Anti-Ottomanism?

[Eurofed]

How? Seriously, how does a Russian-German-Italian alliance show up? At that time Russia was the only unified state of them, and there was not a snowball's chance in Hell that the various tiny Italian and German states were going to up and vanish that early.

During the Congress of Vienna, a Russian-Prussian alliance, with Murat's Naples as an opportunist ally, comes to blows with an Austro-British-French alliance about the Poland-Saxony issue. Napoleon's return turns the war into a three-way fight and ensures the triumph of the Russo-Prussian-Neapolitan alliance. Napoleon defeats the British, is later overcome by superior Russo-Prussian numbers, is allowed to go in exile to America (where he sets up a short-lived empire in Mexico which the USA eventually conquest and absorb), with his son keeping the throne. Austria is steamrolled, Britain, which is also getting its butt kicked in the New World by a much stronger USA (Canada joins the ARW and the Federalists remain in power much longer, building up US military much more), throws the towel. The Congress of Vienna is rewritten as the victors' peace, Prussia grabs everything it got in 1866 plus Saxony and Bohemia-Moravia, Naples gets most of Italy, Russia gets all of Poland-Galicia and a blank check in the Balkans. Russia swings more liberal as the Tsar is confident to go along with his planned reforms, Prussia and Naples follow suit. Greater Germany and Italy soon unify under Prussian and Neapolitan lead and the Habsburg collapse with in the 1848 equivalent by the early '30s.

And how does the ACW turn into WWI in that scenario because it would seem to me the butterflies there would have altered US domestic politics enough that any recognizable civil war would never have happened.

Not really. The antagonism between the free and slaveholding sections is not any removed, only painted on a bigger canvas as the former gets to include the Canadian and Hispanic states, and the latter the slaveholding Caribbean and northeastern Mexico. The Civil War is just made much bigger as besides the additional US states, it includes an Anglo-Brazilian invasion of US Greater Colombia, Guyana, and Peru (the British empire conqured the Rio de la Plata Viceroyalty during the Napoleonic Wars, while Greater Colombia and Peru went pro-US and joined America during the War of 1812 and the Spanish-American wars of independence which were merged), French invasion of Mexico, and Spanish invasion of Unionist ally Haiti. And of course, there is the whole European and Middle Eastern theater of the war. The main butterfly about the ACW, besides the WWI-like European intervention, is that it happens slightly earlier, in 1857 (the Sepoy Rebellion hits Britain slightly later, in the final stage of the war, as Indian troops get rebellious about the idea of dying for the glory of the British Empire in America and Europe).

Too, why are the British going to tolerate this kind of alliance formed against them?

They didn't. They tried to cut down the rising US threat by supporting the Confederacy with their Franco-Iberian-Brazilian allies, but it badly backfired on them when the Russo-German-Italian bloc sided with the Union. They have tried time and again, in 1812-1816 and in 1857-1861, to stop the rise of their manifold American, Russian, and German-Italian rivals, but every time they have lost badly on the battlefield.

Why is it that they would find no means to crack an alliance of multiple disparate states like that? Why is it that that bloc held together for 50+ years?

The Eastern bloc has got a suitable common enemy in the Anglo-French bloc, they have not yet developed any serious reason to get estranged, and their aims (German-Italian expansion in Western Europe, North Africa, southern Africa, and South East Asia, Russian expansion in the Balkans, Middle East, Central Asia, and the Far East) so far proved compatible. As it concerns America, it is still focused on finishing its unification of the Americas and expansion in the Pacific, and grateful to the European powers that aided it in its time of trial. It is quite likely that the three budding superpowers of America, Russia, and the German-Italian 'CP' bloc shall become estranged and antagonistic after they finish crushing the British Empire and France in the next world war, but so far it is not happening yet, as they have a suitable common enemy in the British Empire.

