Monday, 5 May 2014

Alternative history, what ifs and what will...

I'm a big fan of 'alternative history'  fiction, which is basically a genre which takes a point in history and changes a particular historical event and creates a story out of it. One of the most written examples is 'what would have happened if the South had won the American civil war', but there are many 'tipping points' in history which one could address. I particularly like Harry Turtledove's 'worldwar' series, where in the middle of world war II, aliens invade, which dramatically changes the course of the war (& in which the aliens are portrayed as more compassionate that the Nazis which is an interesting point in its own right). 

But another interesting genre is 'what will', rather than asking 'what if'... partly because I am a fan of the late Tom Clancy's work and also because this was sparked by this article in the Daily Mail, which speculates what will happen if Scotland votes to leave the UK in September. Whilst readers can speculate what will happen in that event, here are other things to speculate about -

'What will happen'
  •  if Israel strikes Iran's nuclear facilities?
  •  if Argentina re-invades the Falklands?
  • if Taiwan is invaded & there is a Sino-American confrontation in the Pacific ?
  • if Russia annexes Eastern Ukraine and continues in her campaign to reestablish the Soviet Union?
  • if a country leaves the Euro?
  • if the UK leaves the EU?
  • if  either or all of the UK, Mexico and Canada ask to be admitted into the USA ?
  • if Labour is the largest party after the UK election in 2015, but is only the largest party due to Scottish votes [ & Scotland has already voted to leave, but a final breakaway deal is being ironed out] ?


  1. if Israel strikes Iran's nuclear facilities?
    A- Iran will get a thorough thrashing !

    if Argentina re-invades the Falklands?
    The Argies will get a through thrashing

    if Taiwan is invaded & there is a Sino-American confrontation in the Pacific ?
    The Chinese will get a through thrashing

    if Russia annexes Eastern Ukraine and continues in her campaign to reestablish the Soviet Union?
    The Russians will get a through thrashing

    if a country leaves the Euro?
    The Eurozone will collapse and Germany will have to rely on something other than an undervalued currency with which to bully other European states

    if the UK leaves the EU?
    Nothing but good things

    if either or all of the UK, Mexico and Canada ask to be admitted into the USA ?
    Not likely.

    if Labour is the largest party after the UK election in 2015, but is only the largest party due to Scottish votes [ & Scotland has already voted to leave, but a final breakaway deal is being ironed out] ?

    Then the liberals would be responsible for putting into power an illegitimate government. And neither they or labour would ever win the trust or the election of the rest of the British people for a generation.

    1. Atheist Shrugged5 May 2014 at 13:09


      The UK/US military is weak. It'd be us who'd get the thrashing. Iran, Russia, Argentinia & China all have powerful armies and navies. Combined they would overwhelm the west. The west cannot fight on 4 fronts at once!

    2. I wasn't thinking all of these events would happen at the same time... but if they did, it would be close run, but ultimately I think the west would win 'round 1'

  2. Atheist Shrugged5 May 2014 at 13:08

    Re Ukraine -Every story we hear from the US and Kiev is pure fabication, turned through 180 degrees with a US propoganda spin put on it for the West's media to consume en masse. So my question President Obama and Mr Kerry and Mr Yatsenuk is this: Do you honestly believe that subjugation and rendition and killing of innocent civilians by tanks and helicopters works?

    Leaving the EU would be a disaster for world peace, as would the breakup of the Eurozone, which has successfully prevented another world war for the last 70 years.

    Israeli aggression shouldn't be tolerated and if they decided to attack a country for no reason, then they should be done for war crimes against humanity and the apartheid state should have all the sanctions the international community can think of, heaped on it.

    Who'd want to join the US anyway?

    If labour won and Scotland was still formally part of the UK, it would have every right to form the next government, which would be preferable to Cameron's loony Christian right government!

    As for the Falklands, give it back to Argentinian; Imperialism shouldn't exist in the 21st century!

