Remove ads

Alt History ideas, rec and general discussion thread

Alane1 said:
Admittedly as far as I can tell if any of the Spanish royals had gotten out of Napoleon's net, they would have likely had only three real choices.

Fleeing to the British and hope their old foe don't use it against them, risk crossing French controlled territory to try get to Hapsburg Austria or flee to their most important colonial possession which would be New Spain.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Them going through New Spain temporarily just because it's the safest route, I can see. I don't think they'd set up in exile there though.
 
As I understand it the, err… family, family dynamics of the Spanish Bourbons, namely the King being over thrown by his own son, the subsequent civil wars between them etc, could see any that escape to New Spain might be less interest in being a government in exile and more try carve something for themselves?
 
Does anyone have ideas for what a contemporary Israeli Civil War scenario would look like?
 
Actually yes I think so, as long as it's formulated as alternate history. This isn't alternatehistory.com, we don't have an arbitrary hard line between "modern" and historical timelines.
 
I wonder has anyone tried to form an at least semi-coherent ATL out of what the Cold War was like for Marvel or DC; what with all the conspicuously dressed supervillains and all the somehow even more war-crimey secret projects.

And Canada having an awful lot of cannibalism-induced murder monsters on hand.
 
Got another AH technothriller TL related to the South Africa one. Looking for feedback:


1967: The Empire of Japan, an ultranationalist colonial superpower dominating the Eastern Pacific, is embroiled in total war across the Asia-Pacific region. This Second Pacific War now involves many of the major world powers, including those of…

The League of Free Nations, a political and military alliance of pro-Western anticommunist nations worldwide. Despite viewing communism to be the primary threat to global peace and security, the member states of the LFN are committed to war against the Japanese after…

The British Empire, led by Prime Minister Harold Wilson, came under attack in British Malaya by Japanese combined arms forces from Thailand and Indochina. The League war effort however is largely led by…

The United States of America, under President Richard Nixon, whose public and political elite favor war with Japan following the bombing of the United States Asiatic Fleet at Manila and Subic Bay. Meanwhile, on the other side of the Pacific Ocean…

The Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere, Japan's pan-Asian economic empire, faces internal dissent from civilian opposition movements and armed insurgents seeking greater self-determination or outright independence. In particular, tensions within…

The Empire of Manchukuo, Japan's puppet state under Emperor Pujie, have now boiled over after harsh crackdown measures led to a massacre of anti-war and anti-government protestors in Harbin. A full-blown armed revolt is now rapidly escalating into civil war, one that…

The Dresden Compact, the international military alliance of socialist nations, hopes to capitalize upon by mobilizing conventional forces on the Manchurian border and deploying covert special operations advisors into Manchuria, Korea, Indochina, and other Japanese colonies. Both the DRESCOM troops and indigenous partisans are backed by…

The Republic of China, a major non-DRESCOM ally, whose government fully intends to reannex Manchuria back into itself by preparing a joint Sino-DRESCOM overland invasion force…
 
Mazeka said:
Got another AH technothriller TL related to the South Africa one. Looking for feedback:


1967: The Empire of Japan, an ultranationalist colonial superpower dominating the Eastern Pacific, is embroiled in total war across the Asia-Pacific region. This Second Pacific War now involves many of the major world powers, including those of…

The League of Free Nations, a political and military alliance of pro-Western anticommunist nations worldwide. Despite viewing communism to be the primary threat to global peace and security, the member states of the LFN are committed to war against the Japanese after…

The British Empire, led by Prime Minister Harold Wilson, came under attack in British Malaya by Japanese combined arms forces from Thailand and Indochina. The League war effort however is largely led by…

The United States of America, under President Richard Nixon, whose public and political elite favor war with Japan following the bombing of the United States Asiatic Fleet at Manila and Subic Bay. Meanwhile, on the other side of the Pacific Ocean…

The Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere, Japan's pan-Asian economic empire, faces internal dissent from civilian opposition movements and armed insurgents seeking greater self-determination or outright independence. In particular, tensions within…

