Yes, and? Should we assume that the situation in an independent Greater Armenia must be the same as that in an independent Albania?
What did make the situation in Albania a disaster, BTW?
Alternate History Ideas and Discussion
- Thread starter AndrewJTalon
- Start date
Yes, and? Should we assume that the situation in an independent Greater Armenia must be the same as that in an independent Albania?
What did make the situation in Albania a disaster, BTW?
Ricardolindo
Well-known member
I wasn't trying any analogy with Armenia.
As for why the situation in Albania was a disaster, there was a revolt by Muslim peasants in Central Albania. They resented the imposition of a Christian German Prince by the six Christian Great Powers, read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peasant_Revolt_in_Albania.
Thanks; will do!
Anyway, if the Muslims in Greater Armenia will ever likewise rebel, I suppose that a voluntary (or less-than-voluntary
) population exchange could be done between Greater Armenia and the Ottoman Empire.If JFK will have sex with an underage girl, then the media would be less inclined to cover it up!
Maybe someone like her:
Jailbait indeed!
To elaborate on this, maybe JFK having sex with an underage girl results in a huge scandal, which prompts the media to take a much closer look at his philandering in general, which in turn results in a discovery that JFK acquired an STD from one of his mistresses?
I think that this would be more likely than a minor giving JFK an STD since minors generally aren't too sexually active.
'AHC: Have French (and British) World War I deaths be comparable to those of Italy'
Also, somewhat off-topic, but I find it interesting on this historical interactive French population pyramid that France had slightly less than 260,000 living men born in 1899 in 1920 but also that in 1925, France had slightly over 335,000 living men born in 1899:
Does this mean that 75,000+ French men born in 1899 were stationed abroad in 1920 but not in 1925? The comparable figures for living 1899-born women are 329,000 in 1920 and 331,000 in 1925. This slight increase could be due to immigration and also due to some French women (such as nurses) who were serving abroad in 1920 returning back home to France by 1925.
Anyway, what do you think?
Also, somewhat off-topic, but I find it interesting on this historical interactive French population pyramid that France had slightly less than 260,000 living men born in 1899 in 1920 but also that in 1925, France had slightly over 335,000 living men born in 1899:
Does this mean that 75,000+ French men born in 1899 were stationed abroad in 1920 but not in 1925? The comparable figures for living 1899-born women are 329,000 in 1920 and 331,000 in 1925. This slight increase could be due to immigration and also due to some French women (such as nurses) who were serving abroad in 1920 returning back home to France by 1925.
Anyway, what do you think?
Buba
A total creep
Immigration.
75,000+ men immigrated to France over a five-year time period? Really?
That's just for one year cohort, though. Not in total. You're saying that 75,000+ men, all born in 1899, immigrated to France over a five-year time period, along with plenty of other men born in other years.
Yeah, in 1920, 1899 and 1900 have a large surplus of women relative to men, but this normals itself out by 1925 and 1930. In contrast, for earlier years (such as 1895, 1890, et cetera), there continues to be a large surplus of women relative to men even in 1925, 1930, and beyond. This suggests that a lot of 1899-born and 1900-born men were alive but stationed outside of France in 1920, perhaps either managing the occupation of Germany/the Rhineland or managing some of France's newly conquered territories, such as Syria, Lebanon, et cetera. This is also supported by anecedotal evidence. For instance, Fernand Goux, born at the very end of 1899, only served in the trenches for one week:
Raoul Salan, who was born in mid-1899, likewise served and specifically fought in World War I for just several months:
In contrast, a French soldier born in, say, 1895 or 1890 would have had much more time to be exposed to trench warfare and thus much more of an opportunity to get themselves killed during World War I. At the very least, this does seem like the most plausible explanation for this.
What do you think, @Ricardolindo?
Zyobot
Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
'Left-Wing Eastern Europe, Right-Wing Western Europe'.
Yes, I'm aware the Warsaw Pact states were communist IOTL, but I mean left-wing in the "culturally Woke" sense, and accompanied by more extensive welfare and regulation, to boot. Conversely, I'm thinking of nudging Western European politics closer to where the US is, though I'm not sure what the right PoD here is, either. A heightened, much-prolonged trend of far-left extremism that receives Soviet backing, maybe?
Yes, I'm aware the Warsaw Pact states were communist IOTL, but I mean left-wing in the "culturally Woke" sense, and accompanied by more extensive welfare and regulation, to boot. Conversely, I'm thinking of nudging Western European politics closer to where the US is, though I'm not sure what the right PoD here is, either. A heightened, much-prolonged trend of far-left extremism that receives Soviet backing, maybe?
'Left-Wing Eastern Europe, Right-Wing Western Europe'.
Yes, I'm aware the Warsaw Pact states were communist IOTL, but I mean left-wing in the "culturally Woke" sense, and accompanied by more extensive welfare and regulation, to boot. Conversely, I'm thinking of nudging Western European politics closer to where the US is, though I'm not sure what the right PoD here is, either. A heightened, much-prolonged trend of far-left extremism that receives Soviet backing, maybe?
Have Communism leave more of a lasting success in Eastern Europe (not sure how to accomplish this) while the increasing Islamization of Western Europe turns Western Europeans into Israeli-style or Indian-style nationalists?
Take a look at the mortality graphs for French men and French women born in various years:
Lost generations: The demographic impact of the Great War
I wish that we would have had separate data for this for 1895, 1896, 1897, 1898, and 1899, though.
Doomsought
Well-known member
What if: Members of East Germany's secret police, including informants, were banned from holding office in unified Germany.
This would be a good thing? But this would not apply to their politicians, right? Else, we would not get Chancellor Merkel.
Doomsought
Well-known member
She would not be able to even run, under the de-sovietization program I proposed.
So, who would win in Germany in 2005 instead?
Good question. The problem with German elections in general is that we have no passionate politicans, and Merkel stuck in people's minds because she appeared in person on television ads.