Alternate History Ideas and Discussion

I suppose that George W. Bush could mount a decent campaign for the 1996 GOP nomination if he wants it, but what would be the point? A loss in 1996 would severely hurt his 2000 chances, after all.

Probably, especially since arguing that he's a more "experienced" leader would backfire, given that he's only been a state governor for two years to Clinton's (non-consecutive) eleven.

Other than that, I suppose I meant a more "contrived" race in which neither's been president to begin with, such as an ATL 2000 election where Clinton held off on running or something.
 
Probably, especially since arguing that he's a more "experienced" leader would backfire, given that he's only been governor for two years to Clinton's (non-consecutive) eleven.

His only hope might be for the Lewinsky scandal to come out sooner, and even then, it simply might not be enough.
 
Make is an extremely successful holdout from the crusades. Its borders protected by fortresses that have held out against one-hundred-to-one odds on multiple occasions. A system of trenches, walls and fortifications have grown to completely enclose its border over the centuries.

You'd also need a lot of Muslim persecution of Christians in other parts of the Middle East, no? Though FWIW, I was thinking of a 20th century PoD here.
 
'AHC: Lebanon as a Middle Eastern Christian homeland similar to Israel for the Jews'

Apparently the Middle East still had huge numbers of Christians (albeit generally as minorities) in the early 20th century:

f64827c90f5ea35da53f9bea8d641e0a46f37dda.png


How do we get these Christians to move to Lebanon en masse?
Well, how about this to start with - the Maronite Christians decisively win Lebanese Civil War and the Gemayel clan, as leaders of the Lebanese Phalange and by extension the Lebanese Front which functioned as an umbrella for the Christian paramilitaries, manages to consolidate power after Bachir Gemayel, their most competent leader (and also one of their most brutal), avoids assassination in 1982. Gemayel turns Lebanon into a Christian military dictatorship with a paper-thin democratic veneer, pushes the Lebanese people to identify as latter-day Phoenicians rather than Arabs, and probably makes peace with Israel if given the opportunity to do so during or after the Oslo Accords (if they aren't butterflied away of course).

Meanwhile the Muslim Brotherhood successfully topples Hafez al-Assad in Syria, as well as the Egyptian regime following Anwar Sadat's execution. The United Arab Republic rises again as an 'Islamic Republic of Arabia' (or whatever else you might want to call it), and the Ilkhwan persecutes their Christian population - maybe reintroducing the jizya, to start with. Egyptian & Syrian Christians flee en masse to Lebanon, where Gemayel welcomes them because he needs people to replace all those Palestinians, other Muslims and Druze he's driven out of the country at gunpoint. The Lebanese confessional model of governance, such as it is, might be adapted into a sort of 'permanent ecumenical council' to give each of the various Christian sects a say in how the country is run, though the Maronites aren't going to quietly give up their dominant stake to the Copts or Syriacs any more than they did with the Armenians IOTL.
 
Well, how about this to start with - the Maronite Christians decisively win Lebanese Civil War and the Gemayel clan, as leaders of the Lebanese Phalange and by extension the Lebanese Front which functioned as an umbrella for the Christian paramilitaries, manages to consolidate power after Bachir Gemayel, their most competent leader (and also one of their most brutal), avoids assassination in 1982. Gemayel turns Lebanon into a Christian military dictatorship with a paper-thin democratic veneer, pushes the Lebanese people to identify as latter-day Phoenicians rather than Arabs, and probably makes peace with Israel if given the opportunity to do so during or after the Oslo Accords (if they aren't butterflied away of course).

Meanwhile the Muslim Brotherhood successfully topples Hafez al-Assad in Syria, as well as the Egyptian regime following Anwar Sadat's execution. The United Arab Republic rises again as an 'Islamic Republic of Arabia' (or whatever else you might want to call it), and the Ilkhwan persecutes their Christian population - maybe reintroducing the jizya, to start with. Egyptian & Syrian Christians flee en masse to Lebanon, where Gemayel welcomes them because he needs people to replace all those Palestinians, other Muslims and Druze he's driven out of the country at gunpoint. The Lebanese confessional model of governance, such as it is, might be adapted into a sort of 'permanent ecumenical council' to give each of the various Christian sects a say in how the country is run, though the Maronites aren't going to quietly give up their dominant stake to the Copts or Syriacs any more than they did with the Armenians IOTL.

