meta: countries in the sea of time

[Dan Goodman]

A country is sent back several thousand years into the past. (Occupying
the same area.) Which countries might do well, and which wouldn't?

I suspect Nazi Germany would manage to get itself defeated in war.

From our time into the past? Don't know.

From several thousand years in the future into our time?



--
Dan Goodman

[Phil McGregor]

On Sat, 13 Apr 2013 18:56:50 -0500, Dan Goodman <dsg...@iphouse.com>
wrote:

>A country is sent back several thousand years into the past. (Occupying
>the same area.) Which countries might do well, and which wouldn't?
>
>I suspect Nazi Germany would manage to get itself defeated in war.

By *whom*, exactly?

"Several thousand years" (say 3000+) "occupying the same area" ... in
1000 BC the people(s) surrounding 1933-39 Germany are so deficient in
both techology *and* population that it would, literally, be a
walk-over.

The would be no contest whatsoever. The C20th Germans would win hands
down.

The onlyy thing(s) preventing them from doing *anyything* they damn
well please would be the less obvious economic consequences of the
shift ...

* Starvation. Germany was barely self-sifficient in food and planned
to starve the Poles in 1939+ and the Russians in 1941+ by stealing
*their* food for Germany, and starve them in *massive* numbers (IIRC
at least a third of the Poles and 2/3rds of the Russians) in order to
feed themselves and their army, and to make the needed "lebensraum"
for the good Aryans.

In 1000 BC there simply aren't enough surrounding peoples, and their
methods of agriculture are so pathetically unproductive (about 1:1.5 -
barely enough to have seed crop for the next harvest and still have
"enough" to eat themselves (if hunger 8+ years of 10, of which 2+ are
typically famine, and large scale starvation or starvation related
deaths *anyway* are *your* idea of "enough") that the Germans aren't
gonna get enough food from them even if they take it *all* ... and
that assumes they'd be able to transport it all back home on the
nonexistent railroads, roads or through nonexistent ports ...

Sure, they can introduce better farming practices, better (and new)
crops, and better agricultural machinery ... but that will all take
time. Time I am not sure they'd have.

In short, the first year(s) would make "turnip winter" look like a
plethora ...

* Disruption of resource supplies. Germany went to war because, apart
from food (see above) she had to import all sorts of vital industrial
supplies ... and, suddenly, they're all gone. Oil and Iron Ore being
the two most obvious (sure, they're still "there" ... but completely
undeveloped ... and developing t6he Mines/Wells and transport
infrastructure will be a nontrivial task).

There's lots more, but you get the idea, I hope.

Still, I suspect the German state would survive and prosper ... and
that that wouldn't be good for the rest of Europe, circa 1000 BC. The
1000 Year Reich would have a decent chance of surviving that long
simply because there is no competition (though not necessarily a 1000
year NAZI Reich).

YMMV

[SolomonW]

On Sun, 14 Apr 2013 10:18:05 +1000, Phil McGregor wrote:

> * Starvation. Germany was barely self-sifficient in food and planned
> to starve the Poles in 1939+ and the Russians in 1941+ by stealing
> *their* food for Germany, and starve them in *massive* numbers (IIRC
> at least a third of the Poles and 2/3rds of the Russians) in order to
> feed themselves and their army, and to make the needed "lebensraum"
> for the good Aryans.
>
> In 1000 BC there simply aren't enough surrounding peoples, and their
> methods of agriculture are so pathetically unproductive (about 1:1.5 -
> barely enough to have seed crop for the next harvest and still have
> "enough" to eat themselves (if hunger 8+ years of 10, of which 2+ are
> typically famine, and large scale starvation or starvation related
> deaths *anyway* are *your* idea of "enough") that the Germans aren't
> gonna get enough food from them even if they take it *all* ... and
> that assumes they'd be able to transport it all back home on the
> nonexistent railroads, roads or through nonexistent ports ...

Fishing would be logical. The German ports are in the right position
already and the fishing areas such as Iceland and Russia then would be full
of fish. Since its going by sea transport, much of the problem of lack of
railways and roads are solved.

[SolomonW]

On Sat, 13 Apr 2013 18:56:50 -0500, Dan Goodman wrote:

> A country is sent back several thousand years into the past. (Occupying
> the same area.) Which countries might do well, and which wouldn't?

Very few countries would do well initially as they would be cut off the
world market and almost everyone imports something.

Some, however, like Qatar would have a real problems as they have no
customers for their product, and their economy is really pathetic.

[Phil McGregor]

On Sun, 14 Apr 2013 18:09:30 +1000, SolomonW <Solo...@citi.com>
wrote:

And that would *ameliorate* the problem, but not change the facts of
another turnip winter.

The cost would be high, relatively speaking, as you'd need to use
diesel powered fishing boats and that presupposes the availability of
diesel fuel ... with the obvious problem(s).

Those being that the Synthetic Oil plants didn't produce diesel,
afaiui and, even if they did, they didn't produce enough of any fuel
to replace the major shipments coming from Ploesti (and the USSR) ...
and, as I noted, though the Germans know where this fuel came from,
they'd have to produce all the drilling rigs, move them over
nonexistent roads or rail lines, or through nonexistent ports, to the
virgin wilderness, then drill the wells ... then ship the oil back to
the refineries in Germany over the self-same nonexistent transport
infrastructure.

Like I said, turnip winter ... which is *not*, you might note, the
same as "mass starvation and cannibalism" ... hard times, for years,
perhaps decades, but slowly improving.

And not good for the locals, crazy racial policies notwithstanding.

(In fact, come to think of it, the Nazis might decide to send an
Expeditionary Force to Israel and wipe out the Jews root and branch!
Or not.)

Phil

[Phil McGregor]

On Sun, 14 Apr 2013 18:19:36 +1000, SolomonW <Solo...@citi.com>
wrote:

And, generally speaking, you can't eat crude oil ... so *they* would
be *far* worse off than the Nazis ... though, possibly, the climate in
the region is somewhat better then than it is now ... even so, same
problem as the Germans, net importer (net *massive* importer) of food
faces situation where the local population is far too small and their
methods of agriculture not the best for producing enough for the
Qataris to even steal.

Of course, the Tigris-Euphrates cities would be good targets ... and
*may* be enough, *if* the Qataris have enough brains to not slaughter
the goose in the first raids ;-(

Phil

[Dan Goodman]

On Sun, 14 Apr 2013 10:18:05 +1000, Phil McGregor wrote:

> On Sat, 13 Apr 2013 18:56:50 -0500, Dan Goodman <dsg...@iphouse.com>
> wrote:
>
>>A country is sent back several thousand years into the past. (Occupying
>>the same area.) Which countries might do well, and which wouldn't?
>>
>>I suspect Nazi Germany would manage to get itself defeated in war.
>
> By *whom*, exactly?
>
> "Several thousand years" (say 3000+) "occupying the same area" ... in
> 1000 BC the people(s) surrounding 1933-39 Germany are so deficient in
> both techology *and* population that it would, literally, be a
> walk-over.

> The would be no contest whatsoever. The C20th Germans would win hands
> down.

My take: The Germans would try to conquer the world, and spread their
resources too thin.

--
Dan Goodman

[Dan Goodman]

On Sun, 14 Apr 2013 18:19:36 +1000, SolomonW wrote:

> On Sat, 13 Apr 2013 18:56:50 -0500, Dan Goodman wrote:
>
>> A country is sent back several thousand years into the past.
>> (Occupying the same area.) Which countries might do well, and which
>> wouldn't?
>
> Very few countries would do well initially as they would be cut off the
> world market and almost everyone imports something.

Which countries NEED to import? I think all three North American
countries could survive on their own resources.

> Some, however, like Qatar would have a real problems as they have no
> customers for their product, and their economy is really pathetic.

--
Dan Goodman

[Rich Rostrom]

Dan Goodman <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote:

> A country is sent back several thousand years into the past. (Occupying
> the same area.) Which countries might do well, and which wouldn't?

Would do well: Countries which could feed themselves,
have strong civil orders, are technologically
capable, and large enough to have a sufficiently broad
technical capacities to rebuild what they don't have.

Wouldn't: anybody else.

This is complicated by the extreme interdependence
of world industry. It seems as though everyone
imports at least some vital and irreplaceable goods
from somebody else.

For a country even to survive as an organized entity,
it may have to have very strong food availability and
civil order (as well as the tech base).
--
The real Velvet Revolution - and the would-be hijacker.

http://originalvelvetrevolution.com

[The Horny Goat]

On Sat, 13 Apr 2013 18:56:50 -0500, Dan Goodman <dsg...@iphouse.com>
wrote:

I dunno - Nazi Germany in 12000 would have occupied England .... of
course Britannia (English/Scotland/Wales) wasn't an island at that
time so no talk of Sealion...

[Derek Lyons]

Dan Goodman <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 14 Apr 2013 18:19:36 +1000, SolomonW wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 13 Apr 2013 18:56:50 -0500, Dan Goodman wrote:
>>
>>> A country is sent back several thousand years into the past.
>>> (Occupying the same area.) Which countries might do well, and which
>>> wouldn't?
>>
>> Very few countries would do well initially as they would be cut off the
>> world market and almost everyone imports something.
>
>Which countries NEED to import? I think all three North American
>countries could survive on their own resources.

