An example of a "Model WI" is needed

[Baltasar]

Roddoss, the reason for the people keeping arguing about your initial explanaition was that they didn't believe it'd be plausible. Instead of delivering explanaitions, you just came up with "this is my thread, I make the rules", which was not helpful at all. It was also not helpful that you continued to ignore all arguments about the validity of your scenario.

Going over it, i though i had made it perfectly clear, but some just entered the argument just to hijack the thread, and to fill it with cyber chaff, adding nothing to the thread, but bogging it down so it becomes at a certain point unworkable to put any input, or more to the point direct those contributer back to the original intention of the thread.

Criticism towards your scenario does not equal attacks on your person. The scenario itself was flawed and no matter how often it was pointed out, the OP refused to acknowledge this or to at least enter a discussion about other possibilites to reach his desired POD.

[Roddoss72]

Roddoss, the reason for the people keeping arguing about your initial explanaition was that they didn't believe it'd be plausible. Instead of delivering explanaitions, you just came up with "this is my thread, I make the rules", which was not helpful at all. It was also not helpful that you continued to ignore all arguments about the validity of your scenario.

Going over it, i though i had made it perfectly clear, but some just entered the argument just to hijack the thread, and to fill it with cyber chaff, adding nothing to the thread, but bogging it down so it becomes at a certain point unworkable to put any input, or more to the point direct those contributer back to the original intention of the thread.

Criticism towards your scenario does not equal attacks on your person. The scenario itself was flawed and no matter how often it was pointed out, the OP refused to acknowledge this or to at least enter a discussion about other possibilites to reach his desired POD.

But herein lies the premis of debating, you have been given a set of circumstances, and you have to at the best of your abilities and knowledge answer that question, in debating competitions, the participants aren't afforded the luxury of asking the moderator the whole geo-political spectrum of how the question is formulated. Plus my experience has shown many times, even if you do give an explaination, all you get is the same old line, no can't happen, because it did not happen like that historically. I have pointed out many time some folks are so rooted to the actual historical context they are inflexible to consider any alternatives, and that dogma is very hard to counter.

Just like the old thread of Germany having any kind of strategic heavy bomber, one such thread had indicated that General Walther Wever is not killed, the leading proponant of Strategic Heavy Bombers, but the same crowd contended that it could never happen, because it did not happen historically, even after pointing out that circumstances would be different, actually completely different, the same crowd continued to say, no because it did not happen historically, and it happened over and over again, and eventually when you are up against a whole gang of cyber chaffing dogmatics, you give up, not because you have lost the argument, because in the end you can't be bothered anymore.

[stg 44]

Often times the reason that answer is given is that history can be inflexible, meaning no change was possible even with different decisions or people surviving without totally altering history to the point that it is unrecognizable. Case in point: Wever surviving; you want an effect of your POD to be that Germany has a strategic bomber in 1941.

Why did it not happen historically, because Wever died too early? No, his survival would not have allowed Germany to have a strategic bomber for reasons given in the pertinent thread . Its not that your effect is impossible (improbable though...), rather your POD will not get you the desired effect. So problem isn't the strategic bomber necessarily, but how you decided to get it meaning a different POD is necessary to have the discussion you want. Now, some effects are just not possible regardless of the POD, Nazi mechs for example, which would require an entirely different reality to make possible.

Others, such as the heavy bomber again, are so handicapped by history that they are nearly impossible to achieve in a WW2 time line that we are familiar with due to the Versailles treaty stopping German aviation development for a decade, making the catch up time insurmountable. A heavy bomber then would mean no Versailles, which changes history so much that it makes our reality impossible and your suggestion moot. Is this our fault for being inflexible about historical possibilities? No, because it was not a possibility for the reasons given. If you want magic to make things appear by ignoring very real constraints that affect historical developments that is your choice, but don't expect us to take you seriously when you ignore these historical facts and decide to live in fantasy land. Some developments are just not possible regardless of the POD unless you change history early enough, which makes it unrecognizable. It might mean that letting the Germans have heavy bombers means no Nazis and no WW2, so you can't have your cake and eat it too.

[Baltasar]

Criticism towards your scenario does not equal attacks on your person. The scenario itself was flawed and no matter how often it was pointed out, the OP refused to acknowledge this or to at least enter a discussion about other possibilites to reach his desired POD.

