Alternate History Ideas and Discussion

[stevep]

Well one of the strangest in OTL was demonstrated in Terry Pratchett's Discworld novels where the nature of the world, a flat earth mounted on 4 elephants which in turn stood on a giant turtle was based on an real life religion IIRC.

I'm not sure there was a WTF reaction from the Jews, just the view that Jesus was a prophet but not the final Messiah as he claimed. It was only later with a clear break from Judaism - starting with Paul's changes to its practices - that Christianity really diverged from its predecessor.

Similarly with the Romans they were generally tolerant of all sort of faiths and had experience of monotheistic faiths with the Jews and the Zoroastrianisms albeit that the latter was generally associated with their great enemies in Persia. It was only later as the empire started to falter that there was real religious conflict.

 

[Sergeant Foley]

Well one of the strangest in OTL was demonstrated in Terry Pratchett's Discworld novels where the nature of the world, a flat earth mounted on 4 elephants which in turn stood on a giant turtle was based on an real life religion IIRC.

I'm not sure there was a WTF reaction from the Jews, just the view that Jesus was a prophet but not the final Messiah as he claimed. It was only later with a clear break from Judaism - starting with Paul's changes to its practices - that Christianity really diverged from its predecessor.

Similarly with the Romans they were generally tolerant of all sort of faiths and had experience of monotheistic faiths with the Jews and the Zoroastrianisms albeit that the latter was generally associated with their great enemies in Persia. It was only later as the empire started to falter that there was real religious conflict.

Another question would be what if Queen Elizabeth II was kidnapped and killed in 1982 during the height of the Falklands War?

 

[Bassoe]

‘Strange ATL Religions’.

In fairness, we had some real aberrations IOTL, such as Christianity being met with "WTF?!" reactions from Jews and Romans at first — only to become the greatest success story in the history of religion, two-thousand years and counting.

Nonetheless, the question still stands, so any ATL mythologies or religious beliefs you can come up with that’d make OTL observers blink are what I’m looking for here. After all, OTL proved it was possible for something like Christianity to arise, so who knows what else could've emerged that OTL audiences couldn't wrap their heads around?

John Murray Spear's New Motive Power.

Metal messiah

"The time of deliverance has come at last," cried New Era, an American spiritualist newssheet, in July 1854. It was hailing the "birth" of the New Motive Power, a miraculous mechanical device described as "Heaven's Last Gift to Man" and the "New Messiah".

www.theguardian.com

New Motive Power — Blog — Dan Baines

www.danbaines.com

When 19th-Century Spiritualists Believed a "God Machine" Would Save Humanity

John Murray Spear said the spirits told him how to create a perpetual motion machine. But things didn't go quite according to plan.

www.mentalfloss.com

John Murray Spear - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

OTL it was a historical footnote, but something that bizarre deserves a proper timeline of its own.

Also inspired the name of a great prog-rock album by Outlander.

 

[stevep]

Another question would be what if Queen Elizabeth II was kidnapped and killed in 1982 during the height of the Falklands War?

It would depend on the exact circumstances but there would be a bloody strong reaction if it was related to a foreign elements - i.e. Argentina or the most likely probability at this time would be the IRA. If its some rogue lunatic then shock and horror and a lot might depend on how the government and the royal family handle the aftermath.

 

[Sergeant Foley]

It would depend on the exact circumstances but there would be a bloody strong reaction if it was related to a foreign elements - i.e. Argentina or the most likely probability at this time would be the IRA. If its some rogue lunatic then shock and horror and a lot might depend on how the government and the royal family handle the aftermath.

Let's just say it'll be focused in one of the later chapters of The American Republic timeline

 

[ATP]

Well one of the strangest in OTL was demonstrated in Terry Pratchett's Discworld novels where the nature of the world, a flat earth mounted on 4 elephants which in turn stood on a giant turtle was based on an real life religion IIRC.

I'm not sure there was a WTF reaction from the Jews, just the view that Jesus was a prophet but not the final Messiah as he claimed. It was only later with a clear break from Judaism - starting with Paul's changes to its practices - that Christianity really diverged from its predecessor.

