What is a common thing or trope that always seem to happen?

[Mitridates the Great]

What do you consider 21st century macroeconomic arguments? And what time periods are you referring too?

"Population is a resource"

"We need to bring millions of immigrants to our country to keep the economy going. And by 'need' I mean 'we should actively recruit people from other countries to come and live in ours'. Fortunately, none of the governments of the other countries will be suspicious of our recruiters at all. Nor will they try to impede your recruiting work.

"We must focus all our efforts as a nation on depending on international trade for our survival"

"Any alternative to implementing the economic globalization and just-in-time economics as soon as possible is economic suicide and must be nipped in the bud"

"Any motivation and argument that is not directly related to the economy can and should be ignored: outside nationalism, religion, culture and everything that cannot be expressed in monetary units. Fuck off about what people will think about this"

"People will give up their traditions and beliefs if you only talk them about how all of this is against economic logic"

"The best form of economic regulation is that there is no regulation at all"

"We must prioritize the economy first and ignore everything else"

"Everything is an addition game zero in which every dollar our neighbor earns is a dollar we lose,"

"Slavery should be abolished solely because it is uneconomical, and the only way we will care about the debate about its immorality is to use it as an excuse to get the population to accept this decision,"

"We really shouldn't have colonies, but this is because they're uneconomical and cost more than profit. Fuck prestige, fuck morality, and fuck that means everyone else can colonize all they want."

All of which will sound like utter insanity, if not delusions completely out of touch with reality, to virtually any political leader living in 1914 or earlier.

 

[TickTock The Witch's Dead]

All of which will sound like utter insanity, if not delusions completely out of touch with reality, to virtually any political leader living in 1914 or earlier.

A lot of these definitely would be alien before the 20th century. But should be somewhat the norm by the end of WWII right?

 

[Mitridates the Great]

A lot of these definitely would be alien before the 20th century. But should be somewhat the norm by the end of WWII right?

Yes. But my point here it was to criticize that too many people project these ideas into the past and assume that everyone would see them as sensible and good and adopt them.

When, for example, in the XIX century, the most likely reaction to "we must bring in millions of immigrants" would be something like "Do you really want us to put MORE of those [racist slurs] into our country?"

Or the idea of "depending on international trade for our survival" would be dismissed as "this guy wants us to trust our survival to the goodwill of our enemies. He's either crazy or a traitor, and either way we shouldn't listen to him."

 

[TickTock The Witch's Dead]

Yes. But my point here it was to criticize that too many people project these ideas into the past and assume that everyone would see them as sensible and good and adopt them.

When, for example, in the XIX century, the most likely reaction to "we must bring in millions of immigrants" would be something like "Do you really want us to put MORE of those [racist slurs] into our country?"

Or the idea of "depending on international trade for our survival" would be dismissed as "this guy wants us to trust our survival to the goodwill of our enemies. He's either crazy or a traitor, and either way we shouldn't listen to him."

Ok just asking so that when I make my TL I don’t put in anachronistic ideas together that ruin the credibility and believability of it.

 

[TickTock The Witch's Dead]

Not necessarily a trope: but people don’t take the butterfly effect into account. Too many timelines and scenarios don’t really take into account how big an impact a POD has in the world. Too often PODs that should seriously change how our world looks only change a part of it with everything else being business as usual.

 

[Mitridates the Great]

Not necessarily a trope: but people don’t take the butterfly effect into account. Too many timelines and scenarios don’t really take into account how big an impact a POD has in the world. Too often PODs that should seriously change how our world looks only change a part of it with everything else being business as usual.

As a person who has been on both sides of this trend, I think this is the result of finding two opposing views on this issue, which have been poetically called "butterfly net" and "butterfly massacre."

Butterfly net: What you describe. Any changes are limited and will have regional significance at most. Outside of that, "forces of history", "material conditions", or whatever slang term you want to use, will ensure that everything stays the same unless someone is actively trying to change it. This approach is often criticized as lazy and uninventive because it basically leads to "OTL but with minor changes".

Butterfly Massacre: The opposite extreme. The author goes crazy with changes and starts extrapolating dozens or hundreds of massive world changes from a comparatively small POD. This approach is criticized, often rightly, as basically wish-fulfilment of the author (in many cases it will take the position that the author believes should occur rather than the one that is most likely to occur). Likewise, it is often criticized as a pure fantasy unrelated to alternative history due mainly to how exaggerated and random many of the changes are perceived.

The result of this is the situation in which you can find yourself one extreme or the other and people who oscillate from one to the other based on the complaints of the public.

 

[TickTock The Witch's Dead]

As a person who has been on both sides of this trend, I think this is the result of finding two opposing views on this issue, which have been poetically called "butterfly net" and "butterfly massacre."

Butterfly net: What you describe. Any changes are limited and will have regional significance at most. Outside of that, "forces of history", "material conditions", or whatever slang term you want to use, will ensure that everything stays the same unless someone is actively trying to change it. This approach is often criticized as lazy and uninventive because it basically leads to "OTL but with minor changes".

