Look to the West Volume V: To Dream Again

[Hobelhouse]

Interesting update. I expect Man would have something of an Amsterdam-like vibe. Also what happened to San Marino? I vaguely remember them getting invaded or something early on...

The fact that the name gets changed back to Constantinople and not Istanbul has... bad implications for the Turks. First that the city was under some kind of regime with the kind of ideology that sees renaming things as important. Second, that the name seems to be a clear indication that Turkish speakers aren't running the show there. Will Greater Greece be a reality TTL?

This TL seems to be setting up a North vs South division in its alt-cold war, even in Europe.

 

[B_Munro]

Interesting update. I expect Man would have something of an Amsterdam-like vibe. Also what happened to San Marino? I vaguely remember them getting invaded or something early on...

The fact that the name gets changed back to Constantinople and not Istanbul has... bad implications for the Turks. .

Not necessarily. It was often called Kostantiniyye by the Ottomans. The Societist name might have been Byzantion or Stamboul or Rome II: The Assimilation.

 

[teg]

It really is becoming incredibly obvious just how much of the globe is going to fall to Societism - most, if not all, of South America; maritime south-east Asia, possibly parts of China, parts of India, Spain, a significant chunk of south-east Europe and a significant chunk of the Deep South. Not only that, but the differences between Diversertarianism and Societism are much more different in their fundamental than capitalism and communism. Its not so much that the two camps disagree on how best to promote global prosperity and how to order society, and more they disagree fundamentally about what sort of species the human race should be. The initial advance of Societism, if it happens in one big pulse, is going to be terrifying, no wonder the Quiet War is so much worse than the Cold War and goes hot...

As I've said before, I'm very interested in how the two groups are going to interpret the evolution of humans. It wouldn't surprise if the ASN is a big fan of "multiple races = multiple ancestors" theory, at least at first.

teg

 

[B_Munro]

It really is becoming incredibly obvious just how much of the globe is going to fall to Societism - most, if not all, of South America; maritime south-east Asia, possibly parts of China, parts of India, Spain, a significant chunk of south-east Europe and a significant chunk of the Deep South. Not only that, but the differences between Diversertarianism and Societism are much more different in their fundamental than capitalism and communism. Its not so much that the two camps disagree on how best to promote global prosperity and how to order society, and more they disagree fundamentally about what sort of species the human race should be.

Well, you could argue the ideal of the "New Soviet Man" had to do with the idea that people's behavior and interactions with eachother were fundamentally _different_ under a Communist Society than under a Capitalist one - that whole "there are no serial killers in the Soviet Union" thinking came out of that, for instance. To Soviet thinking, Capitalist society couldn't help be anything but exploitative and alienating. So I don't think it's _that_ different from OTL.

 

[Admiral Matt]

*snip*

From “Idlewild’s European Tours with a Difference” by Sarah Idle (2015)

For those consumed with ennui by the capitals of Europe and other overdone tourist spots, a must-see alternative is our tour of the Microstates of Europe. Although microstates—sovereign states with a very small population and land area that have survived through historical accident or curious machinations—can be found to some degree on every continent, Europe’s history has tended to bequeath the fourth smallest continent[1] with an overabundance of them. The number that can be found today is nonetheless a big fall from its height: two hundred years or so ago in 1794, Germany—as the Holy Roman Empire—had over 300 of them. Waves of conquests and annexations (known as mediatisations) followed in the Jacobin Wars and reduced the number of German-speaking states to less than a dozen. However, some few true microstates have survived in Europe, and even those that are now ruled as part of larger powers sometimes retain some of their earlier quirky charm and character. Perhaps the defining characteristic of a microstate is a sense of self-importance out of proportion to the nation’s actual relevance on the world stage, which in other circumstances might be comical or absurd but to the jaded traveller can take on a charm of its own. Microstates should be distinguished from small states, which are considerably larger, but some of these will also be covered here as they are included on our tours.

*snip*

Wait. What.

My mind hit that line like a brick wall.

 

[Kriegdämmerung]

Wait. What.

My mind hit that line like a brick wall.