The Empire of Manchukuo, Japan's puppet state under Emperor Pujie, have now boiled over after harsh crackdown measures led to a massacre of anti-war and anti-government protestors in Harbin. A full-blown armed revolt is now rapidly escalating into civil war, one that…

The Dresden Compact, the international military alliance of socialist nations, hopes to capitalize upon by mobilizing conventional forces on the Manchurian border and deploying covert special operations advisors into Manchuria, Korea, Indochina, and other Japanese colonies. Both the DRESCOM troops and indigenous partisans are backed by…

The Republic of China, a major non-DRESCOM ally, whose government fully intends to reannex Manchuria back into itself by preparing a joint Sino-DRESCOM overland invasion force…
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

What's the POD, because this easily comes off as not just Imperial Japan being the Mongols but with boats, but another TL that assumes the Japan of the 30's and 40's was something that was here to stay when a work does decided to keep Imperial Japan around in the 50's and 60's.

The technothriller bits are there, but as a tl it doesn't feel anything new or interesting.
 
BBadolato said:
What's the POD, because this easily comes off as not just Imperial Japan being the Mongols but with boats, but another TL that assumes the Japan of the 30's and 40's was something that was here to stay when a work does decided to keep Imperial Japan around in the 50's and 60's.

The technothriller bits are there, but as a tl it doesn't feel anything new or interesting.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
POD is the 1919 revolutions end with socialism extending to the Rhineland. France, the UK, Italy, Japan, and Portugal formed the League of Free Nations in response, with the U.S. as an allied non-member.

The Second Great War (1942-1946) ended with France, Italy, Spain, Belgium, and much of the Balkans being inducted as communist nations. Great Britain was weakened and forced to accept an armistice after the Soviets successfully backed the Indian independence movement.

China (not under Jiang) lost Manchuria in 1931 and was invaded in 1937, only barely managing to throw together a United Front with Soviet and German support. The U.S., which remained neutral, contributed via a limited Lend-Lease. Japan was eventually pushed out of most of the region, but exhaustion meant the Chinese were forced to stop on the Manchukuoan border. French Indochina was annexed by the Japanese after Paris fell, but this action got them kicked out of the LFN. The Dutch East Indies remain in Dutch hands since the Netherlands retain their neutrality.
 
BBadolato said:
another TL that assumes the Japan of the 30's and 40's was something that was here to stay when a work does decided to keep Imperial Japan around in the 50's and 60's.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Honestly, in any situation where the Japanese Fascists dont get forcibly kicked out of power by a war most likely DOES lead to them being in power for a few more decades. I see Japan actually having issues with each generation accusing the previous of being insufficiently fascist(i.e not fanatical enough in their support of the Emperor and the Empire). They already were having that issue OTL. I can easily see there also being a real risk of a Japanese Civil War as that continues.
 
Mazeka said:
POD is the 1919 revolutions end with socialism extending to the Rhineland. France, the UK, Italy, Japan, and Portugal formed the League of Free Nations in response, with the U.S. as an allied non-member.

The Second Great War (1942-1946) ended with France, Italy, Spain, Belgium, and much of the Balkans being inducted as communist nations. Great Britain was weakened and forced to accept an armistice after the Soviets successfully backed the Indian independence movement.

China (not under Jiang) lost Manchuria in 1931 and was invaded in 1937, only barely managing to throw together a United Front with Soviet and German support. The U.S., which remained neutral, contributed via a limited Lend-Lease. Japan was eventually pushed out of most of the region, but exhaustion meant the Chinese were forced to stop on the Manchukuoan border. French Indochina was annexed by the Japanese after Paris fell, but this action got them kicked out of the LFN. The Dutch East Indies remain in Dutch hands since the Netherlands retain their neutrality.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I don't want to be too harsh on this but it kind of comes off as being veyr lazy with East Asia in several ways. While Imperial Japan did see itself as a leader in East Asia after the First Sino-Japanese war, outright war and conquest was never really a part of the plan, not to say that Japan ever really had any plans in that regard. What happened in 31 and 37 was more elements of the Imperial Japanese Army acting on their own and The government in Tokyo generally giving assent and going along with it after the fact. But even there You didn't have militarism take over or at least the extreme elements and they only grew with the Great Depression of 1929, There was still at least a chance with Taisho democracy.

