Less and less info (1 Viewer)

[Ahsoka]

Over Christmas the changing of the name from Mt McKinley vs Denali came up, and you could see the decrease of information as we asked stuff about it

Me: “Is McKinleys presidency known for anything other than him getting assassinated?”
My sister: “He was one of presidents that got assassinated?”
My dad: “He was a president?”
My brother: “McKinley isn’t just made up name? He was an actual person?”

 

[dark_tranquility]

Over Christmas the changing of the name from Mt McKinley vs Denali came up, and you could see the decrease of information as we asked stuff about it

Me: “Is McKinleys presidency known for anything other than him getting assassinated?”
My sister: “He was a president that got assassinated?”
My dad: “He was a president?”
My brother: “McKinley isn’t just made up name? He was an actual person?”

interesting theories

 

[Harmony_Starz]

I dont even know him

 

[athenaaa]

I dont even know him

Me either

 

[Ahsoka]

I dont even know him

Me either

He seems to not have been very notable

 

[The_LastRomeo]

I have never heard of him, your family has the perfect cartoon reaction lol

 

[RandAlThor]

Actually a very significant president.
Yet another Ohioan elected president.
Would have been a 2 term pres except he got shot.

locked in the gold standard
tried to get Spain to free Cuba then went to war with them over it ( where Teddy made his big charge , made his bones and thus was his new VP )
winning that conflict put the Spanish colonies of Puerto Rico, Guam and the Philippines under us control, while Cuba was promised independence. (how we got the lease to gitmo )
Annexed Hawaii.

the pacific islands proving key to wining WW2.

 

[Ahsoka]

Actually a very significant president.
Yet another Ohioan elected president.
Would have been a 2 term pres except he got shot.

locked in the gold standard
tried to get Spain to free Cuba then went to war with them over it ( where Teddy made his big charge , made his bones and thus was his new VP )
winning that conflict put the Spanish colonies of Puerto Rico, Guam and the Philippines under us control, while Cuba was promised independence. (how we got the lease to gitmo )
Annexed Hawaii.

the pacific islands proving key to wining WW2.

I have a question, what made the pacific islands a major benefit to winning WW2? I could see a benefit had they been under American control because if their proximity to the other Japanese controlled islands in the Pacific Ocean, but weren’t all of them taken by Japan around the time of Pearl Harbor and therefore not able to be used in that way without defeating Japanese forces there? At which point owning the islands in the past doesn’t seem all that helpful, because either way you have to fight to get them in order for them to be useful.

 

[RandAlThor]

I have a question, what made the pacific islands a major benefit to winning WW2? I could see a benefit had they been under American control because if their proximity to the other Japanese controlled islands in the Pacific Ocean, but weren’t all of them taken by Japan around the time of Pearl Harbor and therefore not able to be used in that way without defeating Japanese forces there? At which point owning the islands in the past doesn’t seem all that helpful, because either way you have to fight to get them in order for them to be useful.

You are correct in that both the Philippines, Wake( claimed after Hawaii as it was uninhabited and well positioned between them all) and Guam were attacked dec 8 and occupied
Guam very fast,
Philippines lasted until April 1942 and had an active resistance supported by the us until both were recovered in 1944.
Wake was also lost by late December.
Hawaii ofc was the key.

occupying Wake especially sucked up a bunch of resources, it was close enough to Hawaii that the us could strike often

 

[Ahsoka]

You are correct in that both the Philippines, Wake( claimed after Hawaii as it was uninhabited and well positioned between them all) and Guam were attacked dec 8 and occupied
Guam very fast,
Philippines lasted until April 1942 and had an active resistance supported by the us until both were recovered in 1944.
Wake was also lost by late December.
Hawaii ofc was the key.

occupying Wake especially sucked up a bunch of resources, it was close enough to Hawaii that the us could strike often

If Hawaii never got annexed by the US at all though (very theoretical), then would the outcome of WW2 have likely been significantly different? Basically I’m wondering if 1. The US military involvement was a necessity for victory overall (meaning troops on the ground, vs only financial support, and this comes from the fact that Pearl Harbor in this timeline wouldn’t have happened, which was what got the US militarily involved), and 2. Let’s say Hawaii isn’t a reasonable American target, Japan could still launch a surprise attack on other US targets, especially Alaska (if they had any logistical centers there that would warrant war). The process and timeline would be different obviously, but could the Axis reasonably win had island hopping/US military involvement been different that what happened? The brightest alternate future for the Axis that their defeat was slower, but wouldn’t it be a defeat regardless? The Axis combined couldn’t stand up to the Allies, let alone only Japan against the Allies, which would probably have been the situation once the war in Europe was over had there been no US to take over the fight with Japan.


I do realize that alternate timelines as hard, especially as you get further away from the diverging point, so the actual reality could have been different in a million ways from these ones. These just seemed most straightforward and not as controversial in terms of what could happen.

