The TL does not matter, nor the development; If it's set in the 20th or 21st century, there will always be a conversation that can be summarized as "All authors of pop culture franchises will collectively agree that they are going to throw away their original scripts. This will be to force their works to become into mere retellings of TTL's geopolitical problems with mere aesthetic differences to make it look like something related to the original franchise."
What is a common thing or trope that always seem to happen?
- Thread starter Viking25
- Start date
Yes, that's true, but I don't know if the lack of Hitler will allow German democracy to survive.
Italy was pushed reluctantly to the German side. You can keep Italy on the French side (whether this will be the UK side is difficult to say) but France would have to support Italian ambitions. Which probably demands a right-wing French republic instead of the one in our era, which was left-wing.
Yes, I imagine that in this TL this is the hottest area.
This will depend on whether they consider the German demands to be legitimate or not. For example, an Italian-French alliance that prevented the union of Austria with Germany could generate a bad reaction from the UK. That's why I think the biggest chance is for the UK to try to imitate its strongest period and isolate itself.
a Germany that is being rebuilt is a Germany that is trying to get its position in the sun again. The two are intrinsically linked. It is not possible to isolate Germany's economic rise and not understand the rise of the rest. Especially if they manage to annex Austria and Czechia. At their current size, they will always be the strongest Western power.
I disagree and agree with this at the same time. First the USSR will want to have its territories again, they will expand towards the Baltics, Poland and Romania. In the future, they will dispute this region with Germany. Whether militarily or politically.
not necessarily, this demands good Soviet leadership more than anything else, not to mention whether these 20 million who died in the war will contribute positively to the USSR or will cause instability.
again this depends on specific decisions of the Soviet dictator. Stalin still assumes power, he will purge the army. That's the problem with the Soviet Union, everything depends on the dictator in control of the country.
Seen a lot of that, mainly in the Kaiserreich and FOM pop culture threads
Everything became a metaphor for Syndicalism, Imperial Germany or - in the later's case - the Roman Alliance and Fascism in general
Weimar was actually doing pretty well for itself as the socdems were able to run the country and by the 20s the country had largely recovered economically, it just that the Great Depression hit and made everything difficult, without a Hitler to exploit that, there isn't the same death of democracy or at least it doesn't get as bad since the communists lack the power to actually mount a coup and the conservatives were splintering amongst themselves.
At most I see France using Italy as a potential roadblock against Germany instead actually allying themselves with them as they would prefer to have the UK by their side above all else and while Britain would be busy with their own issues, they wouldn't ignore the continent and would have France as their main enforcer on Europe as both desire a stable continent and neither want a Germany that can threaten again. Plus, WW1 showed the English leadership just how "Splendid Isolation" worked out, so they're not going back to it, at all.
I disagree partially with this, while they would certainly want to be strong again, the leadership would still be aware that the rest of the world isn't looking at them with kind eyes at first and they'll need to really step up the diplomatic game in order to have trust beyond just trade agreements and necessity alliances, so military expansion is out of the question as is annexations(with the exception of Austria because in that case it's the majority of the population voting in instead of poor, tiny Czechoslovakia being pressured into giving away parts of their country)
Depending on the decade that it happens(the late 50s most likely given that Stalin was unlikely to start anything that could have people harm the USSR, he prefer to play it safe) the USSR will be fully industrialized, not suffered the ravages of WW2 and will have someone like Khrushchev at it's leadership given how he managed to get into power in OTL and the likes of Beria were too hated to anyone to support. It will be the nightmare of Imperial Germany come alive as they'll now have to deal with a Russia that is industrial and has much larger population.
Why would the non massacred population cause any instability? Those killed by the Germans in ww2 were people like jews, communist party members, partisans and civilians who's only crime was "paying" for the actions of guerrillas, these people would still be loyal and could be very useful no matter the field they were, even if used as soldiers when it comes to war in the east.
Yes but Stalin didn't last forever and with no nazi arounds to give him a non aggression pact, he'll most likely allow reforms for the army to keep it strong as everyone not named Turkey isn't friendly to them so he'll want to keep a strong defense around and if sucessor is someone like Khrushchev, then he'll beef up the military even more in preparation for the "liberation" of Finland, Baltics and parts of Poland, which could definitely spark into a general war of many eastern European states led by Germany against Soviet aggression,
Which is very stupid because in our own world not everything is a metaphor for OTL political and social conflicts.
What it seems more like is that these people just want an excuse to be able to force the script of plays they don't like to be completely scrapped. Not to mention the implicit insult to many of these authors.
I mean the part where it is implied that the authors are actually morons so lacking in creative ability that they would simply retell a TTL conflict, slap a name and aesthetic over it different so that it is not so obvious, and they would call that monstrosity "my masterpiece".
I think a possible explanation for this is that people's main introduction to the New Religious Movements are the Moonies (crazed reactionaries who make American evangelicals look sensible in comparison) and Aum Shinkyrio (crazy terrorists who followed a compulsive liar ).
