I'm guessing its the suspense, the rummaging through past performance in search of insights into future returns. All the commentators start from a common set of facts, proceed through spectacularly detailed, if not too well substantiated, predictions, and arrive at diverse conclusions. They don't have to be right, no one's keeping score, anyone could do it.
So I figured, why not do a little military history handicapping? Go back, take a look at the situation at the beginning of our favorite wars, and argue about who's going to win. Gives us a chance to show how smart we are...
I know I'm going against the conventional wisdom here: The French and British armies are considered the best in the world, and they've stated that they will declare war on Germany if Germany invades Poland. But they're firmly entrenched behind awesome defensive positions along the Maignot line, and aren't about to give that up to start an offensive into Germany.
The non-aggression pact with the Soviet Union is the key. While the ideologies of Fascism and Communism are antipodal, these ideologies merely cover megalomaniacal imperialism, so Hitler and Stalin can be relied on to stay out of war neither can win, when there's so much else for them to pillage.
So Hitler and Stalin are free to divide up Eastern Europe, then Hitler can take his time preparing to go into France.
Hitler will find it much slower going in Western Europe. Germany's generals lack combat experience since Germany's colonies were stripped following WW I, but the French and British troops and commanders have been proven in Africa and Indo-China. Even if the Wehrmacht was able to break through the line its new "mobile warfare" tactics are untried, and the logistics of fueling a highly mechanized force will slow the advance.
Once the French and English have been pushed from the continent Hitler can take is time in preparing to take England. His treaty with the Soviet Union protects his back, and the US won't come into the war, or at least not until after England falls, and that will be way to late, Germany will rule Europe for generations.
Unless Hitler gets greedy and decides to invade the Soviet Union.
At first blush the larger economy and population of the North would seem to decide it, but this war could be decided by the first military campaign by the South. Look for the South to come on strong with the Army of Virginia capturing and burning Washington DC. This may be anticlimactic: the location for the capital was originally a North-South compromise, and the Union may decide to give the South a slap in the face by pre-emptively relocating the capital to New York or Boston early on. If they don't this could break the North's will to fight, resulting in an early Confederate victory.
But if they relocate the capital and this war goes beyond the first few months the Southern leadership has a deciding advantage in that they understand what the war is about: money. Except for the most cynical Northern businessmen, the North believes the war is about slavery. Since the North is not nearly as unified on this issue as the South, they won't accept the same level of sacrifice.
Even Lincoln himself is conflicted. He hates slavery, but understands that his duty is to preserve the Union, with slavery or without. His idealism may lead him to try and make slavery the cause for which the North rights, so that a Northern victory would bring and end to that peculiar institution. Northerners are united in wanted to see the Union preserved and to keep making money, but In moving on to weaker ground and confusing the issue Lincoln may weaken the national resolve.
But the South has no such weakness. The masses believe this is about their freedom, their way of life. Slavery benefits only the richest landowners, and obviously impoverishes Southern whites by removing the floor of labour prices, but as long as they perceive the yankees are telling them how to live, they'll accept the sacrifices.
The Southern leadership knows it about their right to make money, and they know that money comes from trade, in this case with Europe. This focus will let them put their scarcer resources where it matters most - the navy.
The first naval battles will decide the war. Understanding that the Southern economy and war effort is dependent on European trading partners, who coincidentally would rather see the United States broken up, the South will build up the Confederate Navy and work to ensure the trade routes stay open. The Northern cities are particularly vulnerable to coastal shelling, so if the Confederate Navy makes an open secret of a few huge gunboats, even if they aren't seaworthy, the Northern population, including the all-important businessmen, will insist the Union Navy defend the ports. The Union Navy is the best in the world, but if its defending those precious Northern cities Confederate merchantmen will be free to ply the Atlantic.
If the Confederates really get lucky they'll convince the up and coming industrial powers of England and Germany that by blockading the Union they'll knock out a competitor and ensure the flow of cotton and rice from the Confederacy. Everybody wins but the Union.
So, after the first bloody land battles the Confederacy can make use of the North's aversion to heavy losses to stall out the land war, put them on the defensive at sea, continue succeeding at trade with Europe, and eventually, sometime in his third term in the White House in Boston, Lincoln will sue for peace.
The British have a military proven in the French and Indian Wars, and a huge treasury. The "Continental Army" is made up of officer's who couldn't cut it in His Majesty's service, and the colonists' economy will be strangled by the British Navy. Lastly, over half the continental population favors the continuation of British rule. They've already supplemented their manpower with Hessians, and they have the cash to add even more mercenaries.
The leadership of the Continental Army from George Washington on down consists of drop outs and rejects from the British military. The rank and file consist of poorly trained farmers and lay-abouts, the descendants of exiled criminals. You can count on them to run at the sound of the first shot.
There has been some speculation that the French will intervene, providing cash, arms, and even troops in the fight against their hated enemy, the English. They have substantial colonies in the new world, and perhaps they'd like to see a friendly, new, weak power dominate in that hemisphere, rather than hostile, old, powerful England.
But the French aren't stupid. As the intellectual center of Europe since Krakow lost the title, their society is potentially the most open in Europe to a democratic government. If non-monarchy were to succeed in the new world, there would be way to many voices asking if it wouldn't work in France as well. The King Louis is not going to let this happen. He may help the Continental Army stay alive, but he won't give them enough to win. Should they win, he'd be sure to undermine the new republic, before the liberals at home decide they want a parliament.
Add to this the grain from North Africa and freedom of shipping in the Western Mediteranean Hannibal has what it takes to land where he wants to on the Italian peninsula, raid Rome's allies, and besiege the city for as long as it takes.
Rome's Italian allies will desert her when it becomes clear that Rome cannot protect them, and Rome will be a vassal state or destroyed altogether. Its a safe bet that the Western world will be using the Phoenician alphabet for the next two thousand years.