But this becomes a question of what do you do with Japan's political situation? The Imperial Japanese military was kind of a mess of competing factions but a full-on defeat from the Second Sino-Japanese War it's kind of hard to trace what could happen. While the more radical Imperial Way faction was mostly crushed during the 226 incident some of its influences still lingered on, A full-on defeat and what its social and political implications could be for Japanese Society could be anyone's guess. I also take it that somehow in some way Japan's still going to be this diplomatically isolated nation?

But there's a whole other question to consider with what are you doing with China. First and foremost the Japanese invasion of Manchuria was more Japanese actions against one military clique than invading an entire country. But there were outcomes where at the very least a less Cliqish China or Northern China was possible, Basically there's a wide range of outcomes from a 1919 pod That I don't think can be brushed aside, but any China that's in a better position for either 31 or 37 is going to be more than willing to demand Manchuria back. Especially when in OTL If Japan is being driven back through a land War then out and out surrender they're not going to have the means to hold on to any parts of China give or take Taiwan.

To say nothing of the fact there's a whole slew of political situations that may or may not be in play depending on what the Soviet Union does with China. The Soviets were the inheritors of a lot of Tsarist colonial interests in the East. The Chinese Eastern Railway in Manchuria, Mongolia and resource exploitation in the Xinjiang region were these interests. The question of Sino-Soviet relations is going to be important and that depends on if the Soviets are as antagonistic as they were, especially when Outer Mongolia, Xinjiang, and Tibet are all going to be seen as a part of the concept of China no matter who is ideologically at the wheel.

I feel that you're Pacific War scenario doesn't make a whole lot of sense. the thing with the Pacific War is that the Japanese decision to attack Pearl Harbor and subsequently declare war on Britain and France Is that it was an outgrowth of the Second Sino-Japanese war. the Second Sino-Japanese War was less a planned war and more a border skirmish where neither side wanted to back down. Jiang could not afford to back down because it would be a serious loss of face and he was already held hostage during the Xi'an incident. it was a war Japan had no real clear objectives with other than 'win' whatever that was supposed to look like and the resulting mission creep is basically what defines the entire conflict.

When France is in trouble Japan decided to make demands to try and cut off supplies from Indochina to the Nationalists but that went from demands to an outright Invasion due to a Japanese unit forcing the issue. When that escalated to an American oil embargo that's when Japan considered Pearl Harbor, but what you have to realize is Japan's basic plan was this: Strike Pearl Harbor and banked on no European meaningful interference for a while, so take the resource-rich areas and use those resources to win the war in China which had ground down to a stalemate and from there trying to negotiate a settlement. The idea of a Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity sphere was something that was tacked on later on and while Japan decided to expand its war from China to all of East Asia, if Japan is only taking French Indochina there is not much of Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity sphere to go claim, if at all. Especially when Japan is still in the relative good graces of the Diplomatic community and not at all in a situation where its only real allies were Germany and Italy.

I don't think you can get this yellow peril-esque premise of a hyper-aggressive Japanese empire in the 60s, with a greater East Asian co-prosperity sphere that's only Japan, Indochina, ( which really could be separate) and Thailand as an independent member. Japan's military resources have taken too much of a beating from the sino-japanese war and even without any serious damage to their World War II Navy Trying to renew a war against China is much riskier this time around you probably have American fleets in the Philippines and Pearl Harbor that make the necessary naval maneuvers that Japan needs very risky You're not even going to get this grand war against a superpower but a quick war against the Japanese. To say nothing of the potential naval evolution that the Battleship was on it's way out, and due to the OTL Washington Naval Treaty, Japan was already working with carriers. Yet even without Nukes, the Japanese Navy might have to evolve in ways that make conventional warfare very difficult, to say nothing of the Army.