But herein lies the premis of debating, you have been given a set of circumstances, and you have to at the best of your abilities and knowledge answer that question, in debating competitions, the participants aren't afforded the luxury of asking the moderator the whole geo-political spectrum of how the question is formulated. Plus my experience has shown many times, even if you do give an explaination, all you get is the same old line, no can't happen, because it did not happen like that historically. I have pointed out many time some folks are so rooted to the actual historical context they are inflexible to consider any alternatives, and that dogma is very hard to counter.

In the particular thread about Russia attacking Poland before Hitler does, the explanaitions given did not adress the major flaws in the scenario, hence the discussion about them continued. Assuming that Stalin was just incredibly dumb wouldn't work as a POD, as someone that stupid wouldn't have made it as the leader of the USSR.

So we had a set of circumstances of which some were quite impossible to happen and this was where the discussion began. You just can't discuss a flawed scenario. Any input there would be pointless because it's premises would be unrealistic at best.

[Markus Becker]

Easy! A WI is basically just a question like WI this had/had not happened or -here comes the POV element- happened in a certain other way. But the original poster can or can not state his idea of what could happen but he should keep it short, get some input and then join the discussion.

A WI with the original poster lining out a certain course of events after the POD is more an AH-scenario/TL than a WI, isn´t it?

And yes, users not accepting PODs they consider unlikely is something that happens often. I´m guilty of that too. When I read "Washington Treaty Fails" my 1st thought was "Can´t happen! The UK got little cash, Japan even less and the USA doesn´t want many more super-expensive capital ships."

[Von Schadewald]

Is there a difference between a 'POV' and a 'POD', and if so, can you give a written example.

[Tim Smith]

Is there a difference between a 'POV' and a 'POD', and if so, can you give a written example.

POD = Point Of Departure - a single change in WI scenario from OTL actual history.

POV = Point Of View - one poster's view on what might happen after the POD.

[Andy H]

Well I've started 300 WI threads, so at least I can't be devoid of imagination, with about 20 having been locked.

I suspect that most on this forum are over 45.

Very few under 45s have any desire for knowledge or interest in WW2 on the WI level.

And one can already see that there are less and less WI postings compared to a few years ago.

I suspect that some of the rules are going to have to be eased up on, less the forum become moribund e.g. the 1985 rule; and the one that disallows any WIs on personalities e.g. my "Der Fuhrer's 1942 World Tour" http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... ur#p664173 and "Churchill & Roosevelt drown on the Augusta 1941" http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=93270

Hi von.S

As stated by another poster the age of a member is neither here or there for the most part. I would counsel that if a member was say of an age where his lack of years were to give him issues with his ability to set out his thoughts, that he would contact a Moderator and seek help. However were all aware of younger members here who are quite able in these areas. Equally I have no idea what information you have to back up your statement that those under 45 have little interest in WI's!

Well nobody disputes that the WI's have slowed but quantity and quality don't always sleep together. I would suggest to you that one of the main reasons is that all the obvious WI's have been discussed to death within many threads and that few people are willing to respond to these same old WI's. Again as I stated in an earlier post an Index would help.

You suspect that the rules of the WI are going to be eased up, why? We have expanded the timeframe for WI and the response has been rubbish on the whole. The amount of threads covering say Vietnam, Korea, India & Pakistan are almost nil, along with numerous other conflicts. In case you were unaware the 1985 rule was relaxed sometime ago so that the timeframe is 20yrs back from the current date- so at the moment its 1990, and next year it will be 1991. So the timeframe isn't an issue in my opinion and backed up by the lack of WI's outside of WW2 or even prior to it.

Personality based WI' are awful. We already had a dearth of WI Hitler had dies in 1939, 1940, 1941, left in a coma etc and for Hitler you could equally replace it with Churchill, Stalin or FDR. They are so subjective that any debate just becomes so opinion orientated that any meaningful debate or even conclusion is weak. The only caveat I will make regarding personality based WI's is that rarely we get a very focused WI that can be interesting and on occasion these are allowed to float intially, but there rare and most are 'What if X had died' and nothingelse.

The good WI tend to be very focused and have a narrow field of play, so the scope isn't there for numerous POD or vague answers.

Regards

Andy H

[Andy H]

Roddoss, the reason for the people keeping arguing about your initial explanaition was that they didn't believe it'd be plausible. Instead of delivering explanaitions, you just came up with "this is my thread, I make the rules", which was not helpful at all. It was also not helpful that you continued to ignore all arguments about the validity of your scenario.