Could you also get the Iraqi Christians to flee en masse to Lebanon if the US will still eventually invade Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein from power in this TL? And how would Lebanon feel about accepting Yazidi refugees as well? They're neither Christian nor Muslim.
 
Could you also get the Iraqi Christians to flee en masse to Lebanon if the US will still eventually invade Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein from power in this TL? And how would Lebanon feel about accepting Yazidi refugees as well? They're neither Christian nor Muslim.
Re: Iraqi Christians, sure, I don't see why not.

Re: Yazidis, I'm much more doubtful. The Maronites won't want another potential Druze situation on their hands.
 
Re: Iraqi Christians, sure, I don't see why not.

Re: Yazidis, I'm much more doubtful. The Maronites won't want another potential Druze situation on their hands.

Did the Maronites have a hatred of the Druze?

Also, any chance of the Maronites accepting Palestinian Christians as well if Hamas or Islamic Jihad or whomever ever begins targeting them in addition to targeting Jews?
 
BTW, @Circle of Willis, I've thought of something:

If the Alawites will eventually rebel against the Egypto-Syrian government in this TL, might Lebanon decide to support the Alawites? If so, could we see a Triple Alliance of Israel, Lebanon, and an Alawite state on Syria's coastline against Egypt-Syria? I suspect that such an alliance is likely to especially anger Muslims since its location on a map of the Middle East bears great resemblance to the location of the Crusader states during the Middle Ages.
 
Did the Maronites have a hatred of the Druze?

Also, any chance of the Maronites accepting Palestinian Christians as well if Hamas or Islamic Jihad or whomever ever begins targeting them in addition to targeting Jews?
Yes, the Druze were bitter foes of the Phalange/Lebanese Front. Furthermore they were generally aligned with the Soviets & Palestinians, further placing them in opposition to the generally strongly anti-Communist Christian factions, and proud of being Arabs - they would have wanted no part in the Phoenicianism the Phalange were pushing.

Hmm, not sure. I think much would depend on whether Gemayel has reached an official peace settlement with Israel. If he has, I find it hard to imagine he'd take in even Christian Palestinian refugees if he suspected they might want to use Lebanon as a staging ground for attacks on Israel, since the PLO doing just that was the single biggest factor behind the Lebanese Civil War's outbreak alongside the original Palestinian refugees screwing up the country's demographics in general.
BTW, @Circle of Willis, I've thought of something:

If the Alawites will eventually rebel against the Egypto-Syrian government in this TL, might Lebanon decide to support the Alawites? If so, could we see a Triple Alliance of Israel, Lebanon, and an Alawite state on Syria's coastline against Egypt-Syria? I suspect that such an alliance is likely to especially anger Muslims since its location on a map of the Middle East bears great resemblance to the location of the Crusader states during the Middle Ages.
Maybe, but I consider it unlikely if the Assads are still leading the Alawites. The Gemayels won't be forgetting Syrian meddling in Lebanon and efforts to undermine them (so as to reduce Lebanon into a Syrian satellite, or absorb it altogether even) anytime soon.
 
Yes, the Druze were bitter foes of the Phalange/Lebanese Front. Furthermore they were generally aligned with the Soviets & Palestinians, further placing them in opposition to the generally strongly anti-Communist Christian factions, and proud of being Arabs - they would have wanted no part in the Phoenicianism the Phalange were pushing.

Hmm, not sure. I think much would depend on whether Gemayel has reached an official peace settlement with Israel. If he has, I find it hard to imagine he'd take in even Christian Palestinian refugees if he suspected they might want to use Lebanon as a staging ground for attacks on Israel, since the PLO doing just that was the single biggest factor behind the Lebanese Civil War's outbreak alongside the original Palestinian refugees screwing up the country's demographics in general.

Reasonable analysis.

Maybe, but I consider it unlikely if the Assads are still leading the Alawites. The Gemayels won't be forgetting Syrian meddling in Lebanon and efforts to undermine them (so as to reduce Lebanon into a Syrian satellite, or absorb it altogether even) anytime soon.

