underused after 1900 pods

[Zyobot]

Jan 18, 2020 11:03:40 GMT stevep said:

Jan 17, 2020 22:24:34 GMT Zyobot said:

Yeah, that's true. In that case, maybe the PoD would have to date back to nearly the start of the 20th Century. Though I've often heard and seen the talking point about the World Wars advancing science and technology considerably beyond what we would've achieved in peacetime, I doubt that it's that simple. Millions of otherwise-potential scientists and innovators might've been made into casualties, while funding that could've gone to R&D ventures outside of wartime usage was instead spent on weapons, field munitions and training recruits for military service. Not to mention the battered economies and mass-desolation of productive infrastructure via bombing runs and ethnic cleansing and such that left Eurasia in ruins up until the last several decades. For that reason, I wonder if butterflying conflicts on the sheer scale of the World Wars, though that may set back military advancements like better tanks or nuclear weapons, would go some way to vastly promoting peacetime innovation that results in roughly 2020s-level (civilian) technology by the turn of the century.

  Would agree with you.  There are definite advances of technology in wartime.  The dramatic changes in aircraft between 1914-18 is a classic example of this.  Also sometimes important social changes, although they can be negative as well as negative.  However while there may be sometimes major impacts on other areas of technology such progress is often fairly narrow in focus.  Also as you say the huge damage of the two world wars especially in terms of human deaths and suffering, the material destruction and the diversion of so many resources into war related production almost certainly dwarf that.

  Possibly a slightly different/earlier WWI that is over within a few months because of the lack of the Haber process means that the Central Powers are forces to come to terms within a few months.  If a later clash is avoided then Europe at least is going to be a lot more stable, especially if Russia is able to become less autocratic rather than descending into communism.

Mm'kay. I suppose that in addition to at least delaying the inception of the Haber process, should (an admittedly much shorter) World War One still be grinding and brutal enough to dissuade the European powers from clashing like that again?

And how might Russia, which I believe was an industrializing society trying to dig itself out of backwards serfdom at the time, develop going forwards? Maybe if it successfully democratizes and catches up with Western nations via capitalistic mechanization rather than crash-industrialization, it too could become a global innovator without the body count or ruinous collectivization efforts of its Soviet counterpart from OTL.

Plus, what path might these more immediate changes set science and technological advancement on going forwards, between when they take place and the computerized, digitally marked turn of the millennium?

[stevep]

Jan 19, 2020 16:30:33 GMT Zyobot said:

Jan 18, 2020 11:03:40 GMT stevep said:

  Would agree with you.  There are definite advances of technology in wartime.  The dramatic changes in aircraft between 1914-18 is a classic example of this.  Also sometimes important social changes, although they can be negative as well as negative.  However while there may be sometimes major impacts on other areas of technology such progress is often fairly narrow in focus.  Also as you say the huge damage of the two world wars especially in terms of human deaths and suffering, the material destruction and the diversion of so many resources into war related production almost certainly dwarf that.

  Possibly a slightly different/earlier WWI that is over within a few months because of the lack of the Haber process means that the Central Powers are forces to come to terms within a few months.  If a later clash is avoided then Europe at least is going to be a lot more stable, especially if Russia is able to become less autocratic rather than descending into communism.

Mm'kay. I suppose that in addition to at least delaying the inception of the Haber process, should (an admittedly much shorter) World War One still be grinding and brutal enough to dissuade the European powers from clashing like that again?

And how might Russia, which I believe was an industrializing society trying to dig itself out of backwards serfdom at the time, develop going forwards? Maybe if it successfully democratizes and catches up with Western nations via capitalistic mechanization rather than crash-industrialization, it too could become a global innovator without the body count or ruinous collectivization efforts of its Soviet counterpart from OTL.

Plus, what path might these more immediate changes set science and technological advancement on going forwards, between when they take place and the computerized, digitally marked turn of the millennium?

  It might or it might not.  The death tolls will still be appalling but if the war is basically over by say late 1914 early 1915 due to what many will see as a technological factor that would mean that once the Haber process is developed - and there's markedly more incentive for it now - many in Germany might consider a rematch.  [Assuming here that Germany accept their facing defeat due to the nitrates problem and the allies don't really realise this, so the far less death and destruction and fear that the CPs can fight on a lot longer means a more moderate peace.  I.e. France probably gets Alsace-Lorraine back, a good chunk of the German colonial empire goes and probably Austria loses some land to Serbia and possibly Galatia to Russia.  Italy, Turkey and Bulgaria among many others aren't involved in the war.  [Although Turkey might be if they don't realise the CPs are facing utter defeat.]