Going over it, i though i had made it perfectly clear, but some just entered the argument just to hijack the thread, and to fill it with cyber chaff, adding nothing to the thread, but bogging it down so it becomes at a certain point unworkable to put any input, or more to the point direct those contributer back to the original intention of the thread.

Hi to all

Leaving aside the particulars of this particular thread in question, I have had less than 10 PM's concerning issues with WI's complaining about how things were developing within a particular thread. Members to use Roddoss words, would rather cyber chaff to and fro than actually let a Moderator know.

The thread author has some obvious power in how he has developed his scenario, but he also has to be open to any questions about its birth. However that should not lead to the WI being bogged down in endless discussion about its birth, if the author has answered the questions to hand. Again if the author feels the thread is losing traction because of the endless queries about its birth, and not the thread itself, then you should contact the Moderator.

Regards

Andy H

[Andy H]

Often times the reason that answer is given is that history can be inflexible, meaning no change was possible even with different decisions or people surviving without totally altering history to the point that it is unrecognizable. Case in point: Wever surviving; you want an effect of your POD to be that Germany has a strategic bomber in 1941.

Why did it not happen historically, because Wever died too early? No, his survival would not have allowed Germany to have a strategic bomber for reasons given in the pertinent thread . Its not that your effect is impossible (improbable though...), rather your POD will not get you the desired effect. So problem isn't the strategic bomber necessarily, but how you decided to get it meaning a different POD is necessary to have the discussion you want. Now, some effects are just not possible regardless of the POD, Nazi mechs for example, which would require an entirely different reality to make possible.

Others, such as the heavy bomber again, are so handicapped by history that they are nearly impossible to achieve in a WW2 time line that we are familiar with due to the Versailles treaty stopping German aviation development for a decade, making the catch up time insurmountable. A heavy bomber then would mean no Versailles, which changes history so much that it makes our reality impossible and your suggestion moot. Is this our fault for being inflexible about historical possibilities? No, because it was not a possibility for the reasons given. If you want magic to make things appear by ignoring very real constraints that affect historical developments that is your choice, but don't expect us to take you seriously when you ignore these historical facts and decide to live in fantasy land. Some developments are just not possible regardless of the POD unless you change history early enough, which makes it unrecognizable. It might mean that letting the Germans have heavy bombers means no Nazis and no WW2, so you can't have your cake and eat it too.

Excellent post

Regards

Andy H

[Roddoss72]

Often times the reason that answer is given is that history can be inflexible, meaning no change was possible even with different decisions or people surviving without totally altering history to the point that it is unrecognizable. Case in point: Wever surviving; you want an effect of your POD to be that Germany has a strategic bomber in 1941.

Why did it not happen historically, because Wever died too early? No, his survival would not have allowed Germany to have a strategic bomber for reasons given in the pertinent thread . Its not that your effect is impossible (improbable though...), rather your POD will not get you the desired effect. So problem isn't the strategic bomber necessarily, but how you decided to get it meaning a different POD is necessary to have the discussion you want. Now, some effects are just not possible regardless of the POD, Nazi mechs for example, which would require an entirely different reality to make possible.

Others, such as the heavy bomber again, are so handicapped by history that they are nearly impossible to achieve in a WW2 time line that we are familiar with due to the Versailles treaty stopping German aviation development for a decade, making the catch up time insurmountable. A heavy bomber then would mean no Versailles, which changes history so much that it makes our reality impossible and your suggestion moot. Is this our fault for being inflexible about historical possibilities? No, because it was not a possibility for the reasons given. If you want magic to make things appear by ignoring very real constraints that affect historical developments that is your choice, but don't expect us to take you seriously when you ignore these historical facts and decide to live in fantasy land. Some developments are just not possible regardless of the POD unless you change history early enough, which makes it unrecognizable. It might mean that letting the Germans have heavy bombers means no Nazis and no WW2, so you can't have your cake and eat it too.

While i agree with your statement, i humbly disagree with your assesment on the timeline of the Luftwaffe, espessially with the strategic bomber programme. If an very infuential man such as General Walther Wever lives on, to whom advocated a strategic bomber programme, and at the time of his death was head to the RLM the very department that issues orders to maunfatures to develop aircraft and to suppliers of aero-engine manufactures, General Walther Wever had the final say in the develpoment of Luftwaffe Policy, but also he was Reichmarschal Herman Goerings deputy.