Butterfly Massacre: The opposite extreme. The author goes crazy with changes and starts extrapolating dozens or hundreds of massive world changes from a comparatively small POD. This approach is criticized, often rightly, as basically wish-fulfilment of the author (in many cases it will take the position that the author believes should occur rather than the one that is most likely to occur). Likewise, it is often criticized as a pure fantasy unrelated to alternative history due mainly to how exaggerated and random many of the changes are perceived.

The result of this is the situation in which you can find yourself one extreme or the other and people who oscillate from one to the other based on the complaints of the public.

Pretty much the goal of any TL is to find a good balance. For me I do have that fear of not taking that butterfly effect into consideration out of fear of making it stale. But you definitely bring up a good point about things going too far to the point that it ain’t believable.

 

[VVD0D95]

Charles I being destined to lose the civil war. Even as late as 1645 the momentum was shifting in his favour.

 

[Beatriz]

Does Look to the West fit any of the tropes described here?

 

[boredviewer1234]

On the subject of "no Iranian Revolution" discourse, it's always a case of the White Revolution being forced through and the opposition being successfully repressed. Never the far simpler case of "the Shah doesn't go out of his way to pick a fight with the faith of 95%+ of the subjects".

I suspect that's more because of strong rehabilitation of the Shah following his collapse, people see his suppression of Iran and think the fault is he was to soft on the people than him causing a reaction. Plus people who generally try to preserve Imperial Iran focus on the monarch than the people of Iran. Basically they see it as more preserve the autocrat and make it work around that than maybe he made some bad choices that should be avoided.

Would be cool to see a TL where that anarchist commune became their government resulting in them being a dictatorship with democracy in the name only that still followed left-progressive ideals and was portrayed as very morally grey

That's I think more people being ignorant of of the ''Kurdish struggle'' and projecting onto them sorta like the Polish struggle of independence used to be.

The YPG is the ''offspring'' of the PKK the Kurdish communist party that had rather successfully became the mainstream group of Kurdish nationalism in Turkey, to do that they had to do some vile things that in other movements would get them shunned but well everyone has blood on their hands in that struggle.

For example the PKK fought with Saddam in the Anfal campaign against their Kurdish rivals, their leader to keep and maintain his patron Syria had to agree with them removing citizenship of the Kurds there, declaring them alien refuges who moved to Syria and should ideally be moved into Turkey once they liberate Kurdistan there and help suppress any groups trying to fight the state and recruit from it.

This is far from abnormal as Masoud Barzani had to grovel to Saddam for help against his Kurdish rival after he killed thousands of his clan and he jumped between Iran, Iraq, Syria, Turkey during the Iran Iraq war and before.

Kurdish nationalism is sometimes called the Kurdish struggle not only the states the rule them but especially each other as they compete for resources, power, prestige and patrons.

So I think TL where anarchist Kurdish Syria would be interesting but as you said be very gray.

 

[da Racontor]

Fair enough, I just figured "send them to South Africa" was played out.

Back when "Canada" meant "French" it absolutely would, and they had a much better history with the indigenous than the anglophone nations did.

While yes, very much so. The reasons that caused these could easily change and probably would have if the world progressed similarly to otl.

Politically/socially New France didn't need expand in the same rate and way the USA did. If the population of New France grows they will eventually have to push out. And they'd still have the European farm mentality.

The other thing would be the Church. The Jesuits, who led the missionary work, were looking for Catholic native societies; language (most) social customs, politics, etc. Where largely irrelevant as long as they were practicing Catholic. And (at least for that time period) they had the support of the Church because that is a perfectly compatible outlook with Catholic Doctrine. This is in contrast to the Anglophone outlook, which generally saw everything as a package deal.

See above about what "Canada" meant before it got split into Lower and Upper Canada with the Loyalist influx.

Modern Canada is trash, I'm talking about a surviving New France within the US that's on equal terms with the rest from the jump.

While this would be an ideal and the hope, two of the biggest factors contributing to New France's actions are going to be challenged just by New France surviving:
Population growth will make them want more land.
Dechristianization (and possibly even worse anticlericalism) is going to remove not only the Jesuit's influence on Native American relations but quite possibly their ideas on it.

 

[Mitridates the Great]

I assume by "de-Christianization" you mean the French Revolution.

Is it not more likely that if New France remains, well, French, to the Revolution era... they will become a stronghold of French Catholicism precisely as a reaction to the anti-clericalism unleashed on the European side?

The local population might decide that they want nothing to do with that shit and that they remain loyal to the King of France.

Perhaps even declare independence to avoid being dominated by what would appear to be crazy revolutionaries.

Oh god now I imagine the British Empire decides to invade New France "to stop the revolutionaries from conquering them" and start implementing their racist and Protestant supremacist policies...

...only to end up getting kicked around by a US-New France alliance, because the United States decides that it prefers a more or less friendly Republic ("although Catholic, ugh") than a world empire that could very well decide that it wants revenge.

 

[da Racontor]

I assume by "de-Christianization" you mean the French Revolution.

Mostly.

Is it not more likely that if New France remains, well, French, to the Revolution era... they will become a stronghold of French Catholicism precisely as a reaction to the anti-clericalism unleashed on the European side?

