Another preview of one of my timelines
- Thread starter Straha
- Start date
Hm, wasn't the wave of anti-semitism in OTL set off by British favoritism of the Jewish minority and Zionism in Palestine? If there wasn't a British Mandate of Palestine here (I'm only guessing there wasn't, since the Kaiser is still around which implies a different WW1) then there might not even be much anti-semitism (or much of a Jewish minority in Palestine, for that matter) in the Arab world, which was historically less anti-semetic than the Christian world anyway.Straha said:
The Problem....
Actually consider the following from Foreign Policy journal, the article "Without Israel" by Josef Joffe written on March 11, 2005 (3/11/2005). In the article, it spells out why there would probably be the same amount or more violence in the ATL, despite an absence of Israel:
As such, please consider that things will be pretty rough!!
Imajin said:
Actually consider the following from Foreign Policy journal, the article "Without Israel" by Josef Joffe written on March 11, 2005 (3/11/2005). In the article, it spells out why there would probably be the same amount or more violence in the ATL, despite an absence of Israel:
As such, please consider that things will be pretty rough!!
Straha
Banned
1 Goddamnit Imajin! 
I didn't want anymore bringing up of the mideast's status in this TL. Mr_Bondoc please no more bloody ME discussion
2 the mideast in this TL will be calmer. Remember that syria, palestine, lebadon and jordan are all egyptian so theres less of a state to state conflict in this TL. your other events seem like they'd be just more local concerns and not so focused on the outside world.
I didn't want anymore bringing up of the mideast's status in this TL. Mr_Bondoc please no more bloody ME discussion2 the mideast in this TL will be calmer. Remember that syria, palestine, lebadon and jordan are all egyptian so theres less of a state to state conflict in this TL. your other events seem like they'd be just more local concerns and not so focused on the outside world.
Okay, much later than I'd hoped, I'd like to offer a few thoughts about the potential for slavery in the equivalent of 2005.
The first issue is the cost and difficulty of imposing a slave system on a free population. This is probably the biggest problem, especially imposing creating slavery in societies which are at all committed to the notion of personal freedom. By and large, people who are born and raised in slavery are relatively more accepting of it, since they don’t have as much of a frame of reference for comparing slavery to freedom. For those who’ve lost it, well, there’s a fairly strong tendency to fight back, if possible, or run away, if not. When imposing slavery on a whole society, you can be certain that the result is going to be, from the occupying nation’s point of view, bloody, expensive and above all time-consuming. Which means that they’ve got to be a nation with the resources to spend on it – which won’t be at all cheap – and with the political will to stick at it for years, probably decades.
So, what kind of nations do you have imposing slavery? It’s easier, although still challenging, for totalitarian states. It’s damn near impossible for a liberal democracy, except one which has some rather unusual attitudes. Viz, the entire process needs to have bipartisan political support (or tripartisan, as the case may be) and you need to have a free population willing to have lots of their sons and daughters die as soldiers, and who are willing to vote themselves high levels of taxation to pay for it all. Can this be done? I think it can (the DoD USA is such a nation) but it takes a special kind of political economy.
The second issue is what the treatment of the slaves is like, which affects the potential for slave revolts and how many of the slaves survive. The treatment of slaves doesn’t actually have to be all that nice to avoid revolts. Slaveowners in the antebellum South were disturbingly discerning with the sort of treatment which would make slaves miserable versus what would actually work them to death. On the other hand, if slaves have nothing to lose, then you’re going to see revolts all over the place. The classical example is the sugar plantations of the Caribbean, which saw revolt after revolt. The slaves there were being worked to death, so they revolted because they quite simply had nothing to lose.
Transplanting this into a modern context, in the sort of industrialised slave labour you saw in Nazi Germany, Japan or the Soviet Union at various points in the twentieth century, people were being worked to death. This meant that firstly it was a lot harder to guard them, which would make the whole institution a lot more expensive. It secondly means that the rates of sabotage go through the roof. It also means that there’s no way of creating a self-sustaining slave population. And, finally, it means that the only jobs you can really give to the slaves are ones which are relatively unskilled or semi-skilled at most, since the slaves won’t survive long enough to learn them, and also because the danger of sabotage is very high. Slaves sabotaging clothing is one thing. Slaves sabotaging jet engines is quite another.
So, when applying these considerations to TTL’s 2005, then the question is do you picture the slaves as being treated very badly (Soviet Union bad, say, rather than Nazi Germany bad) or just badly? If it’s the former, then slavery is out for any sort of work along the line of vital industries – where any sabotage is unacceptable – or where sabotage is hard to detect. Given that you’ve got technology which is already ahead of OTL, this is a non-trivial issue. On the other hand, if slaves are being (relatively) well-treated, and if they are multi-generational slaves, then slave industries could be used in more detail.
Also along these lines, there’s the question of how your slave economy actually functions. The biggest difference between the institution of chattel slavery as it was practiced in the antebellum South, Brazil and so on, and that under the Nazis or the Soviet Union was that the former were actually functioning capitalistic economies (even in their use of slave labour), whereas the latter were centrally planned. Slave labour in the South was mobile and moved in response to market signals. Centrally planned slave economies couldn’t do this. Which meant that they, ah, had problems allocating labour. The same will apply to any new creations of slavery, and how they run things.
