A Day in July: An Early 20th Century Timeline
- Thread starter Zulfurium
- Start date
Thanks
I have consistently written interwar instead of post war and WW1 instead of Great War.
WW2 is coming.
The eugenics stuff is chilling. Most of it has no basics in any science whatsoever, with little proof anything selected for sterilization is hereditary, even without considering the human rights question. It's very easy to twist into a racial or anti-poor idea. Stuff like sterilizing criminals will hurt vulnerable populations a lot more than others for example.
How is that developing in the American South? Because it doesn't look good for black people's future.
Still, glad to see the communists are seeing through it, even if they fail to oppose the sterilization program in Germany.
That’s the thing, if I was planning to have a Second World War I wouldn’t have a problem with it, but these are just pure mindblips which confuse people. I have only planned up to 1935 in broad strokes and that isn’t leading to a major global conflict.
Oh agreed, negative eugenics are incredibly harmful and don’t really achieve their goal. However stuff like in vitro fertilization, cloning, gene manipulation and the like also fall within that category and have rather promising potential. Personally I view the anti-poor and racist elements of eugenics as fundamental misunderstandings of a movement whose ultimate goals arguably have a lot of positives to them.
Events are largely following OTL in the US, where to my knowledge the focus of sterilization remains on criminals and medical patients. Segregation remains the name of the game atm in the US, but there are (as IOTL) some who argue for a more active policy.
It is more a question of the Communists being unable to generate the requisite support to oppose the sterilization programs than anything.
It's a misunderstanding, but a structural one. If you give power to the state over reproduction, the people exercising it will be the ones with the most influence over the state... In the west, that means rich white males.
The only eugenics I could be okay with would be voluntary ones, where people with clearly hereditary detrimental traits are fast tracked for adoption to encourage them not to transmit it. And by clearly, I mean clearly. It's very easy to make shaky judgments on heredity and the risks of narrowing the gene pool are very real.
Sterilizing criminals would still end up being racially charged, since vulnerable populations will fall into crime more easily and legal enforcement will show racial bias.
Oh definitely, with the current setup that is the group which reaps the benefits of these policies and are least likely to be targeted by the negative impacts. The adoption scheme would be an example of a positive eugenics program, but the issue of the “suitability” of such people to parent would probably become a political issue rather quickly when considering the rather absurd arguments used against homosexual couples having the opportunity to adopt or the like.
While sterilizing criminals will disproportionately impact PoCs, it is important to note the difference between an implicit effort and an explicit sterilization campaign targeting PoCs.
Vuu
Banned
The problem with eugenics is because we don't know just how much bad traits are actually heritable - not even today.
Another problem is the human one - people are flawed creatures, and with an eugenics program it's extremely easy to hijack it and run it into the ground by promoting traits that result in a dumb, naive populace that is easy to control. Tricky shit, even if it is common sense
Another problem is the human one - people are flawed creatures, and with an eugenics program it's extremely easy to hijack it and run it into the ground by promoting traits that result in a dumb, naive populace that is easy to control. Tricky shit, even if it is common sense
Actually, modern research seems to imply that a lot of traits are hereditary - stuff like intelligence, impulse control, even personality traits. Of course, genes don’t work in isolation, and one’s upbringing definitely plays a large role. The thing about genes is that they are based on probability, meaning that two low-IQ people for example could theoretically have a child with genius-level IQ - it’s just not very likely. This is also the reason why genetics become less accurate the smaller the number of people we are talking about. You can make fairly accurate general statements and predictions about certain populations, but on an individual level that’s much harder. That’s where the dangers lie in involving something like genetics in politics: politics by nature deals only with large groups of people, and is usually unconcerned with individuals.
But i don’t think its accurate to say that eugenics had no basis in science at all, or that all of those theories back then were ‘pseudoscientific’. That’s like saying physics prior to Einstein was ‘pseudoscientific’, just because physicists back then didn’t know what we know today.
The problem with eugenics AS A SCIENCE without all the "race" that got lumped in to it, as that while modern genetics is getting much better the reality is that the "desirable"characteristics, such as intelligence, are not isolated to one stretch of DNA, one gene, or even one chromosome. Even then the genetics you are born with only set your potential, environment says how far you go with it. A very crude example is an Einstein level genetic genius who has poor nutrition during the first two years of their life is not going to be Einstein. For behavioral characteristics, there are some like true psychopaths who are "wired" incorrectly but we really don't know much about how that happens, much other "negative" behavior is mostly or all environmental (nurture not nature). Most of the "negative" genetics we know about is either single point mutations; cystic fibrosis, Tay-Sachs are examples of this, or chromosomal aberrations of which Downs Syndrome is the most well known. We know that some populations have certain conditions; sarcoidosis, lactose intolerance, thalassemia, sickle cell are specific ones, and some have higher rates of certain conditions on a statistical basis such as diabetes (types I & II) and hypertension. The former are conditions basically unaffected by "nurture", whereas the latter tendencies can be magnified by things like poor diets, lack of physical activity etc as well as the genetics.