Anglo-French diplomacy has made some feelings to split Russia and the German-Italian bloc, but it has fizzled because of incompatible aims (Britain wanted to gain the 'Triple Alliance' as an ally against Russia, ferociously revanchist France to gain Russia as an ally against Germany and Italy), so Britain, France, and Iberia (Scandinavia and Iberia unified ITTL) are forced to stick together by lack of other suitable allies (Japan is a possible future option, and so does China if it successfully pulls a Meji of their own, Turkey has been screwed up as described, Brazil is friendly but it is living on borrowed time, America shall inevitably steamroll it as soon as it can shed its ACW and Reconstruction weariness). America simply has no good reason not to hate the guts of Britain and France (third war in a century and intervention on the side of the Confederacy).

 

[Grimm Reaper]

The Napoleonic Wars with the Ottoman Empire, Austria-Hungary and Great Britain(!) as France's allies would equal absolutely certain disaster for Russia and whatever aid Prussia and minor Italian states can scrape up.

As for the USA in the ACW defeating the Confederates, British, Canadians, French, Spanish, Portuguese and Brazilians...

 

[Eurofed]

The Napoleonic Wars with the Ottoman Empire, Austria-Hungary and Great Britain(!) as France's allies would equal absolutely certain disaster for Russia and whatever aid Prussia and minor Italian states can scrape up.

It is a war between Austria-Britain-France and Russia-Prussia-Naples that happens during the Congress of Vienna about the Poland-Saxony issue. Napoleon's return turns it into a three-way fight, Russia and Prussia crush Austria, Napoleon defeats the British but it is later overcome by superior Russo-Prussian numbers, the British after 20 years of war, with a lost Waterloo equivalent, no ally on the continent, and getting their butts kicked by the USA in the New World, give up out of sheer war weariness.

As for the USA in the ACW defeating the Confederates, British, Canadians, French, Spanish, Portuguese and Brazilians...

The Canadians joined the USA during the ARW (the original PoD) and are eager Union patriots. The Union also includes two-thirds of Spanish America (the windfall of intervening on the Libertadores' side during the War of 1812/Spanish-American Wars of Independence) and is allied with Russia, plus Grossdeutchsland, Italy, and Hungary, which all formed in the early 1830s and hence industrialized more and earlier, like America (for them, it's the effect of longer Federalist dominance and Hamiltonian focus on infrastructure and industrial development and a strong military).

 

[Don Grey]

How? Seriously, how does a Russian-German-Italian alliance show up? At that time Russia was the only unified state of them, and there was not a snowball's chance in Hell that the various tiny Italian and German states were going to up and vanish that early. And how does the ACW turn into WWI in that scenario because it would seem to me the butterflies there would have altered US domestic politics enough that any recognizable civil war would never have happened.

Too, why are the British going to tolerate this kind of alliance formed against them? Why is it that they would find no means to crack an alliance of multiple disparate states like that? Why is it that that bloc held together for 50+ years?

This is what AHP talks about with Ottoman dewanks, the only comparable situations are 67th Tiggers US Civil War timelines which replace all Union generals with Zapp Brannigan and all CS Generals with Marty Tzus.

Not to mention the anti-muslim ethnic cleansing(its become so common). I mean why does it happen so many times in people TL's. If i were to make a TL and irreversibly ethnicly cleansing greeks or armenian or kurds etc shit would hit fan remark would be an understatement.

 

[Eurofed]

Not to mention the anti-muslim ethnic cleansing(its become so common). I mean why does it happen so many times in people TL's. If i were to make a TL and irreversibly ethnicly cleansing greeks or armenian or kurds etc shit would hit fan remark would be an understatement.

A fair deal of 19th century anti-Muslim ethnic cleansing did happen IOTL in the Balkans as the Ottomans were kicked out, and in the Caucasus during Russian conquest. As it concerns my TL, when Russia and its allies and satellites conquer the Balkans, Constantinople and eastern Thrace, the Aegean coast and Marmara region, and eastern Anatolia, during the early-mid 19th century, the same process does happen, but on a much more radical form (Bosnians and Albanians notice the writing on the wall and opportunistically embrace Christianization instead, as historically their Islamic identity was rather weak). Notice this does not happen in Iraq and Persia, despite Russian conquest of the region, for various reasons, although there is some serious spontaneous Muslim-Christian population exchange between Egyptian Levant and European protectorate Palestine.