The problem isn't that they don't need to import - the problem is that
they *do* import. And once they've travelled through time, those
imports cease and must be replaced. For some countries this might end
up being nothing but a minor bobble, for others disastrous or nearly
so.

Or, to put it another way, countries adrift suffer the same problems
as anything else adrift - massive short term resource and allocation
problems, resulting in a race against time with one foot in a bucket
of cement to adress them.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

[SolomonW]

On Sun, 14 Apr 2013 15:02:51 -0500, Dan Goodman wrote:

> On Sun, 14 Apr 2013 10:18:05 +1000, Phil McGregor wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 13 Apr 2013 18:56:50 -0500, Dan Goodman <dsg...@iphouse.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>A country is sent back several thousand years into the past. (Occupying
>>>the same area.) Which countries might do well, and which wouldn't?
>>>
>>>I suspect Nazi Germany would manage to get itself defeated in war.
>>
>> By *whom*, exactly?
>>
>> "Several thousand years" (say 3000+) "occupying the same area" ... in
>> 1000 BC the people(s) surrounding 1933-39 Germany are so deficient in
>> both techology *and* population that it would, literally, be a
>> walk-over.
>
>> The would be no contest whatsoever. The C20th Germans would win hands
>> down.
>
> My take: The Germans would try to conquer the world, and spread their
> resources too thin.
>

Spanish conquistadors had almost no resources.

[SolomonW]

Initially, as most of the German fishing fleet would be at sea, so I
suppose much of this is lost in this POD immediately.

> The cost would be high, relatively speaking, as you'd need to use
> diesel powered fishing boats and that presupposes the availability of
> diesel fuel ... with the obvious problem(s).

I am not so sure much of the German fishing fleet used coal until the early
1950s.

>
> Those being that the Synthetic Oil plants didn't produce diesel,
> afaiui and, even if they did, they didn't produce enough of any fuel
> to replace the major shipments coming from Ploesti (and the USSR) ...
> and, as I noted, though the Germans know where this fuel came from,
> they'd have to produce all the drilling rigs, move them over
> nonexistent roads or rail lines, or through nonexistent ports, to the
> virgin wilderness, then drill the wells ... then ship the oil back to
> the refineries in Germany over the self-same nonexistent transport
> infrastructure.
>
> Like I said, turnip winter ... which is *not*, you might note, the
> same as "mass starvation and cannibalism" ... hard times, for years,
> perhaps decades, but slowly improving.

Much of the problem in WW1 with the turnip winter was a premature frost
that destroyed much of potato harvest; Germany may not suffer this in this
POD.

The lack of agricultural workers as much of Germany's population then had a
strong rural root plus no enemies so the army is free to be used in
agriculture so this should not be a problem.

Germany has been cut off from fertilizers and this would be a major
problem, but some of this would be alleviated due to a reduction in
munition requirements.

However, tractors, willing hands and slaves much could be done in a few
years.

Germany has in this POD has her Lebensraum at almost no cost.

[Phil McGregor]

On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 18:50:06 +1000, SolomonW <Solo...@citi.com>
wrote:

>On Sun, 14 Apr 2013 18:32:45 +1000, Phil McGregor wrote:

>> Like I said, turnip winter ... which is *not*, you might note, the
>> same as "mass starvation and cannibalism" ... hard times, for years,
>> perhaps decades, but slowly improving.
>
>Much of the problem in WW1 with the turnip winter was a premature frost
>that destroyed much of potato harvest; Germany may not suffer this in this
>POD.
>
>The lack of agricultural workers as much of Germany's population then had a
>strong rural root plus no enemies so the army is free to be used in
>agriculture so this should not be a problem.

THAT was the reason they had to starve the Poles in 1939+ ... to
mobilise the army for the attack meant pulling workers off the farms
...

So the peacetime component off the Army was separate ... and not
needed.

>Germany has been cut off from fertilizers and this would be a major
>problem, but some of this would be alleviated due to a reduction in
>munition requirements.

As I recall they didn't need to import Fertilisers - the Fischer-Topf
(??) process gave them plenty ... the problem in 1917-18 was that
there was plenty for *either* Fertiliser production *or* explosives
... they chose the latter, another reason for the "turnip winter"
being so bad.

In this instance, they don't need to produce the huge amounts of
smallarms ammo and artillery shells that they needed in 1917-18, so it
shouldn't be a problem

>However, tractors, willing hands and slaves much could be done in a few
>years.

As long as they don't mobilise the *whole* army, and keep to peacetime
only staffing levels, they won't have a problem. And the 36 (?) or so
pre-mobilisation Divisions would be more than enough to conquer
anything they damn well pleased!

Tractors would, of course, release more men for other things ... but
wouldn't have been *necessary* ... and they could produce a hell of a
lot of them if they're not having to produce Total War quantities of
U-Boats, Tanks and Combat Aircraft!

Phil

[Paul F Austin]

On 4/15/2013 4:43 AM, SolomonW wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Apr 2013 15:02:51 -0500, Dan Goodman wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 14 Apr 2013 10:18:05 +1000, Phil McGregor wrote:
>>
>>

...

>>>
>>> "Several thousand years" (say 3000+) "occupying the same area" ... in
>>> 1000 BC the people(s) surrounding 1933-39 Germany are so deficient in
>>> both techology *and* population that it would, literally, be a
>>> walk-over.
>>
>>> The would be no contest whatsoever. The C20th Germans would win hands
>>> down.
>>
>> My take: The Germans would try to conquer the world, and spread their
>> resources too thin.
>>
>
> Spanish conquistadors had almost no resources.

Numbers count. NAZI Germany would add roughly 60M people to "Europe"
whose population in 1000BC was under a million. The case of 16th Century
Spain is apropos. Spain conquered Mexico and Peru and imported a vast
stream of silver that paid the rest of Europe to produce for Spain as it
converted to an engine for war. The agricultural base of 16th Century
Europe could at least marginally support Europe plus Spain.

In a 10th Century BC Europe, neither valuata nor duress could force
European "native" agriculture to feed 60M new mouths. The only avenue
for German survival would be a rapid breaking of new land to "modern"
20th Century agricultural methods. 20th Century agricultural
productivity, given the land, machinery and agri-chemical inputs could
feed Germany. 10th Century BC agricultural methods could not.

So, to survive, Germany would need to organize for clearance of
sufficient new land to feed its 60M, build the communications network
(river ports and roads to get harvest to Germany), produce the
machinery, fuels and fertilizers and store and transport the resulting
harvests. The machinery could be largely horse-drawn (gang plows and
harvesters) but that means the national horse herd would need to grow.
Fertilizers could be produced using coal-powered Haber-Bosch process
production.

Paul

[Rich Rostrom]

Dan Goodman <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote:

> > Very few countries would do well initially as they would be cut off the
> > world market and almost everyone imports something.
>
> Which countries NEED to import? I think all three North American
> countries could survive on their own resources.

In the long term.

In the short term, all three countries import a great
variety of manufactured goods, including essential
components of critical technologies.

(This is true of almost _any_ nation today.)

The immediate total cutoff of these supplies would
be a disruptive shock.

[Rich Rostrom]

Paul F Austin <pfau...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> harvesters) but that means the national horse herd would need to grow.

The problem with that is that it is impossible to
produce a new draft horse in less than several years.

Furthermore,it is impossible to produce additional
brood mares with which to produce additional draft
horses in less than several years.

And an ISOT country doesn't have those years.
Cast-iron steam tractors, crude but functional,
running on coal, would be much faster to get up.

(Even if Germany had _no_ domestic iron ore supplies,
there's enough scrap iron or scrappable iron to make
the tractors.)

One might gain a short boost by converting beef and
dairy cattle to draft oxen. I don't know if that's
even possible.

[Paul F Austin]

On 4/15/2013 1:57 PM, Rich Rostrom wrote:
> Paul F Austin <pfau...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>> harvesters) but that means the national horse herd would need to grow.
>
> The problem with that is that it is impossible to
> produce a new draft horse in less than several years.
>
> Furthermore,it is impossible to produce additional
> brood mares with which to produce additional draft
> horses in less than several years.
>
> And an ISOT country doesn't have those years.
> Cast-iron steam tractors, crude but functional,
> running on coal, would be much faster to get up.

The Hitlerian horse herd was quite large. The German Heers was largely
horse-drawn. According to Richard Overy in _Why the Allies Won_, the
German army employed 700,000 horses in support of Barbarossa. During
1942, another 400,000 horses were mobilized from Germany and the German
occupied countries. Overy didn't break out German vs e.g., French horses.

Steam-powered tillage doesn't even require tractors. The river valley in
the north of France that are tilled by cable-pulled plows. The cables
stretch across from one side of the river valley to the other in a
continuous loop. Steam winches pull the cable and plows and harrows back
and forth by attaching to the cables.