Don't get me wrong, a surviving Imperial Japan into a Cold War situation can always work but it requires answering some very tough questions that aren't easy to track. Bamely what would happen to the political situation of Japan post-war? Would Japan find itself as more of a useful Ally to one power block or the other, just because I don't see isolation as a possibility. Does Japan try and aim for a softer approach by backing decolonization movements where it has to do perhaps a little more than pay lip service to the ideas of liberation? I feel like if you want to do the story idea Justice you have to do more with East Asia as a whole than just a bunch of butterfly Nets where everything post 1919 just happens in the same way Or if it doesn't happen in the same way you get some bizarre looking outcomes from it.
 
BBadolato said:
I don't want to be too harsh on this but it kind of comes off as being veyr lazy with East Asia in several ways.


Don't get me wrong, a surviving Imperial Japan into a Cold War situation can always work but it requires answering some very tough questions that aren't easy to track. Bamely what would happen to the political situation of Japan post-war?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Gaahhhh. I might as well just have China retake Manchuria in the Second Great War, then have Korea go up in flames during the 1960s instead.

What I'm primarily aiming for is Imperial Japan agreeing to a negotiated peace rather than surrendering. It would lose its colonies (except Taiwan) by the 1980s but would never be occupied and would continue to develop its own nuclear weapons stockpile.

The West would eventually lean on it as their problematic anticommunist ally in the Pacific, engaging in hard/soft power tactics in decolonized Indonesia.
 
Last edited:
Question for those who understand American politics: is it possible under the current system to form a two-party government? Let's say in the absence of a clear majority of votes.
My colleague simply wants to play out this situation - the rise of centrist parties as a result of the greater polarization of American politics. As a result, the elections are without a favorite, and they elect a Republican president and a Democratic vice president.
 
Mazeka said:
Gaahhhh. I might as well just have China retake Manchuria in the Second Great War, then have Korea go up in flames during the 1960s instead.

What I'm primarily aiming for is Imperial Japan agreeing to a negotiated peace rather than surrendering. It would lose its colonies (except Taiwan) by the 1980s but would never be occupied and would continue to develop its own nuclear weapons stockpile.

The West would eventually lean on it as their problematic anticommunist ally in the Pacific, engaging in hard/soft power tactics in decolonized Indonesia.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Sorry about that, a negotiated peace settlement might require a Japanese ass-kicking back to Korea, but pretty much Japan would be left with Just Korea and Taiwan so it's slightly better than a Kaiserreich loss.

Comrade Future said:
Question for those who understand American politics: is it possible under the current system to form a two-party government? Let's say in the absence of a clear majority of votes.
My colleague simply wants to play out this situation - the rise of centrist parties as a result of the greater polarization of American politics. As a result, the elections are without a favorite, and they elect a Republican president and a Democratic vice president.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

In theory, yes but in practice it hasn't been done since Lincoln, but it wouldn't really be a two-party government, that depends almost entirely on cabinet picks and if they are confirmed by the Senate.
 
Comrade Future said:
Question for those who understand American politics: is it possible under the current system to form a two-party government? Let's say in the absence of a clear majority of votes.
My colleague simply wants to play out this situation - the rise of centrist parties as a result of the greater polarization of American politics. As a result, the elections are without a favorite, and they elect a Republican president and a Democratic vice president.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Well, coalition governments are usually an attribute of parliamentary systems, where the parliament elects and can also recall the government - thus, in order to just function, the government always needs a parliamentary majority, and if one party alone doesn't have that majority, you need a coalition.

This is why you couldn't have a coalition in US Congress, because Congress doesn't elect the President, and the government will go on regardless of majorities in Congress.

However, there is of course that US oddity, the Electoral College. It is, in theory, possible that nobody can win enough electors in the college for a majority. Now, in case of a split vote, the selection of the US President is supposed to fall to Congress... but only some US states void the votes of faithless electors (i.e. electors who vote for someone else than the candidate they were chosen to vote for). So it would be possible to form a compromise two-party government in the Electoral College (with the usual coalition stuff: promises of policies, promises of cabinet positions, etc)

The problem with that is - once the President is elected, they are elected. Unlike in parliamentary systems, the junior partner in that alliance would have absolutely no hold over the senior partner anymore. The senior partner could just turn around, backstab them and purge their government of junior partner members.
 