    1. Bible and Truth5 May 2014 at 13:14


      I agree .

      The knives are out for Putin. Saudi Arabia and Israel want him gone for supporting Iran and Assad. The Kiev "Government" is a CIA plot to undermine and provoke Putin. As with the overthrow of Saddam, the Press are complicit and are not to be believed. Obama set out to defy the sheiks and the sheisters but is faltering. Putin is a friend, not an enemy. Open your eyes.

    2. No to EU serfdom5 May 2014 at 13:15

      The last time we got involved in Eastern Europe to defend Poland, Britain didn't just lose 100,000s dead, but lost its Empire, ended up bankrupt & handed whole of Eastern Europe to Stalin. It's best to keep out of areas in the world we don't understand & who are not a threat to Britain.

  3. London's Willy5 May 2014 at 13:54

    The last time around, Argentina struck and conquered quickly, but was unable to consolidate before the British flotilla arrived to retake the islands. When the British eventually showed up, the Argentines surprised them with the power of the new Exocet missiles, sinking the Sheffield in short order. The US was caught between allies but supplied satellite data to the UK forces.

    Today the UK is less able to project power than in 1982, and Argentine politics are much different. Rather than being ruled by desperate military despots, Argentina has returned to popular elections. Britain was headed by Margaret Thatcher, who would tolerate no misbehavior in the South Atlantic; and her principal ally was Reagan. Reagan initially sent Alex Haig to negotiate between the parties but after the OAS came out for Argentina, Reagan threw his support behind Britain.

    The Argentine fleet in 1982 lost a critical carrier to engine trouble, limiting their air power in the war, and their fleet was decimated by submarine action once Britain established a picket zone around the islands.

    Today, if Argentina's civil government wanted to take Islas Malvinas it would face a more prickly island defense. In 1982 they took South Georgia and the Falklands easily.

    British forces have been training constantly in the Middle East for the last decade. That experience would be telling in a renewed struggle. Assuming they can get their troops onto the islands, they would have a formidable, experienced force to place against the Argentines.

    That, of course, is dependent on whether the British government is stable enough, and willing to prosecute the war. Cameron's government might just see that as a unifying principal.

    I think the US established its diplomatic response clearly in 1982. Obama would send Clinton shuttling back and forth awhile, but would not fail to support Britain. The OAS lines would also be drawn as before, diplomatically supporting Argentina. But here's the rub - Venezuela might be willing to add direct naval support to the Argentine effort. The question is would that provoke the US to a full military intervention?

    That's where it gets really ticklish. While the US would like to ignore a Venezuelan military presence, it could not tolerate Venezuelan attacks on neutral or US-flagged shipping. And the Venezuelan fleet could be just belligerent enough to provoke such attacks. American response might provoke Brazil into what would then become a limited intercontinental engagement, with Brazil flexing its regional military and financial muscle against the former American imperialists.

    Well, from there things get ugly.

  4. Dominique Vasilkovsky5 May 2014 at 13:59

    The British would clearly win against Argentinian military aggression.

    The defences on the island is enough to hold back the entire argentinian army and its reserves there are roughly 1000 Royal Marines Commandos and about 700 infantry soldiers (including other regiments) and there are a few Challenger 2 tanks and argentina's weapons are extremely poor they have no armour that could take out a Challenger 2 and we have the most advanced submarine in the entire world guarding the island and to be honest a attack against that would be a 100% suicide mission if that submarine is docked in southern England it can detect ship movement in new york harbour it can destroy and vessel from over 1000 miles away the UK has over 6 Trafalgar class submarines alone and the Argentine Navy has 4 Submarines which range is less than 200 miles so our could destroy there's before they got 800 miles near them. The Naval Battle would be over as for the Air we don't even need our air force our ground defence weapons are capable of holding off there air force until ours arrived and the troops that are there are the highest trained soldiers in the world and Argentina has badly trained troops.

