History Learner
Well-known member
Nah, that's just The End of History thesis by Fukuyama, which even he has rejected nowadays.
Alternate History Ideas and Discussion
- Thread starter AndrewJTalon
- Start date
Nah, that's just The End of History thesis by Fukuyama, which even he has rejected nowadays.
I wouldn't call that colonialism, settler or otherwise. That's refugees moving within the former Russian Empire to the parts that are more resistant to the Reds. Unless there's something fantastically important there I'm not sure it would be worth having a border with the USSR if Germany retained its overseas colonies.
You're assuming that the USSR will survive a German victory in WWI, which is by no means guaranteed.
Capuchin monkey farming becomes a profitable enterprise in Appalachia? Maybe one of their prominent local farmers and/or businessmen takes a trip to Latin America, tastes these monkeys there, and then decides to introduce these monkeys back home in Appalachia?
AHC: Have Italy still overthrow its monarchy without any prior history of Fascist rule in Italy beforehand.
Outright breaking up Germany is probably unlikely, but Germany is likely to get very thoroughly de-Nazified in this TL. Mussolini I would presume would ally with the Anglo-French after the war in order to combat the Soviet/Communist threat. German-Polish relations are likely to be tense for a while if Germany is still likely to lose a lot of territory to Poland, albeit not quite as much as in real life. Germany's best odds here would be to launch an anti-Nazi coup sufficiently early before the Anglo-French are hungry for revenge. Then they could perhaps be allowed to keep Germany's January 1939 borders.
The US will continue to be economically active in Europe but will not make any binding military commitments there. But we could see a Pan-European defense alliance and economic union eventually emerge. The Holocaust would, of course, be much smaller in this scenario if it is to occur at all since the Nazis will never have as many Jews under their rule as they had in real life. Soviet and Hungarian Jews are going to remain unscathed, after all. I wonder what effects this will have on Zionism and the creation of Israel.
I wonder if the Soviet Union will survive up to the present-day in this TL since it won't have the extremely massive WWII casualties from real life and what if one or more of these millions of casualties (born sometime between 1910 and 1927) would have been a Soviet version of Deng Xiaoping who could have outmaneuvered Mikhail Gorbachev and rose to power in the Soviet Union? We'll just never know, right?
Decolonization could be both longer and messier in this TL due to the survival of Anglo-French military power, of course. The Anglo-French will decolonize on their own terms here rather than on US-Soviet terms like in real life. In real life, what helped decolonization movements was that both superpowers were anti-colonialist. This world, however, won't actually have any superpowers, only a whole bunch of Great Powers.
Simple: Just avoid 9/11 or a similar subsequent terrorist attack, at least before the 2004 primaries. In such a scenario, Al Gore might actually beat Bush in their 2004 rematch.
Zyobot
Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
In that case, I suppose it'd energize Democratic voters who felt that Gore was cheated four years ago? Maybe he'd even be able to integrate that into his campaign, depending on how overt or subtle he wants to be.
However, supposing 9/11 or another massive terrorist attack still happened, what'd a 2004 rematch between Bush and Gore look like? I lean towards Bush winning and painting Gore as a "petty loser" whose priorities are dangerously skewed, but that doesn't tell me much about what the electoral map probably looks like, for example.
I suspect that Gore will allow others in the Democratic Party to use the "He was cheated" argument to rally support for him but that he himself will personally not use this argument, either directly or subtly, due to the fact that he would want to avoid undermining the rule of law and the US Supreme Court. He's not Donald Trump, after all. But Yeah, the Democratic base will definitely be VERY energized in 2004 without 9/11. The focus will be much more on 2000 in such an election in comparison to real life, when 9/11, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and terrorism were much bigger issues in 2004.
I suspect that Gore would narrowly win a 2004 rematch since Bush's job creation record was very unimpressive and since I'm unsure that the US would have actually recovered enough from the dot-com recession by November 2004, especially in terms of job creation.
@Zyobot @Skallagrim @History Learner @stevep @sillygoose AHC: Have the US enter a World War II that does not involve either Nazis or Communists after World War I remains unchanged from real life. Also, No, Russia does not have to become Communist in this scenario. Also, Nazis != Fascists. Fascists are allowed for this scenario just so long as they are not Nazis.
Skallagrim
Well-known member
I posted a thing on AH dot com, once upon a time, about German Revolutionary Conservatism as an ideology. The post involved multiple scenarios wherein this movement triumphs, side-lining the Nazis. (With the scenarios ranging from a fairly benevolent regime emerging, all the way to a very not benevolent one.)