The only other time I've endorsed (in a TL authorship sense, of course) a radical dewank of Islam in a TL was about a Hohenstaufen successful HRE written by Kairos Fateweaver, which I gave counsel and advice, and it also had a damned good justification there, too: the centralization of the HRE butterflied a decisive success of the Crusades and the consolidation of Late Middle Ages Europe into a few stronger empires (HRE, Angevine Empire, Iberia, Byzantine Empire) and the revitalization of the BE, the end of the Latin-Greek Schism (due to the dewanking of the Papacy), the Crusades-Mongol double punch (while the Mongols were stalemated off Europe) screwed up the Muslim world, so the HRE conquered Algeria and Tunisia, Iberia conquered Morocco, the BE (re-)conquered eastern Anatolia, the Levant, Egypt, Libya, and Mesopotamia.

 

[Snake Featherston]

During the Congress of Vienna, a Russian-Prussian alliance, with Murat's Naples as an opportunist ally, comes to blows with an Austro-British-French alliance about the Poland-Saxony issue. Napoleon's return turns the war into a three-way fight and ensures the triumph of the Russo-Prussian-Neapolitan alliance. Napoleon defeats the British, is later overcome by superior Russo-Prussian numbers, is allowed to go in exile to America (where he sets up a short-lived empire in Mexico which the USA eventually conquest and absorb), with his son keeping the throne. Austria is steamrolled, Britain, which is also getting its butt kicked in the New World by a much stronger USA (Canada joins the ARW and the Federalists remain in power much longer, building up US military much more), throws the towel. The Congress of Vienna is rewritten as the victors' peace, Prussia grabs everything it got in 1866 plus Saxony and Bohemia-Moravia, Naples gets most of Italy, Russia gets all of Poland-Galicia and a blank check in the Balkans. Russia swings more liberal as the Tsar is confident to go along with his planned reforms, Prussia and Naples follow suit. Greater Germany and Italy soon unify under Prussian and Neapolitan lead and the Habsburg collapse with in the 1848 equivalent by the early '30s.

OK, I'm going to ask this question again: 1800s Germany was multiple separate states, Saxony, Bavaria, Wurttemburg, Prussia, Austria, and other such separate states. A Russo-Prussian Alliance does not lead directly to this after 1812, as after all Russia, Austria, and Prussia were temporarily linked in a League of Three Emperors that was quite short-lived.

How does Napoleon defeat Britain? He can defeat Wellington, but how does this defeat Britain?

Why is Alexander I suddenly more liberal than IOTL, and why do his reforms preserve autocracy intact when that never happened despite a good deal of effort by multiple Tsars to do so IOTL?

How does Greater Germany appear so anachronistically early?

Not really. The antagonism between the free and slaveholding sections is not any removed, only painted on a bigger canvas as the former gets to include the Canadian and Hispanic states, and the latter the slaveholding Caribbean and northeastern Mexico. The Civil War is just made much bigger as besides the additional US states, it includes an Anglo-Brazilian invasion of US Greater Colombia, Guyana, and Peru (the British empire conqured the Rio de la Plata Viceroyalty during the Napoleonic Wars, while Greater Colombia and Peru went pro-US and joined America during the War of 1812 and the Spanish-American wars of independence which were merged), French invasion of Mexico, and Spanish invasion of Unionist ally Haiti. And of course, there is the whole European and Middle Eastern theater of the war. The main butterfly about the ACW, besides the WWI-like European intervention, is that it happens slightly earlier, in 1857 (the Sepoy Rebellion hits Britain slightly later, in the final stage of the war, as Indian troops get rebellious about the idea of dying for the glory of the British Empire in America and Europe).