  In this case the conflict would have been bloody but a large proportion of the reserve manpower wouldn't have been called into play and Germany would have a 'we were only defeated by the nitrate problem, which has now been solved' something like the stab in the back myth but with more relevance.  Ironically if its Fritz Haber still leading the discovery of the process then as a very nationalistic Jewish German he would be a national hero and its very unlikely that any revancist Germany regime/government is unlikely to be strongly anti-Jewish.

  As such I could see a basis for both desire in Germany for a 2nd round and fear in France and Russia especially that it would seek a new conflict, especially if say Russia develops further social problems which seems too likely.  I could see Nickolas viewing a short victorious war as validating his autocratic regime and possibly clamping down hard on further reforms.  He seems to be stupid enough to have done that.  Also if Russia does look stronger and Germany a bit weaker you could see Britain, if Germany has a less incompetent leadership, tending more towards neutrality or even somewhat pro-German in a future conflict depending on the circumstances.

[Zyobot]

Jan 19, 2020 16:49:17 GMT stevep said:

Jan 19, 2020 16:30:33 GMT Zyobot said:

Mm'kay. I suppose that in addition to at least delaying the inception of the Haber process, should (an admittedly much shorter) World War One still be grinding and brutal enough to dissuade the European powers from clashing like that again?

And how might Russia, which I believe was an industrializing society trying to dig itself out of backwards serfdom at the time, develop going forwards? Maybe if it successfully democratizes and catches up with Western nations via capitalistic mechanization rather than crash-industrialization, it too could become a global innovator without the body count or ruinous collectivization efforts of its Soviet counterpart from OTL.

Plus, what path might these more immediate changes set science and technological advancement on going forwards, between when they take place and the computerized, digitally marked turn of the millennium?

  It might or it might not.  The death tolls will still be appalling but if the war is basically over by say late 1914 early 1915 due to what many will see as a technological factor that would mean that once the Haber process is developed - and there's markedly more incentive for it now - many in Germany might consider a rematch.  [Assuming here that Germany accept their facing defeat due to the nitrates problem and the allies don't really realise this, so the far less death and destruction and fear that the CPs can fight on a lot longer means a more moderate peace.  I.e. France probably gets Alsace-Lorraine back, a good chunk of the German colonial empire goes and probably Austria loses some land to Serbia and possibly Galatia to Russia.  Italy, Turkey and Bulgaria among many others aren't involved in the war.  [Although Turkey might be if they don't realise the CPs are facing utter defeat.]

  In this case the conflict would have been bloody but a large proportion of the reserve manpower wouldn't have been called into play and Germany would have a 'we were only defeated by the nitrate problem, which has now been solved' something like the stab in the back myth but with more relevance.  Ironically if its Fritz Haber still leading the discovery of the process then as a very nationalistic Jewish German he would be a national hero and its very unlikely that any revancist Germany regime/government is unlikely to be strongly anti-Jewish.

  As such I could see a basis for both desire in Germany for a 2nd round and fear in France and Russia especially that it would seek a new conflict, especially if say Russia develops further social problems which seems too likely.  I could see Nickolas viewing a short victorious war as validating his autocratic regime and possibly clamping down hard on further reforms.  He seems to be stupid enough to have done that.  Also if Russia does look stronger and Germany a bit weaker you could see Britain, if Germany has a less incompetent leadership, tending more towards neutrality or even somewhat pro-German in a future conflict depending on the circumstances.

...Uh-huh. In which case, what path does this lay the groundwork for in terms of science and technology by 2000? I know that's a single-issue question, but still.

[stevep]

Jan 19, 2020 22:29:31 GMT Zyobot said:

Jan 19, 2020 16:49:17 GMT stevep said:

  It might or it might not.  The death tolls will still be appalling but if the war is basically over by say late 1914 early 1915 due to what many will see as a technological factor that would mean that once the Haber process is developed - and there's markedly more incentive for it now - many in Germany might consider a rematch.  [Assuming here that Germany accept their facing defeat due to the nitrates problem and the allies don't really realise this, so the far less death and destruction and fear that the CPs can fight on a lot longer means a more moderate peace.  I.e. France probably gets Alsace-Lorraine back, a good chunk of the German colonial empire goes and probably Austria loses some land to Serbia and possibly Galatia to Russia.  Italy, Turkey and Bulgaria among many others aren't involved in the war.  [Although Turkey might be if they don't realise the CPs are facing utter defeat.]