 

[RandAlThor]

If Hawaii never got annexed by the US at all though (very theoretical), then would the outcome of WW2 have likely been significantly different? Basically I’m wondering if 1. The US military involvement was a necessity for victory overall (meaning troops on the ground, vs only financial support, and this comes from the fact that Pearl Harbor in this timeline wouldn’t have happened, which was what got the US militarily involved), and 2. Let’s say Hawaii isn’t a reasonable American target, Japan could still launch a surprise attack on other US targets, especially Alaska (if they had any logistical centers there that would warrant war). The process and timeline would be different obviously, but could the Axis reasonably win had island hopping/US military involvement been different that what happened? The brightest alternate future for the Axis that their defeat was slower, but wouldn’t it be a defeat regardless? The Axis combined couldn’t stand up to the Allies, let alone only Japan against the Allies, which would probably have been the situation once the war in Europe was over had there been no US to take over the fight with Japan.


I do realize that alternate timelines as hard, especially as you get further away from the diverging point, so the actual reality could have been different in a million ways from these ones. These just seemed most straightforward and not as controversial in terms of what could happen.

Whats really interesting about this is what if Spain still held those islands and the axis managed to get them to join instead of shadow support.
or lets say because they didn't go to Hawaii they went to Australia.
Japan locks up the southern resource area. (remember for all the whining OIL is the basis of much of the 20 century wars)

They did attack Alaska.

The problem is with as isolationist as the US always is an attack on the Aleutians would not be enough to sell the war. The war in Europe is in its 3rd year and politically they could not get over the Hump.
Roosevelt had already been provoking the axis with lend lease and oil embargoes Trying to get an overt act out of them.
(partly why to this day there is strong belief that Hawaii was left out to dry)

Assuming Hitler get the Italians to not attack Egypt and thus f up his Russia campaign

Britain, Russia and China eventually fall if the US never enters the war. China is split up into chunks (remember the Chinese civil was was still ongoing throughout ww2) i mean look at how soft Britain is Churchill saved em and they voted him out right after VE.

 

[Ahsoka]

Whats really interesting about this is what if Spain still held those islands and the axis managed to get them to join instead of shadow support.
or lets say because they didn't go to Hawaii they went to Australia.
Japan locks up the southern resource area. (remember for all the whining OIL is the basis of much of the 20 century wars)

They did attack Alaska.

The problem is with as isolationist as the US always is an attack on the Aleutians would not be enough to sell the war. The war in Europe is in its 3rd year and politically they could not get over the Hump.
Roosevelt had already been provoking the axis with lend lease and oil embargoes Trying to get an overt act out of them.
(partly why to this day there is strong belief that Hawaii was left out to dry)

Assuming Hitler get the Italians to not attack Egypt and thus f up his Russia campaign

Britain, Russia and China eventually fall if the US never enters the war. China is split up into chunks (remember the Chinese civil was was still ongoing throughout ww2) i mean look at how soft Britain is Churchill saved em and they voted him out right after VE.

I know they did attack Alaska, but I meant a location that would swing public interest more than a couple small islands.

For the Australian part I’m not seeing a reason to think they’d end up winning as a result of the potential invasion. If they launch a full attack on Australia they overstretch their forces even more than they already were. How would they have the forces to do so and to maintain control of the areas? Plus that could cause the UK to take on a more active role in fighting Japan, while they didn’t have as much of an incentive to before. I do agree that overall without American presence Japan would probably have the opportunity to have extra oil sooner than they did, but I really don’t see how that leads to a Japanese victory, it seems more just changing the timeline of when things happen.

For the part about assuming Hitler convinces Italy to suck less I just feel like you can always say that. Fact is, Italy made some stupid decisions, and I don’t think the stupid decisions were influenced by the US in particular. Nor do I see a reasonable decision that Italy would have made that would have changed the outcome of Operation Barbarossa, especially with the clashing sentiments that would have been brought up with their inherent differences in how they viewed Jews and some other groups of people. Nazi Germany just fucked up. Additionally, the Italian choice to go after Egypt would be unaffected here because they invaded Egypt prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor anyways. So in this case, there’s nothing majorly different between our timeline and this alternate one, and no reason to view that as an expected difference that would occur.

As for Europe there’s no way Europe falls, with or without the help of the US militarily. The main US offensive was Operation Overlord. Had that not happened, the post war map would look different, sure, and the Soviet Union would have an even higher casualty count. Operation overlord helped speed it up, and changed things at the negotiating tables. But it’s widely accepted that the Soviets would have defeated Germany regardless. It was a game changer to the post war world since having military offensives gives a country a lot more power to negotiate, but the Soviets had been on a offensive path for over a year, while Germany had been on the defensive, and had almost no land in their control in the USSR. As for China, if Japan was defeated in this timeline (which seems more likely than not) then there we go. The only way China falls is if Japan completely defeats the Allies despite their victory over Germany, which just seems overall unlikely.

