Alternate History Ideas and Discussion

@sillygoose Is there any realistic way that a surviving Ottoman Empire can become a giant Muslim immigration magnet? Also, what attitudes would a surviving Ottoman Empire have towards things such as Muhammad cartoons?
I mean it would be the core of the Muslim world if it retains Mecca. So not really a stretch especially once that oil money rolls in and the Berlin-Baghdad RR is operating. It would get pretty wealthy in time provided Germany didn't screw them over with financial deals.

AFAIK the Young Turk revolution saw them moderate their religious views, so they'd probably not be thrilled with it, but so long as it is respectful I doubt they'd make a big deal over it.
 
I mean it would be the core of the Muslim world if it retains Mecca. So not really a stretch especially once that oil money rolls in and the Berlin-Baghdad RR is operating. It would get pretty wealthy in time provided Germany didn't screw them over with financial deals.

AFAIK the Young Turk revolution saw them moderate their religious views, so they'd probably not be thrilled with it, but so long as it is respectful I doubt they'd make a big deal over it.

Why would Germany screw over their ally?

Also, not all Charlie Hebdo Muhammad cartoons were actually respectful. Most of them were, but not all of them.

Do you see Muslims immigrating to the Ottoman Empire by the tens of millions in this TL, if not by the hundreds of millions? For instance, South Asian Muslims, North African Muslims, et cetera. And would they and/or their descendants actually be given permanent residency and a path to citizenship?
 
Why would Germany screw over their ally?
They might not, but if they did it would be for the same reason the US did to the UK during and after WW2: greed. Some times taking advantage of an ally can be very profitable.

Also, not all Charlie Hebdo Muhammad cartoons were actually respectful. Most of them were, but not all of them.
Right. Of course an oil rich Ottoman Empire surviving until Hebdo existed would probably be progressive enough not to really care.

Do you see Muslims immigrating to the Ottoman Empire by the tens of millions in this TL, if not by the hundreds of millions? For instance, South Asian Muslims, North African Muslims, et cetera. And would they and/or their descendants actually be given permanent residency and a path to citizenship?
Tens of millions over decades yes given that that labor was desired. Not sure if they would be given citizenship or what. Depends on the market. Migrant/slave labor (of the modern Gulf State variety) would probably be common in certain part of the empire.
 
They might not, but if they did it would be for the same reason the US did to the UK during and after WW2: greed. Some times taking advantage of an ally can be very profitable.


Right. Of course an oil rich Ottoman Empire surviving until Hebdo existed would probably be progressive enough not to really care.


Tens of millions over decades yes given that that labor was desired. Not sure if they would be given citizenship or what. Depends on the market. Migrant/slave labor (of the modern Gulf State variety) would probably be common in certain part of the empire.

Did the US actually consciously screw over the UK, though?

Well, I really hope so! Would be much better for the Muslim world, no doubt!

Would Ottoman progressives actually approve of inhumane migrant labor conditions, though?
 
@sillygoose Is there any realistic way that a surviving Ottoman Empire can become a giant Muslim immigration magnet? Also, what attitudes would a surviving Ottoman Empire have towards things such as Muhammad cartoons?
I could see Azeris migrating to a surviving Ottoman Empire in the event that a worse situation breaks out in Russia. Heck, Central Asian Turkic peoples could also be able to migrate there if their homelands are unstable.
 
Did the US actually consciously screw over the UK, though?
Yes. The entire point of US help was to utterly subordinate Britain and really Europe as a whole to the global system the US wanted to create. There are a bunch of pretty good books on the subject, but the book "Super Imperialism" by Michael Hudson fits it into the wider narrative about what US policy actually has been in terms of setting up a global order that they are in charge of. I'd really recommend a specific interview with him that mentions it:

In the latest edition he actually even cites 1945 parliamentary debate quotes about how the British felt they were being treated as a defeated enemy rather than an ally due to all the conditions the US put on loans to keep Britain from economically collapsing.

Well, I really hope so! Would be much better for the Muslim world, no doubt!

Would Ottoman progressives actually approve of inhumane migrant labor conditions, though?
Probably not, but then progressives usually don't get real power to change that. I mean how much have progressives really improved conditions for illegal immigrants to the US?
 
Probably not, but then progressives usually don't get real power to change that. I mean how much have progressives really improved conditions for illegal immigrants to the US?
Well, US progressives don't want to actually improve conditions for migrants. If they actually did that their voters would move up into the economic bracket that worries more about taxes than handouts and vote them out of office. They're already from Catholic countries and more likely to side with the Republicans on social issues.

The Ottoman Empire isn't democratic so any progressives that get into power can actually potentially do something without destroying their own power base.
 
Well, US progressives don't want to actually improve conditions for migrants. If they actually did that their voters would move up into the economic bracket that worries more about taxes than handouts and vote them out of office. They're already from Catholic countries and more likely to side with the Republicans on social issues.

The Ottoman Empire isn't democratic so any progressives that get into power can actually potentially do something without destroying their own power base.