For a time. If New France stays a part of France, France gets the majority say in policy. And the Jesuits are worldwide organization, they will still be effected by the changes.

Quebec also had it's own (lucky bloodless but still very radical) dechristianization. It waited until the 1960s in OTL but I would be surprised if it wouldn't happen earlier in another timeline.

The local population might decide that they want nothing to do with that shit and that they remain loyal to the King of France.

Perhaps even declare independence to avoid being dominated by what would appear to be crazy revolutionaries.

More than likely any non-contemporary independence movement will be very anticlerical. It is by no means necessary, but alternatives are quite historically rare.

Oh god now I imagine the British Empire decides to invade New France "to stop the revolutionaries from conquering them" and start implementing their racist and Protestant supremacist policies...

...only to end up getting kicked around by a US-New France alliance, because the United States decides that it prefers a more or less friendly Republic ("although Catholic, ugh") than a world empire that could very well decide that it wants revenge.

Now I'm wondering which is worse... That, or a New France that utterly devours itself in the pains of a French Revolution style dechristianization 😥.

[Added] And I may have poorly explained my point. It's not that this is impossible,. I plan to do just this in my own timeline (plus Native America Princely states!). It is that the same factors that are usually cited as the failure of New France (France's war doctrine excluded) are the same factors that allowed their Native American relations policy.

 

[TickTock The Witch's Dead]

I suspect that's more because of strong rehabilitation of the Shah following his collapse, people see his suppression of Iran and think the fault is he was to soft on the people than him causing a reaction. Plus people who generally try to preserve Imperial Iran focus on the monarch than the people of Iran. Basically they see it as more preserve the autocrat and make it work around that than maybe he made some bad choices that should be avoided.

Wait why was I quoted? I didn't say anything.

 

[boredviewer1234]

Wait why was I quoted? I didn't say anything.

Ah my apologize accidently quoted you earlier I think and tried to remove it.
I think I failed my bad.

 

[Mitridates the Great]

The use of macroeconomic arguments and "the need to preserve the stability of the global economy" as the only decision-making engine.

Ysually taken to ridiculous extremes that, applying this logic to its extreme, could be graphically described as:

"Oh, no! Nazi Germany is exterminating all non-German people living east of the Oder! We should do something to stop them!"

"ARE YOU CRAZY?! GERMANY HAS THE BIGGEST ECONOMY ON THE ENTIRE CONTINENT! Attacking them will completely wreck the global economy and screw us a lot more than them! WE CANNOT ATTACK THEM! For the sake of the global economy, we must stay away and let Germany do what they want"

"But they're exterminating people! And screaming loudly that they want to do the same against us!"

"Yeah, yeah, who cares, look at these macroeconomic indicators. Do you really want to be the one to tell people that our GDP is going to fall 2% this quarter because you want to declare a war for the sake of people none of our CEOs care about?"

 

[da Racontor]

The use of macroeconomic arguments and "the need to preserve the stability of the global economy" as the only decision-making engine.

Ysually taken to ridiculous extremes that, applying this logic to its extreme, could be graphically described as:

"Oh, no! Nazi Germany is exterminating all non-German people living east of the Oder! We should do something to stop them!"

"ARE YOU CRAZY?! GERMANY HAS THE BIGGEST ECONOMY ON THE ENTIRE CONTINENT! Attacking them will completely wreck the global economy and screw us a lot more than them! WE CANNOT ATTACK THEM! For the sake of the global economy, we must stay away and let Germany do what they want"

"But they're exterminating people! And screaming loudly that they want to do the same against us!"

"Yeah, yeah, who cares, look at these macroeconomic indicators. Do you really want to be the one to tell people that our GDP is going to fall 2% this quarter because you want to declare a war for the sake of people none of our CEOs care about?"

Not exactly related, but every time someone brings this up I always think about how a lot of business are constantly just hanging on by a few threads because of all the corners they cut to save profit.
It's almost like the economy only model has problems no matter where you find it.

 

[Mitridates the Great]

Not exactly related, but every time someone brings this up I always think about how a lot of business are constantly just hanging on by a few threads because of all the corners they cut to save profit.
It's almost like the economy only model has problems no matter where you find it.

Do not forget either the extremely fragile supply chain, which means that as long as there are delays, not just days, but HOURS, the chain reaction can end up completely pulverizing the economy and society of a country.

And the solution to that is... do nothing and pray that there are no such problems. Why, you probably say? Simply because someone believes that strengthening the supply chain is "very expensive".

It's those kinds of things that make me wonder at what point did anyone think that globalizing the economy/adopting the "economy first and foremost, everything else can and should be ignored" model was a good idea.

 

[da Racontor]

It's those kinds of things that make me wonder at what point did anyone think that globalizing the economy/adopting the "economy first and foremost, everything else can and should be ignored" model was a good idea.

I've saying this since highschool. And I've been called almost everything under the sun, by everyone, for it too.

 

[Mitridates the Great]

I've saying this since highschool. And I've been called almost everything under the sun, by everyone, for it too.

Yeah, people act about this like priests after hearing you saying "God is a lie".