Huh? The antagonism was a result of Southern violence for a decade culminating in their refusal to accept the election of a Republican. If this is the alternate US politics, by merely extending slavery into the Caribbean US politics as we know it is butterflied away, and any US Civil War will be much later and entirely different if it happens at all.

They didn't. They tried to cut down the rising US threat by supporting the Confederacy with their Franco-Iberian-Brazilian allies, but it badly backfired on them when the Russo-German-Italian bloc sided with the Union. They have tried time and again, in 1812-1816 and in 1857-1861, to stop the rise of their manifold American, Russian, and German-Italian rivals, but every time they have lost badly on the battlefield.

So a bigger Confederacy coupled with the British Empire is *defeated* by the USA? Yeah but what?

The Eastern bloc has got a suitable common enemy in the Anglo-French bloc, they have not yet developed any serious reason to get estranged, and their aims (German-Italian expansion in Western Europe, North Africa, southern Africa, and South East Asia, Russian expansion in the Balkans, Middle East, Central Asia, and the Far East) so far proved compatible. As it concerns America, it is still focused on finishing its unification of the Americas and expansion in the Pacific, and grateful to the European powers that aided it in its time of trial. It is quite likely that the three budding superpowers of America, Russia, and the German-Italian 'CP' bloc shall become estranged and antagonistic after they finish crushing the British Empire and France in the next world war, but so far it is not happening yet, as they have a suitable common enemy in the British Empire.

Wasn't this equally the case with the League of Three Emperors?

Anglo-French diplomacy has made some feelings to split Russia and the German-Italian bloc, but it has fizzled because of incompatible aims (Britain wanted to gain the 'Triple Alliance' as an ally against Russia, ferociously revanchist France to gain Russia as an ally against Germany and Italy), so Britain, France, and Iberia (Scandinavia and Iberia unified ITTL) are forced to stick together by lack of other suitable allies (Japan is a possible future option, and so does China if it successfully pulls a Meji of their own, Turkey has been screwed up as described, Brazil is friendly but it is living on borrowed time, America shall inevitably steamroll it as soon as it can shed its ACW and Reconstruction weariness). America simply has no good reason not to hate the guts of Britain and France (third war in a century and intervention on the side of the Confederacy).

Except if the British Empire intervenes on the side of the Confederacy, the Union *must* lose the war as it had enough trouble against the Confederacy as it was. Even if it did nearly cut it in half in 1862, the CSA did a lot better than one would expect given all the disadvantages against it.

The Napoleonic Wars with the Ottoman Empire, Austria-Hungary and Great Britain(!) as France's allies would equal absolutely certain disaster for Russia and whatever aid Prussia and minor Italian states can scrape up.

As for the USA in the ACW defeating the Confederates, British, Canadians, French, Spanish, Portuguese and Brazilians...

Precisely. It's like a 67th Tigers Timeline in reverse......

 

[Nivek]

Eurofed... Your wanking timelines doesn't have place here(don't take as an insult but as a warning) , here is mostly about the so called 'anti-ottoman' feeling in A-H... who seems to be true(I'm a 'Full-blooded' Colombian who become muslim and when start to study muslim history.... the hate of the Nazarian aka Cristhian is horible) mostly for the cliche of the 'evolz muslim' who take force with 9/11.....

In general the Most Pro Ottoman here beside Abdul Hedil Pasha, is Onkel Willie who have made like 3 or 4 pro central powers timeline(plus one of the early unification of Germany and Italy with Hungary and the ottoman empire as the new central powers):

https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=160168 (that have the same POD of the enquire of AHP)

https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=129214

https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=138681 (late CP victory)

https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=148492

https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=163923&page=2 (even in a english-prussia wank the empire survives... but loses africa)

 

[SquireJames]

I would also suggest that the prevalence of anti-Muslim ethnic cleansing in various TLs is somehow a reversal on the Armenian Genocide and the treatment of the Kurds in the Ottoman Empire. Not saying it is right by any means, but that to me seems to be the reason why people do it. Sort of a "Well in real life they did this, so in my TL, I'll have people do it to them to make it 'different' " mentality.