Paul

[Phil McGregor]

On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 10:21:13 -0400, Paul F Austin
<pfau...@bellsouth.net> wrote:


>In a 10th Century BC Europe, neither valuata nor duress could force
>European "native" agriculture to feed 60M new mouths. The only avenue
>for German survival would be a rapid breaking of new land to "modern"
>20th Century agricultural methods. 20th Century agricultural
>productivity, given the land, machinery and agri-chemical inputs could
>feed Germany. 10th Century BC agricultural methods could not.

Thning is, pre-war Germany was more or less self suffficient in food.
The reason they planned to starve the Poles after conquest was because
they had to call up the army to conquer them, and, since Germany still
had a manpower heavy rather than machine heavy agricultural sector,
this meant the 1939 harvest would be dramatically down on what was
needed to feed the nation ... not, as I understand it, to the point of
famine, but to the point where the Nazis preferred not to face the
likely political consequences.

If the Poles starved, no-one (immediately) cared.

So, with no need to mobilise beyond the peacetime 36 divisions, the
"1939" growing season is not disrupted, and the above (and below) can
be done all in good time.

>So, to survive, Germany would need to organize for clearance of
>sufficient new land to feed its 60M, build the communications network
>(river ports and roads to get harvest to Germany), produce the
>machinery, fuels and fertilizers and store and transport the resulting
>harvests. The machinery could be largely horse-drawn (gang plows and
>harvesters) but that means the national horse herd would need to grow.
>Fertilizers could be produced using coal-powered Haber-Bosch process
>production.

I dunno, would 600,000 horses be enough?

That's how many the Wehrmacht had in the East at the beginning of
Barbarossa!

And, of course, the Germans are not mobilising 350 mostly Infantry
divisions who had mostly horse drawn transport, they can easily
conquer the world with their "peacetime" 36 divisions.

So, would the balance of around 290 Divisions worth of horses be
enough?

Phil

[Phil McGregor]

On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 12:57:12 -0500, Rich Rostrom
<rrostrom.2...@rcn.com> wrote:

>Paul F Austin <pfau...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>> harvesters) but that means the national horse herd would need to grow.
>
>The problem with that is that it is impossible to
>produce a new draft horse in less than several years.

Indeed. Which means that the 600,000 horses the Wehrmacht had and used
in 1941 for Barbarossa were mostly already available in 1939!

And, of course, there's no need to mobilise beyond their 36 (?)
peacetime divisions ... which means the 290 additional divisions,
mostly Infantry with horse drawn logistics, that they raised and
maintained during the war don't need all those horses, either.

>Furthermore,it is impossible to produce additional
>brood mares with which to produce additional draft
>horses in less than several years.

But you forget that the Germans already had industrial scale horse
breeding going on for the army, if nothing else, do the objection is
meaningless in real terms.

>And an ISOT country doesn't have those years.
>Cast-iron steam tractors, crude but functional,
>running on coal, would be much faster to get up.
>
>(Even if Germany had _no_ domestic iron ore supplies,
>there's enough scrap iron or scrappable iron to make
>the tractors.)

And there's no need for all those warships, U-Boats especially, combat
aircraft and tanks ... or even artillery and smallarms ... beyond what
they already have ... freeing up a lot of the iron and steel they used
...

>One might gain a short boost by converting beef and
>dairy cattle to draft oxen. I don't know if that's
>even possible.

No need, see above. More than enough horses, even if Germany wasn't
more or less self sufficient in food as long as she didn't have to
mobilise the army for WW2.

Phil

[Rich Rostrom]

Phil McGregor <asp...@pacific.net.au> wrote:

> On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 12:57:12 -0500, Rich Rostrom
> <rrostrom.2...@rcn.com> wrote:
>
> >Paul F Austin <pfau...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >
> >> harvesters) but that means the national horse herd would need to grow.
> >
> >The problem with that is that it is impossible to
> >produce a new draft horse in less than several years.
>
> Indeed. Which means that the 600,000 horses the Wehrmacht had and used
> in 1941 for Barbarossa were mostly already available in 1939!

That's a very good point, but... Are you sure?

Because Germany may have seized many of those
horses in countries occupied in 1939-1941.

[Paul F Austin]

On 4/16/2013 4:10 PM, Rich Rostrom wrote:
> Phil McGregor <asp...@pacific.net.au> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 12:57:12 -0500, Rich Rostrom
>> <rrostrom.2...@rcn.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Paul F Austin <pfau...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> harvesters) but that means the national horse herd would need to grow.
>>>
>>> The problem with that is that it is impossible to
>>> produce a new draft horse in less than several years.
>>
>> Indeed. Which means that the 600,000 horses the Wehrmacht had and used
>> in 1941 for Barbarossa were mostly already available in 1939!
>
> That's a very good point, but... Are you sure?
>
> Because Germany may have seized many of those
> horses in countries occupied in 1939-1941.
>

The German Heers was a horse-drawn army from the very beginning of WWII
to the very end. Motorized transport was added (600,000 vehicles took
part in Barbarossa) but rail and horse drawn logistics were the basis of
the army.

According to Gotz Aly, Germany didn't really start exploiting Western
Europe for several years after conquest and even then didn't do it
systematically.

Paul

[Phil McGregor]

On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 15:10:24 -0500, Rich Rostrom

<rrostrom.2...@rcn.com> wrote:

>Phil McGregor <asp...@pacific.net.au> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 12:57:12 -0500, Rich Rostrom
>> <rrostrom.2...@rcn.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Paul F Austin <pfau...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> harvesters) but that means the national horse herd would need to grow.
>> >
>> >The problem with that is that it is impossible to
>> >produce a new draft horse in less than several years.
>>
>> Indeed. Which means that the 600,000 horses the Wehrmacht had and used
>> in 1941 for Barbarossa were mostly already available in 1939!
>
>That's a very good point, but... Are you sure?
>
>Because Germany may have seized many of those
>horses in countries occupied in 1939-1941.

Yabbut ... what did they invade Poland with in 1939? Maybe not the
same amount as they used in 1941, but they deployed approximately 100
Divisions, mostly infantry (i.e. largely with horse drawn logistics)
for the invasion of Poland. The "peacetime" army was supposedly 36
divisions ... and I don't think they *really* need even 36 divisions
to conquer Europe in 1000 BC, do *you*?

Which leave the horse drawn logistics component of those 64 divisions
*plus* the rear area slice needed to support them to be deployed for
farming.

The Heer at the time of Barbarossa (all units, not just those on the
East Front) was only about twice as large (200-220 divisions), and
only about 150 were initially deployed for the invasion of Russia, so
half again the size of the army in 1939.

Even allowing as how they could have, theoretically, stolen every
horse in Poland (in which case not only the *Poles* would have
starved, but so would the Germans, as Polish farmingg was even less
advanced than German farming!), that would mean that they would have
had around 42% of 600,000 horses from the 64 divisions they no longer
need from 1939 ... or about 252,000 horses.

D'you think *that* would be enough?

Phil

[Derek Lyons]

Phil McGregor <asp...@pacific.net.au> wrote:

>Even allowing as how they could have, theoretically, stolen every
>horse in Poland (in which case not only the *Poles* would have
>starved, but so would the Germans, as Polish farmingg was even less
>advanced than German farming!), that would mean that they would have
>had around 42% of 600,000 horses from the 64 divisions they no longer
>need from 1939 ... or about 252,000 horses.
>
>D'you think *that* would be enough?

If they have sufficient tack to equip them with (which Army horses
aren't) and sufficient farming implements for them to pull (which Army
horses don't). Simply freeing up the horses from Army use isn't
enough.

[Phil McGregor]

On Wed, 17 Apr 2013 04:53:01 GMT, fair...@gmail.com (Derek Lyons)
wrote:

>Phil McGregor <asp...@pacific.net.au> wrote:
>
>>Even allowing as how they could have, theoretically, stolen every
>>horse in Poland (in which case not only the *Poles* would have
>>starved, but so would the Germans, as Polish farmingg was even less
>>advanced than German farming!), that would mean that they would have
>>had around 42% of 600,000 horses from the 64 divisions they no longer
>>need from 1939 ... or about 252,000 horses.
>>
>>D'you think *that* would be enough?
>
>If they have sufficient tack to equip them with (which Army horses
>aren't) and sufficient farming implements for them to pull (which Army
>horses don't). Simply freeing up the horses from Army use isn't
>enough.

And it is oh so high tech to produce leather horse tack?

So complex and demanding of scarce high tech resources that 1939
Germany was so lacking in?

Things like, oh, *leather* ...

I mean, let's get serious here.

As I noted, initially, while *barely* self sufficient in food, Germany
was, in 1939 *self sufficient* ...

And suddenly has no need to produce lots of tanks, guns, artillery,
combat aircraft or explosives.

Which frees up both industry *and* raw materials ... like, say,
leather ... to make horse tack.

And its not even as if the skills needed to make said horse tack are
lacking ... German farming was largely horse based in 1939, one of the
reasons they had to plan to starve the Poles after they conquered them
... so they still had plenty of leather workers, vets, farriers and
the like with the skills in need.

