Alternate History Ideas and Discussion

Reader mode
Circle of Willis said:
That's pretty distinct from the 700s-800s Byzantine POD you quoted, but to answer, I asked the same question myself on here a year ago. Forum consensus seems to have been that the KMT still has big issues to deal with - severe corruption, land reform, food shortages, the remaining warlords, etc. But it would also avoid the absolute calamities of the Great Leap Forward & Cultural Revolution, so China will ultimately almost certainly be in a somewhat to much better place economically, demographically, politically and psychologically by the '80s-'90s (much less the 21st century) compared to OTL. Chiang would have to try very, very hard to do any worse than Mao.
Click to expand...

I actually asked a related question a ways back, though it leaned more into diplomatic relations with the US and its effects on trade policy down the line, since the lack of mass-offshoring to a communist dictatorship that's acting in bad faith would dampen anti-globalist and protectionist rhetoric. (But probably not remove it entirely, as China would still become a manufacturing powerhouse with loads of cheap labor.)

Agreed, however, that a Nationalist China would be substantially better adjusted than IOTL, especially with democratization in the cards after a brief period of strongman rule, compared to a lasting dictatorship that has only partially shook off Maoist excesses.

Skallagrim said:
In 1923, Franklin Delano Roosevelt sent a screenplay he'd written for a prospective film about John Paul Jones to Paramount. They politely turned it down. But they pretended to entertain the idea for months, because they didn't want to make him into an enemy. (His family was wealthy and powerful, and he had enough pull to put his screenplay directly on the desk of Adolph Zukor, the big boss over at Paramount.)

Suppose they hadn't turned him down? Suppose FDR had become a screenwriter for paramount, delivering historical epics and dramas for them? Even if he doesn't really change the history of American cinema in any big way... this means he won't go back into politics.
Click to expand...

Interesting, I don't suppose you have a reference handy? Did a bit of searching myself and found this via Reddit, though it doesn't tell me much about the screenplay itself or the process of negotiations you describe.

Anyway, even if Roosevelt still became a screenwriter, are we sure he wouldn't enter politics later? Because I know of one president who started off his career as the famed "cowboy actor", but later became governor of California and eventually, President of the United States at an unusually old age. (Well, at least until Trump and Biden bumped him down to third-eldest, anyway.)
 
Buba said:
We are not protected from that, of course. But with the butterflies he might contract Nurgle's Blessing in the form of Silver Screen Starlet Crotchrot.
Click to expand...

I could’ve gone my whole life without reading that, but okay. :sick:
 
'AHC: Have the Ottoman Empire recover all of its lost North African territories by 2022 with a PoD of January 1, 1914 or later'
 
WolfBear said:
'AHC: Have the Ottoman Empire recover all of its lost North African territories by 2022 with a PoD of January 1, 1914 or later'
Click to expand...
Nuclear War strikes in the 80s and a frighteningly competent Turkish Military officer goes off the deep end. Conquers the Middle East and North Africa and then everything collapses. This being the only non ASB way, because it take divine intervention to get the ottomans that far after 1914
 
Earl said:
Nuclear War strikes in the 80s and a frighteningly competent Turkish Military officer goes off the deep end. Conquers the Middle East and North Africa and then everything collapses. This being the only non ASB way, because it take divine intervention to get the ottomans that far after 1914
Click to expand...

But then it would be Turkey doing this, not the Ottomans--no?

I was thinking of something like Egypt/Libya/Tunisia/Algeria voluntarily rejoining the Ottoman Empire post-independence.
 
WolfBear said:
But then it would be Turkey doing this, not the Ottomans--no?

I was thinking of something like Egypt/Libya/Tunisia/Algeria voluntarily rejoining the Ottoman Empire post-independence.
Click to expand...
The insane Turkish General crowns himself Emperor and Caliph because he’s fucking nuts. There you go

Yeah, Uh, lol absolutely not. Never gonna happen.
 
Atarlost said:
Yes, but that's because the China that only Nixon can go to never exists.
Click to expand...

Yeah, an American president making inroads to China won’t be nearly as noteworthy ITTL, since the Nationalists aren’t communist and will probably be much more amenable to Western outreach here.