What about if someone else will replace the Assads as the head(s) of the Alawites?
 
'AHC: A (Shi'a + Alawite)-majority Syria by the late 21st century'

FWIW, I got my inspiration for this from this article:


In 2017 or later, Hussain Ibrahim Qutrib, an Associate Professor of Geomorphology at the King Faisal Center for Research and Islamic Studies, wrote an article about the demographic changes that have occurred in "Useful Syria" as a result of the Syrian Civil War.[14] Specifically, Qutrib defined "Useful Syria" similar to how Syrian President Bashar al-Assad defined this term in early 2016—as in, including the Syrian governorates of Damascus, Rif Dimashq, Homs, Hama, Latakia, and Tartus.[14]

Qutrib pointed out that these six governorates contained 46% of Syria's total population at the end of 2011—as in, 9.8 million people out of a total Syrian population of almost 21.4 million people at that point in time.[14] Qutrib points out that, at the end of 2011, the demographics of "Useful Syria" were 69% Sunni, 21% Alawite (which is an offshoot of Shi'a Islam), 1% Shi'a, 1% Druze, 2% Ismaili, and 6% Christian.[14]

In contrast, by 2016, the population of "Useful Syria" fell from 9.8 million to 7.6 million but its demographics have also significantly changed in the intervening five years; in 2016, "Useful Syria" was just 52% Sunni, 24% Alawite, 13% Shi'a, 1% Druze, 3% Ismaili, and 7% Christian—with the main change being the explosive growth of the Shi'a population in "Useful Syria" between 2011 and 2016.[14]

The demographic transformations in Rif Dimashq and Homs governorate between 2011 and 2016 were especially notable: Rif Dimashq went from 87% Sunni in 2011 to 54% Sunni in 2016 while the Homs governorate went from 64% Sunni to 21% Sunni between 2011 and 2016.[14] This demographic transformation has been described by Qutrib as Shiization.[14]

Also, from this article:


FWIW, I was thinking that having the Assad regime somehow successfully get huge numbers of Hazaras to leave Afghanistan and move to Syria might be a good way to help achieve this. But what do you think?
 
And would the US actually be willing to remain in the war until it builds nukes if the USSR is already knocked out of the war? The American people who were voting in 1944 did not know about the US nuclear program, after all--did they?
There are votes for war with Japan and Hitler declared war on America as an ally of Japan. The UK government knows about the American nuclear program since they let theirs be folded into it. If the UK and US governments agree to wait on nukes before landing in continental Europe in the absence of Russia only Japan surrendering before the nukes are ready or Germany coming out with a peace proposal better than they think they can get after using nuclear weapons can prevent that. The former is ASB territory. The latter might be possible, but as untrustworthy as Hitler has been in his dealings with everyone outside the Axis I can't imagine it not involving a coup before the peace offer is made.
 
Easy. Greeks win the Greco-Turkish War of 1919-22, Constantinople either becomes a free city under Entente administration (should count since the British and French are obviously Christians, if you don't want to count France because the Third Republic is adamant about laicite then just have the Action Francaise or Croix de Feu overthrow them later) or is handed off to Greece if the Anglo-French ever withdraw for whatever reason (economics, need to send their garrison there elsewhere, etc.) Meanwhile the October Revolution and Russian Civil War proceed more or less as OTL.

BTW, what do you think happens to Trebizond in this scenario? Or, alternatively, to the Pontus Republic?

 
BTW, what do you think happens to Trebizond in this scenario? Or, alternatively, to the Pontus Republic?

Seems extremely unsustainable and difficult to impossible for the Greeks to keep afloat unless their victory over Turkey basically permanently destroys the latter as a nation altogether (like, 'Cappadocian Greek puppet state exists/Cappadocia is now part of Greece' levels of 'devastating victory'). The Pontine Greeks are probably safest with a surviving, Entente-backed Wilsonian Armenia or Democratic Republic of Georgia (who also have interests in the Trabzon area due to the significant Laz minority there).
 