As for ploughs and such - much the same ... German farming used lots
and lots of horses, and those horses pulled lots and lots of horse
drawn ploughs, farrows, seed drills and whatever else. And all of
those were still being maintained and built in quantity because the
German economy wasn't (then) rich enough to mechanise everything.

So, the factories that produced those suddenly have all that iron and
steel no longer needed for the aforementioned tanks, combat aircraft,
warships, artillery and smallarms ... *and* they have the same
peacetime workforce they need, as Germany can conquer all of Europe
(hell, it could have a pretty damn good go at conquering all of the
*world*) with its 36 (?) division peacetime army, and the additional
64 or so divisions mobilised for the invasion of Poland, or the
additional 100-120 divisions (on top of the additional 64) raised for
the invasion of Russia are no longer needed.

Since they have plenty of horses, and enough food - turnip winter or
not - initially, then the rest is just a matter of production to match
up the number of horses with the needed additional agricultural
equipment ... and how hard can *that* be given that the Germans
managed to produce all those tanks etc.

(Oh and, no, the Germans will be short of POL, but not completely
lacking as the DPRK would be, and had lots of coal and lots of coal
powered (or electric powered, but run from coal or hydro power plants)
trains to move the needed stuff around ... and even the "shortage" of
POL will be less severe, if severe at all, now that it doesn't have to
fuel 20+ Panzer, Panzergrenadier or Motorised Divisions on continual
combat operations!)

So, really, no ... your caveat is meaningless.

Phil

[Paul F Austin]

On 4/17/2013 12:53 AM, Derek Lyons wrote:
> Phil McGregor <asp...@pacific.net.au> wrote:
>
>> Even allowing as how they could have, theoretically, stolen every
>> horse in Poland (in which case not only the *Poles* would have
>> starved, but so would the Germans, as Polish farmingg was even less
>> advanced than German farming!), that would mean that they would have
>> had around 42% of 600,000 horses from the 64 divisions they no longer
>> need from 1939 ... or about 252,000 horses.
>>
>> D'you think *that* would be enough?
>
> If they have sufficient tack to equip them with (which Army horses
> aren't) and sufficient farming implements for them to pull (which Army
> horses don't). Simply freeing up the horses from Army use isn't
> enough.

Tack they would have. The Army horses weren't there for riding but
rather drayage, complete with proper horse collars and other tack. The
designs and manufacturing "expertise" for horse-drawn farm equipment was
in current use at the time.

It may be silly to talk about converting tank factories into plow
factories because the biggest limitation to new farm production would be
land clearing, road building and river dredging and lock building.

Paul

[Derek Lyons]

Paul F Austin <pfau...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>On 4/17/2013 12:53 AM, Derek Lyons wrote:
>> Phil McGregor <asp...@pacific.net.au> wrote:
>>
>>> Even allowing as how they could have, theoretically, stolen every
>>> horse in Poland (in which case not only the *Poles* would have
>>> starved, but so would the Germans, as Polish farmingg was even less
>>> advanced than German farming!), that would mean that they would have
>>> had around 42% of 600,000 horses from the 64 divisions they no longer
>>> need from 1939 ... or about 252,000 horses.
>>>
>>> D'you think *that* would be enough?
>>
>> If they have sufficient tack to equip them with (which Army horses
>> aren't) and sufficient farming implements for them to pull (which Army
>> horses don't). Simply freeing up the horses from Army use isn't
>> enough.
>
>Tack they would have. The Army horses weren't there for riding but
>rather drayage, complete with proper horse collars and other tack. The
>designs and manufacturing "expertise" for horse-drawn farm equipment was
>in current use at the time.

Was the Army tack compatible with civilian gear? (Though it's
probably easily modified.) And while the design and engineering was
current, that doesn't mean they could turn to and produce massive
quantities in a short period - even simple gear has a production start
up and acceleration period.

>It may be silly to talk about converting tank factories into plow
>factories because the biggest limitation to new farm production would be
>land clearing, road building and river dredging and lock building.

Yeah, it's kinda silly, but it does illustrate two salient points...
First, that a country ITSOT suffers from the same kind of resource
allocation problems that pretty much every other ITSOT scenario does.
Second, that pretty much any economy above the most primitive
hunter-gatherers has interactions that often can't easily or quickly
be altered 'on the fly', pull on one thread and the interconnections
can cause an unexpected one to tauten or snap.

[jgharston]

Dan Goodman wrote:
> Which countries NEED to import?  I think all three North American
> countries could survive on their own resources.

*Three* countries in North America? Where? I see two.

JGH

[Phil McGregor]

On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 15:08:19 -0700 (PDT), jgharston <j...@mdfs.net>
wrote:

>Dan Goodman wrote:
>> Which countries NEED to import? ÔøΩI think all three North American

>> countries could survive on their own resources.
>
>*Three* countries in North America? Where? I see two.

I have been told, vehemently, by some North Americans (of the USA
variety), that Mexicans believe they are part of North America, and
not Central America.

Don't know any Mexicans, personally, so I don't know whether they do
or not, but it is what I have been told ... FWIW

*IF* correct, Canada + USA + Mexico = 3.

Otherwise ... ???

Phil

[Dan Goodman]

United States
Canada
Mexico


--
Dan Goodman

[Rich Rostrom]

In article
<5ov0n81d6ekl8sksh...@4ax.com>,

Phil McGregor <asp...@pacific.net.au> wrote:

> On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 15:08:19 -0700 (PDT), jgharston <j...@mdfs.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Dan Goodman wrote:

> >> Which countries NEED to import? �I think all three North American

> >> countries could survive on their own resources.
> >
> >*Three* countries in North America? Where? I see two.
>
> I have been told, vehemently, by some North Americans (of the USA
> variety), that Mexicans believe they are part of North America, and
> not Central America.

The term _norteamericano_ was coined, AIUI, to refer
to U.S.-ians and Canadians, who are linguistically
separate from all those further south (with the
trivial exceptions of Belize, Guyana, Surinam, and
French Guiana).

However, there is no geographical division between
Mexico and the U.S. The "end" of "North America"
could be placed at the Isthmus of Tehuantepec, at
the head of the Gulf of Honduras, or at the Isthmus
of Panama.

"Central America" is not a continent, nor an island,
and is never considered part of "South America".

Anthropologists and archaeologists refer to the
Aztec (and pre-Aztec) and Mayan civilizations
as "Meso-American" ("central" ?).

[The Horny Goat]

On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 09:19:36 +1000, Phil McGregor
<asp...@pacific.net.au> wrote:

>Don't know any Mexicans, personally, so I don't know whether they do
>or not, but it is what I have been told ... FWIW
>
>*IF* correct, Canada + USA + Mexico = 3.
>
>Otherwise ... ???

Geographically - certainly

Culturally? Not so much

[Anthony Buckland]

I assume at least some posters have looked in Wikipedia,
which contains far more discussion than I care to post
here. But Mexico is definitely part of North America.
Interestingly, so are St. Pierre et Miquelon, which are
also part of metropolitan France.

[tussock]

Dan Goodman wrote:

> A country is sent back several thousand years into the past. (Occupying
> the same area.) Which countries might do well, and which wouldn't?
>
> I suspect Nazi Germany would manage to get itself defeated in war.

No chance. Ghengis subjugated everyone his horses could reach, and
Britain took over everywhere a ship could get, both with far less knowledge
and far smaller populations. The Nazis would colonise the entire planet in
weeks, spreading inland from their new port citadels as fast as the
untermench could be liquidated.
Breeding programs are quickly ramped up, and every sign of mental or
physical weakness is purged from the local population to make a new world
where the strength of the Ayrian people can be free to ... yeh, not nice.

> From our time into the past? Don't know.

There are still physical libraries everywhere filled with everything you
need to know to reconstruct the modern world. Even the poorest of countries
would quickly take over the running of the whole planet, possibly after a
few months of mild discomfort as shipping is bootstrapped.

The smallest landlocked nations might have to become subjects of some
ancient empire, but the knowledge they can share and skills they have would
bring enormous freedoms and prestigue within it.

> From several thousand years in the future into our time?

They strike out en masse, cutting a wide path of destruction though any
barring their way, until reaching a small town in Poland where they seek out
and kill a young boy. Then some unknown paradox catches them up and they all
disappear. Twenty years later, there's some big riots in Poland, but
everything works out OK.

--
tussock

[Dan Goodman]

On Mon, 06 May 2013 19:10:49 +1200, tussock wrote:

> Dan Goodman wrote:
>
>> A country is sent back several thousand years into the past.
>> (Occupying the same area.) Which countries might do well, and which
>> wouldn't?
>>
>> I suspect Nazi Germany would manage to get itself defeated in war.
>
> No chance. Ghengis subjugated everyone his horses could reach, and
> Britain took over everywhere a ship could get, both with far less
> knowledge and far smaller populations.

Ghengis Khan was COMPETENT. The English were reasonably competent.

My take is that the Nazis would screw up. They would waste resources, to
begin with.

