Alternate US expansions

Not the Hellenowank! Anything but that!

Hem-hem. Greeks were a minority, and not actually an enormously huge one, even in the Smyrna region and Thrace, by the 20th century and for a long time before, and we wont even start on the Armenians in the east. That's problem one. Problem two is that, as people seem so fond of forgetting, Turkey is a much, much bigger country than Greece. Modern Turkey (not the Ottomans)=Germany. Greece=Belgium. That's the proportions we have going on.

So basically, to satisfy the wierd, unrealistic, and outmoded nationalist desires of a few Hellenophiles with little actual knowledge of the country's history, you've had Belgium invade Germany, win, and take half of it. A few small problems:

-The majority of Belgium's population are now Germans, necessitating Aprthead or ethnic cleansing.

-Germany has become a rugged mountainous land in which properly supressing resistance is nearly impossible for some reason.

-It doesn't matter if the Belgians kill three insurgents for ever Belgain soldier who dies, they're still going to run out first.

-The rest of the world will be completely unwilling to help Belgium's mad and destructive desires for aggrandisement.

-The other half of Germany is ready to sweep out and liberate their compatriots at the right moment.

At some point in this scenario, probably after the failed invasion, since I don't even see it succeeding, the Greeks of Asia are going to flee, be driven out, or suffer from revenge-massacres. Yeah, your timeline is nice to Greeks, alright.

Regarding Greece, if we were to assume that as a WW1 and WW2 Axis power, if Turkey were heavily bombed and experienced heavy hardships, would that diminish the resistant population enough that the Greeks could push inward with little resistance?

This is a doctrine which the Nazis rather banked on.

It didn't work so well.

If the Second World War (and the earlier parts of the Sino-Japanese war) in the air showed one thing, it's that no matter how much infrastructure you destroy, how heaily you bomb, people will survive, pull together, and carry on.
 
Greek Cyprus: Yes
Greek Aegean Coast extensions: Very Likely but not definate
Greek Thrace: Quite Likely
Greek Expansion into the Aegean hinterland: Possible
Greek Constantinople and Antioch: unlikely.

This map shows the extent of Ancient Greek colonisation of Anatolia, but Constantinople had been heavily de-Hellenised for millenia by now
 

Attachments

  • File:Map_athenian_empire_431_BC-fr.svg
    45.5 KB · Views: 580
All in all, though, keep the good Ameriwanking up.:)
(PS: An earlier POD to get the Maritimes is probably needed, like them seceding or being taken in the Revolutionary War.)
 
Greek Cyprus: Yes

With you so far...

Greek Aegean Coast extensions: Very Likely but not definate

Hwabagwuh?:confused:

Greek Thrace: Quite Likely

Huwgabawh?:confused:

Greek Expansion into the Aegean hinterland: Possible

Or not...

Greek Constantinople and Antioch: unlikely.

To say the least...

This map shows the extent of Ancient Greek colonisation of Anatolia, but Constantinople had been heavily de-Hellenised for millenia by now

A) The period between the years of 1453 and 18XX does not constitute even one millenium.

B) Was it, though? Turkified it certainly was, but the Greeks weren't made to leave. They had a patriarchate there, in fact.

C) Ancient Greek colonisation is not a valid model for modern Greek expansionism. This theory, long held by the Ottomans among others, was decisively prooved in the early 1920s. It was rather bloody.
 
just one question: why would the Greeks care about a tiny village? (like pre-Constantine Constantinople, pre-Ataturk Ankara was a tiny village of no real distinction or specialness)

Huh? I wasn't talking about Ankara. Ankara wasn't even the capital until 1924. This isn't 1924.
 
Just seen your update to your last post. You still have the same problem. The US may try to take the Oregon Country piecemeal, but the Americans in this era wouldn't want the whole area that you've selected.

I know this is a delayed reaction but what the hell are you talking about? Americans did want the entire Oregon Country just look up the "All Oregon Movement" in wikipedia. And besides, settling British Columbia is not like trying to settle in Antarctica.
Or Alaska for that matter.
 
And from 1844 onward, there was the Megali Idea, so there was some popular support for gaining at the least Constantinople...and the Greek population was greatest near the Aegean, with a little on the Black Sea.

