Alternate History General Discussion

[David Flin]

As for the third, he thought that Germany and the USA were already at war.

Given that USA was escorting convoys, depth charging submarines, had enacted Lend-Lease, and so on, it's not a great leap to assume that a state of near war was pretty much a given.

As for the first, I'm no expert, but my understanding is that the Balkan diversion delaying Barbarossa is a myth long since debunked. One three-letter word can summarise the reason for the delay: Mud. Go into the Balkans or not, it won't advance by a single second when Barbarossa can be launched.

 

[Ricardolindo]

Given that USA was escorting convoys, depth charging submarines, had enacted Lend-Lease, and so on, it's not a great leap to assume that a state of near war was pretty much a given.

As for the first, I'm no expert, but my understanding is that the Balkan diversion delaying Barbarossa is a myth long since debunked. One three-letter word can summarise the reason for the delay: Mud. Go into the Balkans or not, it won't advance by a single second when Barbarossa can be launched.

I have also read that the Germans were suffering from equipment shortages which would have happened even without the Balkans Campaign.

 

[Stikfigur]

I have another idea of in a German Victory scenario, the warlord era in China continues on well into the 40s and maybe the 60s, barring Japan not going into a full excursion like OTL. My idea is that the Germans later crush the Bolsheviks in the Russian Civil War due to not having to fight the western front anymore. This results in Russia being ruled by White Army warlords, and have their warlord period of their own, though with less open fighting than the chinese one. Without Soviet funding and training, Sun and the KMT cannot break out of Guangdong, which means they remain there, while factional splits begin to form in the KMT.


Also my opinion on the Sparticists, the Soviets, and the KPD is that if capitalists can have huge factional differences and disputes, so can leftists or even communists. Hell, look at Soviets and China OTL.

 

[SenatorChickpea]

Dear Liam, I have read about imperialism and my understanding is that, by definition, imperialism requires an ideological foundation. Pre-modern empires like the Mongol Empire, the Roman Empire and others, AFAIK, did not have such an ideological foundation. Please, correct me if I am wrong.

This is a garbled misunderstanding of the argument that colonialism (not imperialism) in the European modern world was a distinct ideological undertaking than the wars and conquests of the middle ages.

There are academics who use 'colonialism' or 'imperialism' to refer very specifically to the Atlantic Empires of the early modern period and the nineteenth century great powers; they do this in specialised contexts, and rarely for public consumption. This is because you can show how, for example, the brutal Portuguese empire of the twentieth century goes through successive ideological phases (The New State, Victorian/early twentieth century racial science and prestige projects, mercantilist piracy etc) all the way back to Reconquista Iberia and how the rush into the New World was shaped by the fact that it started within a generation of a fervent Catholic crusading project. That is an entirely different model of imperialism, to, for example, Babur invading India or Alexander invading Persia.

That's an entirely different thing than saying imperialism and colonialism did not exist without that particular ideological framework, because that would be obviously stupid.

 

[TheKennedyMachine]

Guys ...

 

[iainbhx]

Guys ...

Charles Marx may never have stood for elected office, but his early writings soon after arriving the the Lone Star State: On the Apache Question and Notes on Sam Houston, set the scene for a career of radical writing which saw him having to flee Texas during the Civil War but return as a leading inspiration of Texas Republicans during the Reconstruction years.

 

[MAC161]

Guys ...

Working on a "Marx in Texas" story, in fact, where he arrives in 1856 after the Tribune gives him what's meant to be a temporary assignment in America--which, thanks to personal problems and the 1857 panic, leads to him still being in Texas, among the heavily pro-Union German settler communities, when the Civil War begins.

 

[Stikfigur]

Working on a "Marx in Texas" story, in fact, where he arrives in 1856 after the Tribune gives him what's meant to be a temporary assignment in America--which, thanks to personal problems and the 1857 panic, leads to him still being in Texas, among the heavily pro-Union German settler communities, when the Civil War begins.

