Alternate History Ideas and Discussion

[stevep]

That was my first thought too
My feeling is that such a Greece would be at least 30% stronger than OTL - this really, really should make Mussolini take pause before attacking it in X.1940.
If not, then such a development - although not affecting Barbarossa in any way - has interesting consequences in 1941 nonetheless. E.g. the excitable drunkard does not send forces from Libya to the Balkans and there is no counteroffensive overruning most of Cyrenaica.

Did he send forces from eastern Libya i.e. the Cyrenaica region? I'm not sure he could easily have supported more forces on the eastern border so I suspect at least the 1st stage, with the defeat and destruction of the forces in the border defences as OTL. Which actually was what was the solo aim for Operation Compass.

If Italy didn't attack Greece then it has more forces to send to Libya but does need to ship them and their equipment and supplies. Similarly Britain isn't sending forces to Greece which then lose much of their equipment there as well as losses of manpower and also no need for sending equipment to Greece.

One other factor that could apply is if Italian hasn't attacked Greece and has more forces to defend Libya would Mussolini have asked Hitler for aid? Which could mean no Afrika Korp but relatively small additional forces for the Germans in Russia. Which could again change a lot of factors.

Not saying it would cause issues for Britain but would overall probably be a good thing for the allies I suspect.

 

[stevep]

'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:

How do we get these Christians to move to Lebanon en masse?

IIRC in the 1910 Ottoman census for Anatolia it was either 20% or 25% of the population was Christian but by 15 years later the only significant population left was that in the rump Armenian state that came under Soviet rule.

I'm not sure you can get so many people moving to Lebanon without a lot of force and probably many deaths, even if the forces doing it wished to avoid mass casualties. Plus given the numbers we're talking about you would need a lot more land than the modern territory of Lebanon to house them.

 

[WolfBear]

'AHC: More national leaders in the 21st century behave like Vladimir Putin by forcibly seizing parts of their neighbors' territory'

 

[ATP]

'AHC: More national leaders in the 21st century behave like Vladimir Putin by forcibly seizing parts of their neighbors' territory'

I have better - they all send harem of catgirls to @ATP after each conqest!

 

[WolfBear]

I have better - they all send harem of catgirls to @ATP after each conqest!

 

[WolfBear]

IIRC in the 1910 Ottoman census for Anatolia it was either 20% or 25% of the population was Christian but by 15 years later the only significant population left was that in the rump Armenian state that came under Soviet rule.

I'm not sure you can get so many people moving to Lebanon without a lot of force and probably many deaths, even if the forces doing it wished to avoid mass casualties. Plus given the numbers we're talking about you would need a lot more land than the modern territory of Lebanon to house them.

Additional space in Lebanon can be acquired if a lot of Lebanese Muslims are expelled 1948 Nakba Israeli-style.

Also, somewhat off-topic, but here's an idea: What about having the Ottoman Empire create an autonomous region for its Christians or at least for a large part of them? For instance, forcibly Turkify eastern Anatolia but allow any Armenian there who wants cultural autonomy to resettle in Cilicia instead? Since Cilicia was an independent Armenian kingdom during the Middle Ages, why can't it become an autonomous Armenian territory under Ottoman rule? :

Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Armenians there also wouldn't be as much of a threat to the Ottomans since they wouldn't be located near the Russian border and thus couldn't act as pro-Russian spies and subversives.

 

[stevep]

Additional space in Lebanon can be acquired if a lot of Lebanese Muslims are expelled 1948 Nakba Israeli-style.

Also, somewhat off-topic, but here's an idea: What about having the Ottoman Empire create an autonomous region for its Christians or at least for a large part of them? For instance, forcibly Turkify eastern Anatolia but allow any Armenian there who wants cultural autonomy to resettle in Cilicia instead? Since Cilicia was an independent Armenian kingdom during the Middle Ages, why can't it become an autonomous Armenian territory under Ottoman rule? :

Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Armenians there also wouldn't be as much of a threat to the Ottomans since they wouldn't be located near the Russian border and thus couldn't act as pro-Russian spies and subversives.

I'm not sure that Cilicia would be big enough for the bulk of the Armenian population plus it means they would be evicted from lands their lived in for over 2,000 years, which won't be popular. Also since it would remove them as a possible paw/excuse for intervention Russia might use that as a causi bellus.

There's no sign that any Armenians gave any aid to the Russians in 1914/15k, at least before the genocide started. It was largely that Enver Pasha, the primary Young Turk leader needed to find an excuse for the way he destroyed his own army at the Battle_of_Sarikamish. Plus some suggestions that one of the other YT warlords had been planning such a massacre for some time.

 

[WolfBear]

I'm not sure that Cilicia would be big enough for the bulk of the Armenian population plus it means they would be evicted from lands their lived in for over 2,000 years, which won't be popular. Also since it would remove them as a possible paw/excuse for intervention Russia might use that as a causi bellus.

