What's the most Cringeworthy Alternate History you've ever read?

I mean, IRL the Brits abolished slavery despite having relied on it for their massively profitable sugar, coffee, etc, plantations throughout the Caribbean.
 
The British also declared slavery 'abolished' in India but kept it going under another name then punished any officials who pointed out that going on was in fact slavery and exported Indian 'servants' to other parts of their empire as workers.

They also only abolished slavery in Scotland which had decided to make its salt and coal industry worker bonded slaves in the 1600s, during the American revolution and didn't exactly do much to stop their Australian colonists from enslaving Aboriginals and pacific islanders in the late 19th and early 20th century as far as I can tell.
 
I mean, IRL the Brits abolished slavery despite having relied on it for their massively profitable sugar, coffee, etc, plantations throughout the Caribbean.
In such a TL, a compromise could be the "Trinidad solution": abolish slavery on paper, and then replace African slaves with South Asian indentured servants.
 
Honestly I think the slavery issue depends on how the US revolution is avoided. Does it end with representation in Parliament or the Colonies end up becoming a proto-Canadian federation type deal? I can see slavery being an even more contentious issue TTL, hell it may even spark TTLs American revolution. Does George III go full scorched earth during the OTL build up towards it and clamp down on them so hard that even thinking a bad thought against the empire just has a bullet materialize in thin air and kill you? British honestly wouldn't give a shit.
 
So that explains what was bugging me about 12 days in June. It was released in October 2020.

As a non-American, there definitely seemed to be a hard divide in American politics ATLs developing between before those created before Jan 6 and those made after Jan 6
 
Last edited:
On the Russian-language wiki there is a world where Britain abolished slavery and suppressed the plantation separatists. The nuance is that this is a republican Britain.
 
Hmm if said republican government was a continuation of the Commonwealth which was brutally religiously oppressive military dictatorship with a totally not a not King in the form of the lord protector, I can't imagine it would have actually been improvement over the RL Great Britain.
 
Hmm if said republican government was a continuation of the Commonwealth which was brutally religiously oppressive military dictatorship with a totally not a not King in the form of the lord protector, I can't imagine it would have actually been improvement over the RL Great Britain.
The Commonwealth is only a name - the Revolution took place at the end of the 18th century and is closer in spirit to the French (actually it is its replacement). The first four consuls were Thomas Paine, Edward Fitzgerald, Charles Grey, George Byron. True, there is a nuance - in Scotland there was a Jacobite rebellion, which was suppressed very cruelly (but Ireland received autonomy).
 
I mean most republican Britain TLs I see have it be an Enlightenment Liberal Republic à la France but presuming British people to be too polite to have a Terror or a Napoleon. Cromwell and the Commonwealth don't seem to get much traction in althist scenarios at all.
 
I mean most republican Britain TLs I see have it be an Enlightenment Liberal Republic à la France but presuming British people to be too polite to have a Terror or a Napoleon. Cromwell and the Commonwealth don't seem to get much traction in althist scenarios at all.
There are at least two of these on the English-language wiki - though for some reason there is an alt-positive for Ireland and Scotland, which is not historical.
 
I mean most republican Britain TLs I see have it be an Enlightenment Liberal Republic à la France but presuming British people to be too polite to have a Terror or a Napoleon. Cromwell and the Commonwealth don't seem to get much traction in althist scenarios at all.
There's a good one called "The Bloody Man" which is actually about the English Civil War without Cromwell since he moves to New England instead, and the revolution ends up more radical with the New Model Army and the Levellers in power.
 
Hmm if said republican government was a continuation of the Commonwealth which was brutally religiously oppressive military dictatorship with a totally not a not King in the form of the lord protector, I can't imagine it would have actually been improvement over the RL Great Britain.
I think there was a Batman one-shot comic set in the modern day with that setting, Batman: Holy Terror.

(Not to be confused with Frank Miller's Holy Terror comic.)
 
What exactly do Maoist-Third Worldist Alternate Histories entail and why are they apparently generally marked as cringe?

Isn't Maoism Third Worldism the theory that goes "akshually all people in the 'first world' are bourgeoisie and the only true proletariat is in the third world"? Because that might be your answer. Unless I'm confusing it with some offshoot.
 
From what I remember about Maoism Third Worldism, the core argument is something to the effect of: the working-class in the first world benefit from the extracted wealth of colonialism & imperialism too much to hold any real revolutionary potential under the current geopolitical system. As such, communism can only be built in the third world, and will only be built in the imperial core after it has been overthrown by a united effort of the communist third world.
 
So basically yes, just with an asterisk. Sounds like primo cringe to me.
Maybe I'm stupid, but that doesn't seem unreasonable a take, especially for somebody living in the third world. At the very least it comments on the relationship between the two regions.
 
Last edited:
Maybe I'm stupid, but that doesn't seem unreasonable a take, especially for somebody living in the third world. At the very least it comments on the relationship between the two regions.
Abject rejection of any revolutionary potential in the proletariat of the "first world" is as absurd as it is self-defeating. And to be frank, it is often a figleaf covering ethnonationalism and/or campism. If the proposition was that the proletariat in first world countries has somewhat to greatly reduced revolutionary potential outside of periods of most acute crisis, then I would wholeheartedly agree.

Another point of foolishness of this ideology is the fact that the entire reason the ruling class shares the scraps of its rape of the third world with their subjects in the imperial core is because the working class there is in a much better position to materially harm their rule. Wholesale rejection of those best positioned to strike at the heart of capital is misguided at best.
 
Naturally. Understanding why things are the way they are is pretty crucial to the process of going from the way things are to the way you think things should be.
 
Back
Top