Alternate History Ideas and Discussion

[Zyobot]

Replying some more, because ATL is shaping up to be quite "interesting" so far:

Iran wasn't even able to crush Saddam easily. And Saddam's military was garbage. There's little doubt that the Americans would be able to take out the Iranian regime with only a bit more difficulty than taking out the Iraqi regime. But because leaving the bloodied Ayatollah regime isn't a viable option, you'll see something like the Iraq occupation, but in the '90s (or whatever).

It'll be like that, but worse-- and with the Shi'a equivalent to ISIS showing up almost at once. So imagine the Iraq occupation, the Afghanistan occupation, and the Syrian civil war, all rolled into one conflict taking place in occupied Iran. A bloody mess. It would be a costly failure as far as Iran itself would be concerned. But conversely, with the Arab world more aligned with America against Iran, some major trouble could be averted on that side of the equation. (For instance, Arab rapprochement with Israel might get a boost, and there would be less of a support structure for anti-American Islamists in the Arab world. So probably no Al-Qaeda, for instance. With the USA seeking to surround Iran, they may well keep relations with the Taliban basically functional, too.)

Even assuming a successful removal and occupation effort, I think it's safe to bet all those IEDs and legions of suicide bombers will give US troops some major PTSD. If anything, it'd probably be more than OTL Iraq veterans, per both the aforementioned fanatical resistance and the "mash-up" of OTL conflicts that'd be left in Iran's wake.

Since Shi'a ISIS would spring up, I'm guessing they'd be enflamed by the fact their Ayatollah has been taken out — thus catalyzing a widespread desire for retribution and expulsion of "Western imperialists". Probably opens the door for Shi'a expies of Osama Bin Laden and his cronies, too, despite OTL Al-Queda having been butterflied. Occasional border conflicts with Iraq and other Arab states, meanwhile, are much more certain, prompting Saddam to hit "Alt-ISIS" with his usual brutal beat-downs (if not necessarily crush them completely).

In time, you might even get a weird dynamic in which Middle Eastern Sunnis are widely stereotyped as stern and stodgy, but ultimately much more "reasonable" and "liberal-minded" than their fanatical Shi'ite cousins. Even with the Taliban as a "crazed outlier", Sunnis could still point to Alt-ISIS (and possibly Alt-Al-Queda) as being even worse. No doubt Iran literally deploying legions of "human-wave" children who happily martyred themselves by charging enemy mines, machine-gun fire, and artillery barrages would reinforce this, whereas the Arab states — so long as they avoid going that far — could probably get away with more than IOTL.

So, on the whole, is this better or worse than OTL? I'd suggest that it's roughly on par. More pain in some places, a bit less pain in a few other places.

Not sure, though I've a feeling a lot depends on the details, as well as how OTL future pans out to tell us what the long-term consequences of Iraq attacking first are.

For instance, if you get a future in which the US tries to take out Iran, anyway... then my sense is you'd get more or less the same thing as in ATL, just delayed by a few decades rather than butterflied completely. In other words, still cluster-fuck Iran and Shi'a ISIS, but now as an addition to (rather than a replacement for) actual Syria, actual ISIS, and actual soured relations with the Arab states — whereas at least ATL Middle East doesn't have those. Or at least, ATL Middle East at it's played out so far.

 

[TheRomanSlayer]

“PC: American Policy towards the Philippines in a Fascist America Situation”

The only group that I could think of that might have a chance at turning America towards fascism in the 1930s may have been the Silver Legion, though they are more of a paramilitary force than a political group. I’m just wondering if a Fascist America would actually resort to more political repression towards the Philippine Commonwealth

 

[stevep]

Replying some more, because ATL is shaping up to be quite "interesting" so far:



Even assuming a successful removal and occupation effort, I think it's safe to bet all those IEDs and legions of suicide bombers will give US troops some major PTSD. If anything, it'd probably be more than OTL Iraq veterans, per both the aforementioned fanatical resistance and the "mash-up" of OTL conflicts that'd be left in Iran's wake.

Since Shi'a ISIS would spring up, I'm guessing they'd be enflamed by the fact their Ayatollah has been taken out — thus catalyzing a widespread desire for retribution and expulsion of "Western imperialists". Probably opens the door for Shi'a expies of Osama Bin Laden and his cronies, too, despite OTL Al-Queda having been butterflied. Occasional border conflicts with Iraq and other Arab states, meanwhile, are much more certain, prompting Saddam to hit "Alt-ISIS" with his usual brutal beat-downs (if not necessarily crush them completely).

