Alt History ideas, rec and general discussion thread
- Thread starter Teen Spirit
- Start date
- Discussion
I was talking about the anti socialism and nonsensical proclamations about Russia stuff mostly.
As to the ALP, I mean that depends on what areas we are talking about, cos in some areas then sure the ALP definitely isn't center right, but in terms of their general weakness of big business/environmental destruction, and in certain international theaters, IE cheerfully working with the Indonesian government to commit genocide in West Papua then yeah they kind of are. I say this as someone who is extremely happy the ALP won the election and who is mostly happy with how they've been doing things, but in some areas they are definitely still shitty.
And? Like I have no idea why you consider that some kind of winning argument, do you think saying Gough Whitlam's name will twig some kind of control chip in my brain and make me go "Oh golly gee, what a smarty!". Seriously, the shit we collaborate with Indonesia on, let alone do in other countries is horrific, both in terms of the human cost, and the environment as well and between the Liberals and Labor, they are largely none patinas issues. So yeah in some areas Labor is a center right leaning party.
BBadolato
Experiencer of Bij
- Location
- The Netherworld
I would mark Persian rule as more the Yuan analog, than anything else.
- Location
- Arlington, Virginia
Metamorphosis by David Oliver Godric, Between the Helpless and the Darkness by Brent Olson, and To Climates Unknown by Arturo Serrano all have non-apocalyptic fates for native North Americans.
Mazeka
You must be joking
- Location
- United States
Interesting. Any additional ones on AH.com?
You do realize you didn't actually provide a reason to support the genocide of the West Papuan people right? You just said caring about it and wanting to combat it rather than aiding in said genocide was stupid via a quote.
Dismissing a genocide doesn't magically make it not one. Also "The United Nations said its OK" is not actually a moralistic or even logical counter argument, the UN is almost as useless as the League of Nations given the amount of shit it lets slide, including Armenia, Palestine, West Papupa, the uyghurs and more.
Also maybe do some reading before mouthing off:
The genocide in West Papua | Red Flag
Red Flag is a not-for-profit left wing newspaper established by Socialist Alternative in 2013. We stand for solidarity, struggle, internationalism and socialism.
West Papua: an ongoing genocide
challenge-magazine.org
West Papua: The Genocide That Is Being Ignored by The World
A recent effort conducted by the Brisbane Archdiocese’s Catholic Justice and Peace Commission found West Papua was experiencing a “slow motion genocide.”
www.thelastamericanvagabond.com
Amazing how you just ignore the other sources while also not providing any justification for why the Red Flag is a bad website, or otherwise provide any actual proof of your claims that the genocidal horrors being inflicted on the West Papuan people are somehow OK.
You pretending Palestine didn't exist before Britain decided to give their country to someone else, let alone ignoring the people who have been living their for countless generations, doesn't magically make a genocidal apartheid state somehow OK.
Wow, I'm not sure if I should call this racism, Eurocentrism, Islamaphobia, or just standard Zionism, though it honestly seems to be a mixture of all of the above with a doze of historical revisionism too.
(oO) Are you even on the right thread for this?
- Pronouns
- She/Her
Lmao @dasherdancer deleted their post. They noticed just how deranged they were without their mask on and hurried to remove evidence so they don't suffer consequences for their bigotry
- Pronouns
- He/Him/They/Them
I guess it's not an occupation/genocide until Western Governments think it is, the same thing happened in East Timor.
- Location
- France
- Pronouns
- She/They
To a certain degree that's because we're an anglophone space. A Portuguese poster is likely to have Salazar as their go to for calling out fascists considering how formative the overthrow of his regime was to non-fascist Portuguese politics, and Spain is still plagued by the legacy of Franco, which its far right still champion to this day.
I expect it's also that the spectre of WW2 is formative to the conception of fascism in a lot of countries, especially those that participated in said war. The fascists who sat out the war aren't considered part of the historical constellation of fascism despite some of them owing their position to axis support. Horthy and Mussolini suffer from the pretty obvious question of why they were fighting on Hitler's side if they weren't that bad.
Well I'm not deleting my quote of them so
Started a Worldbuilding thread for this idea. Though I've yet too introduce any ISOT's.
Constructing A Hibernian Age: Sword & Sorcery
That is what I figured. That and this "Egypt" having a major cultural influence on its surrounding neighbors and the Mediterranean.
