Map Thread XVIII

[Gwrtheyrn Annwn]

It began in 1913 with France demanding Alsace-lorraine. The only Nations that could realistically put up a fight were Italy and France, the latter of which would be fighting on 2 fronts. Russia, A-H, and the Ottomans would not fair well. Germany and GB were really powerful back then, Britain with its colonies and Germany with the industry, against a bunch of backwards serfdoms, and two states with two front to worry about, would not be a very close fight.

I think you are both underestimating the French, Austrians and Russians and overestimating the power of the British and Germans. I would not go so far as to say that Germany and GB could not have won this war (although that is debatable) but to say it "would not be a very close fight" is ridiculous.

I'll start with your Entente, France is a major power with an army roughly on par with Germany's, though Germany does have an edge, and you say they'll be fighting on two fronts? Are you saying is Britain going to try to do the D-Day landings thirty years early? I find that more than a little implausible... Next Italy, firstly I do find ironic that Italy, a country known for military ineptness, is one if the countries that you have putting a fight. Secondly, with Italy being back from the front line, they are now going to be a manpower pool for the Entente to ship troops from to the front line and with the combined navies of Austria, France, Italy, the Ottomans and Russia in to Med. they will be able to do that as they please. As for Russia, they have a colossal manpower and with Germany fighting on THREE(!!!) fronts they will be able to use that to full effect, unlike in OTL. And the Ottomans, yeah they are in a bad way at the time but with the help they will get from they multiple great power allies they should be able to hold back any expeditionary force the Hamburg Pact can send against them.

Lastly, and this is what most annoys me, is the "bunch of backwards serfdoms" comment. I'm not entirely sure who you are referring to but since France is one of the "states fighting on two fronts", even though that makes no sense, I'm assuming your referring to any or all of Russia, Italy, Austria and the Ottomans as backwards serfdoms. Russia is, admittedly, pretty backward for the era but they are not a serfdom and are in the process of considerable industrialisation. The Ottomans too are still backward but are not a serfdom and are also in the process of the industrialisation of their empire. As for Italy, the south is famously backward compared to Europe, and even just the rat of Italy but to call the country a backwards serfdom is a bit of a stretch. Lastly, Austria-Hungary. As this is the only possible other candidate I can think of for fighting on two fronts I won't be too harsh (though it was mentioning that both countries they are fighting against on the Balkans front were relatively easily defeated by A-H in OTL and with Serbia and Romania fighting on all sides with little hope of allied support now that will be even easier) but A-H was in fact a industrialised country with one of the largest machine production industries in the world and was also one of the first continental countries to free its serfs (in the reign of Joseph II in the second half of the 18th century).

Essentially, GB, which has no foothold on continental Europe, and a Germany fighting on all sides will have a very tough time winning this war. Its not outside the realms of possibility that they could have won but its at best fairly unlikely.

I should note though, that for all my issues with the outcome of your scenario it is a good map.

 

[DrakonFin]

Heck, looking it up briefly it seems 400,000 Finns, Kareleians, and others left the areas Russia got form the Winter War (unsure if it included the rest of Karelia, so- wait. I just looked it up, and it seems that Vepps, Finnish, and Karelian are recognized languages, but they are not th eofficial language of the republic. Anyways, with the 400,000 people, if they reproduced at a sustainable fashion, they would likely be the plurality, if not the majority, today.

Well, certainly if the Finnish Karelian population that was evacuated from the areas lost to the USSR in 1940 (and again in 1944) stayed in their villages and towns instead of fleeing west, the population of the Karelian Republic today would include a lot bigger Karelian/Finnish/Finnic component than it does IOTL. Possibly even a majority. Assuming of course that Stalin would not have transferred much or most of this suspect group to other parts of the USSR, which would have been a distinct possibility. IOTL, a lot of Russians were transferred to Karelia to resettle what was essentially an empty part of the Finno-Karelian SSR during and after WWII. In a TL where the Finnish Karelians stayed, there would be no need for bringing in this many ethnic Russians - unless, of course, it was deemed politically expedient by Moscow to create a Russian/Slavic majority in the SSR anyway, again due to the political unreliability of the Finns and Karelians.

 

[Skallagrim]

Interesting take on the Eurabia scenario--if certainly an implausible one. Really goes to show how silly alt-righters really are.

I'm not quite convinced it's inherently implausible per se, but rather that the way it's typically portrayed is very implausible. The general vision you tend to see is that the evil, evil Muslims migrate en masse, and all have twelve children, and then impose their laws (which stay the exact same with zero changes ever). And the preferred analogy is... Germanic peoples migrating into Rome.

I can take that analogy, too-- and then add the historical facts. Germanic peoples often did their utmost to becomes as "Roman" as possible, near the end being more Roman than many (self-styled) "real" Romans. The culture of the immediately post-Roman "Germanic" kingdoms showed lots of continuity with "old Rome", and the Gothic Wars were far more of a break with the past than any "Germanisation" had been.

Also, Germanic migrants were only ever a minority, and replacement of (and integration into) elites allowed them to have a real effect. Not mass demographic change-- although noticable admixture of groups was of course simply a reality. (Also something we never see in the alt-righ scenario. it's always "demograpic replacement!" whereas outright replacement is historically very rare and hardly ever makes sense. Groups just merge over time, usually.)

