if the “What If” in question
actually came to pass.
#5. Pontius Pilate
Spares Jesus
The extreme
predictions: Christianity never exists,
everyone adopts some other weird religion depending on the region and, without
the 1000 years of scientific repression, we’d all be riding hover boards while
robot minions do our day to day work for us.
And Meg ends up being hot.
(That’s right. Even Family Guy
gets in on the sick game that is “What if”-ing)
My prediction: There are a few reasons why this one’s on the bottom of the list. First of all, I don’t see this one THAT often. Second of all, there’s a wider spectrum of predictions than the extreme prediction I gave above. Finally, I think there are some really interesting implications as to what would’ve happened if Jesus lived a full life.
I’ll start off by saying that Christianity would’ve still existed if Jesus wasn’t martyred. Why do I think this? Because most major religions of the world today do not have their main prophet or teacher being martyred. Buddha, Lao Tzu, Mohammed, Confucius, and all of their equivalents never ended up dying like Jesus did. So it stands to reason that Jesus’ teachings could’ve still spread without him needing to die as he did. That said, the concept of martyrdom was (and arguably still is) VITAL to almost every early and medieval interpretation of Christianity. Early Christians defined their faith, in large part, as something in opposition to the Roman State, or “the State” in general. In fact, when the Christian faith was made the state religion of the Roman Empire, it created something of a crisis for many Christians, who still felt attached the concept of martyrdom and proceeded to search for ways to figuratively sacrifice themselves.
And that’s just one concept of Christianity that would’ve changed. Jesus, as any man would, most likely would’ve changed a few tenets of Christianity as he grew older. Remember that Jesus was in his early thirties when he was crucified. Is it really feasible to believe that he never would’ve changed his mind over the next twenty to thirty years of his life?
My prediction: There are a few reasons why this one’s on the bottom of the list. First of all, I don’t see this one THAT often. Second of all, there’s a wider spectrum of predictions than the extreme prediction I gave above. Finally, I think there are some really interesting implications as to what would’ve happened if Jesus lived a full life.
I’ll start off by saying that Christianity would’ve still existed if Jesus wasn’t martyred. Why do I think this? Because most major religions of the world today do not have their main prophet or teacher being martyred. Buddha, Lao Tzu, Mohammed, Confucius, and all of their equivalents never ended up dying like Jesus did. So it stands to reason that Jesus’ teachings could’ve still spread without him needing to die as he did. That said, the concept of martyrdom was (and arguably still is) VITAL to almost every early and medieval interpretation of Christianity. Early Christians defined their faith, in large part, as something in opposition to the Roman State, or “the State” in general. In fact, when the Christian faith was made the state religion of the Roman Empire, it created something of a crisis for many Christians, who still felt attached the concept of martyrdom and proceeded to search for ways to figuratively sacrifice themselves.
And that’s just one concept of Christianity that would’ve changed. Jesus, as any man would, most likely would’ve changed a few tenets of Christianity as he grew older. Remember that Jesus was in his early thirties when he was crucified. Is it really feasible to believe that he never would’ve changed his mind over the next twenty to thirty years of his life?
#4. Napoleon Wins at
Waterloo
The extreme prediction: Without
Lord Wellington to defend Britain, Napoleon expands across the continent and
manages to restore most of his pre-Moscow empire, leaving America as the only
English speaking country left on the face of the earth.
My prediction: I tend to go a bit
easier on this one because people tend to be more measured with their
predictions on this one. While there is
still an unbearable amount of people who say we’d all be speaking French if
Wellington didn’t save the world, there is a significantly larger number of
people who say that France would’ve prospered more under Napoleon, who would’ve
stopped fighting after Waterloo and restrained from trying to expand again.
Not so fast.
The reason why this one makes the
list is because I really don’t see much of a difference between Napoleon
winning and Napoleon losing. Why?
Because Napoleon was egomaniacal and ambitious in the extreme. While Napoleon had his reasons for invading
and conquering other places, his main reason for challenging Russia, who at the
time had little interest in fighting a general who had already beaten Kutuzov
(severely underrated general, probably the only guy in Europe besides
Wellington who could’ve beaten Napoleon) many times over, was that he was bored
and thought he could do it. That’s
right. He invaded the world’s largest
country because he got bored. So I hope
you understand why I think that, even if Napoleon would’ve accepted a
British/Prussian surrender after Waterloo, he wouldn’t have been able to help
invading some other hapless neighbor. He
knew he could do it, so he would’ve tried.
But even if it wouldn’t have happened at Waterloo, he still would’ve
eventually been bested somewhere else.
By 1815, France was already exhausted from constant war, and didn’t have
the resources, men and will to do what Napoleon inevitably would’ve tried to
make them do again. So, as measured as
the common prediction above is, I think the difference would be even less pronounced. Now if Napoleon won at Waterloo AND the Duke
of Wellington was killed by a stray bullet in that same battle… now then there
might be some more interesting implications.