Dan Goodman

[Paul F Austin]

On 5/6/2013 2:59 PM, Dan Goodman wrote:
> On Mon, 06 May 2013 19:10:49 +1200, tussock wrote:
>
>> Dan Goodman wrote:
>>
>>> A country is sent back several thousand years into the past.
>>> (Occupying the same area.) Which countries might do well, and which
>>> wouldn't?
>>>
>>> I suspect Nazi Germany would manage to get itself defeated in war.
>>
>> No chance. Ghengis subjugated everyone his horses could reach, and
>> Britain took over everywhere a ship could get, both with far less
>> knowledge and far smaller populations.
>
> Ghengis Khan was COMPETENT. The English were reasonably competent.
>

The Brits ended up with Empire out of no particular state competence.
The biggest part and the paying part, India, was mostly conquered by
clerks. Commerce and the carrying trade in East Asia on British (EIC)
bottoms didn't happen under the shadow of the RN.

Paul

[Allen W.]

"Dan Goodman" <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote in message
news:UfWdnbfuWf1fbfTM...@iphouse.net...

>A country is sent back several thousand years into the past. (Occupying
> the same area.) Which countries might do well, and which wouldn't?
>
> I suspect Nazi Germany would manage to get itself defeated in war.
>

> From our time into the past? Don't know.
>

> From several thousand years in the future into our time?

One ISOT scenario I find interesting is a much deeper drop into the past,
into the prior interglacial circa 125,000 ybp.

Take South Carolina on the day it votes to secede from the USA, December 20,
1860 and exchange it with the same territory 125,000 ybp.

They got their wish, they are a free independent country in a world without
humans as they would recognize them beyond there borders.

On the other hand they have no resources outside their state border other
than what they can get from building ships for whaling and fishing. They
can't even get more African slaves, the few scattered Homo Sapiens in Africa
would be nearly impossible to catch.

They do have a self sufficient food agriculture base, but any food they
would normally import like Coffee is still a wild plant growing in the
mountains of Ethiopia and probably nowhere else. Lucky for them they do
have a Tea plantation so caffeine will still be available. Growing cotton,
indigo or tobacco greater than local demand is pointless, there is nobody to
export it too. For expansion the empty North Carolina, Georgia and
Tennessee frontiers surround them, no pesky Indians to deal with but perhaps
some Short Face Bear and Saber tooth Cats, plus Mastodon and Mammoth further
north. Vast herds of Buffalo on the Great Plains when they get that far.

South Carolina in 1860 had just over 700,000 people of whom over 200,000
were enslaved. There was a small state arms industry producing muskets and
the formula for gunpowder was known by just about everyone. The Census
estimated there were 55,000 white males between 18 and 45, what it classes
as of military age and available for service. There are elsewhere on Earth
about 60,000 Homo Sapiens in Africa, 60,000 Homo Neanderthal in Europe,
20,000 Homo Desenovan in West Asia and 30,000 Homo Erectus in East Asia.

[Alex Milman]

On May 15, 11:28 am, "Allen W." <Tan...@peakoil.com> wrote:

> They got their wish, they are a free independent country in a world without
> humans as they would recognize them beyond there borders.
>
> On the other hand they have no resources outside their state border other
> than what they can get from building ships for whaling and fishing.  They
> can't even get more African slaves,

Poor them... Especially taking into an account the fact that slaves
import from Africa was prohibited in 1808. :-)

[Rich Rostrom]

"Allen W." <Tan...@peakoil.com> wrote:

> South Carolina in 1860 had just over 700,000 people
> of whom over 200,000 were enslaved.

_Well_ over 200,000. Per the Census:

703,708 people total

291,300 whites
9,914 free colored

402,406 slaves <<<=======


ISTM x-South Carolina would become very unstable.

First:

Slaves who escaped into the wilderness would not be
retrievable, usually - unlike OTL, where the nearest
"free territory" was hundreds of km north, and even
there, a runaway could be seized by "slave catchers".

The wilderness is awash in easily harvested game.
Within a few years there would be tens of thousands
of "maroons" in free communities.

The next step would be when the "maroons" transition
back to farming. They have to get seed from SC. One
might see, after a time, organized mass escapes,
with the escapees bringing tools, livestock, and seed.

OTOH, with so much game to be had, many escapees would
just keep migrating outward, living off the game. Why
not just keep going?

A certain percentage of border-area whites might also
go "woods".

The result would be similar to OTL after the first
trans-Bering migration - marked, AIUI, by the sudden
disappearance of New World megafauna.

There would also be releases and escapes of livestock,
causing ecological disruption.

Second:

The possibility of a general slave insurrection would
arise. OTL, most slaves lived in states with white
majorities that would rally to suppress any local
rebellion. There were slave majorities in South
Carolina and Mississippi, but even if a slave
rebellion succeeded in one state, it would be
suppressed by forces from other states.

I don't know whether any aggrieved slaves ever thought
through this completely - but I think that the
smartest and most knowledgeable slaves, who would be
the leaders and organizers, could see the obvious
impossibility of ultimate success, and never
considered it.

But x-South Carolina is on its own - no outside
backup.

My guess is that the slavery system crumbles or
is radically altered within 10 years. Some whites
would fight passionately to maintain control of
their slaves; others might "fort up" in an all-
white enclave. It might be white + some high-
ranking former slaves and free colored who would
rather be second-class in the "civilized" enclave
than join the moroons.

[Dan Goodman]

Laws are not always obeyed. I believe the slave trade did continue, to
some extent.



--
Dan Goodman

[Alex Milman]

My understanding was that by the mid-XIX Southern States mostly relied
upon ...er... "home product" and not on the imported one. So absence
of the slave import from Africa would not be such a big blow.

[Allen W. McDonnell]

>> Laws are not always obeyed. I believe the slave trade did continue, to
>> some extent.
>>
>
>My understanding was that by the mid-XIX Southern States mostly relied
>upon ...er... "home product" and not on the imported one. So absence
>of the slave import from Africa would not be such a big blow.

That is true for the most part, but smuggled slaves that had no training and
likely didn't know English language were cheaper than an experienced person
who had been raised on a plantation. Due to the law the price in Africa was
suppressed because demand was vastly lowered. The smugglers took advantage
of these facts to make a profit even with untrained slaves bringing lower
prices.

[Phil McGregor]

On Wed, 15 May 2013 11:28:27 -0400, "Allen W." <Tan...@peakoil.com>
wrote:

>
>"Dan Goodman" <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote in message
>news:UfWdnbfuWf1fbfTM...@iphouse.net...
>>A country is sent back several thousand years into the past. (Occupying
>> the same area.) Which countries might do well, and which wouldn't?
>>
>> I suspect Nazi Germany would manage to get itself defeated in war.
>>
>> From our time into the past? Don't know.
>>
>> From several thousand years in the future into our time?
>
>One ISOT scenario I find interesting is a much deeper drop into the past,
>into the prior interglacial circa 125,000 ybp.
>
>Take South Carolina on the day it votes to secede from the USA, December 20,
>1860 and exchange it with the same territory 125,000 ybp.

>They got their wish, they are a free independent country in a world without
>humans as they would recognize them beyond there borders.

I'm pretty sure that's wrong, as I understand it.

According to what I understand is widely currently accepted scientific
belief, anatomically modern humans appeared in Africa c. 200,000 years
ago and there is evidence that they had started spreading out of
Africa as early as 125,000 years ago.

Sure, none in *continental North America* ... but not none "beyond
their borders" ... if you meant the former, fine ... if not, well, you
probably need to go back further for no modern humans.

Phil

[Allen W. McDonnell]

"Phil McGregor" <asp...@pacific.net.au> wrote in message
news:en88p8ho169v3fv64...@4ax.com...

Based on http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/02/050223122209.htm and
other sources Homo Sapiens appeared around 195,000 ybp in Africa but did not
leave the continent until 50,000 ybp at the earliest and possibly as
recently as 40,000 ybp. We know they didn't leave earlier because a
population bottleneck occurred around 90,000 to 70,000 ybp and we almost
went extinct. This where the mDNA research leads back to mitochondrial eve
from whom all modern humans are descended. After our population in Africa
recovered we were a subspecies, Homo Sapiens Sapiens because at that time we
became artistically creative and religion practicing where the Homo Sapiens
who lived before the population bottleneck were not artistic and didn't
ritualistically bury their dead.

There were other Homo species around outside of Africa during the last
interglacial, the Homo Neanderthal and Homo Denisovan people who have
contributed to modern DNA and the Homo Erectus who seem to have gone extinct
without interbreeding.

The interesting thing to me is by using South Carolina, by the time they
spread beyond North America to regions populated by other species of humans
perhaps they will have learned ecological preservation and will not make
them extinct as OTL took place during the 35,000-12,000 ybp period. After
all The Origin of the Species by Charles Darwin was published 13 months
before the time shift, certainly some copies of it will exist at the larger
libraries in South Carolina.