There’s other things I could raise about how well slavery might run in a modern economy (e.g. does it retard industrialization, innovation and/or economic growth), but I’d like to get a clearer idea of what you kind of slave system you’re proposing, since it will make a lot of difference to the answer.
The first issue is the cost and difficulty of imposing a slave system on a free population. This is probably the biggest problem, especially imposing creating slavery in societies which are at all committed to the notion of personal freedom. By and large, people who are born and raised in slavery are relatively more accepting of it, since they don’t have as much of a frame of reference for comparing slavery to freedom. For those who’ve lost it, well, there’s a fairly strong tendency to fight back, if possible, or run away, if not. When imposing slavery on a whole society, you can be certain that the result is going to be, from the occupying nation’s point of view, bloody, expensive and above all time-consuming. Which means that they’ve got to be a nation with the resources to spend on it – which won’t be at all cheap – and with the political will to stick at it for years, probably decades.
So, what kind of nations do you have imposing slavery? It’s easier, although still challenging, for totalitarian states. It’s damn near impossible for a liberal democracy, except one which has some rather unusual attitudes. Viz, the entire process needs to have bipartisan political support (or tripartisan, as the case may be) and you need to have a free population willing to have lots of their sons and daughters die as soldiers, and who are willing to vote themselves high levels of taxation to pay for it all. Can this be done? I think it can (the DoD USA is such a nation) but it takes a special kind of political economy.
The second issue is what the treatment of the slaves is like, which affects the potential for slave revolts and how many of the slaves survive. The treatment of slaves doesn’t actually have to be all that nice to avoid revolts. Slaveowners in the antebellum South were disturbingly discerning with the sort of treatment which would make slaves miserable versus what would actually work them to death. On the other hand, if slaves have nothing to lose, then you’re going to see revolts all over the place. The classical example is the sugar plantations of the Caribbean, which saw revolt after revolt. The slaves there were being worked to death, so they revolted because they quite simply had nothing to lose.
Transplanting this into a modern context, in the sort of industrialised slave labour you saw in Nazi Germany, Japan or the Soviet Union at various points in the twentieth century, people were being worked to death. This meant that firstly it was a lot harder to guard them, which would make the whole institution a lot more expensive. It secondly means that the rates of sabotage go through the roof. It also means that there’s no way of creating a self-sustaining slave population. And, finally, it means that the only jobs you can really give to the slaves are ones which are relatively unskilled or semi-skilled at most, since the slaves won’t survive long enough to learn them, and also because the danger of sabotage is very high. Slaves sabotaging clothing is one thing. Slaves sabotaging jet engines is quite another.
So, when applying these considerations to TTL’s 2005, then the question is do you picture the slaves as being treated very badly (Soviet Union bad, say, rather than Nazi Germany bad) or just badly? If it’s the former, then slavery is out for any sort of work along the line of vital industries – where any sabotage is unacceptable – or where sabotage is hard to detect. Given that you’ve got technology which is already ahead of OTL, this is a non-trivial issue. On the other hand, if slaves are being (relatively) well-treated, and if they are multi-generational slaves, then slave industries could be used in more detail.
Also along these lines, there’s the question of how your slave economy actually functions. The biggest difference between the institution of chattel slavery as it was practiced in the antebellum South, Brazil and so on, and that under the Nazis or the Soviet Union was that the former were actually functioning capitalistic economies (even in their use of slave labour), whereas the latter were centrally planned. Slave labour in the South was mobile and moved in response to market signals. Centrally planned slave economies couldn’t do this. Which meant that they, ah, had problems allocating labour. The same will apply to any new creations of slavery, and how they run things.
There’s other things I could raise about how well slavery might run in a modern economy (e.g. does it retard industrialization, innovation and/or economic growth), but I’d like to get a clearer idea of what you kind of slave system you’re proposing, since it will make a lot of difference to the answer.
Straha
Banned
German slavery is best compared to nazi slavery minus the mass genocide(its still brutal). it has an elaborate caste system based on the various ethnic groups that are enslaved to make sure the slaves aren't united. I see germany as having to deal with revolts and putting them down brutally.
CSA slavery is like OTL's antebellum south slavery adapted to the modern day. Slaves are used in things like low wage agricultural work, construction work, service jobs(prostitution, maids, catering staff etc) and as personal servants for the wealthy(I don't see confederate slaves as being used too much in industry other than unskilled industry).
Brazillian slavery is the same as Confederate slavery
Australian slavery is worse than OTL's nazi slavery and the slaves are used in dangerous tasks as a deliberate attempt to wipe out the aborigenes
South africa is like Australia but not quite as genocidical
CSA slavery is like OTL's antebellum south slavery adapted to the modern day. Slaves are used in things like low wage agricultural work, construction work, service jobs(prostitution, maids, catering staff etc) and as personal servants for the wealthy(I don't see confederate slaves as being used too much in industry other than unskilled industry).