#3. Lincoln isn’t Assassinated/serves his second term.
#3. Lincoln isn’t Assassinated/serves his second term.
The extreme prediction: Lincoln’s Jesus-like godliness makes friends
with all of the reconciling Southern politicians, making Reconstruction a
breeze and North, South, Black and White spend the next 100 years singing
“Kumbaya” around a campfire.
My prediction: I’m not going to pretend that this wouldn’t
have effected Reconstruction. Lincoln
was a very good negotiator, and most Southern politicians and leaders thought
of him as the best person to negotiate with following the war (voters were
another story; there’s a reason why Democrats held the South every election for
the next hundred years or so). He also
understood, as many members of his party did not, the importance of not
punishing the South for the war. If he
lived longer, Reconstruction would’ve been viewed much less as an occupation by
Southerners.
BUT
Lincoln’s survival alone would not have been enough to calm the many humiliated Southerners down. This is because the only thing that could’ve calmed them down would be reinstituting slavery, which was simply not an option for Lincoln. The humiliation that many Southerners felt went beyond humiliation as a result of losing the war and being occupied by Northern troops. Most of the humiliation was a result of their perception that Blacks, their former social inferiors were becoming their social superiors. This was obviously wrong on every level, but the sense of cataclysm was still pervasive enough that many Southern people would resist and obstruct any attempt to give freed slaves any new rights. In fact, one important event often omitted from textbooks was the so-called “Revolution of 1876”. While this wasn’t another revolt against the government, several Radical Republican “carpetbaggers” in South Carolina were driven out of their homes under threat of violence (quite often these threats were fulfilled) and were replaced by ultra-conservative Democrats. Not only did the “Revolution of 1876” end reconstruction, but it set a precedent of using violence and corrupt politics to suppress the vote. While I know a lot of people nowadays consider Lincoln a racist (everyone in that day and age was) there’s no denying he was a man ahead of his time on many issues, including racial issues. But the problem with being a man ahead of your time is, as soon as you leave the stage, the world goes right back to its time period.
BUT
Lincoln’s survival alone would not have been enough to calm the many humiliated Southerners down. This is because the only thing that could’ve calmed them down would be reinstituting slavery, which was simply not an option for Lincoln. The humiliation that many Southerners felt went beyond humiliation as a result of losing the war and being occupied by Northern troops. Most of the humiliation was a result of their perception that Blacks, their former social inferiors were becoming their social superiors. This was obviously wrong on every level, but the sense of cataclysm was still pervasive enough that many Southern people would resist and obstruct any attempt to give freed slaves any new rights. In fact, one important event often omitted from textbooks was the so-called “Revolution of 1876”. While this wasn’t another revolt against the government, several Radical Republican “carpetbaggers” in South Carolina were driven out of their homes under threat of violence (quite often these threats were fulfilled) and were replaced by ultra-conservative Democrats. Not only did the “Revolution of 1876” end reconstruction, but it set a precedent of using violence and corrupt politics to suppress the vote. While I know a lot of people nowadays consider Lincoln a racist (everyone in that day and age was) there’s no denying he was a man ahead of his time on many issues, including racial issues. But the problem with being a man ahead of your time is, as soon as you leave the stage, the world goes right back to its time period.
#2. The Wehrmacht wins
at Stalingrad
The extreme prediction: HITLER TAKES OVER THE WORLD AND THIS ARTICLE
IS WRITTEN IN GERMAN!!!
My prediction: Ugh… I made a point of trying to disregard
WWII as a subject for potential “What ifs”.
Why? Because they are
everywhere. EV-ER-Y-WHERE. (In my follow up “Underrated “What ifs””, I
will make a point of including absolutely NO WWII “What ifs”) Reading through
websites about these, WWII “What ifs” are so dominant, I tried to not include
them in this article. In fact, overly
focusing on WWII battles is a real problem in teaching history in general, one
that I quite frankly don’t have the time or will to talk about. But I still had to mention this one because
it’s just everywhere. Everyone thinks
that if Hitler took Stalingrad, it would be over for the Allies, when in
reality, the city of Stalingrad was only important because Hitler said it was. If the Soviets lost this battle, they’d have
just retreated further back and kept fighting.
And sure, people argue for the psychological effect that would be
inflicted on the Russian people once the city bearing their leader’s name
fell. But take a look at what the people
of the Soviet Union psychologically endured over the course of the war. WWII claimed the lives of 40 million
people. 22 million of them were Soviet,
when you combine military and civilian casualties. Those who survived might have been captured
and worked to near death, or had to leave behind their homes and flee to the
Urals to work in factories. Those who
stayed in their towns to help fight off the Wehrmacht had to watch their world
be bombed, torn apart by one of the most formidable armies in the world and
then watch familiar places fill up with the corpses of their dead friends and
family, as well as the countless nameless German, Italian and Hungarian
dead. To say that the people of the
Soviet Union would’ve lost the will to fight on after Stalingrad falling is not
only utterly wrong, but borderline insulting to what these people endured and
prevailed against. Add that to the
material lack of importance to Stalingrad, and I see no reason to believe that
losing Stalingrad to the Wehrmacht would’ve in any way changed the outcome of
the war.