That above, plus this:

[1] This timeline appears to use a different definition of continent in the present day (or at least the books currently examined indicate this, opinions may of course differ). The atlases divide the world into nine continents: Europe, Asia, Africa, North America, South America, Antipodea, Nusantara (sometimes called the Malay Archipelago in OTL, and sometimes including Japan and Madagascar but not consistently between atlases), Pacifica (all the islands of the Pacific, including New Zealand and Hawaii) and Australia (confusingly, our Antarctica).

Madagascar I could get, but Japan/Yapon? Explain?

 

[Beedok]

Madagascar I could get, but Japan/Yapon? Explain?

It's a chain of islands that got conquered easy. So why not lump it together with the others?

 

[Admiral Matt]

It's a chain of islands that got conquered easy. So why not lump it together with the others?

In purely geographic terms, including Japan with Taiwan, the Philippines, and the East Indies makes a lot more sense than including Madagascar. I mean, if we're including Madagascar, why not Ceylon?

In cultural terms, though, it makes perfect sense to include Madagascar, but Japan is ridiculous. Of course judging by culture, if Madagascar makes the cut so should the whole Pacific and New Zealand.

Actually I'm surprised one of the inconsistent definitions isn't a "continent" including Madagascar, Taiwan, and New Zealand, without Australia.

Where would they place New Guinea, I wonder...?

 

[Admiral Matt]

Well, it does say that most of Ragusa's neighbours were in the same alliance. And in the previous chapter, it was mentioned that there is a Viennese school of Societism. That's my reasoning behind it at least.

The section you reference explains Ragusa's survival as being in part made possible by Diversitarian values. If Ragusa's neighbors were mostly Societist, that would be highly unlikely.

For that matter, if Ragusa's neighbors were mostly Societist, it would be exactly the kind of place they would target for acquisition and destruction. Diversitarian Italians would have to basically protect it like Berlin during OTL's Cold War.

Likewise, while we do know that the Danubian Whatever has aspects of Societism, we also know that the Societists censored the statement by Sanchez that Vienna was on the right track with its reforms. So in fact we have strong evidence that the state will be on the Diversitarian side.

And Turkey would be a disastrous fit for Societism. How exactly would you merge Orthodox Christianity, Sunni Islam, and a sprinkling of Judaism? In more practical terms, how would any plausible state have the strength to tell Arabs, Kurds, Turks, Armenians, South Slavs, and Greeks to even out their folkways and languages? To even get started you'd need something like full-on support from a firmly Societist Russia (just for example); otherwise it would just be an exaggerated Young Turks situation - the attempt at conformity would just make the already delicate polity rip along the seams. In which case you'd still have a Diversitarian Balkans between the two Societist powers you posit, and Turkey would hardly be a neighbor.

No, the Ottoman Empire (or whatever comes of it) would be much better suited to Diversitarianism's live and let live attitude. Actually, the institutionalisation of intergroup hostility the anti-Societists use - playing out tensions in a controlled fashion - would probably be an excellent way to hold the place together.

If anything, we just found out mainland Italy will go Societist, and probably work diligently to annihilate the many dialects. Given the OTL relationship between the region and southeastern South America, that wouldn't be entirely surprising.

 

[Beedok]

The section you reference explains Ragusa's survival as being in part made possible by Diversitarian values. If Ragusa's neighbors were mostly Societist, that would be highly unlikely.

It also said Ragusa had been a bunker state, so I think it was a tiny outpost getting loads of cash, like Israel or Albania.

 

[Admiral Matt]

It also said Ragusa had been a bunker state, so I think it was a tiny outpost getting loads of cash, like Israel or Albania.

And the name change and "revisionism" both sound Societist. Perhaps that Danubian censorship we saw was a more recent event, then? Something from after the place deviated from the one true path?

But how do you make the Balkans Societist? You probably couldn't convert enough Christians, not to mention the firm beginning Societism has in Christianity. Orthodoxy would probably be the natural vehicle, but how would they split off and stay united? And get a hold of The City?

Dang it, Thande.

 

[Thande]

Wait. What.

My mind hit that line like a brick wall.