If Marx did that, he probably be a Unionist German that sided with John Brown, early labor people, and 1848 revolutionary exiles in the Union Army. He might have even been killed by a Confederate army rampaging through Hill country in the civil war.

 

[MAC161]

If Marx did that, he probably be a Unionist German that sided with John Brown, early labor people, and 1848 revolutionary exiles in the Union Army. He might have even been killed by a Confederate army rampaging through Hill country in the civil war.

Current title is "Hill Country Commune", with a couple possible endings being considered, so...

 

[Charles EP M.]

There's a sequel to The Peacekeeper, set in a world where the Americas were never colonised, and the reviews mention it's set in an England where social attitudes have stagnated since the Regency but the blurb gives me an unintended cackle:

What if Europe had never colonized the world? It is a world that never had overseas empires, the transatlantic slave trade, or the Protestant Reformation. There is, however, in an obscure island nation called England, a woman running for her life.

Marie, Duchess of Suffolk, has no choice. In this society, women are a reproductive commodity. Marriage is the only available occupation. And barren wives like Marie are expendable trade.

because it makes it sound like women's rights happened because of imperialism. That's most likely not the book's actual thought!

Also check out this one-star review for the book blurbed as This Is Happening In An Alternate History, This Is A Different Modern World:

confusing timeline in history

Cell phones computers - gps - and all set in a time that seemed to be in the 1800’s- what ? Mixed up book ok storyline but bizarre reference to a time that would not have technology like computers - so make up your mind what era you want the story to be - because this is weird lol

 

[Jared]

Also check out this one-star review for the book blurbed as This Is Happening In An Alternate History, This Is A Different Modern World:

Sadly not unique to that situation. I've submitted short stories which are explicitly marked as alternate history, and received copies of reader feedback which complains about "basic historical errors"...

 

[ChrisNuttall]

Given that USA was escorting convoys, depth charging submarines, had enacted Lend-Lease, and so on, it's not a great leap to assume that a state of near war was pretty much a given.

Possibly.

On the other hand, without a German declaration of war, FDR is going to find it a great deal harder, politically speaking, to keep USN ships in the Atlantic when they’re going to be needed in the Pacific. FDR was not all-powerful and he had plenty of enemies, who would leap at the chance to undermine him by pointing out he’s depriving the brave American sailors/soldiers of ships and material they need while provoking another potential enemy. In this timeline, it’s quite possible the UK would be escorting convoys largely alone and lend lease cut back sharply, because it would be seen – unwisely – as taking weapons and supplies from Americans, to be used against a state that wasn’t formally at war with the US.

Hitler could make use of this, by either declaring an end to u-boat warfare and actually keeping it, or even declaring war on Japan himself. Why not? It’ll cost him nothing and might pay off handsomely. I doubt FDR would fall for it, but others might.

Assuming so, Britain will be a great deal weaker throughout 42-43 even if the lend lease gets turned back on after Japan is pushed back and the US is unquestionably on its way to winning the Pacific War. The UK won’t have the manpower to win on its own, even with American supplies; the Germans might have a chance to survive Stalingrad (no Operation Torch to draw away German airpower), and resume the offensive on more even terms.

 

[M_Kresal]

Sidewise nominees have been announced.

 

[TheKennedyMachine]

What would be the realistic aftermath of Hitler dying due to the 20 July Plot?

 

[Coiler]

What would be the realistic aftermath of Hitler dying due to the 20 July Plot?

Either Goering or some kind of military government taking over (the tank units at Potsdam were a huge advantage for them). The plot was exceedingly unlikely to actually gain sustained control over the government, and if it did the Allies would have never accepted their demands. The confusion might give the allies a little more advantage than they had IOTL, but not all that much.

 

[Christian]

When Jose Mourinho was working for Bobby Robson, he was apparently asked to come with him to Newcastle, promising him the job in a few years time if he stuck around. Mourinho didn’t take it because he suspected Robson wouldn’t be pried from managing his boyhood club.