In time, you might even get a weird dynamic in which Middle Eastern Sunnis are widely stereotyped as stern and stodgy, but ultimately much more "reasonable" and "liberal-minded" than their fanatical Shi'ite cousins. Even with the Taliban as a "crazed outlier", Sunnis could still point to Alt-ISIS (and possibly Alt-Al-Queda) as being even worse. No doubt Iran literally deploying legions of "human-wave" children who happily martyred themselves by charging enemy mines, machine-gun fire, and artillery barrages would reinforce this, whereas the Arab states — so long as they avoid going that far — could probably get away with more than IOTL.



Not sure, though I've a feeling a lot depends on the details, as well as how OTL future pans out to tell us what the long-term consequences of Iraq attacking first are.

For instance, if you get a future in which the US tries to take out Iran, anyway... then my sense is you'd get more or less the same thing as in ATL, just delayed by a few decades rather than butterflied completely. In other words, still cluster-fuck Iran and Shi'a ISIS, but now as an addition to (rather than a replacement for) actual Syria, actual ISIS, and actual soured relations with the Arab states — whereas at least ATL Middle East doesn't have those. Or at least, ATL Middle East at it's played out so far.

The other issue here if your talking of a US invasion in the 80's in response to the proposed Iranian attack on Iraq the USSR is still about. It won't take kindly to sizeable US forces on its southern border so expect at the least a lot of 'supplies' reaching the resistance.

This would also complicate the Soviet presence in Afghanistan of course as you would have US aid to Afghan resistance against a Soviet occupation alongside Soviet aid to Irani resistance to US occupation.

The US could try increasingly to farm off occupation tasks to its Sunni 'allies' but that's not likely to work very well.

Other question would be how assorted groups treat the substantial Kurdish population in NW Iran? The US would probably like to win their support with some autonomy but that's going to be very unpopular with both Turkey and Iraq.

 

[TheRejectionist]

Decided to open this : Artwork - Fictional, Alternate History Maps, Flags and Graphics

 

[Skallagrim]

“PC: American Policy towards the Philippines in a Fascist America Situation”

The only group that I could think of that might have a chance at turning America towards fascism in the 1930s may have been the Silver Legion, though they are more of a paramilitary force than a political group. I’m just wondering if a Fascist America would actually resort to more political repression towards the Philippine Commonwealth

One thing to consider is that the Americans sympathetic to fascism were in a certain strange way antithetical to the Cobfederates to which uneducated modern audiences love to equate them. Whereas the old South once entertained dreams of a 'Golden Circle' encompassing the Caribbean, the American fascist-sympathisers were highly sympathetic to isolationism, rather than expansionism. I'd see them as potentially being highly opposed to the USA having anything to with the Philippines.

-----------------------------------

In time, you might even get a weird dynamic in which Middle Eastern Sunnis are widely stereotyped as stern and stodgy, but ultimately much more "reasonable" and "liberal-minded" than their fanatical Shi'ite cousins. Even with the Taliban as a "crazed outlier", Sunnis could still point to Alt-ISIS (and possibly Alt-Al-Queda) as being even worse.

That seems like a very interesting dynamic. Would cause interesting ramifications in Lebanon, too. I could see the Palesrinians getting split into a Shi'a-backed (via Lebanon) radical faction that goes crazy with the terrorism, and a more mainstream Sunni faction that seeks more of a real accord with Israel as support from the surrounding Arab states dwindles. (Which it plausibly would, if these countries are, at the very least, co-belligerents of the West, opposed to the ATL radicals from Iran.)

-----------------------------------

Decided to open this : Artwork - Fictional, Alternate History Maps, Flags and Graphics

That's cool, but do note that there already is an AH Map thread, for certain.

 

[TheRejectionist]

One thing to consider is that the Americans sympathetic to fascism were in a certain strange way antithetical to the Cobfederates to which uneducated modern audiences love to equate them. Whereas the old South once entertained dreams of a 'Golden Circle' encompassing the Caribbean, the American fascist-sympathisers were highly sympathetic to isolationism, rather than expansionism. I'd see them as potentially being highly opposed to the USA having anything to with the Philippines.