Seems extremely unsustainable and difficult to impossible for the Greeks to keep afloat unless their victory over Turkey basically permanently destroys the latter as a nation altogether (like, 'Cappadocian Greek puppet state exists/Cappadocia is now part of Greece' levels of 'devastating victory'). The Pontine Greeks are probably safest with a surviving, Entente-backed Wilsonian Armenia or Democratic Republic of Georgia (who also have interests in the Trabzon area due to the significant Laz minority there).

Fun fact: Northeastern Turkey still had sizable Laz minorities even in the mid-20th century. Here's 1965 data for this:

Mother_language_in_1965_Turkey_census_-_Laz.png


But Yeah, either Armenia, or Georgia, or, if Russia avoids permanently going Red, Russia would be necessary protectors for Pontus to permanently avoid Turkish rule. Interestingly enough, I was actually thinking about the idea of a non-Communist Russia losing Ukraine and Georgia but still keeping Crimea, Odessa, Pontus, and Constantinople as Russian exclaves. Would that actually be realistic?
 
Fun fact: Northeastern Turkey still had sizable Laz minorities even in the mid-20th century. Here's 1965 data for this:

Mother_language_in_1965_Turkey_census_-_Laz.png


But Yeah, either Armenia, or Georgia, or, if Russia avoids permanently going Red, Russia would be necessary protectors for Pontus to permanently avoid Turkish rule. Interestingly enough, I was actually thinking about the idea of a non-Communist Russia losing Ukraine and Georgia but still keeping Crimea, Odessa, Pontus, and Constantinople as Russian exclaves. Would that actually be realistic?
Crimea and Constantinople seem reasonable enough, although if Russia has been weakened to the point of losing Ukraine & Georgia, I think it's far likelier that they'll have to share control of the international administration over a 'free city of Constantinople' with Britain, who'd have the power to say 'lol nope' to a Russian Constantinople. I can't see a Ukraine strong enough to break free from Russian rule not also being strong enough to hold on to Odessa though, and Pontus would still be safest and likeliest with the independent Georgia I think, unless this hypothetical Russia (a surviving Russian Republic or State?) also somehow finds Wilsonian Armenia in their possession.
 
Crimea and Constantinople seem reasonable enough, although if Russia has been weakened to the point of losing Ukraine & Georgia, I think it's far likelier that they'll have to share control of the international administration over a 'free city of Constantinople' with Britain, who'd have the power to say 'lol nope' to a Russian Constantinople. I can't see a Ukraine strong enough to break free from Russian rule not also being strong enough to hold on to Odessa though, and Pontus would still be safest and likeliest with the independent Georgia I think, unless this hypothetical Russia (a surviving Russian Republic or State?) also somehow finds Wilsonian Armenia in their possession.

The idea of an independent or League of Nations-controlled Constantinople sounds very interesting, actually. A separate Kingdom of Constantinople, of course, sounds much more fun, but that's harder to accomplish since if the Russian Empire survives, they'd want to keep Constantinople for itself, and if it doesn't survive, then I don't think that there will actually be much desire to make Constantinople a monarchy. But even if Constantinople is ruled by the League of Nations or whatever, it would be really cool to see it revive the culture and traditions of the Byzantine Empire if at all possible.

The logic behind Russia keeping Odessa is that Odessa's population was much more Russian than Ukrainian back then, though Ukraine would obviously counter this by saying that the countryside around Odessa is much more Ukrainian than it is Russian.

As for Pontus, my logic here would be that Russia will still have a much more powerful navy than an independent Georgia would have, though I don't know just how much of a value a better navy would have in regards to transporting armies if there will be no land connection between Russia and Pontus. Still, one advantage that Pontus does have is that it has excellent defensive terrain due to its topography:

Topographic-map-of-Turkey-showing-the-location-of-DAG-inset.png


This could help explain why exactly the Empire of Trebizond was able to survive for a couple of centuries in the late Middle Ages:

byzantine_empire_1260.jpg


As for Wilsonian Armenia, I was thinking that it would either remain part of Russia or become independent in this TL. Pro-independence sentiment among Armenians could potentially be high after the Armenian Genocide, though this genocide also made a viable Armenian-majority or even Armenian-plurality state much harder to build due to the extremely massive death toll among Armenians that it tragically resulted in. :(
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top