I do wonder what would have happened if he did take it and Robson actually did let him become manager. At the time, Mourinho was the young and innovative manager making waves in football, would be interesting to see how he’d do in less favorable circumstances than he had in taking over a top team at Porto and a team overflowing with money like Chelsea.

Still, he is “The Special One”, maybe he can pull a miracle and win Newcastle the league, would be fun.

Could stick around for more than 3 years if he’s lucky.

 

[Elektronaut]

When Jose Mourinho was working for Bobby Robson, he was apparently asked to come with him to Newcastle, promising him the job in a few years time if he stuck around. Mourinho didn’t take it because he suspected Robson wouldn’t be pried from managing his boyhood club.

I do wonder what would have happened if he did take it and Robson actually did let him become manager. At the time, Mourinho was the young and innovative manager making waves in football, would be interesting to see how he’d do in less favorable circumstances than he had in taking over a top team at Porto and a team overflowing with money like Chelsea.

Still, he is “The Special One”, maybe he can pull a miracle and win Newcastle the league, would be fun.

Could stick around for more than 3 years if he’s lucky.

There's absolutely zero chance of this happening. Mourinho taking over I mean, him becoming assistant is very possible.

Mourinho was absolutely right that Sir Bobby wouldn't have given it up, but more pointedly the position also wasn't, y'know in Bobby Robson's gift to hand to him. Given he didn't constitute the board at Newcastle. And there's absolutely no chance that the Newcastle board of that era would hand the managerial position to an untested foreign coach.

I'm not even sure that him becoming assistant would necessarily give Mourinho an opening into English football; (It's important to remember that this is only just after 'Arsene Who' and management was a lot more British-dominated than it would be even ten years later) but if there's anyone in the North East in this era who would appoint an untested coach, then it's not the Newcastle board, it's Steve Gibson at Boro.

 

[Alexander Rooksmoor]

Sadly not unique to that situation. I've submitted short stories which are explicitly marked as alternate history, and received copies of reader feedback which complains about "basic historical errors"...

Always seems odd, given that many people seem to have no problem accepting giant spiders and flying 1960 Ford Anglia 105E in the 21st Century, in their books. In 'Thinking of Writing Alternate History?' I noted how 'nitpicking' on historical elements is an easy way for people 'reviewing' books online to feel superior; some will even deliberately aim to 'take down' authors who are not well known. There is a 'trainspotter' brigade who love to pick holes in books when something is featured some months earlier than in reality, especially with anything military. For those with less such knowledge, simply piling in against a book that looks 'wrong', is an easy way to garner what they feel is kudos for apparently 'revealing' how poor they feel a book is on that basis.

 

[ChrisNuttall]

Always seems odd, given that many people seem to have no problem accepting giant spiders and flying 1960 Ford Anglia 105E in the 21st Century, in their books. In 'Thinking of Writing Alternate History?' I noted how 'nitpicking' on historical elements is an easy way for people 'reviewing' books online to feel superior; some will even deliberately aim to 'take down' authors who are not well known. There is a 'trainspotter' brigade who love to pick holes in books when something is featured some months earlier than in reality, especially with anything military. For those with less such knowledge, simply piling in against a book that looks 'wrong', is an easy way to garner what they feel is kudos for apparently 'revealing' how poor they feel a book is on that basis.

Bullies have always been with us, and - unfortunately - they ruin it for everyone else.

Chris

 

[MAC161]

Just a random thought: Has anyone found (or written) AH that's outright comedic, be it real/dry or dark humor?

I've seen a fair number where dry, acerbic and dark comedy are key elements in a story or to a character's personality (Ex: Sanders' The Undiscovered and Journey to Fusang, Chabon's The Yiddish Policeman's Union), but I don't recall examples where it's front and center, and the story/world revolving around it. Maybe this is due (as it seems to me) to a great deal of AH being serious/dystopic, so comedy is therefore unusual, comes off as absurdist instead, or is perhaps faux pas, or there's some other reason altogether.

Thoughts?