 

[Snake Featherston]

The only other time I've endorsed (in a TL authorship sense, of course) a radical Islam dewank in a TL was about a Hohenstaufen successful HRE written by Kairos Fateweaver, which I gave counsel and advice, and it also had a damned good justification there, too: the centralization of the HRE butterflied a decisive success of the Crusades and the consolidation of Late Middle Ages Europe into a few stronger empires (HRE, Angevine Empire, Iberia, Byzantine Empire) and the revitalization of the BE, the end of the Latin-Greek Schism (due to the dewanking of the Papacy), the Crusades-Mongol double punch (while the Mongols were stalemated off Europe) screwed up the Muslim world, so the HRE conquered Algeria and Tunisia, Iberia conquered Morocco, the BE (re-)conquered eastern Anatolia, the Levant, Egypt, Libya, and Mesopotamia.

Radical Islam dewank? Huh? Those Muslims in both cases were no more and no less radical than say, the Russia of Alexander I or Nicholas I. Where do you get "radical Islam" here, nobody's wanked the Kharijites.

Not to mention the anti-muslim ethnic cleansing(its become so common). I mean why does it happen so many times in people TL's. If i were to make a TL and irreversibly ethnicly cleansing greeks or armenian or kurds etc shit would hit fan remark would be an understatement.

Yes, CW-Union Screws, Muslim-Screws, Russia-Screws......this site has far too many of them. >.< I'd note that Up With the Star avoids an Ottoman-Screw, and it doesn't make them the League of Extraordinary Marty Tzus, either.

 

[Nivek]

I would also suggest that the prevalence of anti-Muslim ethnic cleansing in various TLs is somehow a reversal on the Armenian Genocide and the treatment of the Kurds in the Ottoman Empire. Not saying it is right by any means, but that to me seems to be the reason why people do it. Sort of a "Well in real life they did this, so in my TL, I'll have people do it to them to make it 'different' " mentality.

And the people forget the 'ethic'(Muslim is a religion) cleashin who happen in balkans OTL...

 

[Ridwan Asher]

I would also suggest that the prevalence of anti-Muslim ethnic cleansing in various TLs is somehow a reversal on the Armenian Genocide and the treatment of the Kurds in the Ottoman Empire. Not saying it is right by any means, but that to me seems to be the reason why people do it. Sort of a "Well in real life they did this, so in my TL, I'll have people do it to them to make it 'different' " mentality.

Except it's not different from OTL at all. Anti-muslim ethnic cleansings did happen occasionally and Armenian Genocide and so-called treatments of Kurds didn't. Indeed there was bloody ethnic strife between muslims and Armenians, because the later did anti-muslim ethnic cleansing towards the former first.

Oh, and it was the Kurds who killed most of the Armenians that were killed during that ethnic conflict back then.

 

[Eurofed]

Radical Islam dewank? Huh?

I meant that the dewank of Islam is radical, in that they are restricted to Persia, Arabia, the Sahel, western India, and Indonesia as power centers.

 

[Eurofed]

Eurofed... Your wanking timelines doesn't have place here(don't take as an insult but as a warning) ,

My signature TL does include a severe Ottoman dewank, I stepped in to proffer my author explanation of why it is not arbitrary, but it has reasoned-out geopolitical justification. The second TL I quoted as example of a non-arbitrary dewank of Islam is not mine, just one I gave counsel and advice (although the author did develop a scenario I eventually planned to write a TL about).

 

[SquireJames]

Except it's not different from OTL at all. Anti-muslim ethnic cleansings did happen occasionally and Armenian Genocide and so-called treatments of Kurds didn't. Indeed there was bloody ethnic strife between muslims and Armenians, because the later did anti-muslim ethnic cleansing towards the former first.