Similarly with the Romans they were generally tolerant of all sort of faiths and had experience of monotheistic faiths with the Jews and the Zoroastrianisms albeit that the latter was generally associated with their great enemies in Persia. It was only later as the empire started to falter that there was real religious conflict.

Jesus never openly said that HE is God,but implied that enough to made it clear that HE is GOD..
To be honest,Paul do not considered HIM as God,too.

 

[DarthOne]

Jesus never openly said that HE is God,but implied that enough to made it clear that HE is GOD..
To be honest,Paul do not considered HIM as God,too.

that is impressively wrong.

 

[Sergeant Foley]

that is impressively wrong.

No commentary needed.

 

[Buba]

If FRance&Britain declare was on the USSR on 17.IX.1939, with a similar to OTL German victory in the West in 1940, do we get Barbarossa in 1941?

 

[ATP]

If FRance&Britain declare was on the USSR on 17.IX.1939, with a similar to OTL German victory in the West in 1940, do we get Barbarossa in 1941?

1.They would never did so
2.In that case,Rydz-Śmigły order fight to the death,do not run,and die heroically.We would fight as long as we have ammo/5 months top/,and,as a result,soviets never invade Finland,but lost 200.000KIA or more fighting us.
3.They still plan to backstab Hitler - but,before that,they attack Iran and maybe Turkey.So,brits in 1940/41 lost Iran,Iraq,Palestina and probablt Egypt.
4.Soviets attack germans in 1942,like they plan earlier,and take part of Europe.
5.USA support soviets like in OTL,gave them more then OTL.

So,we have soviet Germany,Denmark,maybe Belgium and France.

Much better world,becouse:
1.They would probably start and lost WW3 about 1950,so Poland would be free earlier.
2.If not,still fall thanks to economy - but germans are as fucked as we,so could not dominate Europe.

 

[stevep]

1.They would never did so
2.In that case,Rydz-Śmigły order fight to the death,do not run,and die heroically.We would fight as long as we have ammo/5 months top/,and,as a result,soviets never invade Finland,but lost 200.000KIA or more fighting us.
3.They still plan to backstab Hitler - but,before that,they attack Iran and maybe Turkey.So,brits in 1940/41 lost Iran,Iraq,Palestina and probablt Egypt.
4.Soviets attack germans in 1942,like they plan earlier,and take part of Europe.
5.USA support soviets like in OTL,gave them more then OTL.

So,we have soviet Germany,Denmark,maybe Belgium and France.

Much better world,becouse:
1.They would probably start and lost WW3 about 1950,so Poland would be free earlier.
2.If not,still fall thanks to economy - but germans are as fucked as we,so could not dominate Europe.

1) Well there was clear interest in such a dow against the Soviets during the Winter War so its not impossible but it does seem unlikely. I believe that the two governments had made clear to Warsaw that the guarantee of their borders applied only to the Nazis, not the Soviets.

2) Likely a serious crisis for the allies with the lost of most all of Iran and probably attacks into the ME although logistics and local hostility towards communism is likely to be major limits.

3) Quite possibly if France falls as OTL then there would be interest in conservative groups in the UK - as well as defeated France - for peace with the Nazis although an actual alliance for the UK would probably be unlikely.

4) Either way, with German possessions in Europe looking secure - unless Mussolini does something even more stupid than OTL possibly - and Soviet forces tied up in the ME and possibly on the Indian NW frontier Hitler is likely to attack the USSR in 1941. Apart from his obsessive hatred of the regime and its people and desire for expansion eastwards he would see it as his best opportunity.

5) What would happen after that would depend on possible Anglo-German relation changes in 3) above and on the relative relationships and sanity of the leaders in Moscow and London.

 

[ATP]

1) Well there was clear interest in such a dow against the Soviets during the Winter War so its not impossible but it does seem unlikely. I believe that the two governments had made clear to Warsaw that the guarantee of their borders applied only to the Nazis, not the Soviets.

2) Likely a serious crisis for the allies with the lost of most all of Iran and probably attacks into the ME although logistics and local hostility towards communism is likely to be major limits.

3) Quite possibly if France falls as OTL then there would be interest in conservative groups in the UK - as well as defeated France - for peace with the Nazis although an actual alliance for the UK would probably be unlikely.