    There is a reason they have not used military force this time and trust me they know what would happen if they did that b&^ch will try politically but Britain WILL NOT hand over its people to a country that less than 50 years ago put them through a living hell and over 95% of the islanders want to remain British so if the worst came to the worst the UN would let the islanders vote and there dream is over (oh, there was already a referendum in which 99.9% of the Islanders VOTED TO REMAIN BRITISH SUBJECTS!-

    1. Liberal American5 May 2014 at 15:23

      You're assuming the British could stop them. With the way the Royal Navy is being dismantled, it's doubtful it could retake the Isle of Wight, never mind the Falklands.

      Besides, isn't it high time the Brits came to terms with the fact that their Empire is dead and gone? They simply can't afford to keep clinging on to the last few bits of it. How about giving the Argentinians back their islands, and be done with it? They're going to get them back sooner or later anyway.

    2. Liberal American

      The Falklanders THEMSELVES want to remain a British territory, so this is hardly about 'the empire'. I disagree that the royal navy is being dismantled; it is buying and building more and more powerful ships every year, albeit ones which cannot be easily replaced in a quick fashion. But then, the Argies don't really have much of an airforce, navy or army, but they do have special forces, but whether they could take the island is a different matter....

    3. No to EU serfdom6 May 2014 at 10:06

      It sounds like we have a little Anglophobe in the midst. Since your so mis informed please allow me to destroy you points.

      Point 1) "With the way the Royal Navy is being dismantled, it's doubtful it could retake the Isle of Wight, never mind the Falklands"

      So let's brake this down; The Royal Navy might be going through a period of modernization, But it's good modernization rest assured, we are building 2 Queen Elizabeth II Class Aircraft Carriers, Ones that rival the USS Abraham in size and Displacement. We also are now in the possession of the Worlds best and most advanced Submarine Bar NONE, Some of Americas best instruments can't pick it up and the best part is, we are getting another 3!

      Okay Next Point)

      "Besides, isn't it high time the Brits came to terms with the fact that their Empire is dead and gone, They simply can't afford to keep clinging on to the last few bits of it"

      The People on this Island want to remain British, almost Unanimously they have the right to be British, The Islands stay ours.

      Secondly, We came to terms our Empire had gone A long time ago, before you were born, The Labour Government started the process of dismantling the Empire, so don't think for one second that we lost it, through Military force- we didn't, we gave it up gracefully.

      Third point is The American Empire, How do you feel about the American Empire?

      Bit's of land through out the world acquired through military purposes, It's exactly the same, On the Falklands we have An Extensive Air Field, where we store some of our Jets, On Ascension Island we have an An Air field and a naval Base, Gibraltar we have a Major naval base, Cyprus, BIOT.

      All of these places are Important, now funnily enough, America also bunks up with us in many of these Territories, Ascension Island Joint Air Bases, Cyprus, Gibraltar, Not to mention the countless pieces of land America has acquired in the UK, Germany, Japan etc. etc. etc.. Without these Invaluable Assets from the OUR EMPIRE, America wouldn't have been able to test Nuclear weapons so securely.

      So in conclusion America Depends on our Territories,m for re fueling, and bases.

  5. Dominique Vasilkovsky5 May 2014 at 14:05

    Also -

    Israel would take down the Iranian reactors, but would then be involved in a ground war in gaza and lebanon. The Iranians might try and close international shipping, provoking a US led response.

    It's doubtful that China would actively start a war in the pacific, not for the next 2 decades.

    Russia will continue to try and rebuild the iron curtain, but the europeans will do jack shit about it.

    The Euro will collapse at some stage & britain will leave the EU- which will be positve for europe.

    I don't think the uk, canada or mexico want to join the US and I doubt Americans would want this either.

    I don't think miliband will win outright. If he is the largest party thanks to scottish mps, then the Liberals would be stupid to think that they could legitimately but him in downing street, if scotland was on the road to a republic.