Hispanics might be socially conservative (other than very possibly on gay rights), but they still prefer the Democrats for economic reasons.

Also, isn't Turkey semi-democratic nowadays? If so, couldn't the Ottoman Empire have eventually likewise evolved in a similar direction?
 
I mean it would be the core of the Muslim world if it retains Mecca. So not really a stretch especially once that oil money rolls in and the Berlin-Baghdad RR is operating. It would get pretty wealthy in time provided Germany didn't screw them over with financial deals.

AFAIK the Young Turk revolution saw them moderate their religious views, so they'd probably not be thrilled with it, but so long as it is respectful I doubt they'd make a big deal over it.

The initial Young Turk revolt was seen as fairly moderate, especially since it deposed an absolutist Sultan. However it became dominated by hard line ultra-nationalists such as the three Pasha, as the wiki entry for them mentions.

Young Turks were a heterodox group of secular liberal intellectuals and revolutionaries, united by their opposition to the absolutist regime of Abdulhamid and desire to reinstate the constitution.[5] After the revolution, the Young Turks began to splinter and two main factions formed: more liberal and pro-decentralization Young Turks (including the CUP's original founders) formed the Private Enterprise and Decentralization League [tr], the Ottoman Liberty Party and later the Freedom and Accord Party (also known as the Liberal Union or Liberal Entente).[6] The Turkish nationalist, pro-centralization and radical wing among the Young Turks remained in the Committee of Union and Progress.[7] The groups' power struggle continued until 1913, when the Grand Vizier Mahmut Şevket Pasha was assassinated, allowing the CUP to take over all institutions. The new CUP leadership (Three Pashas) established a one party state and exercised absolute control over the Ottoman Empire, overseeing the Empire's entry into World War I on the side of the Central Powers during the war. The CUP regime also planned and executed the Late Ottoman genocides as part of their Turkification policies.

You would need to see the CUP defeated and the more liberal elements come out on top. That could avoid a lot of the latter massacres as well as the Turkish entry into WWI.

Basically the empire has to decide what it is, rather like the Hapsburg empire. Is it a Turkish dominated state as it was historically? In which case how does it hold down the majority of non-Turks? If it becomes more liberal how easily with the Turks accept that demotion.

Similarly is it a secular or a religious state? If there remains a Sultan who also claims to be the Caliph then it will have a clear religious/Islamic theme. If it doesn't then the majority of the population that is Muslim needs to accept rights for the substantial non-Muslims inside the empire. Or get away, as the Young Turks did historically with massive ethnic cleansing.:mad:
 
The initial Young Turk revolt was seen as fairly moderate, especially since it deposed an absolutist Sultan. However it became dominated by hard line ultra-nationalists such as the three Pasha, as the wiki entry for them mentions.



You would need to see the CUP defeated and the more liberal elements come out on top. That could avoid a lot of the latter massacres as well as the Turkish entry into WWI.

Basically the empire has to decide what it is, rather like the Hapsburg empire. Is it a Turkish dominated state as it was historically? In which case how does it hold down the majority of non-Turks? If it becomes more liberal how easily with the Turks accept that demotion.

Similarly is it a secular or a religious state? If there remains a Sultan who also claims to be the Caliph then it will have a clear religious/Islamic theme. If it doesn't then the majority of the population that is Muslim needs to accept rights for the substantial non-Muslims inside the empire. Or get away, as the Young Turks did historically with massive ethnic cleansing.:mad:

The issue of Muslims vs. non-Muslims will be less salient for the immigrants to the Ottoman Empire if the overwhelming majority of them will likewise be Muslim, no?
 
Which is dependent on average IQ, where whites and especially Asians and Jews have an advantage in the US relative to blacks and Hispanics.
Just because you're a virulent racist doesn't mean either that IQ purely measures native intelligence rather than education or that intelligence variation is driven by genetics rather than dietary or otherwise related to upbringing.
 
Just because you're a virulent racist doesn't mean either that IQ purely measures native intelligence rather than education or that intelligence variation is driven by genetics rather than dietary or otherwise related to upbringing.

Are you calling me a virtulent racist here?
 
Just because you're a virulent racist doesn't mean either that IQ purely measures native intelligence rather than education or that intelligence variation is driven by genetics rather than dietary or otherwise related to upbringing.
Lead in inner cities really negatively impacts IQ and it is a serious problem in the US. Guess where poor people disproportionately live?

Probably not unrelated that the high crime rate in Chicago relative to other major cities is probably related to the large amount of lead pipes:
One of the worst in the country.

That's not even getting into air pollution:
 
Lead in inner cities really negatively impacts IQ and it is a serious problem in the US. Guess where poor people disproportionately live?

Probably not unrelated that the high crime rate in Chicago relative to other major cities is probably related to the large amount of lead pipes:
One of the worst in the country.

That's not even getting into air pollution:
the leaded gas is distinctly linked to crime rates.

lead pipes causes the same stuff.

I guess Chicago, NYC and other cities need to check their pipes before they can clean up the crime.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top