This could serve as a premise to keep the Nazis out of play. If we contrive to combine it with a "White victory" scenario in Russia, and have the two allied... Well. Then we're in business, no? For bonus points, have them side with the Kuomintang against Japan, whereas Japan retains its ties with Britain, and we have a war featuring the fringe of Eurasia (on both ends!) versus the heartland.
Chances are good that the USA eventually intervenes, because letting the Eurasian bloc win would inevitably mean a war between Eurasia and America anyway.
It would make for a really interesting war, because all three Eurasian powers would be potentially very wealthy, but would in practice be fairly shaky, and all run by a fairly diverse basket of ambitious and/or quixotic characters.
What brings the US into the war in this TL? German submarines operating against Britain? And would the Anglo-French really be willing to fight such an alliance, even with Japan as their ally?
Skallagrim
Well-known member
I can imagine very few "White victory" scenarios wherein Russia doesn't end up a basket case. When we look at Republican China in OTL, that was a basket case. And Germany under the leadership I suggested here... wouldn't be very stable, either. So this bloc would be extremely dangerous if it has enough time to get its act together. But if confronted in time, it wouldn't be able to hold up as well. The leadership wouldn't be the placid sort, either, so they'd provide cause for alarm -- and then cause for war -- soon enough, I'd say.
This is a world where men like Ungern-Sternberg and Diterikhs actually have a chance to thrive and proliferate. They won't be the norm, but they'll make more of a mark than in OTL. So don't be too surprised when an exiled horde of Cossacks led by a madman defeats a Japanese division in Manchuria... and then proceeds to erect a pyramid of human skulls, Tamerlane-style.
You'd want to confront that sort of thing before it grows too powerful.
Interesting. How do they "solve" the "Jewish question" in this TL, assuming that they actually view it as a "problem" that needs "solving"?
And where would their major points of conflict with Britain + France + Japan be other than China?
Zyobot
Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
Oof. Now that would add a degree of ideological nastiness to ATL World War II, in addition to technology and the industrial scale of the conflict (once again) making it a hellish bloodbath.
However, considering how bad the Eurasian leaders who came out on top IOTL were, it's a pretty high bar to clear for this version of the Second World War to be even more hateful and odious than what we actually got. (Yes, even with the cast swapped around to include Sternberg and Diterikhs. Mainly because the men they're replacing, namely Hitler and Stalin, ran some of the most horrific regimes imaginable, as it was.)
Skallagrim
Well-known member
That depends on who is in power. Especially in Russia, I'd see things varying from place to place, depending on who's in charge. Mostly, Germany and Russia would see habitual distrust of Jews, probably some anti-Jewish legislations, and local pogroms. That's pretty close to the historical norm. I don't see it escalating beyond that, unless someone with a real obsession gets into power. Locally -- and as I said, especially in Russia -- things could get far more out of hand.
I mentioned Ungern-Sternberg for instance, who has been quoted as saying that he wished to "erect a long row of gallows from here [Mongolia] to Moscow, and hang a Jew from every one". So that clarifies his position, then.
I imagine their stated intent would be to "take back everything that we lost in the war, and more besides". An alliance like this could afford to be ambitious, after all. They wouldn't lack for war aim, and they wouldn't be shy about it. At the end of the day, the details barely matter, when the enemy's stated intent is probably going to boil down to some statement concluding with: "...and once we've won, we divide Eurasia, Africa and Oceania between the three of us...!"
As stated above, I think the overall trend would be less actively genocidal than Hitler and Stalin, but also... weirder. With occasional examples veering off into really fucking batshit crazy.
One can say that the cause of democracy in Europe received a huge blow in WWII in real life when France fell in 1940. That ensured that at least some of Europe was going to be totalitarian for a very long time.
What about a mass deportation of Russian Jews to Siberia or wherever?
Interesting. Might as well grab British India while they're at it, right?
Would they make as good of a bogeymen for US cartoons?
Skallagrim
Well-known member
Jews? In my Siberia? It's more likely than you think!
They can at least try...
I say again: pyramids of human skulls are a plausible eventuality, here.Would they make as good of a bogeymen for US cartoons?
When your enemy does everything in his power to present himself as an atavistic throw-back to a far darker age, you don't even have to paint him as a bogeyman. He is one.
What does the "my Siberia" reference mean here?
Also, fair enough.
BTW, here's another AHC: Have the Italian monarchy still be eventually overthrown, but without either Mussolini or Fascism or Communism ever actually being involved in any way.
Zyobot
Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
Yeah, I don't know how he and Hitler would get along overall, but I get the queasy feeling Sternberg would have a sinister "lightbulb moment" if ASB gave him a look at OTL Holocaust. (His execution might involve somewhat fewer mechanical, highly engineered means, but way more public displays of "Kill, maim, burn!" as if he's Khorne incarnate.)