Alternate History General Discussion

[Elektronaut]

The situation East of Suez was certainly a choice. With all of the challenges facing the United Kingdom stationing forces in Malaysia and Singapore certainly wasn't the highest priority. They were both sovereign states and the military presence there could have been better utilized in more strategically important areas such as the Middle East. The original plans for East of Suez didn't even call for a withdrawal until the mid-1970s (source).

The timing of social spending was certainly a choice too. If the import/export situation was so dire that the Labour Party was able to run on and win with a platform of indefinite rationing in 1950 its clear that the government was failing to meet the most basic of human needs. Spending scarce government funds nationalizing industry and healthcare might not be the best use of those resources. This is not an argument on the merits of universal healthcare, but one of timing and methods. There were clearly still major issues with ensuring people were receiving sufficient food and fuel (and almost certainly housing) at the same time that the British government was launching expensive new government initiatives. France had already ended rationing the year before Labour won by promising more of it, and the United Kingdom would be the last major country to end it in 1954. That came after the Conservatives had been in power for three years following their victory in the 1951 elections and after they had made campaign promises to end rationing.

Like I said, both are false choices when you ultimately come down to it to the point that they deserve to be treat as structural issues which wouldn't have been avoided by any other realistic government.

Sure, the government could, theoretically given it was humanly possible, have abandoned Malaya to Communist insurgency only a few years after the war. That, however, is intensely, massively unlikely for multiple reasons; the most obvious being that decolonisation was not in the mainstream by that point, (Like I said, after withdrawl from India, nothing happened on that score under both parties for a decade) but also the fact that it would have been strenuously opposed by the US, as withdrawl from those commitments generally was historically. (and as I said, the UK was reliant on the US)

The big fat elephant in the living room in terms of Malaya though is the fact that Malaya was seen as being of huge, enormous importance economically to the Empire through rubber production and other resources. There was a raw self-interest in being in Malaya which any government would not have abandoned easily without a fight, certainly not in the pre-decolonisation era just after the war.

So, in practical terms, not a serious choice given what the alternative amounts to politically and economically. There is a massive dose of Message Board Historical Hindsight at work in these arguments.

 

[zaffre]

I've always thought a lot of the whitewashing of the Confederacy in Guns of the South was Turtledove trying to make protagonists that would be sympathetic to a modern audience. Doesn't excuse the art, but makes me less hard on the artist.

I’d be more forgiving of Guns of the South if the central narrative of “Lee was a good slaver and would have ended it pretty soon anyway” was something that Turtledove had independently come up with, as opposed to a core tenet of the Lost Cause movement that he pretty uncritically adapted into a story - How Few Remain never explicitly spells it out, but is a lot sharper (what a surprise) in having Longstreet’s push for emancipation in the ‘80s be rooted in him actually being one of the few southern generals that joined the Republicans and fought for civil rights post-war.

 

[Delta Force]

I've always thought a lot of the whitewashing of the Confederacy in Guns of the South was Turtledove trying to make protagonists that would be sympathetic to a modern audience. Doesn't excuse the art, but makes me less hard on the artist.

I've never read the book but the question on that would be how the scenario is portrayed. Is Guns of the South primarily a time travel story that uses the American Civil War as a backdrop or is it primarily a story about a Confederate victory that uses time travel to explain how it is achieved? There's a big difference between "what if time travelers gave the Confederacy military advice and AK-47s?" and "what if the Confederacy won the Civil War?" and the story has both elements. The first one is focused more on action and the second one is focused more on history. Someone reading a book for action isn't necessarily looking for a detailed look into Confederate views on slavery and racism.

It's possible Guns of the South was initially a simple action story that had an awkward end tacked on to resolve things in a way more palatable for the general public. Even just ending the story immediately after the Confederate victory wouldn't have resolved things due to the obvious horrific implications for human rights in a successful Confederacy. It might not be an ending that would have been remotely historically likely but the story already has time travelers so what's another unrealistic detail?

I think you put too much emphasis into that, Labour has bickered over Clause IV since the beginning and it’s entire existence was to keep the Left in check. More emphasis should be placed on stuff like ‘In Place of Strife’ and Labour’s situation with the Trade Union.

Edit- A more intriguing consideration would be if In Place of Strife was implemented which whilst in the short term could be rather disastrous could have some benefits in time.

Wasn't most of In Place of Strife implemented by the Labour Party in the 1970s? What was the balance of power like within the Labour Party if it couldn't change Clause IV and was on a nationalization spree but was still able to get labor union restrictions passed?

Sure, the government could, theoretically given it was humanly possible, have abandoned Malaya to Communist insurgency only a few years after the war. That, however, is intensely, massively unlikely for multiple reasons; the most obvious being that decolonisation was not in the mainstream by that point, (Like I said, after withdrawl from India, nothing happened on that score under both parties for a decade) but also the fact that it would have been strenuously opposed by the US, as withdrawl from those commitments generally was historically. (and as I said, the UK was reliant on the US)

The big fat elephant in the living room in terms of Malaya though is the fact that Malaya was seen as being of huge, enormous importance economically to the Empire through rubber production and other resources. There was a raw self-interest in being in Malaya which any government would not have abandoned easily without a fight, certainly not in the pre-decolonisation era just after the war.