You haven't actually adresses any of my points. Of course there was a Megali idea. It failed (or rather was fulfilled in the unforeseen way of moving the Asian Greeks to Greece and not Asia Minor to Greece). Why should it succeed?

You'll note that that map shows the Greek population as being biggest in the Aegean Vilayets and Thrace... and still a decided minority.
 
This sort of reinforces my point that a TL could have as a POD "What if Lincoln got up on the left side of the bed instead of the right on Aug 21 1859 and Greece would get Constantinople and the Aegean coast of Asia Minor. Your scenario would lead to a genocide of about 10 million Muslims. Every single piece of Anatolia had either a Turkish or Kurdish majority. Armenians comprised only 1/6th of the population of the area they were thickest in in the East; their largest % was about a third in Bitlis, which is to the West of that big lake. Greeks were a majority nowhere, even in the Izmir province, where they were less than 1/5th the population.

The "Turkey" you leave is mountainous, about half of it would have Kurdish majorities, and it would be too poor to maintain more than a couple of million people. Meanwhile, there are not enough Greeks to populate the massive area you have given them. It would be a barren wasteland, and al the agricultural works built up would fall into ruin.

Congratulations.

I'm working on a 'moderate' expansion of the US, with the POD being the French-American quasi-war becoming a full-on war, and the US steadily gaining more territory over time, and incorporating the Groß-Deutschland timeline as well. This is a rough sketch, and I'm looking for some help in making the timeline realistic and (reasonably) plausible.

The US gains French Guyana and the French islands off Canada; The War of 1812 still occurs, but the US is more successfull and gains the portion of Canada south of the St. Lawrence (part of Quebec, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and PEI). Simon Bolivar's Gran Colombia becomes a US Protectorate for a time, with US citizens and aid going there, helping this region become a stable western democracy in the mold of the US, but speaking Spanish, and leaving behind the instability of the Spanish Colonial Legacy.

The US buys Cuba in 1848, and annexes Yucatan, Rep. Rio Grande, 54°40'; (need help getting the US to 54°40')

The Mexican-American War sees the US capturing Sonora, Baja Cal, Durango, Sinaloa, and Chihuahua in a bitter war, where the Mexicans continue antagonizing until the US forces a peace on them.

The Civil War occurs, (not sure when), and Reconstruction is somewhat milder on the south; Johnson is not Pres, but a French-American from the Quebec region taken in 1812. After the war concludes, France's meddling in Mexico brings the newly restored US into war with Mexico again, seeing the US to expel the French by force, and taking more territory (Colima, Jalisco, Zacatecas, San Luis Potisi, Aguascalientes, Queretaro, Guanajato, Tabasco).

Seeing France's expulsion, Prussia seeks ties with America, and the UK to isolate France. France seeks Russian alliance.

Dominican Republic requests annexation for stability as in OTL, and becomes a US Territory. Austria-Hungary collapses in this timeline due to racial strife, Czechia joins the German Empire, and after the 1871 Franco-Prussian War, so does Austria down to Modrus-Fiume, creating the Groß-deutsches Reich. This Germany allows limits to its navy to appease the British, but still seeks colonies; Kaiser Frederich III rules for 10 years before Wilhelm II (not a breech birth) ruled as a stable, moderate reformer.

The Spanish-American war brings Puerto Rico, the Phillippines, and Guam into the US territory. WW1 brings the UK, Germany, Hungary, and Italy into conflict with France, Russia, Spain, and the Ottoman Empire, dragging the whole continent into war from 1912 to 1917. President Teddy Roosevelt in the US doesn't bring the US in just yet, more concerned with Mexico and the United States of Colombia, the US chief trading partner in South America, which is fighting its own troubles. The US finally enters with the bombing of the Lusitania in October 8, 1914 by France.

The war continues till 1917 with the end of the French Monarchy under Napoleon V; France accepts the harsh peace of the Treaty of Versailles, ceding permanently Alsace-Lorraine to Germany, paying huge war reparations, and demilitarizing the Lorraine region next to Germany, who bore the brunt of the war trauma. France's colonies are divided between the US, UK, and Germany. Spain and Portugal, being nominal allies of France, lose their Atlantic and African islands to the US, which seeks military bases for refueling. Greece is given Constaninople and the Aegean facing provinces of the Asia Minor area. Britain gets Mesopotamia, Germany gets Syria, and they jointly administer Palestine.