  In this case the conflict would have been bloody but a large proportion of the reserve manpower wouldn't have been called into play and Germany would have a 'we were only defeated by the nitrate problem, which has now been solved' something like the stab in the back myth but with more relevance.  Ironically if its Fritz Haber still leading the discovery of the process then as a very nationalistic Jewish German he would be a national hero and its very unlikely that any revancist Germany regime/government is unlikely to be strongly anti-Jewish.

  As such I could see a basis for both desire in Germany for a 2nd round and fear in France and Russia especially that it would seek a new conflict, especially if say Russia develops further social problems which seems too likely.  I could see Nickolas viewing a short victorious war as validating his autocratic regime and possibly clamping down hard on further reforms.  He seems to be stupid enough to have done that.  Also if Russia does look stronger and Germany a bit weaker you could see Britain, if Germany has a less incompetent leadership, tending more towards neutrality or even somewhat pro-German in a future conflict depending on the circumstances.

...Uh-huh. In which case, what path does this lay the groundwork for in terms of science and technology by 2000? I know that's a single-issue question, but still.

  If there is no major war, at least for a while, then things should go faster in terms of science and technology.  Of course one problem here is that probably with tension continuing what happens when someone develops nukes?  If its done in a highly competitive political/strategic environment and occurs in secret then someone might have a huge advantage and hence incentive for a quick war.  Alternative if power A does develop nuclear weapons and it leaks out very early on, say after an initial test, are potential opponents possibly going to decide they must strike quickly before it can be fully weaponised?

[Zyobot]

Jan 20, 2020 15:44:28 GMT stevep said:

Jan 19, 2020 22:29:31 GMT Zyobot said:

...Uh-huh. In which case, what path does this lay the groundwork for in terms of science and technology by 2000? I know that's a single-issue question, but still.

  If there is no major war, at least for a while, then things should go faster in terms of science and technology.  Of course one problem here is that probably with tension continuing what happens when someone develops nukes?  If its done in a highly competitive political/strategic environment and occurs in secret then someone might have a huge advantage and hence incentive for a quick war.  Alternative if power A does develop nuclear weapons and it leaks out very early on, say after an initial test, are potential opponents possibly going to decide they must strike quickly before it can be fully weaponised?

Oh yeah, I almost forgot that nukes are a relevant factor ITTL...damn it. Depending on who develops the nuclear prototype in question and what exact geopolitical circumstances it's operating under, I wonder if leaders would be more likely to posit the moral implications of deploying such a weapon in a preemptive strike than was the case during OTL WW2, in which the US was under more duress to finish Japan off?

And even if foreign intelligence picked up on news of the bomb, wouldn't the nations they report to be reluctant to engage a nuclear power in combat due to the risk of being on the receiving end, or fear over the possibility that they actually have a large stockpile of them in the waiting? In which case, I wonder if we could get something of a multipolar Cold War over TTL's twentieth century, though what that does for technological progress ITTL, I'm not sure.

[stevep]

Jan 20, 2020 22:58:52 GMT Zyobot said:

Jan 20, 2020 15:44:28 GMT stevep said:

  If there is no major war, at least for a while, then things should go faster in terms of science and technology.  Of course one problem here is that probably with tension continuing what happens when someone develops nukes?  If its done in a highly competitive political/strategic environment and occurs in secret then someone might have a huge advantage and hence incentive for a quick war.  Alternative if power A does develop nuclear weapons and it leaks out very early on, say after an initial test, are potential opponents possibly going to decide they must strike quickly before it can be fully weaponised?

Oh yeah, I almost forgot that nukes are a relevant factor ITTL...damn it. Depending on who develops the nuclear prototype in question and what exact geopolitical circumstances it's operating under, I wonder if leaders would be more likely to posit the moral implications of deploying such a weapon in a preemptive strike than was the case during OTL WW2, in which the US was under more duress to finish Japan off?