-----------------------------------



That seems like a very interesting dynamic. Would cause interesting ramifications in Lebanon, too. I could see the Palesrinians getting split into a Shi'a-backed (via Lebanon) radical faction that goes crazy with the terrorism, and a more mainstream Sunni faction that seeks more of a real accord with Israel as support from the surrounding Arab states dwindles. (Which it plausibly would, if these countries are, at the very least, co-belligerents of the West, opposed to the ATL radicals from Iran.)

-----------------------------------



That's cool, but do note that there already is an AH Map thread, for certain.

I feel like an idiot.

 

[Skallagrim]

I feel like an idiot.

That was by no means my intent. If my post came across like that, my apologies. There's no law that says there can't be two map threads. And if you want, I think you can ask the mods to merge the two threads anyway.

 

[Zyobot]

‘AHC: Superpower Canada’.

 

[TheRomanSlayer]

One thing to consider is that the Americans sympathetic to fascism were in a certain strange way antithetical to the Cobfederates to which uneducated modern audiences love to equate them. Whereas the old South once entertained dreams of a 'Golden Circle' encompassing the Caribbean, the American fascist-sympathisers were highly sympathetic to isolationism, rather than expansionism. I'd see them as potentially being highly opposed to the USA having anything to with the Philippines.

So a much speedier path to Filipino independence then? Ironically, a Silver Legion fascist dictatorship might actually be more beneficial to the Philippines, as a fascist America might actually want to get out of there. Incidentally, I could also see Pelley wanting to use either Liberia or the Philippines to deal with the issues of non-white minorities.

 

[Skallagrim]

So a much speedier path to Filipino independence then? Ironically, a Silver Legion fascist dictatorship might actually be more beneficial to the Philippines, as a fascist America might actually want to get out of there. Incidentally, I could also see Pelley wanting to use either Liberia or the Philippines to deal with the issues of non-white minorities.

The Philippines wil benefit, ceteris paribus. Of course it's far from certain that all others things will indeed be equal. This msy simply mean that Japan becomes the new overlord. (Although a *fascist USA might have absolutely no issues with Japan, so long as Japan doesn't move anywhere near Hawaii. Which means Japanese expansion could in turn be 'softer', with them turning independence leaders into their loyalists. They were doing this for a while in OTL. So you'd get Japanese vassal states, instead of naked occupation.)

As for American *fascists wanting to deport people: you'd mostly be talking about black people. A plan like that would run into the issue that prevented the original Liberia plan frm working: transporting vast amounts of people across the ocean is expensive. If they really want to be dicks about it, and do it as efficiently as possible, they could occupy Haiti and ship loads of black people there. (It's a lot closer; even including an occupation, it's the cheaper option.) Such plans strike me as pretty hare-brained, though. I wouldn't expect much to come of it.

 

[TheRejectionist]

I have an idea I would work on Franco-British Union that isn't as they proposed it in our world but more akin to what the EU is nowadays and Italy staying neutral until this world's WW2 comes to an end and the FDR plan for a divided Germany gets implemented. @Circle of Willis @Sergeant Foley @49ersfootball would you guys want to collaborate? I would just put down the basis and you guys would continue it, or anyone else who wants to join.

 

[Lord Sovereign]

I'm currently reading a biography on big daddy Augustus, and an idea has come to mind.

What if fate hadn't decided "fuck you two in particular", and Lucius and Caius Caesar (Augustus's grandsons) hadn't so inconveniently died?

 

[Buba]

‘AHC: Superpower Canada’.

Different Treaty of Ghent. E.g. US border - 45th parallel from Lake Michigan to Mississippi, then down the Mississippi to the Gulf.
Or a nice "Trent War"

 

[DarthOne]

‘AHC: Superpower Canada’.

You’d have to change a lot and fairly early on too, I think. A major population boom to start with.

 

[Sergeant Foley]

What if Hubert Humphrey had gotten surgery earlier to prevent the spread of his terminal cancer? Would he have served out his fifth full six-year term as Minnesota's United States Senator?

 

[Circle of Willis]

‘AHC: Superpower Canada’.

Well, having the American Revolution not happen or be crushed means a mega-British North America, which can be considered a sort of super-Canada (in the sense that 'Canada' = 'British-loyal dominion' anyway) I guess.

However, assuming that isn't what you're after A British victory in the War of 1812 would indeed be the way. Have Tecumseh's confederacy survive and eventually be incorporated into Canada to escape American pressure, adding the whole of the Great Lakes region to Canada. The war generally going south so badly that the Hartford Convention takes off (ideally earlier than 1814 so it happens while, you know, the war is actually on) and produces an independent New England that can be absorbed into Canada as well would be nice. Finally, of course, Britain staking a claim on lands in the west up to the 42nd Parallel and adding those to Canada would help.