  6. Kirov Class Cruiser5 May 2014 at 14:07

    Pathetic. The Falklands belongs to the Argentinians. This is about the natural resources. Nothing to do with the Islanders.

  7. This of course will mean nothing to Argentina. They know we are weak at the min and could no longer protect it like we could when maggie was At the helm. Thanks to the previous gov but more so because of this con-dem gov Britain has become weak. We no longer have power or respect and that is why Britain needs new strong leadership. I hate to say it but UKIP seem the best option!

  8. a loyal communicant5 May 2014 at 14:57

    Anybody who has sufficient understanding of the ideolocal basis of the Arab-Israel conflict should know, that the 'Palestinian cause' and the ideological Islamic objective to restore Islamic rule over the whole of Palestine are far too much entwined to make a real possability of peace possible. The problem with the west is a total misunderstanding of the upheavel in the Middle East. The current 'revolution' is being used by Islamic puritans to cleanse both Israel and the Arabic world of any Judean-Christian influence. Any support from the west for this cause will eventually only accelarate the approaching threat to the west from that part of the world and its already established influence in our society.

    The perception that the Palestinians are only victims, shows an amazing deal of total lack of understanding of the true ideological cause of the conflict and an extremely shortsighted view of the role of victimhood as a means in the anti-Israeli propaganda war.

    If people only judge by looking at the symptoms they are witnessing while at the same time ignoring the ideological background of the conflict, they are in the extreme dangerous position to make the most misguided judgement in regard to the Jews possible, that in the end will only contribute to the final attempt to reproduce the most horrific event we have seen in the last century.

    What is the crux of the matter; Israel is the only non-Muslim enclave within the Islamic domain! This is the factual reason why 'the Jews stole Palestine' and the Palestinian people are consciously 'taken hostage' by the surrounding nations for strategic purpose and a pretext to restore Islamic rulership over this former part of the Islamic world (the Ottoman empire).

    We have the moral duty to recognise and aknowledge the fact that the Jewish people again are facing an existential threat to the very existence as a people and a nation. In this fight for survival, they have my full support.

    1. Atheist Shrugged5 May 2014 at 15:02

      The Jews have stolen Palestine. Why should a white guy from Brooklyn or Warsaw thrown the historic people and nation of Palestine out of its homeland? This is racist imperialism at its worst. Support the boycott!

    2. Bopel Muhammad5 May 2014 at 15:03


      And the Jews are destroying the once proud people and nation of Palestine ....

    3. a loyal communicant5 May 2014 at 15:19


      I expect you to be able to answer a few basic questions about that country of Palestine :

      When was it founded and by whom?
      What were its borders?
      What was its capital?
      What were its major cities?
      What constituted the basis of its economy?
      What was its form of government?
      Can you name at least one Palestinian leader before Arafat?
      Was Palestine ever recognized by a country whose existence, at that time or now, leaves no room for interpretation?
      What was the language of the country of Palestine ?
      What was the prevalent religion of the country of Palestine ?
      What was the name of its currency? Choose any date in history and tell what was the approximate exchange rate of the Palestinian monetary unit against the US dollar, German mark, GB pound, Japanese yen, or Chinese yuan on that date.
      And, finally, since there is no such country today, what caused its demise and when did it occur?

      I hope you avoid the temptation to trace the modern day "Palestinians" to the Biblical Philistines: substituting etymology for history won't work here.

      Bopel, You are lamenting the "destruction" of a "once proud" nation. Please tell me, when exactly was that "nation" proud and what was it so proud of?"

      Any takers?

    4. Loyal Communicant, indeed. This is something the pro-Pal side can never provide answers.

  9. Hi David,

    Each of those questions is enough for a thread each....

    1. Hannah,

      I agree that they could. Hmmm, now which one shall I discuss first?

  10. Nonsense Bollocks. Good for the French, and fcuk globalization with crony capitalism attached.


Comments aren't pre-moderated. Try and keep things civil. See our comments section for further details.