Alt History ideas, rec and general discussion thread

Had an idea where Hideyoshi's plans to take over Korea and then China after unifying Japan succeeded. What would a Japanese-ruled China and Korea be like?

I think there are a few major possibilities. No matter what, the Japanese sinicize further, perhaps leading to an introduction of Chinese philosophy and religion into the mix of Buddhism and Shinto that was Japanese religion at the time (iirc) and possibly the introduction of the Imperial Exams, seeing as there are a limited number of samurai in Japan and a whole lot of China. Politically, the Japanese would either go down the route of the many other peoples taht have conquered territory in China and become sinicized even further, to the point that, to outsiders, it would be hard to tell a difference between Japanese and Chinese.
Alternatively, they could try to preserve their cultural uniqueness, but that would alienate the people from the Shogunate and Japanese Emperor, basically insuring constant local resistance and an eventual throwing off of the yoke, like the Yuan.
 
Had an idea where Hideyoshi's plans to take over Korea and then China after unifying Japan succeeded. What would a Japanese-ruled China and Korea be like?

Fuck I swore I answered this question. I did.

Even if they did conquer Korea, that would run into the position of who governs these lands in what administrative way. If a bunch of feudal lords are brought over then it risks one of the glaring weaknesses of the system. Hideyoshi needs the loyalty of these new lords and if for some insane reason, Hideyoshi does manage to take China or parts of it with the intent of conquest, that's more land that needs rulers.

Even in the most insane outcome some union of Japan and China, under Emperor Ogimachi and his descendants perhaps under the state of Wa, it would be some abomination. It would require trying to reconcile feudal Japan and its reliance on military aristocrats with a heavily bureaucratic China prone to political factionalization, and hoping it doesn't implode in some for or fashion especially if the Imperial family comes to like their holdings in China more.

In the most realistic sense, it would be an absolute mess, might be a miracle it even lasts within Hideyoshi's lifetime. Although that makes the generous the conquest of Japan is done under him and him alone.

I think there are a few major possibilities. No matter what, the Japanese sinicize further, perhaps leading to an introduction of Chinese philosophy and religion into the mix of Buddhism and Shinto that was Japanese religion at the time (iirc) and possibly the introduction of the Imperial Exams, seeing as there are a limited number of samurai in Japan and a whole lot of China. Politically, the Japanese would either go down the route of the many other peoples taht have conquered territory in China and become sinicized even further, to the point that, to outsiders, it would be hard to tell a difference between Japanese and Chinese.
Alternatively, they could try to preserve their cultural uniqueness, but that would alienate the people from the Shogunate and Japanese Emperor, basically insuring constant local resistance and an eventual throwing off of the yoke, like the Yuan.

The Japanese were fairly sinicized, give or take the entrenchment of a feudal system, Buddhism, the Imperial Court and its ranking system, and some elements of the Confucian worldview all came from China in some fashion or another to Japan long before Hideyoshi. As for Imperial exam's I think Japan had that but it fell by the wayside, for the reason it won't make a comeback. The Confucian scholar-bureaucrat system basically got superseded by the rise of feudal clans and the warrior-aristocrats that came.

Also, the Yuan adopted Chinese customs but only really fell due to the usual Chinese mix of natural disasters, and questionable court politics.
 
I came across the following idea - that the victory of the USSR in the Cold War (or at least the expansion of influence on Western Europe) can be an alt-positive for European Cinema.
Here's the thing - it is known that American cinema was rarely shown in the Soviet Union. This is primarily due, however, not to censorship restrictions (although, of course, there were such). The fact is that American cinema was expensive. Since the USSR bought foreign films for a fixed amount and did not pay their producers any deductions from the box office, big-budget Hollywood productions had practically no chance of reaching the Soviet market: the prices charged by Universal Pictures or Warner Bros. Studios were simply beyond the reach of Sovexportfilm. As a result, there are much more films from other countries in the Soviet Union. First of all, they are Indian. From Europe, these are Italian and French (Polish, Czechoslovak, and East German were also popular). Because of a number of Italian and French figures, they were insanely popular in the USSR, with complete obscurity in the USA - such as Adriano Celentano and Jean Mare - films with them collected 50-60 million viewers at a time.
As a result, the fall of the Soviet Union was not reflected very well - one of the main spectators disappeared.
If we assume that the Soviet Union is increasing its influence, and that it is negotiating with Italian-French (and other) manufacturers about deductions from rental (say 20-30%), this may provoke Western Europe to reorient its market towards the USSR and reduce the share of rental American films.
There is also an interesting fact of close cooperation. There were films co-produced by Poland and the USSR, or, say, the GDR and the USSR (which is funny, Jerzy Hoffmann filmed "The Deluge" with the support of the financing and assistance of Belarusfilm and the Dovzhenko Film Studio. And even the Ukrainian-phobic With Fire and Sword he shot already in the post-Soviet period participation of the Russian actor Alexander Domogarov and the cult Ukrainian Bohdan Stupka). Many already know about Italian-French cooperation.
Theoretically, greater mutual integration between Soviet and European cinema is possible: actors from the USSR could film in France with a Polish director and, conversely, Italian stars would be actively invited to film in the Soviet Union.
 
