What If we didn't have so many What If threads?

I know I'm being a kill-joy but rather than fill the forum up with What Ifs? we had more of What Did?

 

What-did's are boring. What-if's are far more fun. Don't be a kill-joy ).

 

I have seen some 'What did' postings and we pretty much blew them off and directed them to perform a google search. I am pretty much sure we turned them off.

What we should do is educate and help those who seek help. Just my opinion.

 

I'd like them thrown in the ban box and out into cyberspace

 

I think some of them are pretty good, but they all seem to get way off topic and turn into arguments.

 

my point Muss is that the forums are well covered by what-ifs and actually too many of them and that they are the pre-dominance of this site....

why ? nobody wishing to dig into any type of research and ask questions seriously ?? obviously I have and will have a real hard time with this

the opinions expressed by this poster ...... blah, blah, blah

rip it up !

 

The problem with the 'what ifs' is that it gets automatically shut down because facts are brought in such as "the Germans could not does this because of ....." and a fact would be thrown in. Instead, the answer should take off from the point of the 'what if '. And yes, debates begin because of it. I agree with Erich. Perhaps I should limit my postings to those who are seeking education and understanding of WWII.

 

Lets try it.

 

Whats wrong with "what-if" Germany had invaded Iceland or North America??

 

does it help if I say through research the the KM and weather related ships tried to set up a station on Iceland

 

Personally I detest 'What ifs'. The threads are endless as there is no 'correct' answer, very little research is usually brought into play as posters seem to enjoy airing pet theories.

It's OK if that's your 'thing' but IMHO little of lasting value is added to the Forum.....

 

I think part of the problem is in the phrasing of the question including the expression 'what if'.

The question;
'What If the Nazis hadn't attacked the Soviet Union?' invites the wildest of speculation, it's a totally open-ended and largely pointless query allowing for any flight of fancy to still technically be pertinent to the title, it's too easy and attracts loonies.

However;
'Should the Nazis have invaded the Soviet Union?' ties the query to reality and hopefully invites a response based on actual events with some space allowed for discussing other possible outcomes, while directing answers more towards history than fantasy. It's the same territory as the 'what if', but within limits.

There will always be an element of 'what if' in history, we are a discussion forum after all, and some areas are subjective, or benefit from speculation on alternative outcomes in order to place the importance of a given decision or action. It's when the 'what if' aspect is the be-all and end-all that I think lucidity is lost and we might as well be on a role-playing site.

Cheers,
Adam.

 

I also think that the what ifs are popular because you can throw out your opinion and stand on it. You dont have to have facts to back it up. If we only posted things backed up by fact it would take a lot longer to have a converstaion as people would have to go and read, look, find, the facts then post them. They may not be productive, but they are easy, fun and quick. It also gives great opportunities for the PanzerPenguin to show up.

 

I do like Adam's answer, we have discussed this before, him & I.
I agree that if the "What if...." question is asked in a way that helps the questioner understand what actually happened and the reasons why it did then I've no problem with that.
But to me alot of these "What ifs" just result in a load of garbage where no-one actually learns anything.

 

Reading? How distasteful!


I'd kind of hope people did double-check things before standing on them so firmly, even within a 'what if'.
If only to avoid embarrassment.


Cheers,
Adam.

 

A few of them have caught my eye, and I have posted there, but I agree, I would also like to see "What did..."

 

I think certain "what-if's" have a place. But I do wish people would do a search first. There have to be a dozen Pearl Harbor, Operation SeaLion, invade the U.S. threads already.JMHO.

 

Your hate me that much?!?!
lol, just kidding.

I actually would love too try something like that, but only on a limited scale and only if I could get assistance from some of the other members. I would love too see a structured framework within which the what-if's (WI) could be organized. Time and financial constraints prevent me from being able to do true justice too (IMO one of the most important aspects of historical interest) the wealth of information contained within the WI section.

I'm just one guy and even making a dent in this area would take more time than I could devote to the task (I'm going back too school in January). However...I could try and come up with something that would provide a 'standard' for both future WI's and make consolidation of past WI's much easier.

Many fine posts and threads exist here, and many could be cut and pasted as is (In fact I have already begun contacting members getting their permission for just this purpose), but others would require editing.

If any forum members would be willing to assist me with this I'd definitely be willing to spend some time on this kind of project. The easiest way too help could be something as simple as PM'ing me when you find an excellent example of a post/thread that "lays it all out". I have found quite allot of such posts here in the WW2 forums.