I still envision a lasting Nationalist China as much better-adjusted (and way less gruesome) than Maoist China, though, becoming a close second to the United States economically and an export-oriented manufacturing juggernaut cut from the same cloth as the Asian Tigers IOTL.
 
WolfBear said:
'AHC: A Byzantine reconquest of most or all of the territories that they lost to the Muslims with a PoD of 700 or later'
Click to expand...

As defined as the original ERE borders, i.e. including the Levant and Egypt? That's possible as late as the 1100s, I would argue. Have John II Komnenos live longer; it's highly likely Antioch and Edessa will be forced into direct Byzantine vassalage during John's reign while Konya will also likely be retaken, breaking Turkic power in Anatolia. Manuel may get married off to a Norman Princess, there was some indications Roger II was seeking a detente with Constantinople at this time but John II's death and the advanced state of negotiations for Manuel's first marriage precluded such. Free of Italian distractions and John's reign helping to put the Turkic threat on decline, enabling Manuel to finish it off in his reign, gives the latter free reign to secure Egypt as he intended while also likely avoiding the bad blood of the Second Crusade with the West.

Long term, the Byzantines secure Anatolia and Egypt, before placing the Crusader states in the Levant under their protection.
 
History Learner said:
As defined as the original ERE borders, i.e. including the Levant and Egypt? That's possible as late as the 1100s, I would argue. Have John II Komnenos live longer; it's highly likely Antioch and Edessa will be forced into direct Byzantine vassalage during John's reign while Konya will also likely be retaken, breaking Turkic power in Anatolia. Manuel may get married off to a Norman Princess, there was some indications Roger II was seeking a detente with Constantinople at this time but John II's death and the advanced state of negotiations for Manuel's first marriage precluded such. Free of Italian distractions and John's reign helping to put the Turkic threat on decline, enabling Manuel to finish it off in his reign, gives the latter free reign to secure Egypt as he intended while also likely avoiding the bad blood of the Second Crusade with the West.

Long term, the Byzantines secure Anatolia and Egypt, before placing the Crusader states in the Levant under their protection.
Click to expand...

After Egypt, though, the Byzantine Empire would still need to liberate the rest of North Africa from Muslim rule. If Manuel has a son in the 1150s, could this son perhaps finish this job? ;)
 
WolfBear said:
After Egypt, though, the Byzantine Empire would still need to liberate the rest of North Africa from Muslim rule. If Manuel has a son in the 1150s, could this son perhaps finish this job? ;)
Click to expand...

Well, what are we defining as the necessities of the reconquest? Full 600 A.D. borders or just 476 A.D.? I was assuming the latter.
 
WolfBear said:
I was thinking of the Byzantine Empire's borders right before the Islamic conquests. So, their borders around 630 AD.
Click to expand...

Probably impossible at this stage, Egypt and the Levant still carried Christian majorities or at least large minorities, North Africa was rather thoroughly Muslim at this time and also far from the Byzantine heartland.
 
History Learner said:
Probably impossible at this stage, Egypt and the Levant still carried Christian majorities or at least large minorities, North Africa was rather thoroughly Muslim at this time and also far from the Byzantine heartland.
Click to expand...

I suppose that one could try engaging in religious cleansing (ethnic cleansing on a religious basis) for the sake of Christendom, no?
 
Buba said:
What a wonderful POD!
The USA surely would be a better place had he gone to Hollywood and stayed there.
Click to expand...

I doubt a revolution in the US would have improved things much as such things tend to be destructive to everybody. Given the dire state of the US by the start of 1933 something drastic needed to be done else just about everything goes down the tube.
 
stevep said:
I doubt a revolution in the US would have improved things much as such things tend to be destructive to everybody. Given the dire state of the US by the start of 1933 something drastic needed to be done else just about everything goes down the tube.
Click to expand...
A failed revolution before the moral rot set in would be better than the alternative. Most of America wants to go back to 1923 not to some future utopia. Huey Long or someone like him fails to deliver either utopia or economic growth and the pendulum swings back so long as he doesn't incite a war with Japan. FDR is so corrupting to the national discourse because he was able to use a long war with a draft to mask the failure of his economic program.
 
'Longer-Lived Leonid Brezhnev'.

(Hey, that's a lot of alliteration right there! ;))
 
Reader mode
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top