The bottom line is that now (2019) we can discuss rationally the odds of some of these conditions being passed on by folks who wither have them, have a family history, or come from a risk group. Depending upon whether testing is available, and whether these are dominant or recessive characteristics rational decisions can be made - again for a growing but limited list of specific conditions. For the issues that eugenics came to stand for, such as intelligence, temprament, positive or negative social behavior and so forth genetic/eugenic science is pretty much useless. Even when it comes to the obvious cases of medical conditions or disabilities we know can be identified genetically and know can be passed on (either dominant or recessive) we have to ask ourselves "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?", who will guard the guardians. The German T4 program ("Lebensunwertes Leben" - life unworthy of life), Dr Mengele examining those getting off the trains, and "Aryanization" of kidnapped Polish and Russian children show us where this path can lead step by tiny step.
The bottom line is that now (2019) we can discuss rationally the odds of some of these conditions being passed on by folks who wither have them, have a family history, or come from a risk group. Depending upon whether testing is available, and whether these are dominant or recessive characteristics rational decisions can be made - again for a growing but limited list of specific conditions. For the issues that eugenics came to stand for, such as intelligence, temprament, positive or negative social behavior and so forth genetic/eugenic science is pretty much useless. Even when it comes to the obvious cases of medical conditions or disabilities we know can be identified genetically and know can be passed on (either dominant or recessive) we have to ask ourselves "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?", who will guard the guardians. The German T4 program ("Lebensunwertes Leben" - life unworthy of life), Dr Mengele examining those getting off the trains, and "Aryanization" of kidnapped Polish and Russian children show us where this path can lead step by tiny step.
That comparison is ridiculous because Eugenics isn't a new theory to explain heredity and work on it. That would be genetics. It's a method to apply what you think you know of heredity to select people.
Modern genetics are also unveiling the fact that a lot of gene expression is conditioned by the environment, so even things coded in your DNA could be influenced massively by the environment. We don't know nearly enough to figure out if a trait expressing itself in a given person is heredity or not, and even when it is, it could be something the environment allowed them to express. And often we have no list of environmental factors or precise knowledge about what a person went through that could have triggered traits.
The only case where it could make some sense is clear cut genetic diseases.
Only up to 1935? Hmm, while it would be nice to have a world where everything is rainbows and sunshine, this is still a TL written for entertainment, so at some point we need something to spice things up. So here is my official list of suggestions for the world of the 30s and beyond:
- Restauration of the monarchy in France. Obviously. I have no doubt the people of France are crying out for their rightful souvereign. Tell me you wouldn’t want to be ruled by this guy:
Unfortunately, this handsome fella died of pneumonia in 1926 IOTL, but that can easily be butterflied.
- American Civil War 2.0. Yes, yes, this is a bit cliche - but only a bit. Frankly, i don’t think i have seen a TL that does this well. The Falcon Cannot Hear is probably the best, but it’s also a bit biased, and makes certain figures look like incompetent idiots, almost to a cartoonish degree, especially in the lead-up to the Civil War. But a well done Civil War scenario, with various different factions and sub-factions, would be something interesting. Imagine if the outcome is similar to the Russian Civil War ITTL, and you and up with a divided Russia and America! It’s hard to even imagine a world where neither of the superpowers that dominated the 20th century IOTL exist, but that’s what makes the scenario so exciting!
- A major war that’s not a World War. I mentioned this in the past, but the lack of a unified Russia and the German dominance over Eastern Europe makes a large scale war between the major European powers very unlikely - at least on the European continent, since Germany is too strong there. The French are unlikely to want to go to war with Germany again under these circumstances, and would likely either stay out of a possible conflict, or possibly even ally with the Germans - after all, if you can’t beat them, why not join them? However, a conflict in Africa and/or Asia is another matter. A war between Germany and Japan for example, or between the US and Japan, or between a Franco-German and an Anglo-Japanese alliance, or a number of different possible combinations, would likely be restricted to the periphery of those aforementioned empires, since neither side can really threaten the motherland of the other - the British, Americans and Japanese are protected by the seas, but also can’t really threaten Germany in Europe without French or Russian support like in OTL WW1 and 2. However, for something like this to happen you would probably need a major geopolitical reallignment. Maybe the Ottomans get closer to the British for some reason, while France gets closer to Germany. A second Diplomatic Revolution, basically.
