|
Updated Sunday 15 May, 2011 12:18 PM |
|
|
Join Writer Development Section Writer Development Member Section
This Day in Alternate History Blog
|
Intents and Outcomes: When is the ‘Inevitable’ inevitable?
Christopher G. Nuttall David Eicher wrote, in The Longest Night, “After
reading through numerous battle reports, I am convinced that the Confederate
States of America could not have emerged victorious in the Civil War.
It was beyond the south’s capabilities to withstand the hardships of an
extended war. And for the vast
majority of southerners, the war made life far worse.[i]”
(Intro, P.22) “Homer: So who won? The losers? Bart:
No, they lost. Homer: Heh,
heh, heh, heh, losers.[ii]” After the end of many wars, the losers, or the people who
belonged to the losing side, generally do four things:
They write long articles on how they were stabbed in the
back/betrayed/crushed by overwhelming force, they cuddle up to the winners and
claim that they were never really opposed to their ideals, they start preparing
for the next round and they write even longer articles explaining why their
defeat was inevitable and so they could feel that they did their best and still
lost with honour. The fourth action has often interested me, because many
‘lost causes’ go through a phase of being not so lost.
The CSA had a high tide until Gettysburg, Napoleon scored countless
victories in Europe, the Kaiser’s forces won battle after battle in the east
and Hitler’s forces won a whole series of smashing victories.
But they all lost, despite looking a certain winner at numerous points.
Afterwards, commentors and historians, like David Eicher, observe from
their lofty heights that the ‘good guys’ won and that their victory was
inevitable. But was that true? Japan,
for example, was so badly out powered by the American war machine, after it had
had a year to build up[iii],
that American victory was certain. Or
was it? What might have happened if
America had given up the conflict in 1943?
If American morale had collapsed, the Japanese might have won most of
their ill-gotten gains. Along similar lines, Napoleon had several chances to make a
peace that would have left him with his gains, for example France’s natural
borders. Instead, it was his
decision to fight to the finish and he was defeated in 1814. We tend to believe that an allied victory in WW2 was
inevitable, partly, I suspect, because we have a vague idea of how dreadful a
nazi victory would have been. However,
I question that belief, and not just as an alternate historian.
Hitler, the war leader with the least idea of logistics, constantly
picked off more than he could chew. Had
he focused on defeating Britain, we might be considering how inevitable that TLs
nazi victory was, instead of considering how stupid Hitler was to fight three
other powers at the same time. Even than, nazi defeat was not inevitable.
What might have happen if, for example, the Germans defeated the D-Day
landings? They could then have
moved forces east and held off the attack that in OTL broke Army Group Centre. Or, what if Britain had been led by Halifax or Chamberlain
in 1940 and they made peace with Germany, instead of fighting on?
That would make a German victory over the soviets more likely. Going back to the American Civil War, the South was hugely
outmatched, but what if the North had given up? Perhaps, instead of Antietam, the south manages to destroy
several northern armies at low cost. The
north might give up after a few years of slaughter and nothing to show for it. In conclusion, I cannot think of any single factor that
makes a victory or defeat inevitable. Power,
will, economic capability, the determination to carry the war on to the end and
good leadership at all levels are needed to make a victory.
Lose one of them and ‘inevitable’ becomes ‘not inevitable’. Comments, please |