It's not exactly something that invites the writer to do something that portrays them in a positive light, nor does it encourage the reader to expect anything other than "North Korea but more like Gilead."
Well they did get a spotlight recently so...thanks Sorairo?
There's a great many neo-Pagan religious movements though that given a different TL could end up with their own state. Wicca, Asatru... or even Egypt becoming influenced by neo-Kemetism.
Sikhs probably came closest OTL (as well as Mormons to a lesser degree but not sovereign).
Thought I guess you could have a TL where Baha'i is more successful. Or Tenrikyo in Japan (perhaps a part of Japan in a divided Japan scenario) or Cheondoism in Korea (apparently it is somewhat promoted by North Korea). There is also Ahmadiyya but one might perhaps consider it a part of Islam more so than Mormonism is a part of Christianity (no offense intended to followers of Latter Day Saints but a lot of more mainstream Christians do consider you to be distinct from them rather than just a branch like Orthodoxy or Catholicism).
Some other "New Religious Movements" which originated in East Asia apparently have each several million followers. There is a respectably high amount of Jehovah's Witnesses as well, even if not concentrated enough to realistically be able to be imagined as a potential state.
TBF that could just be in universe people reading too much in things lmao
Last edited:
Like theirs even a OTL precedent for this with how some people swear up and down that Lord of the Rings was actually just WW2 with Orcs and Elves despite Tolkien very clearly saying that wasn’t he intended.
Not grasping the interconnectedness of economies in the 16th century can lead to a misunderstanding of how pivotal the outcomes in the New World were for shaping the entire European dynamic. It's not just about a country's power; it fundamentally influences how nations navigate issues like slavery, mercantilism, and future colonization. These four regions were paramount in generating the vast majority of the New World's wealth. Therefore, determining who controls them is of utmost importance.Mexico and Peru: largest producers of silver globally during the colonial period. Brazil: its sugarcane plantations, gold mines, and diamond mines. Saint-Domingue (Haiti):large-scale production of sugar and coffee. The control of these regions has far-reaching implications, not only economically but also geopolitically, socially, and culturally.
For instance, if England were to colonize Haiti, the notion of it being the disruptor of the transatlantic slave trade would become obsolete. The economy of this colony necessitates a continuous influx of slaves. Similarly, if Portugal were not to colonize Brazil, while in the 16th century it might not have a significant impact on the country, once they lose control over Asia, they would lose a vital source of revenue. This would not only affect Portugal but also partially disadvantage England and the Netherlands (in addition to Portugal), while strengthening those who colonize the region.
Brazilian sugar likely constituted 40% to 60% of the total Dutch sugar imports, which accounted for 20-30% of the total Dutch trade income during the 17th century. So, while it may not fatally wound the Dutch, it significantly weakens the country.
When considering England and Portugal, I'll merge them to some extent due to the strong economic ties between the two countries. PS: the dates are from 16th to the 18th.
Brazilian sugar alone may have represented anywhere from 40% to 60% of Portugal's total trade income. Brazilian gold contributed approximately 30-40% of Portugal's total colonial revenue during the peak of gold production in the 18th century. Brazilian diamonds probably contributed around 5-10% of Portugal's total colonial revenue.
Portugal's colonial trade formed a substantial portion of England's total colonial trade income (20-30%). Brazilian diamonds may have contributed around 5-10% of the country's total colonial revenue, while Brazilian gold could have accounted for 10-20% of the country's total colonial revenue. Brazilian sugar might have comprised 20% to 40% of England's total colonial trade income.
For instance, if England were to colonize Haiti, the notion of it being the disruptor of the transatlantic slave trade would become obsolete. The economy of this colony necessitates a continuous influx of slaves. Similarly, if Portugal were not to colonize Brazil, while in the 16th century it might not have a significant impact on the country, once they lose control over Asia, they would lose a vital source of revenue. This would not only affect Portugal but also partially disadvantage England and the Netherlands (in addition to Portugal), while strengthening those who colonize the region.
Brazilian sugar likely constituted 40% to 60% of the total Dutch sugar imports, which accounted for 20-30% of the total Dutch trade income during the 17th century. So, while it may not fatally wound the Dutch, it significantly weakens the country.
When considering England and Portugal, I'll merge them to some extent due to the strong economic ties between the two countries. PS: the dates are from 16th to the 18th.
Brazilian sugar alone may have represented anywhere from 40% to 60% of Portugal's total trade income. Brazilian gold contributed approximately 30-40% of Portugal's total colonial revenue during the peak of gold production in the 18th century. Brazilian diamonds probably contributed around 5-10% of Portugal's total colonial revenue.