Oh, and it was the Kurds who killed most of the Armenians that were killed during that ethnic conflict back then.

Well, I meant that in most ATLs, they make the anti-Muslim cleansing even worse than reality.

Also, did you just say the Armenian Genocide didn't happen?

 

[Snake Featherston]

I meant that the dewank of Islam is radical, in that they are restricted to Persia, Arabia, the Sahel, western India, and Indonesia as power centers.

While the HREGN has something happen that never happened despite three dynasties attempting to make it happen? Bull.

 

[Snake Featherston]

Well, I meant that in most ATLs, they make the anti-Muslim cleansing even worse than reality.

Also, did you just say the Armenian Genocide didn't happen?

Did Stalin commit genocide of the Volga Germans, Crimean Tatars, Kalmyks, and other groups he deported into Siberia in the middle of a life or death struggle? If the answer to that is yes, then yes. If the answer to that is no, then why is it genocide for Turks to do it but not Stalin?

 

[Cuāuhtemōc]

Doesn't sound so radical. Lusitania's TL tops that. It's a good Portugal wank (and a Copt wank).

 

[Ridwan Asher]

Well, I meant that in most ATLs, they make the anti-Muslim cleansing even worse than reality.

Also, did you just say the Armenian Genocide didn't happen?

Yes I did. I don't know why it is anything immoral to say at all.

Doesn't mean that Ottomans didn't have their share of guilt, but it wasn't on initiating killings, which they never did, but incompetent execution of deportation policy. They indeed utterly failed to protect the Armenians from the revenging local muslims.

 

[Cuāuhtemōc]

Yes I did. I don't know why it is anything immoral to say at all.

Doesn't mean that Ottomans didn't have their share of guilt, but it wasn't on initiating killings, which they never did, but incompetent execution of deportation policy. They indeed utterly failed to protect the Armenians from the revenging local muslims.

The deportation was certainly pretty messed up in my opinion.

 

[Eurofed]

OK, I'm going to ask this question again: 1800s Germany was multiple separate states, Saxony, Bavaria, Wurttemburg, Prussia, Austria, and other such separate states. A Russo-Prussian Alliance does not lead directly to this after 1812, as after all Russia, Austria, and Prussia were temporarily linked in a League of Three Emperors that was quite short-lived.

How does Napoleon defeat Britain? He can defeat Wellington, but how does this defeat Britain?

Why is Alexander I suddenly more liberal than IOTL, and why do his reforms preserve autocracy intact when that never happened despite a good deal of effort by multiple Tsars to do so IOTL?

How does Greater Germany appear so anachronistically early?

The paragraph you quoted happens to have the answers to almost all of those questions. Alexander I did have some liberal leanings IOTL, but failed to act on them because of indecisiveness and Metternich's influence. The divergence makes him much more confident to act on his plans because of greater success, and removes Metternich's influence.

Huh? The antagonism was a result of Southern violence for a decade culminating in their refusal to accept the election of a Republican. If this is the alternate US politics, by merely extending slavery into the Caribbean US politics as we know it is butterflied away, and any US Civil War will be much later and entirely different if it happens at all.

Parallels do happen when broad socio-political trends remain the same.

So a bigger Confederacy coupled with the British Empire is *defeated* by the USA? Yeah but what?

You haven't been paying attention to the full line-up, it seems.

Wasn't this equally the case with the League of Three Emperors?

I stated that they are not necessarily, or even likely, going to stay allies forever.

Except if the British Empire intervenes on the side of the Confederacy, the Union *must* lose the war as it had enough trouble against the Confederacy as it was.

The British Empire has no Canada and has to fight a Russo-German-Italian Triple Alliance, the Sepoy Rebellion hits them in the middle of it all, and the Union has Canada and 2/3 of Spanish America. Despite what this board's Britwankers seem to think, the bloody pink blot never was all-powerful.