As for Churchill well yeah. Churchill was a good wartime leader, but he would be a horrible peacetime leader. The people knew that, so the voted him out before he does something absurd and gets them into another war or whatever. Different eras and situations require different traits in leaders.

Oh jeez this is long TLDR I can’t see a situation where American forces change whether or not the Allies or Axis win, only details such as post war world allocation and how long it takes and whatnot. But this isn’t even considering the scenario where a different US target is bombed to bring the US into the war, which I consider the far more likely one here anyways.

 

[Harmony_Starz]

Me either

glad to know I wasn't alone

 

[Harmony_Starz]

I know they did attack Alaska, but I meant a location that would swing public interest more than a couple small islands.

For the Australian part I’m not seeing a reason to think they’d end up winning as a result of the potential invasion. If they launch a full attack on Australia they overstretch their forces even more than they already were. How would they have the forces to do so and to maintain control of the areas? Plus that could cause the UK to take on a more active role in fighting Japan, while they didn’t have as much of an incentive to before. I do agree that overall without American presence Japan would probably have the opportunity to have extra oil sooner than they did, but I really don’t see how that leads to a Japanese victory, it seems more just changing the timeline of when things happen.

For the part about assuming Hitler convinces Italy to suck less I just feel like you can always say that. Fact is, Italy made some stupid decisions, and I don’t think the stupid decisions were influenced by the US in particular. Nor do I see a reasonable decision that Italy would have made that would have changed the outcome of Operation Barbarossa, especially with the clashing sentiments that would have been brought up with their inherent differences in how they viewed Jews and some other groups of people. Nazi Germany just fucked up. Additionally, the Italian choice to go after Egypt would be unaffected here because they invaded Egypt prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor anyways. So in this case, there’s nothing majorly different between our timeline and this alternate one, and no reason to view that as an expected difference that would occur.

As for Europe there’s no way Europe falls, with or without the help of the US militarily. The main US offensive was Operation Overlord. Had that not happened, the post war map would look different, sure, and the Soviet Union would have an even higher casualty count. Operation overlord helped speed it up, and changed things at the negotiating tables. But it’s widely accepted that the Soviets would have defeated Germany regardless. It was a game changer to the post war world since having military offensives gives a country a lot more power to negotiate, but the Soviets had been on a offensive path for over a year, while Germany had been on the defensive, and had almost no land in their control in the USSR. As for China, if Japan was defeated in this timeline (which seems more likely than not) then there we go. The only way China falls is if Japan completely defeats the Allies despite their victory over Germany, which just seems overall unlikely.

As for Churchill well yeah. Churchill was a good wartime leader, but he would be a horrible peacetime leader. The people knew that, so the voted him out before he does something absurd and gets them into another war or whatever. Different eras and situations require different traits in leaders.

Oh jeez this is long TLDR I can’t see a situation where American forces change whether or not the Allies or Axis win, only details such as post war world allocation and how long it takes and whatnot. But this isn’t even considering the scenario where a different US target is bombed to bring the US into the war, which I consider the far more likely one here anyways.

*see's a stack of text*: scary

 

[Yerichu]

Most people didn't even know such a man like him existed

 

[RandAlThor]

Ya gotta remember that in almost every 20th century war the us government engineered/faked the way into the wars because the nation gave zero f about the rest of the world. With out pearl too galvanize teh citizens and flip all the production to a war footing and build tanks and planes ect.
Gonna be hard to sell another cruise ship sinking as a cause for war in Europe again.

Im thinkin this timeline with Zero USA presence in the west pacific heck the pacific in general other than bases in the San's , Alaska and Seattle.
Japan doesn't even bother to attack them. We know Yamamoto hated the og idea to begin with it was the nuts at high command. Even they would not attack the main land.
The west Pacific is gone by 1941 even in our time line in this one surely early 1941 at the latest.

Britain is alone vs the axis.
the convoys to archangel Murmansk are not able to bring enough supplies to the soviets.
Germany without the US to worry about lets Italy fail in Africa
Barbarossa launces on time and Rommel is with them.
Hitler gets past the rivers/Moscow in the summer/ fall and heads north and closes teh ports for good.
If Germany ever gets the sealift capacity to invade England does not matter they are isolated with few resources on the islands.

in the bigger picture in the US.
women never go to work to replace the men.
Prob no baby boom.

 

[Ahsoka]

Ya gotta remember that in almost every 20th century war the us government engineered/faked the way into the wars because the nation gave zero f about the rest of the world. With out pearl too galvanize teh citizens and flip all the production to a war footing and build tanks and planes ect.
Gonna be hard to sell another cruise ship sinking as a cause for war in Europe again.