And even if foreign intelligence picked up on news of the bomb, wouldn't the nations they report to be reluctant to engage a nuclear power in combat due to the risk of being on the receiving end, or fear over the possibility that they actually have a large stockpile of them in the waiting? In which case, I wonder if we could get something of a multipolar Cold War over TTL's twentieth century, though what that does for technological progress ITTL, I'm not sure.

  That is a factor but if the nation believes their neighbour has only just tested a development weapon and is yet to have a full deployment capacity they - or an alliance possibly - might think take them down quickly before they have the capacity to crush us easily.  Remembering that as well as the nuclear weapon you need some way of delivering it.  The B-29 development was a massive and expensive project in itself and the only other weapon that could carry the initial nuclear weapons, albeit quite possibly on a suicide mission, was the Lancaster. 

  Mind you if we have a drastically shortened WWI and no major conflict between the developed powers before then one factor that would count against this and possibly also delay the development of nuclear weapons is that they may seem to have little practical use as attacks on civilian targets [i.e. population centres] would be viewed with abhorrence.  Unless someone has gone along the path of Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia and already made clear they have zero moral scruples in which case everybody else would rightly fear them developing such weapons and using them.  Without such a regime the idea even of large bombers attacking cities would be frowned upon, possibly so strongly that coupled with the huge costs of developing such weapons would deter or delay their development.

  If things aren't too tense then the development of nukes by one power are likely to be rapidly followed by others, especially large neighbours and any rivals they have so you could have at least 4 major nuclear powers in Europe say [Britain, Germany, France and Russia] within a decade of the 1st weapons becoming developed.  Later Italy, a surviving Austrian empire and possibly some other smaller powers might also join the nuclear club as almost certainly will the US, Japan and possibly depending on their situation China, India and perhaps even a surviving Ottoman empire.

[Zyobot]

Jan 21, 2020 11:25:47 GMT stevep said:

Jan 20, 2020 22:58:52 GMT Zyobot said:

Oh yeah, I almost forgot that nukes are a relevant factor ITTL...damn it. Depending on who develops the nuclear prototype in question and what exact geopolitical circumstances it's operating under, I wonder if leaders would be more likely to posit the moral implications of deploying such a weapon in a preemptive strike than was the case during OTL WW2, in which the US was under more duress to finish Japan off?

And even if foreign intelligence picked up on news of the bomb, wouldn't the nations they report to be reluctant to engage a nuclear power in combat due to the risk of being on the receiving end, or fear over the possibility that they actually have a large stockpile of them in the waiting? In which case, I wonder if we could get something of a multipolar Cold War over TTL's twentieth century, though what that does for technological progress ITTL, I'm not sure.

  That is a factor but if the nation believes their neighbour has only just tested a development weapon and is yet to have a full deployment capacity they - or an alliance possibly - might think take them down quickly before they have the capacity to crush us easily.  Remembering that as well as the nuclear weapon you need some way of delivering it.  The B-29 development was a massive and expensive project in itself and the only other weapon that could carry the initial nuclear weapons, albeit quite possibly on a suicide mission, was the Lancaster. 

  Mind you if we have a drastically shortened WWI and no major conflict between the developed powers before then one factor that would count against this and possibly also delay the development of nuclear weapons is that they may seem to have little practical use as attacks on civilian targets [i.e. population centres] would be viewed with abhorrence.  Unless someone has gone along the path of Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia and already made clear they have zero moral scruples in which case everybody else would rightly fear them developing such weapons and using them.  Without such a regime the idea even of large bombers attacking cities would be frowned upon, possibly so strongly that coupled with the huge costs of developing such weapons would deter or delay their development.

  If things aren't too tense then the development of nukes by one power are likely to be rapidly followed by others, especially large neighbours and any rivals they have so you could have at least 4 major nuclear powers in Europe say [Britain, Germany, France and Russia] within a decade of the 1st weapons becoming developed.  Later Italy, a surviving Austrian empire and possibly some other smaller powers might also join the nuclear club as almost certainly will the US, Japan and possibly depending on their situation China, India and perhaps even a surviving Ottoman empire.

Okay, then. As much as I'd like to keep talking through this premise and all of the divergences that'd result from it, maybe further dialogue would best be left to its own thread (which I' actually thinking of creating, if you and/or others show interest in that).