So having foolishly binge watched the Bridgerton prequel*, it does occurs to ask whether the British Empire would actually gain a new vector of divide & conquer and/or hold on to more if they offer more appeal to the naked self-interest of local elites and middle class who might otherwise stew in discontent?

* I do appreciate how the main point of divergence was born as an utterly cynical ploy than the main series let on
 
I mean they often did, especially in the days of 'liberal imperialism' and the transition into self-governing Dominions for white colonies and into more direct and theoretically accountable oversight from London for everyone else, its just that a bunch of those families of traditional nobility or individual mercantile wealth would then sent their children to British boarding schools or colonial missionary schools or the like. When these partially assimilated middle class professionals came back to serve as military auxiliaries and colonial civil servants and doctors and lawyers and etc... while they often crushed traditionally organized anti-colonial insurgencies and proclaimed in RP English the new destinies of their peoples under the civilizing hand of the Empire, they also started pushing for systematic reform and autonomy and then eventually- independence. (Though sometimes at first these movements would be quite tepid and horrendously undemocratic for the uneducated/'uneducated' masses, until decades of effort would unite together real mass movements).
 
I have the idea of a timeline where there is a 3 way Cold War between a Dengist USSR, a Communist USA, and the colonialist Great Britain. The lore is that Stalin is more lenient towards different opinions, allowing for liberalization of the economy as well as allowing freedom of speech, pretty much avoiding the purges that ruined the Soviets in our timeline. Meanwhile, in the USA, the Great Depression causes the KKK to rise up against the government, killing a lot of non whites. With Herbert Hoover not doing anything about it, blacks and communists rise up in revolution in the deep South. Originally the revolution was to create New Afrika, but it spread throughout the nation, causing the mainland US to become communist. The American government is forced to flee to Alaska. The Philippines declares independence, Hawaii breaks away, takes control of US islands in the Pacific, and declare the Maritime Federation of Polynesia. Meanwhile, KKK remnants flee to Caribbean and take control of Guotama Bay. When Japan inedibly attack Polynesia, the USA and USSA declare war on Japan for "attacking American soul, because neither governments recognize Polynesia as a country and believe to be there own territory. Germany then declares war on the USA and USSA. The USSA splits there army in half while the USA completely focuses on Japan. Meanwhile, in Eastern Europe, Operation Barbarossa still happens, but the Soviet Union manage to more easily respond and defend better against the Germans. When World War 2 ends, the Axis lose and any sense of unity between the Allies fall apart. In the Pacific, the USSA, instead of returning the land to there originally pre war owners, instead establish multiple communist regimes throughout the Pacific. Meanwhile in Europe, Soviet competence leads to them controlling land all the way to the Rhine River. The Netherlands is divided East and West between the USSA and USSR, and the Rhine is under USSA control, and USSA, instead of letting Charles De Gaulle and his boys return home, instead install a Communist regime in France. In Italy, the country is divided between North and South, the North under the Soviets and the South controlled by the USSA, and Sardinia is controlled by the British. With British fear of Communism, particularly from the USSA, and the USSR and USSA hating each other for minor ideological differences, as communists do, a 3 way Cold War begins between Britain, the USSA, and the USSR.
 
Found a counterfactual novel. Anybody heard of this one?
www.goodreads.com

Begin the World Over (Emergent Strategy)

Begin the World Over is a fictional alternate history o…

Set in 1793, the plot apparently involves James Hemings (Thomas Jefferson's enslaved chef), Denmark Vesey (future slave revolt leader), and a possible alliance between black revolutionaries and the Muscogee people?
 