4) Either way, with German possessions in Europe looking secure - unless Mussolini does something even more stupid than OTL possibly - and Soviet forces tied up in the ME and possibly on the Indian NW frontier Hitler is likely to attack the USSR in 1941. Apart from his obsessive hatred of the regime and its people and desire for expansion eastwards he would see it as his best opportunity.

5) What would happen after that would depend on possible Anglo-German relation changes in 3) above and on the relative relationships and sanity of the leaders in Moscow and London.

1.True,in my opinion it is not possible
2.Iraq was defended by few indian dyvisions,so it would fall,Palestine - even worst.Egypt could hold,or not.
3.If Churchill keep power,they would fight germans no matter what.
4.No,he would not.
In OTL germans decided to attack soviets when Molotov come in 1940 to Berlin and demanded Finland,Romania and Dardanels.
Here,soviets would cooperate,so no Barbarossa - till soviets backstab Adilf the idiot.
5.After USA would join war - and they would find a way for that - London will woud not matter.
And FDR would gave to Sralin whatever he wonted,Truman almost everything.

But,Germany occupied by soviets are better thing for Europe - either soviets would start WW3 and lost,or fall thanks to economy - but we do not have german EU now.

 

[Buba]

The Soviets in autumn '39 had big problems in moving 200-300 km from their bases. Forget any invasions of Iraq over the winter of '39 ... also, the West's newest Best Friend i.e. Ataturk (and snowed in mountains) is in the way.
But the mention of Middle East is interesting - most, if not all, of the BEF goes there?

 

[ATP]

The Soviets in autumn '39 had big problems in moving 200-300 km from their bases. Forget any invasions of Iraq over the winter of '39 ... also, the West's newest Best Friend i.e. Ataturk (and snowed in mountains) is in the way.
But the mention of Middle East is interesting - most, if not all, of the BEF goes there?

No,they would do that in 1940 through Iran.Few dyvisions there with 50-100 czech tanks would not stop them for long.

 

[stevep]

1.True,in my opinion it is not possible
2.Iraq was defended by few indian dyvisions,so it would fall,Palestine - even worst.Egypt could hold,or not.
3.If Churchill keep power,they would fight germans no matter what.
4.No,he would not.
In OTL germans decided to attack soviets when Molotov come in 1940 to Berlin and demanded Finland,Romania and Dardanels.
Here,soviets would cooperate,so no Barbarossa - till soviets backstab Adilf the idiot.
5.After USA would join war - and they would find a way for that - London will woud not matter.
And FDR would gave to Sralin whatever he wonted,Truman almost everything.

But,Germany occupied by soviets are better thing for Europe - either soviets would start WW3 and lost,or fall thanks to economy - but we do not have german EU now.

2) As Buba says logistics matters.

3) If Churchill was in power he would have a decision to make as he detested both totalitarian systems.

4) Obviously wrong. Hitler had wanted to invade the Soviet Union from the start. He was even talking about attacking in autumn 39 after the fall of France but his generals managed to talk him out of it. Both the desire for land and resources and his insane hatreds.

5) Actually wrong. The US could do little without allies unless and until for some reason they were directly attacked. Public opinion and FDR's nervousness of it ensured that. If Britain has made peace with either dictator then he's not going to be position to impact that power. If we're made peace with both then the best he might be able to supply would be some form of L-L but with only a fraction of the OTL amounts.

 

[Sergeant Foley]

2) As Buba says logistics matters.

3) If Churchill was in power he would have a decision to make as he detested both totalitarian systems.

4) Obviously wrong. Hitler had wanted to invade the Soviet Union from the start. He was even talking about attacking in autumn 39 after the fall of France but his generals managed to talk him out of it. Both the desire for land and resources and his insane hatreds.

5) Actually wrong. The US could do little without allies unless and until for some reason they were directly attacked. Public opinion and FDR's nervousness of it ensured that. If Britain has made peace with either dictator then he's not going to be position to impact that power. If we're made peace with both then the best he might be able to supply would be some form of L-L but with only a fraction of the OTL amounts.