There's no sign that any Armenians gave any aid to the Russians in 1914/15k, at least before the genocide started. It was largely that Enver Pasha, the primary Young Turk leader needed to find an excuse for the way he destroyed his own army at the Battle_of_Sarikamish. Plus some suggestions that one of the other YT warlords had been planning such a massacre for some time.

Yes, well, unfortunately perceptions matter much more than reality. Similar to how the Nazis used their belief in a global Jewish conspiracy to help justify their Holocaust against European Jewry.

 

[ATP]

Well,thank you,but - i prefer catgirls,not catboys.
P.S foxgirls and wolfgirls would work,too!

 

[WolfBear]

Well,thank you,but - i prefer catgirls,not catboys.
P.S foxgirls and wolfgirls would work,too!

What about trans catgirls?

 

[ATP]

What about trans catgirls?

Thanks,but stil no

 

[WolfBear]

Thanks,but stil no

Suit yourself.

Anyway:

'AHC: Relatively positive examples of the "Great Replacement" outside of the Anglosphere'

 

[ATP]

Suit yourself.

Anyway:

'AHC: Relatively positive examples of the "Great Replacement" outside of the Anglosphere'

In Putin country chineese and muslims are replacing white post soviets.Good for everybody.

 

[WolfBear]

In Putin country chineese and muslims are replacing white post soviets.Good for everybody.

lol i wish!

Russia Becoming *More* Russian

Another Uraza Bayram. Countless photos showing zillions of Muslims filling up Moskvabad\'s streets. More gleeful shitposts from /pol/ to svidomy forums about imminent Russabia. But you don\'t have to be a particularly big fan of open borders with Central Asia to be able to look at statistics. In...

www.unz.com

Anyway:

'AHC: Have some other group do something similar to what the Arabs did during the 7th and early 8th centuries (and also similar to what the Mongols did later on) and, in spite of them previously having an unremarkable history, go on an extremely massive and successful conquering spree within a relatively short period of time, such as 150 years or less.'

 

[WolfBear]

I'm a huge fan of this bit of AH potential, although it should be noted that in OTL, every serious attempt failed and was doomed to fail. The timing was always off. I've repeatedly proposed that if Potemkin hadn't gotten distracted by the idea of a war with Persia in the 1780s, an Austro-Russian compact to carry this out could have come about a few years earlier.

That would have lead to a golden opportunity, because -- if successful -- Austria would immediately thereafter be distracted by the French revolution. This would allow Russia to have a pretty free hand in organising the new "Byzantine Kingdom" (note that using the term "Empire" would be diplomatically untenable; other powers wouldn't accept it).

It should also be noted that the plan went to various iterations, and the map you show only indicates one version. The ATL I have proposed here would cut Venice out of the venture, for instance, and (per Potemkin's ambitions) would go much further in attempting to dismantle the whole Ottoman Empire. Northern and Western Anatolia were to be cleared of Turks and then granted to the new Byzantine state (although Russia's direct annexations in the North would presumably extend to Cape Sinope). Armenian, Kurdish, Assyrian and Arab states were to be spun off, there was to be Austro/Russian custody of the Holy Land, and the Turks were to be confined to Central Anatolia, powerless and surrounded. Also, Potemkin´s ambitions for Romania weren´t very clear. It was also proposed that it be cut in twain, with Wallachia going to Byzantium, and Moldavia to Russia.

(Not that division would matter too much, since the Russian plan was always to have the Russian Tsars inherit the Byzantine throne, thus adding all of the new realm to Russia directly. Third Rome can into Second Rome!)

Wasn't the Byzantine throne going to go to a more junior Russian prince (Constantine)? If so, wouldn't that have indicated that the Russian Empire and Byzantine Kingdom would have been meant to be separate realms indefinitely? Similar to the French and Spanish crowns after the 1713 Treaty of Utrecht?

BTW, just how many Russians do you think would have settled in northern and western Anatolia after these regions would have been ethnically cleansed of their Turkish populations?

 

[lordhen]

lol i wish!

Russia Becoming *More* Russian

Another Uraza Bayram. Countless photos showing zillions of Muslims filling up Moskvabad\'s streets. More gleeful shitposts from /pol/ to svidomy forums about imminent Russabia. But you don\'t have to be a particularly big fan of open borders with Central Asia to be able to look at statistics. In...

www.unz.com

Anyway:

'AHC: Have some other group do something similar to what the Arabs did during the 7th and early 8th centuries (and also similar to what the Mongols did later on) and, in spite of them previously having an unremarkable history, go on an extremely massive and successful conquering spree within a relatively short period of time, such as 150 years or less.'