So having foolishly binge watched the Bridgerton prequel*, it does occurs to ask whether the British Empire would actually gain a new vector of divide & conquer and/or hold on to more if they offer more appeal to the naked self-interest of local elites and middle class who might otherwise stew in discontent?
<considers how much of, say, the Indian National Congress was founded by Western educated Anglophones>

Almost certainly. London may still be obliged to cut places like the Raj more-or-less loose to avoid a tail-wags-dog/Scots-crown-inherits-England situation, but with all the homegrown barristers and so forth arguing for union with the Crown decolonization will go differently in a lot of areas.
 
'ATL Cuisine And Culinary Practices'.

Compared to war, culture, and geopolitics, food and food preparation tends to be overlooked in AH circles. That said, butterflies would also apply to food, thanks to differences in tastes, recipes, and ingredients based on supply chains and what's locally available.
 
'ATL Cuisine And Culinary Practices'.

Compared to war, culture, and geopolitics, food and food preparation tends to be overlooked in AH circles. That said, butterflies would also apply to food, thanks to differences in tastes, recipes, and ingredients based on supply chains and what's locally available.

The Stomach of Man Under Socialism: A Culinary History of Socialist America

Prologue “Have you ever had American cuisine?” “No.” “Well, neither have they.” (joke loosely translated from the original French) American food, where it is discussed at all in food circles, is discussed purely as a joke. This is perfectly understandable, particularly from the viewpoint of my...

An Alt-Historical Cookbook

Hello everyone, So, one of the most important aspects of culture is cuisine. Food and drink directly impacts one's day-to-day life, and is central to social life in every culture throughout history. Often, food can have special social, ritual, or cultural meanings, and one's diet also often...
 
Last edited:

The Stomach of Man Under Socialism: A Culinary History of Socialist America

Prologue “Have you ever had American cuisine?” “No.” “Well, neither have they.” (joke loosely translated from the original French) American food, where it is discussed at all in food circles, is discussed purely as a joke. This is perfectly understandable, particularly from the viewpoint of my...

An Alt-Historical Cookbook

Hello everyone, So, one of the most important aspects of culture is cuisine. Food and drink directly impacts one's day-to-day life, and is central to social life in every culture throughout history. Often, food can have special social, ritual, or cultural meanings, and one's diet also often...

stomach of man under socialism is frankly uncreative and genuinely bad.
 
Why do I have a feeling that it reduces American cuisine to hamburgers?
 
Why do I have a feeling that it reduces American cuisine to hamburgers?

It does make some interesting points on the food front, actually. Like the fact that revolution would probably stop the food culture interchange for a bit, and so America wouldn't get the historical developments of new French cuisine, for example. So it doesn't just have a different popular food culture, it also has a different fine dining culture that takes a lot from European cuisine from before those developments.

It's mostly weak in that its background American revolution isn't that interesting or well thought out. But that's not really the focus.
 
It does make some interesting points on the food front, actually. Like the fact that revolution would probably stop the food culture interchange for a bit, and so America wouldn't get the historical developments of new French cuisine, for example. So it doesn't just have a different popular food culture, it also has a different fine dining culture that takes a lot from European cuisine from before those developments.

It's mostly weak in that its background American revolution isn't that interesting or well thought out. But that's not really the focus.

I'd say the main weakness from my recollection was that he invented a famine in America on extremely shaky ground, brought it up constantly and belligerently defended this very stupid famine.

And the problem is that this leaves sticky fingerprints all over the food, too.
 
I'd say the main weakness from my recollection was that he invented a famine in America on extremely shaky ground, brought it up constantly and belligerently defended this very stupid famine.

And the problem is that this leaves sticky fingerprints all over the food, too.
This sounds like it was a "Communist countries will inherently have famines and millions will die, no circumstances and context do not play a part in this its all the ideologies fault!"
 
I... am perturbed by the idea that there was a famine in a land that's never had one. Not one. Ever. Even the dust bowl didn't lead to famine. Hell the dust bowl is why California is now the agricultural capital of the country instead of the grain belt (which does actually still pull its weight despite people thinking other wise).

The United States has some of the most arable land on the planet. Even accounting for tornadoes and various other natural disasters such as fires, floods, etc.
 
I... am perturbed by the idea that there was a famine in a land that's never had one. Not one. Ever. Even the dust bowl didn't lead to famine. Hell the dust bowl is why California is now the agricultural capital of the country instead of the grain belt (which does actually still pull its weight despite people thinking other wise).

The United States has some of the most arable land on the planet. Even accounting for tornadoes and various other natural disasters such as fires, floods, etc.

There were two famines, IIRC. One was during the civil war/revolution which does make some sense, the other was in the 1950s for some reason.
 