To be clear, that isn't meant to include Antarctica/Australia

Although now I am tempted to try to somehow engineer that...

Madagascar I could get, but Japan/Yapon? Explain?

Some racial theories in OTL considered the Japanese to be a subset of the Malays, it's meant to be a holdover from that impacting on geographic definitions even after the original theory has long died. (As you appear to imply in your post, a more well-grounded version of this racial connection idea is also why some of them in TTL lump in Madagascar with Nusantara).

 

[Zaius]

The section you reference explains Ragusa's survival as being in part made possible by Diversitarian values. If Ragusa's neighbors were mostly Societist, that would be highly unlikely.

For that matter, if Ragusa's neighbors were mostly Societist, it would be exactly the kind of place they would target for acquisition and destruction. Diversitarian Italians would have to basically protect it like Berlin during OTL's Cold War.

Likewise, while we do know that the Danubian Whatever has aspects of Societism, we also know that the Societists censored the statement by Sanchez that Vienna was on the right track with its reforms. So in fact we have strong evidence that the state will be on the Diversitarian side.

And Turkey would be a disastrous fit for Societism. How exactly would you merge Orthodox Christianity, Sunni Islam, and a sprinkling of Judaism? In more practical terms, how would any plausible state have the strength to tell Arabs, Kurds, Turks, Armenians, South Slavs, and Greeks to even out their folkways and languages? To even get started you'd need something like full-on support from a firmly Societist Russia (just for example); otherwise it would just be an exaggerated Young Turks situation - the attempt at conformity would just make the already delicate polity rip along the seams. In which case you'd still have a Diversitarian Balkans between the two Societist powers you posit, and Turkey would hardly be a neighbor.

No, the Ottoman Empire (or whatever comes of it) would be much better suited to Diversitarianism's live and let live attitude. Actually, the institutionalisation of intergroup hostility the anti-Societists use - playing out tensions in a controlled fashion - would probably be an excellent way to hold the place together.

If anything, we just found out mainland Italy will go Societist, and probably work diligently to annihilate the many dialects. Given the OTL relationship between the region and southeastern South America, that wouldn't be entirely surprising.

But since we do not yet know exactly how diversitarianism and societism originated, can anybody other than Thande really know what states are better predisposed to either of those ideologies? For all we know, societist and diversitarian states may turn out to be much more similar to each other than we think in many respects. (Or have I forgotten some important bit of the timeline where this has already been explained?)

 

[Beedok]

To be clear, that isn't meant to include Antarctica/Australia

Although now I am tempted to try to somehow engineer that...

Based off past experiences I'm putting my money on it being a radical new age church from Latin America that sets up the Antarctic micro nation.

 

[teg]

The section you reference explains Ragusa's survival as being in part made possible by Diversitarian values. If Ragusa's neighbors were mostly Societist, that would be highly unlikely.

For that matter, if Ragusa's neighbors were mostly Societist, it would be exactly the kind of place they would target for acquisition and destruction. Diversitarian Italians would have to basically protect it like Berlin during OTL's Cold War.

Likewise, while we do know that the Danubian Whatever has aspects of Societism, we also know that the Societists censored the statement by Sanchez that Vienna was on the right track with its reforms. So in fact we have strong evidence that the state will be on the Diversitarian side.

And Turkey would be a disastrous fit for Societism. How exactly would you merge Orthodox Christianity, Sunni Islam, and a sprinkling of Judaism? In more practical terms, how would any plausible state have the strength to tell Arabs, Kurds, Turks, Armenians, South Slavs, and Greeks to even out their folkways and languages? To even get started you'd need something like full-on support from a firmly Societist Russia (just for example); otherwise it would just be an exaggerated Young Turks situation - the attempt at conformity would just make the already delicate polity rip along the seams. In which case you'd still have a Diversitarian Balkans between the two Societist powers you posit, and Turkey would hardly be a neighbor.

No, the Ottoman Empire (or whatever comes of it) would be much better suited to Diversitarianism's live and let live attitude. Actually, the institutionalisation of intergroup hostility the anti-Societists use - playing out tensions in a controlled fashion - would probably be an excellent way to hold the place together.