#1. CSA wins at Gettysburg
The extreme
prediction: The southern half of this
country remains Confederate and slavery persists to this day.
My
prediction: This one is number one
because not only because the reality is so far removed from the prediction, not
only is this one extremely overdone and not only would the war still have ended
in the Union’s favor, but because this “What if” is often used to illustrate
“how close the Civil War was”. The truth
of the matter is, it wasn’t a close war.
True, Lee consistently won battles in Northern Virginia, and stymied the
Union advance on Richmond for four years.
However, when one looks at the Western Theatre (Shiloh, for example), it
wasn’t even remotely close. The first
significant Confederate victory in the Western Theatre was at Chickamauga in
fall of 1863, more than half way through the war. By this point, the Union had already
conquered all of the Mississippi River, most of Louisiana and roughly 95 % of
Tennessee. Chickamauga was then followed
immediately by Sherman’s “March to the Sea”, where a Union army under Sherman
burned everything in between Chattanooga and Savannah (both of these cities
were spared), including the state capital Atlanta. This cut the Confederacy in half. Again.
So the idea that the Civil War was close is far from reality.
But let’s focus on the Battle of Gettysburg itself. The argument here is that if the Union Army of the Potomac was driven off by General Lee, there would be nothing stopping him from marching on Washington D.C. capturing the capital and forcing Lincoln to surrender. This argument not only ignores the fact that Washington DC had around 60 to 70 armed military forts, not only ignores the industrial irrelevance of Washington DC, not only ignores the possibility of the routed Union Army regrouping and pursuing Lee again, but it ignores the fact that Lincoln and the rest of the Federal Government could’ve still run the country from somewhere else. I would even argue a Union defeat at Gettysburg would hasten the end of the war. Forced to take the war even more seriously, Lincoln would’ve called for even more troops, put Grant in charge of the Army of the Potomac after firing Meade and encouraged strategies that even Grant would’ve felt were too aggressive. The Union completely eclipsed the Confederacy in manpower, industrial power, communications, transportation, raw materials and fortifications, and even then, many historians believe the Union was not fighting at the same level of effort that the Confederacy gave. A loss on Union soil would’ve forced the Union to bring their full might to bear, which would’ve doomed the Confederacy in mere months.
And no, no European powers would’ve done anything beyond economically assist the South. Most European observers to the war were watching in a mix of awe and fear. They saw mobilization of troops on a mass scale, combined with new tactics and frighteningly effective new weapons, especially the ironclad. Were they incapable of competing with American arms? Not necessarily, but given what they were observing, you can be sure that they had no desire to take part in this new, frightening form of war. Like Stalingrad, Gettysburg was important because the Union won it, not because Meade and the Army of the Potomac were all that stood between Lincoln and General Lee.
But let’s focus on the Battle of Gettysburg itself. The argument here is that if the Union Army of the Potomac was driven off by General Lee, there would be nothing stopping him from marching on Washington D.C. capturing the capital and forcing Lincoln to surrender. This argument not only ignores the fact that Washington DC had around 60 to 70 armed military forts, not only ignores the industrial irrelevance of Washington DC, not only ignores the possibility of the routed Union Army regrouping and pursuing Lee again, but it ignores the fact that Lincoln and the rest of the Federal Government could’ve still run the country from somewhere else. I would even argue a Union defeat at Gettysburg would hasten the end of the war. Forced to take the war even more seriously, Lincoln would’ve called for even more troops, put Grant in charge of the Army of the Potomac after firing Meade and encouraged strategies that even Grant would’ve felt were too aggressive. The Union completely eclipsed the Confederacy in manpower, industrial power, communications, transportation, raw materials and fortifications, and even then, many historians believe the Union was not fighting at the same level of effort that the Confederacy gave. A loss on Union soil would’ve forced the Union to bring their full might to bear, which would’ve doomed the Confederacy in mere months.
And no, no European powers would’ve done anything beyond economically assist the South. Most European observers to the war were watching in a mix of awe and fear. They saw mobilization of troops on a mass scale, combined with new tactics and frighteningly effective new weapons, especially the ironclad. Were they incapable of competing with American arms? Not necessarily, but given what they were observing, you can be sure that they had no desire to take part in this new, frightening form of war. Like Stalingrad, Gettysburg was important because the Union won it, not because Meade and the Army of the Potomac were all that stood between Lincoln and General Lee.
No comments:
Post a Comment