- Tukhachevsky as Napoleon 2.0. The revolutionary regime in Russia is still young, and is still in its idealistic/crazy phase. It would make sense for an ambitious figure to rise up and restore order and sanity. It’s what happened after the French Revolution, and i would argue it happened to a certain degree after the OTL Bolshevik revolution as well, since Stalin was in many ways much more conservative than his predecessors. If Tukhachevsky makes peace with the Orthodox Church for example, and agrees to some economical liberalizations, then he could secure the support of the middle class and the conservative peasantry, as did Napoleon in his day.
So not happening. The monarchists can't even agree on a candidate most days. A new dictatorship doing a Napoleon, maybe. But the time for a French monarchy is long past.
The US used the war and the follow up Russian revolution as excuses to squash dissent very hard. I don't see a Russian like civil war happening anytime soon, and the south rising up will just end up the same way it did the first time.
Neither Stalin nor Napoleon were restoration of sanity by any means. Conservativeness and autocracy, in some ways, yes. But even then, not really. Napoleon flatly orchestrated his coup after the conservatives had toppled Robespierre and steered back right. There was in fact fear they were going to invite the king back in and it's why he got so much support. He then proceeded to bring his craziness to the whole of Europe.
As for Russia, there's probably no middle class left in the sense we mean it, because they were more thorough than OTL in their transformation and they didn't have a phase under the NEP letting one rebuild itself in the countryside.
Of course the reds already have their Napoleon in Trotsky.
I prefer to let the timeline develop as organically as possible by limiting the number of hard points on the timeline I have in the long run. I have some notes, ideas and broader possible directions which I keep track of but for the most part I only really have a vague idea of what I will be covering more than five updates down the line. It requires a ton of research to ensure that I can keep track of the possible butterflies, but it does lead to what I hope seems like a more plausible timeline where butterflies evolve naturally.
- Restauration of the monarchy in France. Obviously. I have no doubt the people of France are crying out for their rightful souvereign. Tell me you wouldn’t want to be ruled by this guy:
Unfortunately, this handsome fella died of pneumonia in 1926 IOTL, but that can easily be butterflied.
I have actually played around with the idea of having the monarchists gain a greater say in French politics and the possible repercussions of such a development. I am unsure of exactly how powerful they will grow or what will happen to them, but the growing power of Catholicism in French politics will lead to a shift in support. While republicanism remains the name of the game so far, the monarchists are making a minor comeback at the moment. The main problem seems to be that at the time neither the Bonaparts, Legitimists or Orléanists are in a particularly good position to make a case in their favor and all of them seem to have been in at least some level of disarray.
Again, something I considered but the circumstances seem to make it unlikely, at least on a nation-shattering level. There might be conflict, maybe even open fighting, but it would be difficult for any of the factions which might want to launch a civil war to actually gain sufficient power to have any chance of success. However, as I have already mentioned I tend to see where the butterflies lead me so don't necessarily count it out.
I have a hard time seeing Europe as being the locus of conflict in any major conflict as things stand right now. No power in Europe is really able to challenge Germany's hegemony. However, there are plenty of things that could happen elsewhere. Things in South America got rather heated at times and there are so many things that could go wrong in Asia - to say nothing of what could come out of America. Things will get tense in the United States, so who knows. The Germans would really need to screw things up for an alliance able to challenge them to form - but who knows, crazier things have happened.
Bonarpartism is definitely one direction things could end up tipping towards in Russia and the power balance within the Central Committee definitely needs to be monitored long-term, but as things stand Tukhachevsky is unlikely to pull something like that off. The current government under the Communist Party is actually proving surprisingly robust but as the ruling coalition in the CC has found its power shrinking and other factions begin to clamour for power, that might change.
I think there are sufficient markers from OTL to make the argument that monarchism could make a come-back in France, particularly if the Republic finds itself discredited somehow. It is important to keep in mind the rather close relationship between monarchism, conservatism and catholicism in France in this period.
I agree that a Russian Revolution-style civil war seems unlikely in the United States, but you could see other forms of conflict erupt.
That is a rather dismal read of particularly Napoleon but to each their own I guess. I don't really have too much to say here.
I will be dealing with events in Khiva at a later point, but the basics are mainly that the Caucasian Clique are strengthening their grip on power while the relationship between the large number of particularly Armenian emigres and the native population are getting strained.
How did central Asia actually look like at this point, culturally, politcally, economically and demographically? Was it still mainly tribal, like Afghanistan, or did an industrial base and some modern infrastructure already exist? I know the Soviets settled lots of Russians in the area, but i’m not sure there were many Russians there before that.
I always wondered how IOTL the Soviets managed to hold on to the area in their early years. Surely it would have been easy for the peoples of the region to go independent during the Civil War? Or was the region more integrated into Russia then one might expect?
I always wondered how IOTL the Soviets managed to hold on to the area in their early years. Surely it would have been easy for the peoples of the region to go independent during the Civil War? Or was the region more integrated into Russia then one might expect?