It will take a century for the people in South Carolina to occupy all of
North America, plenty of time for them to learn environmental
responsibility. It is possible, perhaps even probable that colonies will
spread by sea to Europe, South America and South Africa before all of North
America is occupied, but there won't be any rush given the virgin nature of
North and South America, all within walking distance over land from South
Carolina. There is no reason for the population to grow slowly, humans in
this kind of environment often expand as much as 33% per decade. That was
the actual growth rate for the USA during the first few decades, from almost
3.9 to over 5 million between 1790 and 1800. At a 33% per decade growth
rate the population doubles every 22 years elapsed time. There were 132
Million people in the USA in 1940. Doubling every 22 years the ISOT
population will hit that level in 176 years. That was the USA population
when over half the farms still used animal power instead of traction engines
and the use of artificial fertilizers and pesticides was very minimal.

Population growth rates in the historical USA dropped off substantially
after we reached about 75 Million, but remained around 8 percent until World
War II lead to the Baby Boom.

[Phil McGregor]

My source was Wikipedia ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human

... but it cited ...

McHenry, H.M (2009). "Human Evolution". In Michael Ruse & Joseph
Travis. Evolution: The First Four Billion Years. Cambridge,
Massachusetts: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. p. 265.
ISBN 978-0-674-03175-3

... for the 200,000 years ago date ... which is probably close enough
to 195000 ya for government work.

It also cites ...

"Hints of Earlier Human Exit From Africa". Science News.
doi:10.1126/science.1199113. Retrieved 2011-05-01.

Paul Rincon Humans 'left Africa much earlier' BBC News, 27 January
2011

... for the "left Afica 125,000 to 60,000 ya.

And notes the problems with the mDNA research ... which, tho not in
that particular article, I believe has very recently (like within the
last 6-12 months) been called into question. IIRC the upshot of the
news was that the rate of change may have been overestimated, pushing
back the earliest appearance date even by that measure.

I Am Not A DNA Researcher so I have no idea how widely accepted this
"new development" is, but it was reported in the Science section of
the Sydney Morning Herald, the local equivalent of The Times or the NY
Times, so I tend to believe it was probably regarded as reliable
enough.

With journos, of course, even Science journos, one can, of course,
never be entirely sure.

A quick check on Wikipedia ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_mitochondrial_molecular_clock#Actual_vs._observed_rates

... notes different estimates, ranging from 140,000 to 290,000 ya
through 210,000 ya down to 82,000 to 134,000 ...

... so your guess/estimate/belief/understanding is *at least* as good
as mine, if not better!

Phil

[SolomonW]

On Wed, 15 May 2013 13:08:44 -0500, Rich Rostrom wrote:

> Slaves who escaped into the wilderness would not be
> retrievable, usually - unlike OTL, where the nearest
> "free territory" was hundreds of km north, and even
> there, a runaway could be seized by "slave catchers".

What makes you think that these runaways would not create societies that
had slaves?

[Alex Milman]

OK. Which percentage did they represent of the total slave population
my mid-XIX?

[Allen W. McDonnell]

>
>OK. Which percentage did they represent of the total slave population
>my mid-XIX?

By the time of the POD in winter 1860 they were a small percentage, say a
few thousand out of the 400,000 enslaved persons. Maybe 1 or 2 percent?
4,000-8,000 persons out of the total population?

[Allen W. McDonnell]

> Second:
>
> The possibility of a general slave insurrection would
> arise. OTL, most slaves lived in states with white
> majorities that would rally to suppress any local
> rebellion. There were slave majorities in South
> Carolina and Mississippi, but even if a slave
> rebellion succeeded in one state, it would be
> suppressed by forces from other states.
>
> I don't know whether any aggrieved slaves ever thought
> through this completely - but I think that the
> smartest and most knowledgeable slaves, who would be
> the leaders and organizers, could see the obvious
> impossibility of ultimate success, and never
> considered it.
>
> But x-South Carolina is on its own - no outside
> backup.
>
> My guess is that the slavery system crumbles or
> is radically altered within 10 years. Some whites
> would fight passionately to maintain control of
> their slaves; others might "fort up" in an all-
> white enclave. It might be white + some high-
> ranking former slaves and free colored who would
> rather be second-class in the "civilized" enclave
> than join the moroons.

While I hadn't considered the slave revolt possibility when I suggested this
particular ISOT I have spent a fair amount of time weighing the pro's and
con's in my head since you pointed out the possibility.

While the Census shows a slave population being 57% of the total compared to
43% for the 'free' population the whites are organized, armed with the
weapons of the day and practiced in there use. The enslaved population if
there is a rebellion/revolt/uprising is largely collected in plantation
agriculture where they can easily overwhelm the local owner and his trusted
staff who would be armed but at a huge population disadvantage. After that
however the enslaved people will have to fight there way to their
destination with just those few weapons through a state where every white
person is liable to be armed and very willing to kill any slave perceived as
a threat. Unless the revolt is so successful that no word of it is able to
spread there will very soon be Posse's raised by the local Sheriff of armed
whites on horseback attempting to suppress the revolt while riders are sent
to neighboring area's to gather more armed men. This is the pattern that
was repeated any time there was a revolt in OTL, I don't see any reason for
that to change very soon after the start of the ISOT. Rebellious slaves who
killed any white person were executed without mercy, often in gruesome ways
to discourage other potential revolt's. Someone would soon form a 'white
vigilance committee' or other klu klux klan like group to terrorize and
intimidate the enslaved persons to 'remember their place'.

The biggest change IMO is going to be that with a self sufficiency in home
grown food and no export markets for tobacco or cotton there is going to be
a massive labor surplus on the Plantations. This will suppress the
cost/value of slaves whose only skill is farm labor considerably and might
encourage that they be sold in family groups to small farmers who had not
been able to afford slave labor before the ISOT. If that were to take place
it would be a big step towards feudalism, many of the small farmers in the
south greatly resented the fact that the wealthy planters had an easy life
directing overseers who directed the slave laborers while they had to labor
to just get by on their small farms. Trade or gift each of them with an
enslaved couple and their children and suddenly they are much higher in
social status because they have servants of their own to lord it over. This
would also serve to knit the 'white' community closer together.

Would this happen? Who knows, I am just tossing it out there as one
possibility. I do think the slave revolt and wilderness survival chances
are much lower than you do, but stranger things have happened. Just as the
Legionaries who ran into Spartacus ;)

[Rich Rostrom]

"Allen W. McDonnell" <Tan...@peakoil.com> wrote:

> While I hadn't considered the slave revolt possibility when I suggested this
> particular ISOT I have spent a fair amount of time weighing the pro's and
> con's in my head since you pointed out the possibility.
>
> While the Census shows a slave population being 57% of the total compared to
> 43% for the 'free' population the whites are organized, armed with the

> weapons of the day and practiced in their use.

Up to a point, which is why there were no successful
slave rebellions OTL.

> The enslaved population if
> there is a rebellion/revolt/uprising is largely collected in plantation
> agriculture where they can easily overwhelm the local owner and his trusted
> staff who would be armed but at a huge population disadvantage.

Right.

> After that however the enslaved people will have to fight there way to their
> destination with just those few weapons through a state where every white
> person is liable to be armed and very willing to kill any slave perceived as
> a threat.

1) The frontier isn't that far away, and may be adjacent. Beaufort
County, less than 17% white, is at the southern corner of the state,
adjacent to the mouth of the Savannah River. Colleton County, just
north along the coast, is only 21% white. Between them they hold
over 65,000 slaves, nearly 1/6 of the total, all within 100 km of
the border. Another 130,000 slaves live in other border counties.

2) Once the blacks gain control of one area, the slaves in adjacent
areas are likely to rebel also. Few white men are going to be
roaming about hunting for rebels; they'll be staying home to keep
their own slaves under control if possible.

3) If a large number of armed slaves move through an area toward
the frontier, not many white men are going to run out to confront
them until a proper militia force can be formed - which takes time.

> Unless the revolt is so successful that no word of it is able to

> spread there will very soon be Posses raised by the local Sheriff of armed

> whites on horseback attempting to suppress the revolt while riders are sent

> to neighboring areas to gather more armed men.

But all that takes time. The alarm doesn't spread instantly,
and the militia (not posses) doesn't show up at once. The
slave revolts which did occur occasionally OTL did not spread
because it was fairly obvious they had no chance of ultimate
success. (There were nonetheless many more slave revolts than
are generally known about. White Southerners suppressed
reports of slave revolts as much as possible - to discourage
emulation and to protect the myth of the contented slave.)

[Rich Rostrom]

"Allen W. McDonnell" <Tan...@peakoil.com> wrote:

There were only a handful of black slaveowners.

The few who had more than one or two slaves were
concentrated in Virginia and Louisiana, where
"wealthy" free colored were tolerated.

In South Carolina, "free colored" slaveowners
were nearly all elderly individuals who "owned"
a spouse, child, or parent. SC was extremely
suspicious of "free colored" people, and placed
heavy restrictions on manumissions; it was more
convenient for the second person to remain a
nominal slave.

[Ed Stasiak]

> Rich Rostrom
>
> In the short term, all three countries import a great
> variety of manufactured goods, including essential
> components of critical technologies.

Canada, I suppose and Mexico definitely but what
does the U.S. import that is critical to it's survival,
that the U.S. couldn't or doesn't already make?