Portugal's colonial trade formed a substantial portion of England's total colonial trade income (20-30%). Brazilian diamonds may have contributed around 5-10% of the country's total colonial revenue, while Brazilian gold could have accounted for 10-20% of the country's total colonial revenue. Brazilian sugar might have comprised 20% to 40% of England's total colonial trade income.
This is something I'll explore later in my TL and already have in some superficial manners: France not only expands the Brazilian sugar plantations but also starts coffee and tobacco ones and do their own sugar processing facilities and distribution which negatively impacts the Low Countries, meanwhile Britain has conquered Haiti and while the effects are still in it's infancy, they're already establishing a fort in Africa alongside a company to ensure a steady stream of slaves. I really want to try and imagine all the butterflies that come with certain alt colonizations from certain areas under different powers.
There is a classic alternate history book, Warlord of the Air by Michael Moorcock, about an alternate world in which, in the absence of World War I, colonial imperialism has continued forever and so most of the world is colonial vassals of a select few empires which, while looking utopic on the surface, are beneath it brutal. It's an interesting book - but on the topic of this thread, I cannot help but think of how a lot of TLs and such on this site are a lot like that book, but with the superficial imperial glory played straight. This site being English-language means that this is typically focused on the British Empire[1] but it is hardly restrained to just that. It is, nevertheless, quite striking that this seminal book seems almost like a critique of many timelines and scenarios on this site, and perhaps it's best kept in mind so "Warlord of the Air But Played Straight" ceases to be such a part of this site's DNA.
Related to this is a strange tendency in timelines and scenarios to Burkean victory - that is to say, a tendency towards monarchical, oligarchical, and aristocratic government seeing total victory at the expense of more free and democratic forms of government. Perhaps I am being unfair - after all, Edmund Burke harshly condemned the British Raj for its atrocities (which he discussed in massive and horrifying detail) while the same cannot be said about his latter-day supporters - but nonetheless it is something I have observed. Always better, to many on this site, to have a monarchy with hierarchical institutions over something freer and more representative, even if that monarchy is (like the Second Mexican Empire) only existed to prop up some brutal act of imperialism, and these monarchies rarely have the same crises that real-world ones (including ones like Britain which were forced to give up power to the people) have to go through; the common people remain a "swinish multitude" largely out of the halls of power, and they never do anything about it. It happens quite often on this site, I think, because both it is easier to model the actions of a few or one person than of many, and also because alternate history appeals to the losers of history such as supporters of aristocratic and monarchical forms of government; not much can be done about it. Still, it's a weird trope.
[1] Before I am inevitably accused of "Anglophobia" again, let me just be clear I have nothing against Britain. I, in fact, quite admire John Lilburne, Thomas Paine, the martyrs of Peterloo, and other Brits who fought for liberty. My enmity is solely with the spirit of imperialism and colonialism, regardless of what country's ruling class may have gone drunk on it.
Related to this is a strange tendency in timelines and scenarios to Burkean victory - that is to say, a tendency towards monarchical, oligarchical, and aristocratic government seeing total victory at the expense of more free and democratic forms of government. Perhaps I am being unfair - after all, Edmund Burke harshly condemned the British Raj for its atrocities (which he discussed in massive and horrifying detail) while the same cannot be said about his latter-day supporters - but nonetheless it is something I have observed. Always better, to many on this site, to have a monarchy with hierarchical institutions over something freer and more representative, even if that monarchy is (like the Second Mexican Empire) only existed to prop up some brutal act of imperialism, and these monarchies rarely have the same crises that real-world ones (including ones like Britain which were forced to give up power to the people) have to go through; the common people remain a "swinish multitude" largely out of the halls of power, and they never do anything about it. It happens quite often on this site, I think, because both it is easier to model the actions of a few or one person than of many, and also because alternate history appeals to the losers of history such as supporters of aristocratic and monarchical forms of government; not much can be done about it. Still, it's a weird trope.
[1] Before I am inevitably accused of "Anglophobia" again, let me just be clear I have nothing against Britain. I, in fact, quite admire John Lilburne, Thomas Paine, the martyrs of Peterloo, and other Brits who fought for liberty. My enmity is solely with the spirit of imperialism and colonialism, regardless of what country's ruling class may have gone drunk on it.
True, also tropes about
- direct integration proceeding peacefully without a sea change in how the empires view themselves
- neocolonialism as good or “a more rational progression” of the system
tropes about a few empires making the map/narrative easier to follow
Maybe the site’s conservative base - although there are a few timelines like Reds! That favor people’s republics
Look to the West does show elements of this despite its “less colonialism/earlier decolonization” theme, with the largest republic that is not the UPSA/sphere being .. Corsica. The Russian Soviet stems from the Combine nuking Petrograd, and the German … Interrex-whatever stems from the Wettins running out their welcome in the 1960s. Besides that and post-colonial states, republicanism is Societist.
I don’t see as many “republican empires” like the Third French Republic or the US - although Britain-America and the National-Romanticist German Republic in my TL are
this, very much this.