Originally Posted by T. A. Gardner

I look at "what-if's" as a learning tool. I feel they should be thought experiments that derive from original history and work within that history. As such, all-to-often, many become these vague arguments that lack any depth of historical knowledge. Reality is brushed away, as are technical details that could make the argument valid or invalid. It becomes annoying when this happens repetitively with different people throwing up their pet scenario(s).

If all a "what-if" is is nothing more than a game of Liar's Poker then there is no point to the exercise. Anything goes and the whole exercise devolves from an academic exercise into little kids play.