Susano said:
....................................
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Can I ask one more question? Let's say we reversed the Cold War, and instead of regime change in Eastern Europe, we get communist parties coming to power in a number of Western European countries (at the same time, social democrats are starting to resort more often to "left-socialist rhetoric" and more radical economic policies). Will this lead to an increase in the polarization of American politics (my colleague is promoting the idea that more radical factions on both the left and the right will dominate), or in the case of the US will it only unite the main parties on the basis of anti-communism (other colleagues believe that even the almost social democrat Hubert Humphrey would be ready to provoke a fascist coup in Italy)?
 
Comrade Future said:
Can I ask one more question? Let's say we reversed the Cold War, and instead of regime change in Eastern Europe, we get communist parties coming to power in a number of Western European countries (at the same time, social democrats are starting to resort more often to "left-socialist rhetoric" and more radical economic policies). Will this lead to an increase in the polarization of American politics (my colleague is promoting the idea that more radical factions on both the left and the right will dominate), or in the case of the US will it only unite the main parties on the basis of anti-communism (other colleagues believe that even the almost social democrat Hubert Humphrey would be ready to provoke a fascist coup in Italy)?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

The Democrats and Republicans tend to be big tents based on their sheer size, that it would be hard to break them up. As far as the Cold War goes, the big question is are you keeping the wars in Vietnam and Korea, or are you at least making these communist parties come off as opposed to the Soviets? Because the U.S. tried since 47, 'peel' off parts of the Second World, so it wouldn't be that out of the question for the U.S to tolerate Communist governments.
 
BBadolato said:
The Democrats and Republicans tend to be big tents based on their sheer size, that it would be hard to break them up. As far as the Cold War goes, the big question is are you keeping the wars in Vietnam and Korea, or are you at least making these communist parties come off as opposed to the Soviets? Because the U.S. tried since 47, 'peel' off parts of the Second World, so it wouldn't be that out of the question for the U.S to tolerate Communist governments.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The timeline begins with the period between the death of Stalin and the Berlin Protests, so the Korean War proceeds without changes, and the colleague decided not to change the general course of the Vietnam War.
The timeline begins with the period between the death of Stalin and the Berlin Protests, so the Korean War proceeds without changes, and the colleague decided not to change the general course of the Vietnam War. The key is the absence of a military bloc among the "reds" (Germany was united according to the "Austrian" scenario, and as a result the Warsaw Pact was never formed), as well as the absence of the Budapest and Prague events, which is why the international communist movement is still in the dark or otherwise pro-Soviet. On the other hand, there is still a Soviet-Chinese split - however, through the efforts of Shelepin and his team, they managed to hush it up by 1975 without military conflicts. There are plans for a possible Franco-Soviet split - but this depends on how long Georges Marchais can hold out (OTL, already being one of the ideologists of "Eurocommunism," he supported Soviet intervention in the Afghan conflict, contrary to the opinion of the majority of the Central Committee).
 
Susano said:
The problem with that is - once the President is elected, they are elected. Unlike in parliamentary systems, the junior partner in that alliance would have absolutely no hold over the senior partner anymore. The senior partner could just turn around, backstab them and purge their government of junior partner members.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
As far as I heard, McNamara was a Republican, but he worked with Democrats Kennedy and Johnson, and Obama most recently had Republican Chuck Hagel as Secretary of Defense. How did this happen? Were there inter-party agreements or individual agreements?
 
Comrade Future said:
As far as I heard, McNamara was a Republican, but he worked with Democrats Kennedy and Johnson, and Obama most recently had Republican Chuck Hagel as Secretary of Defense. How did this happen? Were there inter-party agreements or individual agreements?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Individual. You really overestimate how much central control and leadership there is in U. S. parties on anything but the most local level.
 
Are there any TLs where Proportional Representation voting did end up being introduced to the UK and how the elections results post-2010 would have looked with that consideration?
 
Well, based on their response to various other things... deny, blame West, and slowly admit that there might be a problem as the problem grows too big to pretend it does not exists.
 
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top