If anything, we just found out mainland Italy will go Societist, and probably work diligently to annihilate the many dialects. Given the OTL relationship between the region and southeastern South America, that wouldn't be entirely surprising.

And the name change and "revisionism" both sound Societist. Perhaps that Danubian censorship we saw was a more recent event, then? Something from after the place deviated from the one true path?

But how do you make the Balkans Societist? You probably couldn't convert enough Christians, not to mention the firm beginning Societism has in Christianity. Orthodoxy would probably be the natural vehicle, but how would they split off and stay united? And get a hold of The City?

Dang it, Thande.

But since we do not yet know exactly how diversitarianism and societism originated, can anybody other than Thande really know what states are better predisposed to either of those ideologies? For all we know, societist and diversitarian states may turn out to be much more similar to each other than we think in many respects. (Or have I forgotten some important bit of the timeline where this has already been explained?)

I don't think Societism will emerge in countries which seem to 'fit' it. Just look at the UPSA, a highly diverse and somehat decentralized state but by the looks of things it will be the first place to fall to Societism. In contrast, Britain and Russia, both of which are culturally and politically centralized look like they are going Diversitarian. In this respect, Societism is very similar to communism - which was supposed to take power in a highly developed western state but instead took over Russia and China.

teg

 

[1SaBy]

And Turkey would be a disastrous fit for Societism. How exactly would you merge Orthodox Christianity, Sunni Islam, and a sprinkling of Judaism? In more practical terms, how would any plausible state have the strength to tell Arabs, Kurds, Turks, Armenians, South Slavs, and Greeks to even out their folkways and languages? To even get started you'd need something like full-on support from a firmly Societist Russia (just for example); otherwise it would just be an exaggerated Young Turks situation - the attempt at conformity would just make the already delicate polity rip along the seams. In which case you'd still have a Diversitarian Balkans between the two Societist powers you posit, and Turkey would hardly be a neighbor.

And how does one keep together Orthodox East Slavs, Muslims, some Protestants and Catholics and quite a few dozens of other nationalities? I mean, we could ask Stalin about this.

Based off past experiences I'm putting my money on it being a radical new age church from Latin America that sets up the Antarctic micro nation.

Beedok, this is not YOUR timeline...

(Yay, for one hundred posts!)

 

[Admiral Matt]

And how does one keep together Orthodox East Slavs, Muslims, some Protestants and Catholics and quite a few dozens of other nationalities? I mean, we could ask Stalin about this.

Stalin did it by managing a geographically secure superpower, a state so large that the world was effectively powerless to exert itself over the disposition of the interior. Then he made very sure to coopt the majority ethnicity in dominating the minorities.

The Ottomans are a brittle, geographically diffuse entity. The empire was vulnerable to attack from virtually any angle, and doubly so to any state that could muster a decent navy and offer protection to rebels. It also had no one group able to dominate all others without consent. Put a man operating like Societist Stalin in charge - even remove most of Stalin's weaknesses - and you'd see the Balkans lost, or the Arab provinces, or most likely both.

 

[Beedok]

Beedok, this is not YOUR timeline...

(Yay, for one hundred posts!)

Yeah, but they keep converging. Luckily I've (mostly) gotten out ahead, but Thande goes further with foreshadowing so keeps hinting at things I've been planning to do. (Though I might be reading them in a biased manner.)

 

[Admiral Matt]

I don't think Societism will emerge in countries which seem to 'fit' it. Just look at the UPSA, a highly diverse and somehat decentralized state but by the looks of things it will be the first place to fall to Societism. In contrast, Britain and Russia, both of which are culturally and politically centralized look like they are going Diversitarian. In this respect, Societism is very similar to communism - which was supposed to take power in a highly developed western state but instead took over Russia and China.

teg

That's surprising, because I would have said the UPSA was perfectly fit for Societism, and Britain tremendously unfit. (IIRC, it was mentioned that Russia was in some ways highly anti-Societist, and in others highly Societist. Given that, I don't think it's a good example of either.)