The U.S. imports Kubota bulldozers from Japan for
example, but we also make out own and the loss of
Japan in the ISOT scenario, would only mean that
U.S. production expands to fill the void.

[Rich Rostrom]

Ed Stasiak <esta...@att.net> wrote:

> Canada, I suppose and Mexico definitely but what

> does the U.S. import that is critical to its survival,

> that the U.S. couldn't or doesn't already make?

Lots of electronic devices and electronic
components; power supplies, integrated
circuits, capacitors, batteries.

Computer disk drives.

Bits and pieces of almost everything,
because Chinese suppliers are
ubiquitous.

A lot of these things could be replaced by
domestic production _eventually_ - but the
instant cut-off of lots of them is going
to hurt bad.

The problem is not so much that the U.S.
imports more manufactured goods than it
exports, as that manufacturing is globalized,
and it's become routine to rely on goods
made elsewhere. This is true everywhere.

[Ed Stasiak]

> Rich Rostrom
> > Ed Stasiak

> >
> > Canada, I suppose and Mexico definitely but what
> > does the U.S. import that is critical to its survival,
> > that the U.S. couldn't or doesn't already make?
>

> Bits and pieces of almost everything, because
> Chinese suppliers are ubiquitous.

Of course, but those Chinese imports are imported
because Wall Street makes a greater profit doing
that instead of making the items here, not because
we can't make them here.

I suppose there may be some specific natural resource
that isn't available in the U.S. but considering what the
U.S. will be arriving in the Bronze Age with, going and
getting them from wherever wouldn't be a big deal.

> A lot of these things could be replaced by domestic

> production _eventually_ but the instant cut-off of

> lots of them is going to hurt bad.

But I don't think it would really "hurt" the nation.

Availability would drop and costs would increase
but I'd suggest there is enough natural resources and
manufacturing capability in he U.S. to keep the country
up and running, without having to do anything worse
then impose the kinda rationing we had in WWII.

If my PC's hard drive fails for example, I may have to
wait months to get a new one but my needs are hardly
critical to the survival of the ISOT U.S. People would
bitch but it wouldn't be a case of rioting in the streets.

Government, military, infrastructure maintenance and
such will get priority until stateside production makes
up for the loss of those imports and without having to
do a lot of the stuff we do in the OTL (no need for a
military presence in Afghanistan, etc.) the same applies
to the U.S. as was mentioned with WWII Germany up
thread.

As with any ISOT scenario, the problem will be modern
Americans "going off the reservation" and passing on
modern ideas to Bronze Age people, without any over-
sight by the government.

300+ million people scattered across 3.8 million sq miles
would be impossible to contain, even if the U.S. tried to
lock down the borders immediately.

[Rich Rostrom]

Ed Stasiak <esta...@att.net> wrote:

> > A lot of these things could be replaced by domestic
> > production _eventually_ but the instant cut-off of
> > lots of them is going to hurt bad.
>
> But I don't think it would really "hurt" the nation.
>

> Availability would drop and costs would increase...

You don't get it. Availability of these
things drops _instantly_ to _zero_.

It's not a matter of "prioritizing production",
it's continuing to function without goods that
have been reliably available on a more or less
instant basis.

If a man is standing on two boxes, and one of
them is snatched away, he falls over.

The U.S. economy relies on tens of thousands of
foreign-sourced goods and service. They all go
away at once. BAM!

Will it be fatal? No. But it will hurt.

[Ed Stasiak]

> Rich Rostrom
> > Ed Stasiak

> >
> > Availability would drop and costs would increase...
>
> You don't get it. Availability of these
> things drops _instantly_ to _zero_.

Yabut, _what_ things?

The U.S. imports plastic sporks from China and that will
be gone in this scenario. Now the U.S. could ramp up
domestic spork production but I suspect that due to the
strange situation and the need for plastics for higher
priority areas of the economy, we wouldn't bother.

Initially, kids would have to bring their own forks to school
for lunch and down the line, school cafeterias would provide
silverware as they did back in oldy timey days.

You have to define what "hurt' means in this context and
I just don't see this being that much of a problem for the
average Joe American Citizen.

Various annoyances, sure (gas prices spike, tomatoes
might not be available in northern states during winter,
etc) but nothing we couldn't easily deal with.

[pyotr filipivich]

fair...@gmail.com (Derek Lyons) on Mon, 15 Apr 2013 05:21:21 GMT
typed in alt.time-travel the following:
>Dan Goodman <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 14 Apr 2013 18:19:36 +1000, SolomonW wrote:

>>
>>> On Sat, 13 Apr 2013 18:56:50 -0500, Dan Goodman wrote:
>>>
>>>> A country is sent back several thousand years into the past.
>>>> (Occupying the same area.) Which countries might do well, and which
>>>> wouldn't?
>>>

>>> Very few countries would do well initially as they would be cut off the
>>> world market and almost everyone imports something.

>>
>>Which countries NEED to import? I think all three North American
>>countries could survive on their own resources.
>

>The problem isn't that they don't need to import - the problem is that
>they *do* import.

As they will see in 2020: having most of your pharmaceuticals come
from over seas, puts a great deal of stress on medical care when your
stockpiles run out before new product comes online.
--
pyotr filipivich
Next month's Panel: Graft - Boon or blessing?

[pyotr filipivich]

Ed Stasiak <esta...@att.net> on Wed, 22 May 2013 19:15:56 -0700 (PDT)

typed in alt.time-travel the following:

>> Rich Rostrom
>> > Ed Stasiak
>> >
>> > Availability would drop and costs would increase...
>>
>> You don't get it. Availability of these
>> things drops _instantly_ to _zero_.
>
>Yabut, _what_ things?
>
>The U.S. imports plastic sporks from China and that will
>be gone in this scenario. Now the U.S. could ramp up
>domestic spork production but I suspect that due to the
>strange situation and the need for plastics for higher
>priority areas of the economy, we wouldn't bother.
>
>Initially, kids would have to bring their own forks to school
>for lunch and down the line, school cafeterias would provide
>silverware as they did back in oldy timey days.
>
>You have to define what "hurt' means in this context and
>I just don't see this being that much of a problem for the
>average Joe American Citizen.

The inserts for machine tools are imported. How long to ramp up
production of those so that you can start making the machined parts to
replace the imports?

>Various annoyances, sure (gas prices spike, tomatoes
>might not be available in northern states during winter,
>etc) but nothing we couldn't easily deal with.

Did we mention that the subways stop running, because the plates
used to attach rails to ties were imported, and there isn't a domestic
source?

[pyotr filipivich]

Rich Rostrom <rrostrom.2...@rcn.com> on Tue, 21 May 2013
20:46:05 -0500 typed in alt.time-travel the following:

>Ed Stasiak <esta...@att.net> wrote:
>
>> Canada, I suppose and Mexico definitely but what
>> does the U.S. import that is critical to its survival,
>> that the U.S. couldn't or doesn't already make?
>
>Lots of electronic devices and electronic
>components; power supplies, integrated
>circuits, capacitors, batteries.
>
>Computer disk drives.
>
>Bits and pieces of almost everything,
>because Chinese suppliers are
>ubiquitous.

There is a lot of manufacturing in the states which is dependent
upon imported supplies. Not just raw materials, but machine tools
components (e.G., ceramic inserts for machining).
Again, the question is how long to make current stockpiles last
compared to how long to bring new production online.

[SolomonW]

The people going back know exactly where the raw materials are

and Labor charges would be very cheap,

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Maddison_GDP_per_capita_1500-1950.svg

[pyotr filipivich]

SolomonW <Solo...@citi.com> on Thu, 20 Feb 2020 18:52:15 +1100 typed
in soc.history.what-if the following:

>
>> There is a lot of manufacturing in the states which is dependent
>> upon imported supplies. Not just raw materials, but machine tools
>> components (e.G., ceramic inserts for machining).
>> Again, the question is how long to make current stockpiles last
>> compared to how long to bring new production online.
>
>The people going back know exactly where the raw materials are

True. Do they have enough to keep going until they can get those
raw materials found, mined, and refined?
I read Stirling's "Conquistador" which has "The New Commonwealth
of Virginia" colonized in an alternate California where the European's
never arrived. The founder had commissioned a number of engineering
studies "here" so that he could build dams, etc, "there". He's got
the entire California gold fields ripe for the pickings, and a few
gold mines outside the US "here" to account for the gold he is
"producing". And so forth.

As I said, knowing where the resources are doesn't mean that you
have access to them E.G. OHIO ISOT in 1490, there's oil just over the
border at Oil Creek near Titusvile, Pennsylvania. But there is no
road to there. Can the Republic of Ohio send an expedition to Oil
Creek, drill the well, and get the crude oil refined before they run
out of POL? I have no idea. (I also have no idea if there are any
oil seeps _in_ Ohio which might be exploitable first.)

>and Labor charges would be very cheap,

Well, you'd definitely not have the Federal Office of Contract
Compliance on your case. B-)
--
pyotr filipivich.
For Sale: Uncirculated Roman Drachmas, feature Julius Ceaser's Portrait,
several dated 44 BCE. Comes with Certificate of Authenticity.