In Europe, the next Kaiser, Franz Joseph I, who lost both sons in WW1, has the Reichstag pass a law allowing female succession as the Kaiser/in. Germany rebuilds and experiences a boom like most of the west. German and British colonies experience a build-up bringing the standard of living in Africa up to roughly the low-end of American existence at the same time, though not to European standards yet (they get electricity, industry, paved roads, and working sewage and water treatment). Russia, like France, had a communist revolution. The French communists however, failed, and a weak republic was set up.

A young speaker, Charles de Gaulle, began drawing people to his political party, and began agitating for a return of the Monarchy under a strong, active ruler who could unite the divided French and bring back the glory of French history, going back to Charlemagne and Louis XIV.

Suffice it to say, the second world war occurs as well, but with Germany being the aggrieved party, and France the aggressor. FDR still has 2 terms, but his 3rd is stopped by TR Jr, and the high-level French sympathizers in his administration. TR wins, and begins peace-time build-up and giving supplies to the UK and Germany, until he can find a causus belli to enter the war. Pearl Harbor brings that cause, drawing the US into war in 1941. Italy surrenders in 1943 when the gov't in Exile signs a treaty to give them Carthage and Corsica with the US for aiding the US in the war. Germany balks, but the US agrees.

The Axis (France, Turkey, Japan) and formerly Russia/Italy, lose to the Allies by 1946. France cedes Lorraine and Belfort to Germany, Savoy/Nice to Italy (again), and Sommes and a bit of Ardennes to Belgium, which is shifted southward to allow for the Netherlands to get the Flemish region, as the prevailing thought is for linguistic/ethnic unity to prevent a third war. Polish citizens in Germany are also expelled, as the Poles fought eagerly for Russia in promise of an expanded homeland out of German territory. Germany gains a little more land on the east as well. Greece is given a greater portion of Turkey, and Armenia gains as well in reparation for the Armenian genocide of 1929-1931.

Poland still holds the eastern border of OTL's second Polish Republic, but is split east/west with the Soviets staging a coup.


As I said before, this is a very rough timeline, and I'm looking for ideas on how to make this timeline work.
 
Post edited.

Apologize for being to much suspecting you for an ethnic-state maniac, JJohson :eek: Sue me.
 
Last edited:

JJohnson

Banned
I was simply looking for the most plausible gains for the US, and if possible, Greece and Germany. That's it. I'd appreciate keeping the discussion civil.
 
Mildly Expanded Timeline:

New State (Franklin State, capital at Toronto):

Alternate_Wo1812_by_JJohnson1701.png


Alternate_US_History___small2_by_JJohnson1701.png

I remember reading once that the USA did make claim to that region of Canada,but never took anything to reinforce that claim...as for Gran Colombia..why did the USA just make the country a state or two?
 
I was simply looking for the most plausible gains for the US, and if possible, Greece and Germany. That's it. I'd appreciate keeping the discussion civil.

Still, I hope that you already understand how impossible it is to have Megali idea like that or anything successful. Even the easiest city to gain for Greece such as Izmir was hardly attainable with the Greeks being only sizable minority there. Your propose for the Greeks' gain there was just simply impossible realistically, especially with the existing modern moral code (Unless this world has a more tolerating views on genocide, at least during Greek expansion that deep into Anatolia)
 

JJohnson

Banned
I remember reading once that the USA did make claim to that region of Canada,but never took anything to reinforce that claim...as for Gran Colombia..why did the USA just make the country a state or two?

I was thinking about that - it was Simon Bolivar's idea to have this Gran Colombia, and I was thinking that the US could see him as a Latin American George Washington, and develop a close relationship to them, and mildly 'americanize' them in that they become a stable, functional western democracy that avoids the problems that are often associated with the Latin American countries - His Gran Colombia would be a Latin United States of South America or US of Colombia...a trade partner to the US, and an ally like Australia, Canada, and the UK are OTL.