What i am saying with Wevers death the Luftwaffe changed in a completely new direction, and happened fast, within 24hrs of his death Wevers dream of Germany having a strategic bomber force was effectively cancelled, it was not until 1943 that Göring tried to make up time, but 9 years of inaction cost Germany dearly. Also in the thread i had many time indicated that General Walther Wever knew that the main role of the Luftwaffe would always be a supporting role with a strong tactical bomber force, even he admitted that a strategic bomber force can not interfere in the tactical bomber force, but compliment it, it was never his intention that the Luftwaffe would be saturated with heavy bombers.

[PeterOT]

There is another point to be made here about what can make a bad WI - working back from a desired conclusion. This is where the OP has already decided what they want to 'prove' possible (usually Germany winning WW2 or some variation thereof, but there are others) & proceeds to make a string of changes to the historical timeline to achieve that end. This can also result in very one sided WIs, where one side makes the changes & the other side become cyphers - a bit like playing yourself at chess & picking a side you want to win. While a premise that begins 'what would be required for X to happen' can sometimes be interesting, it is fraught with danger because it all too easily blurs what was realistically possible with what is just an interesting end point.

[Tim Smith]

@Peter OT: Yes - similiar to the Japanese Navy 'wargaming' the Midway Operation from the assumption that they would win, the enemy would run about like headless chickens in response to their own moves, and ignoring all results to the contrary. Basically a waste of time.

[stg 44]

While i agree with your statement, i humbly disagree with your assesment on the timeline of the Luftwaffe, espessially with the strategic bomber programme. If an very infuential man such as General Walther Wever lives on, to whom advocated a strategic bomber programme, and at the time of his death was head to the RLM the very department that issues orders to maunfatures to develop aircraft and to suppliers of aero-engine manufactures, General Walther Wever had the final say in the develpoment of Luftwaffe Policy, but also he was Reichmarschal Hermann Görings deputy.

What i am saying with Wevers death the Luftwaffe changed in a completely new direction, and happened fast, within 24hrs of his death Wevers dream of Germany having a strategic bomber force was effectively cancelled, it was not until 1943 that Göring tried to make up time, but 9 years of inaction cost Germany dearly. Also in the thread i had many time indicated that General Walther Wever knew that the main role of the Luftwaffe would always be a supporting role with a strong tactical bomber force, even he admitted that a strategic bomber force can not interfere in the tactical bomber force, but compliment it, it was never his intention that the Luftwaffe would be saturated with heavy bombers.

Its pretty well documented that before he died Wever cancelled the Ural bomber projected as hopeless and asked that only 6 Do19's were made into trainers, backing the "A" Bomber project, which became the He 177:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinkel_He_177
It wasn't ready for action anyway until 1942. Wever could have backed the project to the hilt, which he probably would have, but that doesn't change the development timetable or design problems of the model that Wever couldn't change, as he was not an aircraft designer.

That said, after his death Göring cancelled the 6 Do19 trainers, which would have provided valuable experience in determining what the Luftwaffe required for a strategic bomber fleet. Wimmer was also dismissed when Wever died, and he could have been very helpful for some technical issues, but not enough to move the development timetables up by more than a few months. Historically Göring also pursued the Heavy Bomber option and wasn't against it at all, but the project was fraught with too many technical troubles stemming from over a decade of enforced halts on German aviation development, NOT from a lack of will or resources. Wever surviving doesn't change enough to have a operational heavy bomber ready before mid-1941, but his survival prevents the command fragmentation that resulted from his death, as well as requirement that all bombers be dive bombing capable, which changes the development for aircraft like the Ju 88 and He177 for the better, but without changing the time line by more than a few months.

While there is a very interesting story to be told about Wever surviving, it does not include He177's over London. Moscow and the Urals maybe, but not very likely. The Luftwaffe would be better run for sure, which has operational effects from 1943 on, but these mean different thing than what you'd think and obviously want.

So if you were that interested in a suitable POD for the heavy bomber, you're better off having the Germans steal the plans for the B17 like they historically took the Norton Bombsight and produce it themselves, but even then the issue of building up decent engine factories is the crucial part, without them the best airframe is useless (Me 262...)

[cormallen]

"Is there a difference between a 'POV' and a 'POD', and if so, can you give a written example"

WTF! LMAO!!!!!

Maybe some people need to try here :- http://www.alternatehistory.com/discuss ... 470719&f=9

lol