[Rich Rostrom]

pyotr filipivich <ph...@mindspring.com> wrote:

> E.G. OHIO ISOT in 1490, there's oil just over the
> border at Oil Creek near Titusvile, Pennsylvania.

70 km over the border.

> But there is no road to there. Can the Republic of
> Ohio send an expedition to Oil Creek, drill the

> well...

ITYM _wells_. One well is not going to supply 11M people.

> and get the crude oil refined before they run
> out of POL?

No. WIth draconian rationing, the stock of POL in Ohio
might last three months. (For the last month, only
utterly essential uses.)

To get a useful supply of oil from Titusville, Ohio must
build 70 km of road, including probably several good sized
bridges, drill at least 50 wells, 70 km of pipeline to
bring the oil to the border, and another pipeline inside
Ohio to get the oil to the nearest refinery. Impossible
to get all this done in three months.
--
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.

[pyotr filipivich]

Rich Rostrom <rros...@comcast.net> on Thu, 20 Feb 2020 15:57:20 -0600

typed in alt.time-travel the following:

>pyotr filipivich <ph...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>> E.G. OHIO ISOT in 1490, there's oil just over the
>> border at Oil Creek near Titusvile, Pennsylvania.
>70 km over the border.
>> But there is no road to there. Can the Republic of
>> Ohio send an expedition to Oil Creek, drill the
>> well...
>ITYM _wells_. One well is not going to supply 11M people.

And not that well, either. OTOH, there _may_ be better sites
close to Ohio.

Second factor: is it spring, fall or middle of winter? Weather
makes for other considerations,

>
>> and get the crude oil refined before they run
>> out of POL?
>
>No. WIth draconian rationing, the stock of POL in Ohio
>might last three months. (For the last month, only
>utterly essential uses.)

How much corn can get converted to alcohol? (Okay, how much more?
B-) )

>
>To get a useful supply of oil from Titusville, Ohio must
>build 70 km of road, including probably several good sized
>bridges,

If there are wildcatters in Ohio ... (I live in logging country.
When the Oso slide took out the highway, the logging companies were
able to throw a road around it a very short time. They had the
equipment and know how to "make a roadway". Maybe not pretty, but it
would support logging trucks.)

drill at least 50 wells, 70 km of pipeline to
>bring the oil to the border, and another pipeline inside
>Ohio to get the oil to the nearest refinery. Impossible
>to get all this done in three months.

And there in lays the bind. Yes, we know where all those
resources are. A) Do we have the equipment to get it out?

[Dimensional Traveler]

For some of it you won't need current state of the art. The oil
industry started by literally scooping oil up off the ground from where
it was seeping up. If you are exploiting virgin territory you can start
doing that again to help you keep going while you bootstrap yourself up.

--
"You need to believe in things that aren't true. How else can they become?"

[pyotr filipivich]

Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> on Thu, 20 Feb 2020 16:25:27
-0800 typed in soc.history.what-if the following:

>
>> drill at least 50 wells, 70 km of pipeline to
>>> bring the oil to the border, and another pipeline inside
>>> Ohio to get the oil to the nearest refinery. Impossible
>>> to get all this done in three months.
>>
>> And there in lays the bind. Yes, we know where all those
>> resources are. A) Do we have the equipment to get it out?
>>
>For some of it you won't need current state of the art. The oil
>industry started by literally scooping oil up off the ground from where
>it was seeping up. If you are exploiting virgin territory you can start
>doing that again to help you keep going while you bootstrap yourself up.

True. Drake was able to get some oil using a salt-drilling rig,
and "struck oil" at less than sixty feet. I would not be surprised if
similar rigs exist in Modern Ohio, and could do a better job of
drilling than Drake had been able.
We're still looking at the issue of infrastructure and logistics.
Where it is, and how hard to get there, extract it, and stuff back.

As we say in the family, "It all depends on the needs of the
plot."

[Rich Rostrom]

pyotr filipivich <ph...@mindspring.com> wrote:

> I live in logging country.
> When the Oso slide took out the highway, the logging companies were
> able to throw a road around it a very short time.

The Oso slide covered about 1.3 km of the road.

The road to Titusville has to cover 70 km from one end.

[pyotr filipivich]

Rich Rostrom <rros...@comcast.net> on Fri, 21 Feb 2020 23:08:09 -0600

typed in alt.time-travel the following:

>pyotr filipivich <ph...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>> I live in logging country.
>> When the Oso slide took out the highway, the logging companies were
>> able to throw a road around it a very short time.
>
>The Oso slide covered about 1.3 km of the road.
>
>The road to Titusville has to cover 70 km from one end.

True. But therein is part of the point. There is a need for 70
km of road. Not "70 km of interstate highway", but "70 km of two lane
(at best) road." Bulldoze the trees, use them for corduroy, and lay
down gravel / dirt. Like the building of the Al-Can in 1942, just
clear a roadway to the site (which does not have to be Titusville,
could be closer). Once there, start the drilling, and go back and
improve the roadway.

All of which is very dependent upon the needs of the plot, and the
season of the year.

HA! I just query the Interwebs. The State of Pennsylvania has an
interactive map. North of Sharpsville is the "OLD PRITCHARD FARM 2"
well, SPUD date "1/1/1800" plugged 1991. That is about 9 km from
Yankee Lake in Ohio, about 4 km from the state line as the crow flies
if the crow has to walk and follow the paved roads. B-)
There are others, plugged in OTL, a short ways over the border.
I'm not saying that in a pre 1490 PA it would be an easy trip, but
much easier than getting to Oil City or Titusville. There is a
refinery in Canton. two in Toledo, one in Lima.

And there is something else to consider: ISOT how much of the Web
is available to you for such research? Of coruse, surveying is going
to be a grow industry. Without GPS, "Where TheHeckAreWe" is going to
be a common place name. B-)


Hmmm, there are a lot of wells in eastern Ohio (surprise). Big
question: ISOT, how depleted are they going to be? I.e., are they
likely to start getting some of the petroleum deposits in alt-PA
moving into the Ohio portion of the field? I have no idea, and

"depends on the needs of the plot."

OK, we've solved Ohio's POL needs, what about [State Name goes
here]?

[pyotr filipivich]

Greetings and Salutations

I had been researching Ohio in a sea of time, and getting POL
(Petrol, Oil, Lubricants) to keep things moving. Not as big a problem
as initially considered.

However, on reflection, I realized that POL might be in short
supply, and rationing would ensue. How would that be done, yada ...
oh, no!? How are you planning to pay for your gas ration? Debit
card?
Without GPS signals, and their clocks, ATMs would not work. (As
well as a lot of other things.) So you go to the bank, and ... they
only have a limited amount of cash on hand, enough for N customers,
and you are customer N+1. Talk about a liquidity crunch.

But don't worry, you've got more money coming, from an investment
account, based in Pittsburgh. Or a Federal paycheck / pension. Or a
Social Security check.
I suspect all manner of economic turmoil ensuing. Inflation
(more money than goods) as items become suddenly scarce relative to
desirability. Deflation (more goods than money) as the available
amount of cash has to cover more items. Or aren't considered
important anymore. That summer camp in Minnesota, for example.
Yesterday, Mr Jones was a wealthy man, today his out of state
holdings are gone. Yesterday Ms Smith was not so well off, today she
has this huge stack of dollar bills. ("See Ma! I told you 'Exotic
dancer' can be a lucrative career!")

[Rich Rostrom]

pyotr filipivich <ph...@mindspring.com> wrote:

> Without GPS signals, and their clocks, ATMs would not work.

I very much doubt that ATMs use GPS. They are connected
to the Net, and rely on NTP service. Which has gone out,
too. (No stratum 0 NTP servers in Ohio. Though I suppose
lower stratum servers keep running on their own if they
lose upstream connection.)

A more immediate problem would be the collapse of wireless
phone service, and the failure of numerous non-phone devices
which use the wireless-phone network to communicate. Local
cell towers wouldn't be disabled themselves, but the IT
which manages the services would be partly missing.

> I suspect all manner of economic turmoil ensuing.

Jeeze. Ya think? The economy and industry of an ISoTed
modern territory would function about as well as an
organ cut out of a body.

I.e. it's not an organism, it's part of a larger
organism.

The larger the ISoT (and the more separate the ISoT
realm from the rest of the UT world, e.g. Australia),
the more it can function. Otherwise, "transit shock"
of varying severity. Instant cut-off of all utility
connections (electricity, gas, water).

Also, of course, the nearer to the present, the more
interdependent with the rest of the world.

Assuming "transit shock" is survived, the ISoT realm
has to deal with the end of all commercial, legal,
and financial links to the outside. If the ISoT is
historical, there will be enormous disputes over
cross-owned property and intellectual property.

Political life may be a mess. Ohio has a government,
but it is also subject to parallel ederal authority,
which has just been decapitated. The governor would
assume "presidential" authority over US military
elements in the state.

But what happens with Federal law? With Federal
courts? Do Ohio's legislature and supreme court take
over for the US Congress and Supreme Court?