Simon wanted a stronger presidency OTL, but perhaps there's a way we can send him to the US for a while, or some of the people around him, and they come back and try for a less autocratic union. Would it be likely/possible for some Americans to fight with the Colombians and then press for a milder constitution on the model of the US, giving a federal structure and ensuring basic rights like the US Bill of Rights?
 
you've had Belgium invade Germany, win, and take half of it. A few small problems:

-The majority of Belgium's population are now Germans, necessitating Aprthead or ethnic cleansing.

-Germany has become a rugged mountainous land in which properly supressing resistance is nearly impossible for some reason.

-It doesn't matter if the Belgians kill three insurgents for ever Belgain soldier who dies, they're still going to run out first.

-The rest of the world will be completely unwilling to help Belgium's mad and destructive desires for aggrandisement.

-The other half of Germany is ready to sweep out and liberate their compatriots at the right moment.
:eek: That gives me an idea! Belge-wank!
 
I was thinking about that - it was Simon Bolivar's idea to have this Gran Colombia, and I was thinking that the US could see him as a Latin American George Washington, and develop a close relationship to them, and mildly 'americanize' them in that they become a stable, functional western democracy that avoids the problems that are often associated with the Latin American countries - His Gran Colombia would be a Latin United States of South America or US of Colombia...a trade partner to the US, and an ally like Australia, Canada, and the UK are OTL.

Simon wanted a stronger presidency OTL, but perhaps there's a way we can send him to the US for a while, or some of the people around him, and they come back and try for a less autocratic union. Would it be likely/possible for some Americans to fight with the Colombians and then press for a milder constitution on the model of the US, giving a federal structure and ensuring basic rights like the US Bill of Rights?

Americanize huh? And that will solve all their problems ;)? Gran Colombia feel apart due to its geographic makeup - strong and isolated cities and regions who don't see much point in confederation. Unlike the early US where the population was a constant even-ish strip along the coastal plain with easy communications and no considerable geographic barriers. Added to that you have the different native ethnic groups and mixes of population from area to area, and deep political divides and the fact that few people liked Bolivar's conservatism. Plus they already were a federal republic - what exactly more is 'Americanization' offering?

Its thing you see often with Americans ascribing some inherent value to their founding documents, when the various nations that have copy-pasted those documents have ended up doing quite shitty. The Constitution and Bill of Rights are expressions and codifications of a political and social culture - without a similar underlying culture to making the words mean something they're of little use.
 

JJohnson

Banned
Americanize huh? And that will solve all their problems ;)? Gran Colombia feel apart due to its geographic makeup - strong and isolated cities and regions who don't see much point in confederation. Unlike the early US where the population was a constant even-ish strip along the coastal plain with easy communications and no considerable geographic barriers. Added to that you have the different native ethnic groups and mixes of population from area to area, and deep political divides and the fact that few people liked Bolivar's conservatism. Plus they already were a federal republic - what exactly more is 'Americanization' offering?

Its thing you see often with Americans ascribing some inherent value to their founding documents, when the various nations that have copy-pasted those documents have ended up doing quite shitty. The Constitution and Bill of Rights are expressions and codifications of a political and social culture - without a similar underlying culture to making the words mean something they're of little use.

I use the term "americanize" in the sense that there would be rule of law, a stable democracy/republic, protection of property rights, clean water, working electricity, and an environment where businesses can thrive and employ people, who would then use their increased wealth to improve their standard of living - not a mess of one military dictator after another. There may be a better word for it, but that's how I use the term - as in to evolve or generate a country/culture that is stable and relatively prosperous and secure. I do not mean it in the sense of being like the USA. Each country has its own history and culture and it's their decision how to evolve. But certain basics make for a better foundation - such as rule of law, protection of property rights, free elections, and public health and sanitation. I was reading up on Bolivar's methods and such, and he had a good idea, but it had quite a few obstacles, as you pointed out.

The US had a people used to rule of law and governing themselves through Britain's benign neglect, whereas Latin American countries had something different with Spain's form of colonization merely to enrich the mother country - that alone would cause two different colonial cultures to evolve.

Until very recently, the US for the last 2 centuries has been a model of financial and political stability (overall) and a place one could in general invest money and make a return without it being seized at the government's whim, or live in without disappearing in the middle of the night.

I'm not completely sure how to evolve the Gran Colombia to make it a thriving first world democracy with a standard of living on par with Western Europe, the UK, or the US. Which POD would bring it there?
 
Last edited:
Top