Im thinkin this timeline with Zero USA presence in the west pacific heck the pacific in general other than bases in the San's , Alaska and Seattle.
Japan doesn't even bother to attack them. We know Yamamoto hated the og idea to begin with it was the nuts at high command. Even they would not attack the main land.
The west Pacific is gone by 1941 even in our time line in this one surely early 1941 at the latest.

Britain is alone vs the axis.
the convoys to archangel Murmansk are not able to bring enough supplies to the soviets.
Germany without the US to worry about lets Italy fail in Africa
Barbarossa launces on time and Rommel is with them.
Hitler gets past the rivers/Moscow in the summer/ fall and heads north and closes teh ports for good.
If Germany ever gets the sealift capacity to invade England does not matter they are isolated with few resources on the islands.

in the bigger picture in the US.
women never go to work to replace the men.
Prob no baby boom.

I’m still not understanding why the timeline is changing so drastically because something that didn’t happen equally did not happen here. It also seems like a really convenient new timeline. If Germany and Italy fix every problem they had and everything that didn’t work out works out instead, then they could win, yeah. But I’m not seeing any logical jump to the first event that gets fixed, let alone a series that builds off one another. Especially not when the first clear major diverging event that would change things hasn’t yet happened. Italy invaded Egypt in 1940. They were mostly threatened by British troops because American troops didn’t exist there yet. Why do they decide the same British troops aren’t a risk here but in our timeline they were a risk? Nothings really changed.

But anyways, I feel like we've gotten quite a bit off track. No matter which view we take here, the question was about the legacy of McKinley from the view of the general public. Yeah he did stuff that influenced the history of the US in noticeable ways, but do the general public associate him with those things? Do they know what he did as president and associate him most with those things? Or do they know nothing except that he got assassinated, if they even know that much? When asking about what he’s known for, I was thinking about what people associate him with, and not about the actual impact he had on the country, since those can be different

 

[RandAlThor]

I’m still not understanding why the timeline is changing so drastically because something that didn’t happen equally did not happen here. It also seems like a really convenient new timeline. If Germany and Italy fix every problem they had and everything that didn’t work out works out instead, then they could win, yeah. But I’m not seeing any logical jump to the first event that gets fixed, let alone a series that builds off one another. Especially not when the first clear major diverging event that would change things hasn’t yet happened. Italy invaded Egypt in 1940. They were mostly threatened by British troops because American troops didn’t exist there yet. Why do they decide the same British troops aren’t a risk here but in our timeline they were a risk? Nothings really changed.

But anyways, I feel like we've gotten quite a bit off track. No matter which view we take here, the question was about the legacy of McKinley from the view of the general public. Yeah he did stuff that influenced the history of the US in noticeable ways, but do the general public associate him with those things? Do they know what he did as president and associate him most with those things? Or do they know nothing except that he got assassinated, if they even know that much? When asking about what he’s known for, I was thinking about what people associate him with, and not about the actual impact he had on the country, since those can be different

The idea is with no USA v Japan ( and lets be honest the rest of the Europe allies did f all in the pacific) Japan has free Regin. Heck maybe they go into Russia from the east even though that went horrid for them the last time.

most ppl know jack about history. And most of that is untrue (ie Washingtons wooden teeth)
We are lucky if teh average person now knows that there was a civil war in the us WW1 and 2 happened . Kpop fans may know about the Korean war
and a smattering will know about Vietnam. gulf war 1 few know heck 911 is nothing to much of the country.

The average person will know Washington maybe Jefferson/Addams(elder), Lincoln. FDR, Obama Clinton Bush Trump maybe Kennedy and Reagan.

 

[Ahsoka]

The idea is with no USA v Japan ( and lets be honest the rest of the Europe allies did f all in the pacific) Japan has free Regin. Heck maybe they go into Russia from the east even though that went horrid for them the last time.

most ppl know jack about history. And most of that is untrue (ie Washingtons wooden teeth)
We are lucky if teh average person now knows that there was a civil war in the us WW1 and 2 happened . Kpop fans may know about the Korean war
and a smattering will know about Vietnam. gulf war 1 few know heck 911 is nothing to much of the country.

The average person will know Washington maybe Jefferson/Addams(elder), Lincoln. FDR, Obama Clinton Bush Trump maybe Kennedy and Reagan.

But some of them are still known for stuff. Nixon is known for watergate more than anything else he did. Lyndon Johnson is significantly more known for the Vietnam war more than any of his domestic policies, even though a lot of them dramatically changed the country. Lincoln is known for the emancipation proclamation more than suspending habeus corpus, even though that’s probably been the most controversial action taken related to the constitution by any president. I don’t disagree than the general populous knows little about any president, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t things that they’re associated with, even if those things are sometimes inaccurate or straight up wrong.