Russians become more Russians is like saying Americans become more Americans.

Russia is made up of several groups if i recall.

 

[stevep]

lol i wish!

Russia Becoming *More* Russian

Another Uraza Bayram. Countless photos showing zillions of Muslims filling up Moskvabad\'s streets. More gleeful shitposts from /pol/ to svidomy forums about imminent Russabia. But you don\'t have to be a particularly big fan of open borders with Central Asia to be able to look at statistics. In...

www.unz.com

Anyway:

'AHC: Have some other group do something similar to what the Arabs did during the 7th and early 8th centuries (and also similar to what the Mongols did later on) and, in spite of them previously having an unremarkable history, go on an extremely massive and successful conquering spree within a relatively short period of time, such as 150 years or less.'

Vikings in a slightly later period than the initial Muslim invasions. - Especially if your consider the Swedish Rus who had a fairly dramatic impact on history.

Possibly also the Spanish and Portuguese in their colonial expansion. It depends on how much you consider them to have had "an unremarkable history" but technically Spain itself was still a new and somewhat unstable kingdom in ~1942 and could quite conceivably split into its component parts.

The Turks also had some fairly dramatic waves of expansion over the last ~1500 or so years and those are the ones we know about.

The Aztecs came from pretty much nothing in Mexico and so do the Incas and assembled pretty large empires.

Going back a little further there was a minor chieftain called Cyrus who overthrew the Median empire that had earlier in turn played a big role in defeating the Ayssrians. He had some success.

I'm British and English and we had a good period from ~1650 for a couple of centuries. Actually surprised that example only just came to me!

Probably a few more I could think off with a bit more effort.

 

[Skallagrim]

'AHC: Have some other group do something similar to what the Arabs did during the 7th and early 8th centuries (and also similar to what the Mongols did later on) and, in spite of them previously having an unremarkable history, go on an extremely massive and successful conquering spree within a relatively short period of time, such as 150 years or less.'

Vikings in a slightly later period than the initial Muslim invasions. - Especially if your consider the Swedish Rus who had a fairly dramatic impact on history.

Possibly also the Spanish and Portuguese in their colonial expansion. It depends on how much you consider them to have had "an unremarkable history" but technically Spain itself was still a new and somewhat unstable kingdom in ~1942 and could quite conceivably split into its component parts.

The Turks also had some fairly dramatic waves of expansion over the last ~1500 or so years and those are the ones we know about.

The Aztecs came from pretty much nothing in Mexico and so do the Incas and assembled pretty large empires.

Going back a little further there was a minor chieftain called Cyrus who overthrew the Median empire that had earlier in turn played a big role in defeating the Ayssrians. He had some success.

I'm British and English and we had a good period from ~1650 for a couple of centuries. Actually surprised that example only just came to me!

Probably a few more I could think off with a bit more effort.

"Good afternoon. Those are some cute attempts you fellows have listed. Anyway, "150 years or less" is a benchmark for weaklings. Let me show you how it's done. Biggest land empire in history, coming right up."

 

[Earl]

"Good afternoon. Those are some cute attempts you fellows have listed. Anyway, "150 years or less" is a benchmark for weaklings. Let me show you how it's done. Biggest land empire in history, coming right up."

>enters Breaks lots of cool civilizations and kills ten percent of humans alive
>dies and it all falls apart.

Lamesters with a time machine say kill Adolf Hitler. I say go back in time and strangle Genghis Khan.

 

[Skallagrim]

>enters Breaks lots of cool civilizations and kills ten percent of humans alive
>dies and it all falls apart.

Lamesters with a time machine say kill Adolf Hitler. I say go back in time and strangle Genghis Khan.

That assessment is pretty unfair.

1. He pretty much absorbed those empires, taking their knowledge and technology for his own purposes. This guy started out living in a yurt, and by the end he employed more mathematicians and engineers than anyone else on the planet.

2. While he was brutal in his methods, this has been misrepresented. Genghis Khan was the absolute world champion of all time when it comes to "the carrot and the stick". Voluntarily joining him was almost always a distinct improvement. Opposing him meant you became an example of what not to do. This is a strategy that was likewise employed by Alexander, for instance.

3. Speaking of improvements: great inventment into infrastructure, practically-minded policy of religious freedom, considerable reduction in tax burden, categorical tax exemption for the poor, removal of corrupt governors... For most people, being conquered by the Mongols was more like being liberated. (And sure, that's for the ones who didn't happen to live in a city that resisted... but on average? Genghis Khan improved far more lives than he ended.)

4. After he died, his empire still lasted over six decades. That's impressive, when you consider that the general rule is "fast rise, swift fall". See also: Alexander.

5. The Mongol successor states were new iterations of the empires he had conquered, so saying he broke them isn't really accurate. Or did Persia and China no longer exist, after his time?