As another underused after-1900 PoD, however, 'Dry' Democrats And 'Wet' Republicans'. As in, the former bloc predominantly unites with the Progressive movement over Prohibition, whereas the latter mostly opposes it. Though I'm guessing that Prohibition would end in abject failure and subsequent repeal like IOTL, maybe the GOP would skew more libertarian once the alcohol debate has been settled (my understanding being that their OTL support for it turned off heavy-drinking immigrant populations, causing a number of said populations to switch to the other party).

[shaunafromthegully]

Here's my thread on Reddit. www.reddit.com/r/HistoricalWhatIf/comments/erusc9/samantha_reed_smith_lives/

[lordroel]

Jan 23, 2020 4:42:42 GMT shaunafromthegully said:

Here's my thread on Reddit. www.reddit.com/r/HistoricalWhatIf/comments/erusc9/samantha_reed_smith_lives/

Hi shaunafromthegully , there is a policy on this forum that about post ore threads about young children on this forum should not be done for several reasons, i, also in this thread: Samantha Smith (the Littlest Diplomat) said and still stand by it. that i think she would not be special when she grows up, the Cold War would be over by the time she would be 18 years old.

[Zyobot]

'Ronald Reagan Becomes GOP Nominee In 1976'.

[lordroel]

Jan 23, 2020 20:53:25 GMT Zyobot said:

'Ronald Reagan Becomes GOP Nominee In 1976'.

Could he win in 1976.

[Zyobot]

Jan 23, 2020 20:54:17 GMT lordroel said:

Jan 23, 2020 20:53:25 GMT Zyobot said:

'Ronald Reagan Becomes GOP Nominee In 1976'.

Could he win in 1976.

Not that I know much about the ins and outs of that election cycle, but I'd assume not. The Republicans would've had a tarbrushed reputation heading into 1976 thanks to Tricky Dick's antics, and because Jimmy Carter didn't have Stagflation or the Iranian Hostage Crisis to his name, America probably wasn't ready for a "conservative revolution" quite yet.

[lordroel]

Jan 23, 2020 20:56:56 GMT Zyobot said:

Jan 23, 2020 20:54:17 GMT lordroel said:

Could he win in 1976.

Not that I know much about the ins and outs of that election cycle, but I'd assume not. The Republicans would've had a tarbrushed reputation heading into 1976 thanks to Tricky Dick's antics, and because Jimmy Carter didn't have Stagflation or the Iranian Hostage Crisis to his name, America probably wasn't ready for a "conservative revolution" quite yet.

Well i Googled and i also found this, would this also makes sense why Reagan did not win in 1976.

Reagan's weakness was that he was not a member of the "Eastern Establishment." Ford was, as well as the incumbent President. That fact led many "established" Republicans to support him "automatically".

Reagan needed a "breakthrough". He came close in New Hampshire, with something like 49.5% of the two-candidate vote. Topping Ford there would have been huge. But without a breakthrough to start the "bandwagon," the Republican establishment wouldn't support him.

[Zyobot]

Jan 23, 2020 20:59:40 GMT lordroel said:

Jan 23, 2020 20:56:56 GMT Zyobot said:

Not that I know much about the ins and outs of that election cycle, but I'd assume not. The Republicans would've had a tarbrushed reputation heading into 1976 thanks to Tricky Dick's antics, and because Jimmy Carter didn't have Stagflation or the Iranian Hostage Crisis to his name, America probably wasn't ready for a "conservative revolution" quite yet.

Well i Googled and i also found this, would this also makes sense why Reagan did not win in 1976.

Reagan's weakness was that he was not a member of the "Eastern Establishment." Ford was, as well as the incumbent President. That fact led many "established" Republicans to support him "automatically".

Reagan needed a "breakthrough". He came close in New Hampshire, with something like 49.5% of the two-candidate vote. Topping Ford there would have been huge. But without a breakthrough to start the "bandwagon," the Republican establishment wouldn't support him.

Yeah, that'd make sense. Still, I'm not sure that he would've won even if he did seize the GOP nomination, for reasons that I listed in my previous post.

[Zyobot]

‘Earlier Southern Realignment’ towards the GOP from the Democrats. If I’m not mistaken, someone here once briefly mentioned the possibility that no Great Depression would hasten Dixie’s political one-eighty?