Brazillian slavery is the same as Confederate slavery
Australian slavery is worse than OTL's nazi slavery and the slaves are used in dangerous tasks as a deliberate attempt to wipe out the aborigenes
South africa is like Australia but not quite as genocidical
There is always chance of resistance. Consider the 1910 Revolution in Mexico when it came to OTL. The right person leading the troops could easily lead to a reversal on the CSA's gains in Arizonia. Given the right economic POD you may have more to deal with than excepted. Esepcially if this is soon after you might see Pro-Union resistance groups taking up arms in favour of Mexico to prevent the conquest. That and the CSA still needs to fight their own Indian Wars with the Pueblo, Apache, Yoeme, futile maybe, but bound to be a great deal of resistance. In Veracruz, Montozuma, and other hispanic centers of population you have had strong communities. Their abillities may prevent the complete conquest of the area. Not to mention the Mayan community on the Yucatan tip. It would be a long hard process of attempted assimulations and rebellions. Plebian revolts are nasty things. To regroup in the face of a common enemy based off providential freedoms and that very adventure could fall apart at the seams. (Especially if we get the right incompetents in office at the time)Straha said:
Straha said:
Revolts are likely to be one thing it has in spades. What made slavery so profitable in OTL North America was that the slaves didn't really revolt all that much, and they didn't result because they weren't treated all _that_ brutally. Especially when compared to the slave Caribbean. Germany is likely to see revolts on a worse scale than the Caribbean, and to have them continue for decades. Especially if any neighbours are able to smuggle weapons in.
For these two, well, hmm. Slavery would probably work in those areas, although it may well be a slight net negative on their economic growth, when compared to if they were free. Unless they're being used in mechanized agriculture.
If *Australia is trying to wipe out the Aborigines, it wouldn't really take them all that long, to be honest. They only form a small percentage of the population. And while this would be horrific for the victims, it wouldn't make much difference for the broader economic functioning, precisely because it's a small part of the economy. If Australia includes New Zealand, things become murkier, since the Maori are a larger percentage of the NZ population. Much larger.
A Quick Thought...
My guess is that there is actually too much information to prove that there was an aboriginal presence in Australia to go with teh "Terra Nullis" idea. My guess is that the government would say something along the lines that the Koorii Aborigines died of the natural causes of disease or would argue that they were a "weak link" in the evolutionary ladder. Another way is to say that they were "assimilated" into Australian society. In any event, Australia would seem innocant compared to Germany or the CSA....
Scarecrow said:
My guess is that there is actually too much information to prove that there was an aboriginal presence in Australia to go with teh "Terra Nullis" idea. My guess is that the government would say something along the lines that the Koorii Aborigines died of the natural causes of disease or would argue that they were a "weak link" in the evolutionary ladder. Another way is to say that they were "assimilated" into Australian society. In any event, Australia would seem innocant compared to Germany or the CSA....
yeah, probably/ by Terra Nullis was offical history until the 1970s.Mr_ Bondoc said:
just an interesting CSA titbit, it may have been mentioned here before, but i dont have time to go through all of the pages. in 1860 J.D.B. DeBow, then of New Orleans declared in his Review came uup with a theory prooving the racial superiority of the Southererns.
claiming that all plants, animals, and humans were created in or around ancient Persia, and from there difused to all points of the compass, but the most favourable lattitutde of creation was regions of hotter climate "differ least from it iin capacity to produce the finest specimins of vegtable, animal and human life." (presumibly along with the finest specimins of desisese, har har har) he continues, "As you recede form the isothermal latitude of creation, and go north or south, all created things deteriorate." and "everything in warm climes is superior to cold climates."
the Southerers were a composite race made up from the main mediteranian nations, france, Greece, and Spain. he spirited away the notion of the dominance of British blood in thier viens by mentioning that it was of NOrman blood "It is from these Normans that we of the OSuth are in great part descended." he declared. "reckless, adventurous fillibusters from every part of southern Europe." which is why they were called the Normans, or Northmen.
the southeroners are superior to the mixed blood of the inferior Yankees, as they came from the inferior northern Europeans, such as Irish, Poles, Russians, and especialy Germans, who instead of intergrating, remained in thier own little enclaves, and thus dragged down the whole.
by his reasoning, the african slaves should be superior to the Norman ancestors of the southerners, but De Wit manages to overlook this. his views were widely accepted. even Davis accepted it. virtualy all accepted it as an article of faith, and a foundation of thier superior society, the unchallenged fact of inferiority of the people they owned, and of thier natural fitness for servitude. even Slavery was oked, by the bible no less. to Quote De Wit: "all free society must regect the bible if it approve itsown institutions and disprove slaver, because slavery is not only instiuted and justified by the Christian Godm but, much more, because Christian morality can only be practiced in slave society."
a victory in the ACW can give further proof to De Wits "master race" theory, and it could become state docrine, like the Nazi master race stuff. De Wit himself could become a cult figure, and write a-Protocoles of Zion style book after the ACW.
just a thought