In general, turning the US into a banana republic (probably dominated by slaver interests if it's lost New England, and thus a huge chunk of the abolitionist counterbalance to the slavocrats) and massively restricting its expansion to Canada's benefit is your best bet at a Canadian superpower that doesn't involve just not having there be a USA at all.

I have an idea I would work on Franco-British Union that isn't as they proposed it in our world but more akin to what the EU is nowadays and Italy staying neutral until this world's WW2 comes to an end and the FDR plan for a divided Germany gets implemented. @Circle of Willis @Sergeant Foley @49ersfootball would you guys want to collaborate? I would just put down the basis and you guys would continue it, or anyone else who wants to join.

Sure I'd be interested in contributing from time to time, though I must warn that with work on my own timeline still ongoing, I can't make a second TL into my priority for the foreseeable future.

 

[shangrila]

You can't have a superpower Canada (unless you are talking post apocalyptic future or something) because any state with the potential to grow to superpowerhood will have the original provinces of Upper and Lower Canada be so minor a part that it would never be chosen as a name for the whole.

 

[Buba]

@shangrila - yes and no
Pars pro toto is a thing

 

[stevep]

‘AHC: Superpower Canada’.

It really needs a POD during the American rebellion or at lastest during a 1812 type conflict. Even then while its possible it would need whatever rump US that survives to really screw themselves over. Unless you end up with a war with about 1920's- 30's technology and the widespread use of gas possible.

 

[Skallagrim]

‘AHC: Superpower Canada’.

The notion of later PODs (even a "Trent War", which is highly unlikely to begin with) is probably not going to get the desired result. You can screw over the USA, but Canada's population will still be tiny by comparison, even if you lop off the biggest plausible CSA. And even if you try to take some pretty empty inland territory. (The issue is that you can't annex any more worth-while regions, because then Canada ceases to be Canada at once. There will be far more ex-USA citizens than Canadians! So the country just becomes another mini-USA!)

Best POD is that the USA is beaten far harder in its war for independence. It gets its independence, but only just. All of Maine, the North of Vermont and New Hampshire, a strip along the St. Lawrence and the Great Lakes, and all of the Ohio Country remain in British hands, both de facto and de jure. The Britih fortify these regions to ensure it stays that way. The USA now has zero access to the Great Lakes. None. This means they're increadibly weakened right from the start.

Later on, during the wars against France, Britain can just unilaterally claim any parts of the Louisiana Territory that they want. If the USA still buys it? Britain simply chooses not to recognise that. They can just draw a line from St. Louis to the Rockies and say "Everything North of this line belongs to the Crown." Nobody will be able to argue, and if Britain already controls the Ohio Country, this kind of move is far more attractive to them.

Afterwards, they can negotiate with Spain/Mexico to extend that line to the Pacific, thus adding most of OTL Utah, most of OTL Nevada, and the Northern third of OTL California to British North America. In addition to the entire Pacific North-West.

For bonus points, have them take Alaska from the Russians later.

(Since none of the regions in question ever belong to the USA in this ATL, they can be absorbed without turning Canada into just another alt-USA. Since Canada is much bigger from the start, it can attract more immigrants from the start, too-- thus creating its own population with a Canadian identity.)


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm currently reading a biography on big daddy Augustus, and an idea has come to mind.

What if fate hadn't decided "fuck you two in particular", and Lucius and Caius Caesar (Augustus's grandsons) hadn't so inconveniently died?

Technically it wasn't just those two in particular. Augustus had terrible luck when it came to his heirs-- and despite it all, his legacy spanned centuries, because he was just that good.

But there's really little we can sat about Marcellus, Gaius Caesar and Lucius Caesar. They died pretty young. (Agrippa Postumus, too, but it's long been debated whether he was even of sound character.)

Best potential heir, for my money, was Nero Claudius Drusus. He already had an heir of his own, the equally renowned Germanicus. That line of succession really had promise.

However, if we assume that Gaius Caesar and/or Lucius Caesar can avoid dying young, the result of this would be a precedent of dynastic rule. Regardless of their talents, that may well have a major effect. (And regarding their talent: all they'd really need to be is "not terrible". Tiberius proves that.)