Could Lysenkoism and/or other central planning failures plausibly result in famine in Communist North America?

Technically, the same level of stupidity could have disastrous results but it's very hard for even disastrous results to lead to outright famine in a country as productive as the US.

But also, the TL's Red USA isn't a Stalinist nightmare even if it has its flaws, and rightfully so, the US not having the conditions that made the Russian revolution so vulnerable to such a derive. So there's no reason for it to impose flawed agronomy on the whole country because it caters to a dictator's biases and flatter his ego.

The author tried to justify it by saying the revolutionaries would fetishize urban industrial worker enough to fuck over the countryside as a worse dust bowl comes in, but this doesn't deal with the fact that American agriculture was a lot more integrated in the country's markets than Russia's. If the revolution can figure out enough urban-rural ties to not instantly starve, it's not going to have a famine later, it's going to have built up solidarity with rural farm workers.

There's still a lot of divergent agricultural development you could have without inventing a famine too, since the revolution happens before the new deal (I think, distant recall) and a lot of the agricultural subsidies driven choices of modern American farming. No corn syrup dominance for one.
 
Could Lysenkoism and/or other central planning failures plausibly result in famine in Communist North America?
Lysenkoism wouldn't make sense for a communist US as it was only arose in the USSR due to the shock transition from pesant farming with hand tools to modern agriculture.
There's still a lot of divergent agricultural development you could have without inventing a famine too, since the revolution happens before the new deal (I think, distant recall) and a lot of the agricultural subsidies driven choices of modern American farming. No corn syrup dominance for one.
One I could see is peanuts being even more common than they are IRL because they're A) good for the soil, and B) restricted in how much they can be grown because if you let everyone that would grow peanut grow peanuts it would crash the market.
 
Last edited:
I could maybe see something like where there isn't actually a true famine per say during the Great Depression era crisis of the old republic and the civil war/revolution, but instead "just" having rolling waves of food insecurity and lean times, as the revolutionaries successfully collect and distribute a big enough fraction of America's natural abundance to avoid mass death. But in so doing, the somewhat slapdash structure of organizing agriculture that takes hold during the 2nd American Revolution endures without a clean break and without as much clear-eyed analysis of its potential faults and defects like there should have been. The old guard of the Wobblies and like labor activists that would have otherwise been in the CIO otl all catching like a big workerist and number go up bug as part of their grand vision of governance of this new American commonwealth, "proving" the power of socialism through internationally outproducing capitalism and domestically securing for every household a radio and a turkey dinner (and later TVs and microwave meals). Thus, a fixation on scientific management and an industrial frame of farm-work and sometimes just goofy futurism, then being fed inputs from traditional yeoman family farms and like old school Grange co-ops and agriculture being frozen as half-socialized, as everything goes into getting the number to go up and building the gleaming edifice of this blursed fusion of 50s consumer culture and vulgar Stakhanovite "labor is when you hit things with a hammer" shit.

Then, the brittleness of the system as it stands reveals itself in a really embarrassing way as the old guard panic and overreact and maybe some particular assholes do some fuck-fuck games with a light bit of rationing to shuffle around and keep up export numbers, and the scattershot of hungry new reformers finally let off the chain to go wild slowly builds up from the ground floor a systemic overhaul as what eventually becomes the new coherent and fully integrated practice of American socialist agriculture. Thus. being one of the few key missteps immediately latched onto by like the British Empire as a "gommunism is when no food" and also "yanks can't into good food" meme, with the actual reality of the Special Period or whatever of just having some consistently weird off years and a wide range of experimental attempts at course-correcting and studying optimal nutrition in a bit of a mad science-y way (and maybe just a bit of public hysteria), all falling by the wayside.
 
Last edited:
Hmm a divergent in early 20th century American history which might have interesting knock-on effects at least economically would be the chestnut blight never happening, farming and diets in the eastern half the United states would be a bit different without the blight and the resulting ongoing rural economic crisis that resulted.

Beyond the usefulness of chestnut wood for lumber because of it being rot resistant, American Chestnuts were a staple food and a popular snack to the point there were chestnut stands all over the place in US cities and towns.

They were also a go to for feed stock for livestock as the trees both extremely abundant in eastern forests and dropped lots and lots of nuts.

Another thing that had a impact on eastern farmers in a number of areas was prohibition which apparently hit many mountain and valley farmers hard as it came on top of the whole chestnut blight as they had previously turned their apples into brandy because it was the easiest and most cost-effective way to get their products to market which became illegal.
 
Back
Top