Thanks for the info. From what I've seen, POD's that deal with stopping the European age of exploration are usually done to give the Amerindians more time to develop, and while those are some of my favorite AH's, I've recently become more interested in how stopping the European age of exploration will affect the non-European "old world". From what I've seen, AH's focusing on giving the Amerindians more time to develop are usually straight up Alien space bats (so I'm assuming that it's widely accepted that the Iberian explorations were inevitable), so the "old world" is rarely focused on.
So what if the non-European Old World was given more "time to develop". To be fair, the Europeans were unable to advance past coastal enclaves in Afro-Eurasia until the beginning of the nineteenth century, well after the first European colonial empires (the Iberian empires) had fallen to the wayside, but I think it would still be interesting.
For example, around the late 15th century, the "millennium of the mounted archer" was coming to an end, and Muslim states, which had been using this military doctrine since the abbasids (well, the muslim states in the middle east and North India did, I have no idea how the Maghrebi states or Indonesians fought), starting to adopt new doctrines, starting with the Ottoman "camp battle" which was soon adopted by the Safavids and the Mughals.
Focusing on the Mughals, this "camp battle" doctrine seemed to work pretty well until the late 17th century, when native Indian highland peoples, in a fascinating parallel to what happened in spain seemed to have innovated a superior doctrine ((?)I'm frustrated here because looking up "Maratha battle doctrine" hasn't yielded anything beyond "they used guerilla tactics". Like, did the Mughals deteriorate away from camp battles, or did the Marathas find a way to beat camp battle formations?).
Last edited:
- Location
- Arlington, Virginia
I don't read many online timelines because I find my retention to be not as good on a computer screen.
- Location
- Arlington, Virginia
I'm going to be a pedant and argue against the bolded part - I've read maybe forty books in the history of the region and I've found that the British and the Zionists were never at any point friendly, and that the truth is far more complicated.
Zionist settlement in the region began under the Ottomans, and tensions were brimming even then. Palestinian nationalism begins during the Ottoman period as a reaction to various imperial policies.
The British conquered the region during World War I as a form of nationalist dickwaving and never really had a coherent plan for what became Mandatory Palestine. They promised a Jewish state to the Zionists in the Balfour Declaration but also simultaneously promised an Arab homeland including the region to the Hashemites and other Arab allies. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.
There were pro-Arab British officials and pro-Zionist British officials, each of whom promoted their own kind. Pro-Israeli books will say the British preferred the Arabs and pro-Arab books will say that the British preferred the Zionists. From my reading of British imperial history in the period more broadly I've come to the conclusion that they were willing to crack skulls, Jewish or Arab, if they thought it would make the region easier to govern (it didn't).
One thing that ought to be stressed is that there was a running Zionist terror campaign against the British. Most spectacularly, this included the bombing of the King David Hotel and the assassination of Lord Moyne in 1944 (during the Second World War!). Much of this discontent came from the 1939 White Paper, which banned Jewish immigration to Mandatory Palestine as a concession to the Arabs. This anger takes on a different light when you realize what was happening to European Jews in 1939.
The British were always ambivalent on a whole towards a Jewish state in the region; note how, during the UN vote about partition the British notably abstained. Everything I've read depicts the British withdrawal from Palestine in 1948 as essentially this as they decamp to Cyprus. London was really just happy to be rid of the whole problem.
The Irgun and the Lehi (also Stern Gang in some texts) are usually cast as the 'extremist' alternatives to the Haganah, the mainstream Zionist militia in Palestine, which generally confined its violent activity towards defense of Zionist settlements against Arabs (and did at some points cooperate with the British against the Irgun and the Lehi, as it saw the latter two as too radical, especially after the assassination of Lord Moyne). All of these groups and more were merged in 1948 to form the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) - note that 'Haganah' means 'defense,' and it is used in the Hebrew term for the IDF (that's why 'defense' is in the name in English). It is this know-how, some of which was gained in fighting the British, that is used first to expel the Arab armies from the region, and later during the Nakba (the ethnic cleansing of Arabs from what would become the State of Israel's internationally recognized territory). It should be noted that, while some of the most striking atrocities were done by Irgun and Lehi units, Haganah units of the IDF absolutely engaged in massacres and ethnic cleansing (probably a majority, as they formed the majority of the IDF).
TL;DR the British and the Zionists were never at any point friends and the British did not in any sense 'give' Mandatory Palestine to Zionists.
Last edited:
America is a rotten edifice, a decaying empire. America already got practice in nationwide rioting against the state and the elites were lucky in 2020 that the military disobeyed Trump and didn't decide to throw their lot in with hosing down citizens with bullets which would have caused civil war. The federal police got dunked on in Portland by skinny Antifa kids.