Being culturally and politically centralized means that Societism is unnecessary within the state, and less acceptable as a merger of the state with others. Those are reasons to incline a place to Diversitarianism, not the reverse. Having cultural and political divisions that are potentially reconcilable - that is what would drive a state to Societism.

South America speaks almost exclusively variations of Iberian languages (and those less diverse than on the peninsula). Most of the exceptions are fairly small populations that could easily be absorbed. Britain strongly identifies with a language quite different from those of its neighbors.

The UPSA and the states around it are new constructs with short histories as independent and distinct entities. Their borders are fluid and arbitrary artifacts of history. For Britain to go Societist, it would have to become in favor of the idea of homogenizing its culture with that of the world in general - a world that in TTL speaks a lot less English!

South American religion is almost uniform and already associated with a universal community of faith. The British Isles have a mess of explicitly national churches and minor regional sects.

In one way, South American geography is much like Russia's - big and isolated enough that regardless of the world's opinion of a local philosophy, breathing room will be allowed for it to develop. Likewise, the current national divisions place a couple culturally distinct places that would be happy to become Meridian (the Portuguese statelet north of Uruguay, and Quechan sections of Peru) on the UPSA's borders. That means that expansion is practical - if only there were an ideology to justify bringing such disparate parts into a single whole. Britain, by contrast, is defined almost solely by absolute geographic barriers. If in OTL the British didn't think (much) about merging with Holland or Norway, TTL's navally embarrassing Albion certainly wouldn't.

 

[Analytical Engine]

Likewise, while we do know that the Danubian Whatever has aspects of Societism, we also know that the Societists censored the statement by Sanchez that Vienna was on the right track with its reforms. So in fact we have strong evidence that the state will be on the Diversitarian side.

Presumably, Societist whatever-Danubia-is-called is TTL's version of the PRC.

And Turkey would be a disastrous fit for Societism. How exactly would you merge Orthodox Christianity, Sunni Islam, and a sprinkling of Judaism? In more practical terms, how would any plausible state have the strength to tell Arabs, Kurds, Turks, Armenians, South Slavs, and Greeks to even out their folkways and languages? To even get started you'd need something like full-on support from a firmly Societist Russia (just for example); otherwise it would just be an exaggerated Young Turks situation - the attempt at conformity would just make the already delicate polity rip along the seams. In which case you'd still have a Diversitarian Balkans between the two Societist powers you posit, and Turkey would hardly be a neighbor.

No, the Ottoman Empire (or whatever comes of it) would be much better suited to Diversitarianism's live and let live attitude. Actually, the institutionalisation of intergroup hostility the anti-Societists use - playing out tensions in a controlled fashion - would probably be an excellent way to hold the place together.

Firstly, we don't know how big this Societist Ottoman state is - it could just be an oversized Turkey for all we know, with the rest of the Empire having fallen away. Alternatively, Islamo-Societism (or whatever it's called) may not be that similar to the version used by the soon to be former-UPSA.

What is Societism's take on religion, anyway - is it going to form a neo-proto-Indo-European faith, or a mishmash Abrahamic one, or something entirely else. State-sponsored Atheism perhaps, on the grounds that religion fosters division? (Given that Thande is a person of faith (Methodist, IIRC), and that Societism is supposed to be (mostly) based on things he really, really doesn't like, and all...)

If anything, we just found out mainland Italy will go Societist, and probably work diligently to annihilate the many dialects. Given the OTL relationship between the region and southeastern South America, that wouldn't be entirely surprising.

Actually, the previous update has Italy as part of the Diversitarian block of European nuclear powers. If anything, a Diversitarian Italy would probably emphasise the distinctiveness and diversity of its regional dialects, of which there are many.

Also, my views on Russia is that it does something similar to the Russia in Decades of Darkness, in that it federates (some) of its satellite states, and spins off various provinces with a large non-Russian/East Slavic population as autonomous states.

In the former case, one could include Georgia, Crimea, the Kazak state, Courland, and possibly Lithuania and even greater Finland. The latter category would include places like Moldavia, Chechnya, Dagestan, and the Tartar, Bashkir and Yakut majority areas, etc.