So, in practical terms, not a serious choice given what the alternative amounts to politically and economically. There is a massive dose of Message Board Historical Hindsight at work in these arguments.

The British government decided to withdraw from Malaysia and Singapore at the same time that it made the decision to unilaterally pull out of defense arrangements with several Persian Gulf states. Those countries not only wanted the British military presence to continue but were even willing to pay for it (source). The British government gave up the opportunity to continue playing a major role in Bahrain, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates that it would have been paid to perform and at the same time that it held a majority share in British Petroleum. The withdrawal also took place only a few years before the 1973 Energy Crisis and years before the United Kingdom became a major petroleum producer in its own right. Abu Dhabi didn't join OPEC until 1967 (UAE membership derives from that), and it's possible that more British attention to the region might have been able to delay or prevent that from happening.

 

[JesterBL]

I feel like I've seen "neo-Crusaders as Islamists in a Europe that remained behind the rest of the world" but I can't actually point to any AH that has done it.

"The Black Forest of Germany is where many empires have gone to die. First the Romans, then the Franks, and much later in history, the Andalucians and now, of course, us."

 

[JesterBL]

"The Akademiker (a fierce name which translates from the rough tongue of the Saxons as "scholars") have seized the national capital of Hannover in a surprising reversal of fortunes for the radical Kreuzritter movement."

 

[Von Callay]

I've never read the book but the question on that would be how the scenario is portrayed. Is Guns of the South primarily a time travel story that uses the American Civil War as a backdrop or is it primarily a story about a Confederate victory that uses time travel to explain how it is achieved? There's a big difference between "what if time travelers gave the Confederacy military advice and AK-47s?" and "what if the Confederacy won the Civil War?" and the story has both elements. The first one is focused more on action and the second one is focused more on history. Someone reading a book for action isn't necessarily looking for a detailed look into Confederate views on slavery and racism.

It's possible Guns of the South was initially a simple action story that had an awkward end tacked on to resolve things in a way more palatable for the general public. Even just ending the story immediately after the Confederate victory wouldn't have resolved things due to the obvious horrific implications for human rights in a successful Confederacy. It might not be an ending that would have been remotely historically likely but the story already has time travelers so what's another unrealistic detail?

As I recall, Turtledove's spark of inspiration for it was another author complaining to him about a book cover illustration that was 'as anacronistic as Bobby Lee holding an Uzi' (or something like that), and he started thinking about ways that could actually happen. The book begins mostly with the course of the late Civil War as perverted by the sudden arrival of tens of thousands of AK-47s in the hands of the Army of Northern Virginia (spoiler alert, it does not go well for the Union!) and then after that comes the reflection more on how that all came about. It's part Civil War action piece, part an examination of the consequences of the time travel. It's hard to really call it an examination of a post-war Confederacy because it really only exists at that point because of the time-travelers, who have an out-sized influence on everything, and are easily negatively contrasted even with every stripe of historical white supremacist Confederate because they're flat-out South African neo-Nazis who have been lying the entire time about what the future is actually like.

 

[Time Enough]

Wasn't most of In Place of Strife implemented by the Labour Party in the 1970s? What was the balance of power like within the Labour Party if it couldn't change Clause IV and was on a nationalization spree but was still able to get labor union restrictions passed?

Trade Unions have power at conference where Clause 4 would be changed, Wilson was of the Centre of the party and preferred being in power over internal strife. Hence, no change of Clause 4. Remember what happens on the conference floor is not the same as what happens in cabinet.

Nationalisation was done, less because Wilson and gang wanted to, but because most of the Nationalised entities were failing corporations/companies who essentially being bailed out by the government with an extra step. Remember Austerity and the like wasn’t considered properly until the Callaghan years and IMF.

Really I would recommend you watch a documentary on 70s Britain, or on Wilson or the history of finance in Britain and that would explain more than me just telling you stuff. Or any of John O’Farrell’s history books.

 

[Charles EP M.]

I feel like I've seen "neo-Crusaders as Islamists in a Europe that remained behind the rest of the world" but I can't actually point to any AH that has done it.

Turtledove's Through Darkest Europe sounds like it?

 

[JesterBL]

Turtledove's Through Darkest Europe sounds like it?

This was the one- and I can confirm it is on my "Books Read" master list, so I definitely cribbed notes from it.

I'm kinda considering doing a one year later vignette with it regardless, although I fear I would get too worldbuild-y versus finding a good story.

 

[Time Enough]

It’s fun watching Late 70s/80s Science Fiction due to how Alternate History laced it is, Alien has a British-Japan Union in the background (though the script reasons for it are stupid), Blade Runner has PANAM and the Soviet Union and Robocop has a South African Civil War etc.

Be fun to actually craft a reasoning for it etc.