NOT a fan of FDR due to his weakling pussyfooting around of getting involved. Dude was too much of a "I don't want to get involved"

 

[ATP]

2) As Buba says logistics matters.

3) If Churchill was in power he would have a decision to make as he detested both totalitarian systems.

4) Obviously wrong. Hitler had wanted to invade the Soviet Union from the start. He was even talking about attacking in autumn 39 after the fall of France but his generals managed to talk him out of it. Both the desire for land and resources and his insane hatreds.

5) Actually wrong. The US could do little without allies unless and until for some reason they were directly attacked. Public opinion and FDR's nervousness of it ensured that. If Britain has made peace with either dictator then he's not going to be position to impact that power. If we're made peace with both then the best he might be able to supply would be some form of L-L but with only a fraction of the OTL amounts.

2.Yers,that is why soviets would do that in 1940 or 1941,not 1939.But,there was nothing there to oppose them.
3.He would support soviets,like in OTL
4.Nope.Barbarossa was made after Molotov provoked him in 1940 after fall of France.
If soviets played good allies and keep taking Middle East,he would do nothing.
And get backstabbed in 1942 during invasion of England.
Result - entire Europe except Scandinavia,Spain,England and maybe Italy in soviet hands.
Gulags,gulags evrywhere.

5.That is why USA provoked Japan,and if that would not worked,they would provoke germans,too
They would join war,and gave more Europe to soviets.Democrats simply must do that.

 

[stevep]

2.Yers,that is why soviets would do that in 1940 or 1941,not 1939.But,there was nothing there to oppose them.
3.He would support soviets,like in OTL
4.Nope.Barbarossa was made after Molotov provoked him in 1940 after fall of France.
If soviets played good allies and keep taking Middle East,he would do nothing.
And get backstabbed in 1942 during invasion of England.
Result - entire Europe except Scandinavia,Spain,England and maybe Italy in soviet hands.
Gulags,gulags evrywhere.

5.That is why USA provoked Japan,and if that would not worked,they would provoke germans,too
They would join war,and gave more Europe to soviets.Democrats simply must do that.

You really need to actually understand what Hitler and the Nazis were about. As well as your irrational hatred of democracy which also throws your judgement totally off.

 

[Buba]

No,they would do that in 1940 through Iran.

2.Yers,that is why soviets would do that in 1940 or 1941,not 1939.But,there was nothing there to oppose them.

Soviet logistics in 1940 are just as bad as half a year earlier, when during the mostly unopposed invasion of Poland some tank units lost 3/4ths of their tanks over 200-250km due to breakdowns.
There is a single - single tracked - railroad across mountains and steppe/desert leading from Baku to Abadan - 1100km. Good luck!
With Churchill and other "Easteners*/panic mongers" in the Gov't rest assured that by spring '40 there would be a strong British corps - if not more - in Iraq. Plus possible French troops.

Yes, the Soviets would get to south Iran. Give them a few months. And then it is a repeat of the Manchurian War (or North Africa) on a smaller scale. Same principle applies - long distance, one RR.
Look at Soviet performance in Afganistan 40 years later.

* Ye Olde British "ankle biting" warwinning strategy - capture an island here (Wrangel Island or suchlike would be ideal), a peninsula there (Kamchatka!) ...

hatred of democracy

ATP hints at harbouring a certain distaste for democraTS (the US DNC), not democraCY.

 

[DarthOne]

Looking for anyone willing to help out with an alternative timeline. It starts around WW1 and continues up until the 1950's.

While some science fiction elements appear later on (for reasons that will be made clear shortly) I do intend to keep it grounded. Or at least more grounded then the timeline it’s based off of, of which I have some bones to pick with.

(I particularly would appreciate some help when it comes to figuring out how would defend an attack coming from the Russian border with quasi-1950's tech against a technologically superior foe. As I don’t intend for humanity to get pushed out of Europe)

As for what timeline it’s based on? It a rather altered version of the Resistance series of games. Though I would warn anyone interested in helping against being dissuaded because your not familiar with the Resistance setting.








As an aside, bear in mind that I do, at some point in the future, plan to rewrite it to make it its own franchise/setting. Which is part of why the timeline diverges so much from the canonical Resistance one.