A revolution in America would likely be reactive, a reaction to the attempt by our burgeoning fascist movement to take power for the reactionary minority and impose their will on the majority. The revolution wouldn't start explicitly far left, but then they never do. Revolutions are launched by the proletariat and then somebody rides the wave as it were.
In any case a revolution in America is likely to involve A. minority radicals. B. anarchists. and C. unions
Last edited:
What is the PC term for the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians by the Israeli state. What should we politely call the hundreds of burned villages?
Damn it sucks that we don't get to mentions the hundreds of massacres because the winning side said so. Actually it seems very convenient for the winning side.
Last edited:
Anyways, an Idea that I've been toying with based off the "Dual Order" quest by Spartakrod which involves a crossover principally between Reds! and The New Order.
A megacrossover featuring Look To The West, Draka, Southern Victory, and Reds! with some possible additions like my "Dragons Also Die" timeline where the Draka fall to communist revolution.
Now you may be thinking: cringe. And this is fair. But I am planning on putting these timelines through the lens of reinterpretation.
I am interested in Look to the West's different ideological paradigm. I actually think Societism makes sense in the context of Look to the West. Its a world where the transition to liberal capitalism has been slowed, where monarchism and aristocracy still have greater sway. As such there is still some space for radical revolutionary capitalist ideologies. Societism promises nice things to the bourgeoise, clearing out the hereditary aristocrats in exchange for a meritocracy, which also keeps the proles from taking power themselves, free trade, and a neat streamlined, rationalized, world system in a world where the Anglos never established a global maritime financial empire. The Combine as such is a power that explicitly hopes to become the kind of Empire America is but in a dumber fashion, through direct conquest of the entire world instead of economic domination.
I am interested in rationalizing the Draka as well and think there are actually some neat concepts in there. Particularly exposing the flaw of an army that overly relies on being elite, instead of having weight. Really the Draka and the Combine from Look to the West both have this as a big part of their "deal" where they have elite armies with a limited recruitment pool and this isn't really exposed as a flaw.
Southern Victory is interesting because it lacks successful revolutionary Marxism.
A megacrossover featuring Look To The West, Draka, Southern Victory, and Reds! with some possible additions like my "Dragons Also Die" timeline where the Draka fall to communist revolution.
Now you may be thinking: cringe. And this is fair. But I am planning on putting these timelines through the lens of reinterpretation.
I am interested in Look to the West's different ideological paradigm. I actually think Societism makes sense in the context of Look to the West. Its a world where the transition to liberal capitalism has been slowed, where monarchism and aristocracy still have greater sway. As such there is still some space for radical revolutionary capitalist ideologies. Societism promises nice things to the bourgeoise, clearing out the hereditary aristocrats in exchange for a meritocracy, which also keeps the proles from taking power themselves, free trade, and a neat streamlined, rationalized, world system in a world where the Anglos never established a global maritime financial empire. The Combine as such is a power that explicitly hopes to become the kind of Empire America is but in a dumber fashion, through direct conquest of the entire world instead of economic domination.
I am interested in rationalizing the Draka as well and think there are actually some neat concepts in there. Particularly exposing the flaw of an army that overly relies on being elite, instead of having weight. Really the Draka and the Combine from Look to the West both have this as a big part of their "deal" where they have elite armies with a limited recruitment pool and this isn't really exposed as a flaw.
Southern Victory is interesting because it lacks successful revolutionary Marxism.
Your name is fitting. You seem to be dancing around the fact that the Palestinians were genocided and dashing away from rebuttals. Then again you may just delete everything later.
- Location
- The Old Dominion
Pretty sure this is the alternative history idea and discussion thread not the who ethnically cleansed worse in a real war thread.
In that vein on the subject of a US revolution, or rather civil war I am inclined to think a second American civil war would be at least as bloody as the first civil war.
It quite possibly could even likely vastly bloodier given disruption of food and other supply chains and might well end in exhaustion of the various sides rather than a clear victory perhaps after a hundred million or so die which I suppose might make for an interesting aftermath I suppose either a splintered us or uneasily reunited America.
In that vein on the subject of a US revolution, or rather civil war I am inclined to think a second American civil war would be at least as bloody as the first civil war.
It quite possibly could even likely vastly bloodier given disruption of food and other supply chains and might well end in exhaustion of the various sides rather than a clear victory perhaps after a hundred million or so die which I suppose might make for an interesting aftermath I suppose either a splintered us or uneasily reunited America.
Someone ought to write a timeline like that. Maybe give it a pretentious title.