 

[Coiler]

It’s fun watching Late 70s/80s Science Fiction due to how Alternate History laced it is

There's also the legendary Escape From New York.

(Although I don't consider "retroactive alternate history" like those and 1984 true AH. Hope that doesn't sound too snobby.)

 

[Time Enough]

There's also the legendary Escape From New York.

(Although I don't consider "retroactive alternate history" like those and 1984 true AH. Hope that doesn't sound too snobby.)

I consider it a treasure trove of more fun ‘what if’ scenarios than full fledged Alternate History. Like for me, the Alien universe is obviously one where a Shore/Gould Government took Britain out of the EEC and decided to ally themselves with a raising Japan etc.

Same with Patlabor too (Centre Left Japanese Government coming in after Global Warming mishaps eventually leads to an attempted Right Wing Coup which goes wrong etc.)

 

[Charles EP M.]

My fave bit of Alien's worldbuilding lore is knowing the vast lore of Weyland-Yutani all starts with a joking reference to Japan buying British companies and was originally written as Leyland-Yutani before they went "probably change it for legal reasons".

 

[Yokai Man]

I consider it a treasure trove of more fun ‘what if’ scenarios than full fledged Alternate History. Like for me, the Alien universe is obviously one where a Shore/Gould Government took Britain out of the EEC and decided to ally themselves with a raising Japan etc.

Same with Patlabor too (Centre Left Japanese Government coming in after Global Warming mishaps eventually leads to an attempted Right Wing Coup which goes wrong etc.)

Not to mention Jin Roh.

 

[Charles EP M.]

It's a real pity that for commercial reasons, China hasn't been as easily slipping into the Japan/Soviets role in sci-fi future-history-that-will-turn-AH. We'll not get the same glimpse of the past's views when we watch Escape From Boise.

 

[Time Enough]

My fave bit of Alien's worldbuilding lore is knowing the vast lore of Weyland-Yutani all starts with a joking reference to Japan buying British companies and was originally written as Leyland-Yutani before they went "probably change it for legal reasons".

Leyland-Toyota just makes me thing of my internal image of Ichirō Ozawa and Bryan Gould shaking hands as America deals with the fallout of the Jackson years etc.

Not to mention Jin Roh.

Jin Roh is a fascinating example as it went from ‘near future shenanigans’ to ‘Well Germany won World War 2, and now Japan is under the control’ which...I need an explanation for how that happened.

Patlabor is more normal in comparison ‘Global Warming leading to Construction Mecha’ is incredibly mundane (which is why I love Patlabor).

 

[Aznavour]

While perusing a local bookshop, I found a copy of Charles Renouvier’s Uchronie (1876), from whom we got the term Uchronian/Ucronia (in a 1857 article, not this novel).

In this tale the succession of Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius takes a different path as General M̶a̶x̶i̶m̶u̶s̶ ̶D̶e̶c̶i̶m̶u̶s̶ ̶M̶e̶r̶i̶d̶i̶u̶s̶ Avidius Cassius and Commodus get involved in a more convoluted struggle. This article has a synopsis. Point is that Rome is “reformed” and Constantine never goes for Christianity (Butterflies hadn’t been invented yet), so the result is a longer lived classical Rome. Unfortunately I picked up Natsume Sōseki’s I Am A Cat instead, but I might pick this one up later. Anyhow, I was wondering if anyone’s read it or can recommend it.

 

[Coiler]

A weird gambling WI: Having consumer protection laws applied to gambling so the books can't simply ban skilled winners causes horse racing to implode.

• For whatever reason, horse racing is just a hard sport for the bookmakers to handicap. I don't know the exact reasons why, but it may be like how the NFL Draft, with lots of different outcomes and supposed insider information actually making more of a difference, is an infamous nightmare for the sportsbooks.
• I've also heard (do not have concrete numbers so take it with a grain of salt) that horse racing accounts for the bulk of the winning British punters banned/ultra-restricted.
• What I do know is that Pinnacle, the premier offshore sharp book, doesn't even try to offer horse racing at all.
• So if you forced sportsbooks to sharpen (the most common hypothetical is requiring that bets up to a certain size be honored no matter what), the result would be less props, fewer markets, and... as often stated, a giant crushing blow to horse racing, which apparently needs a soft book to work.
• Of course, this is a pretty out-there AH because there's just no motivation to do so. Even in the offshore world in ideal conditions, you have a hundred soft books to every sharp one, the sportsbook management is a big lobby, there still aren't that many people banned (and many of the ones that are have been trying to just munchkin the system through stuff like arbitrage or abusing promotions), and the general public doesn't think "you aren't allowed to win at something that's supposed to be stacked against you anyway" is that big an injustice.

But if it did happen and horse racing collapsed, what ripple effects would there be?

 

[JesterBL]

A weird gambling WI: Having consumer protection laws applied to gambling so the books can't simply ban skilled winners causes horse racing to implode.

Wouldn't this just push more horse racing into pari-mutuel betting?

 

[Coiler]

Wouldn't this just push more horse racing into pari-mutuel betting?

That's a very likely case, along with moving racing bets offshore.