Considering these matters, I don't see the scenario of Islamic culture becoming predominant in Europe over time as inherently implausible. It's just that for it to happen, you'd have to be looking at gradual emergence of Islamic elites (or entry of Muslims into existing elites), the mixing of ethno-religious groups (and the offspring of such unions typically embracing Islam, likely because it's more prestigious) and ultimately a "self-conversion" of Europeans to a religion that offers them something they want (which can be spiritual comfort in dire times, or socio-economic advantages, or both).

So that gives us a pretty clear image of what I see happening here. Which already hints at the answers to your questions.

A couple questions--I understand it's an implausible scenario, but I suppose it'd have it's own set of logic:

• Is there a Parisian school of Islam? Is it doctrinally any different from "mainstream (I assume Sunni?) Islam"? Have there been European!Sikhs or European!Dīn-i Ilāhī movements?
  
• How Muslim is the Caliphate? Is it a Mughal Empire-type scenario or much more firmly Islamic? How did that come to be?

Very interested in the completed scenario!

I imagine there being a very distinct "Euro-Islam", which takes it upon itself to salvage as much as it can of the Western academic tradition following Europe's spectacular implosion and a wave of civil wars. One of the key ways Islam becomes so influential here is that its communities maintain coherence and security (including socio-economically) in a time of total despair. This allows Islamic institutions, in the following decades, to preside over the conservation of a lot of European heritage that would otherwise have been lost. The European "style" of Islamic thought that emerges is of a rather philosophical bent, with a leaning towards elaborate ethical considerations.

The European elites, by 2200 or so, are very much all Muslims, since it's the prestige religion. Europe as a whole is more Islamic than the Mughal Empire ever was, but has distinct non-Islamic populations. These are near-universally tolerated. Perhaps a little too tolerated, since there are a whole bunch of radical groups (getting funding from the East) who want to carry out a "reconquista". Paris is hesitant to use brutal suppressive force, being committed to the politics of the "Straight Middle Way".

The insurgents call themselves Christian, but are disavowed by most mainstream Christians. Theirs is a strange blend of cherry-picked Christian tenets, a legacy of identitarianism, and a rabid obsession with their largely imagined view of Europe's past. They're also very apocalyptic. There are even some really weird neo-gnostic notions to their theology. Given time, their ideas could easily develop into a separate cult or religion. As yet, they're primarily a major problem to society at large.

It appears as though Switzerland is still neutral. Some things never change...

Doing its best to stay that way, at this point. There are a lot of Muslims in the country's west, who would very much like annexation to the Caliphate. In the east, conversely, you have a lot of radical pseudo-Christian agitation. Switzerland may ultimately be torn apart by such popular movements, although no government at all backs this. Neutral Switzerland remains a very useful intermediary for negotiations neither side can openly admit to having. (The Holy Union wants to deport Austrobavaria's significant Muslim minority wholesale, but the Caliphate will only take in the expelled people if the Holy Union stops funding all those nasty radical/terrorist groups. Switzerland is basically the only place where the diplomats can secretly meet to discuss any possible deal.)

 

[Lord Hastur of Carcosa]

The insurgents call themselves Christian, but are disavowed by most mainstream Christians. Theirs is a strange blend of cherry-picked Christian tenets, a legacy of identitarianism, and a rabid obsession with their largely imagined view of Europe's past. They're also very apocalyptic. There are even some really weird neo-gnostic notions to their theology. Given time, their ideas could easily develop into a separate cult or religion. As yet, they're primarily a major problem to society at large.

So, they are today's Alt-Right?

 

[Skallagrim]

So, they are today's Alt-Right?

Yes, but also not really. Most alt-righters are basement-dwelling keyboard warriors. Think of a movement with a mentality like theirs, but as an actual semi-organised network of terrorist cells and insurgent groups, armed and backed by a reactionary foreign power-- and then mixed with a lot of very unconventional Christian fundamentalism of the "DAMNATION IS COMING, THE END TIMES ARE UPON US" variety.

 

[TheDetailer]

Anybody able to guess what this ISOT is based on gets a follow

 

[Gwrtheyrn Annwn]

View attachment 413343

Anybody able to guess what this ISOT is based on gets a follow

Modern states whose territories used to form part of the Roman Empire? (Though mainland Britain is conspicuously missing...)

 

[XFE]

Modern states whose territories used to form part of the Roman Empire? (Though mainland Britain is conspicuously missing...)

And there's Japan too.

 

[Thanosaekk]

View attachment 413343

Anybody able to guess what this ISOT is based on gets a follow

Uhh... My first thought was nations with a coast in the Mediterranean, but that is definitely not true. What caught my attention, though, was that North Ireland also gets to come.

 

[Clandango]

View attachment 413343

Anybody able to guess what this ISOT is based on gets a follow

Wuold it be a bad time to mention the Golan Heights? Or my continued confusion as to why so many recent maps so that small little area near Hatay with autonomy? Anyways, I am guessing this map is about every place the Americans went to war with or had bases on. The Irish had it too good for too long...

 

[Gwrtheyrn Annwn]

And there's Japan too.

Missed them.

Perhaps something to do with disputed territories/autonomous areas?

 

[Clandango]

And there's Japan too.

Missed them.

Perhaps something to do with disputed territories/autonomous areas?

Excluding the Prefecture of Okinawa. As well as areas the Koreans claim. I imagine the Volcano Islands were also left behind, though impossible to tell here. I am imagining this might be one of those maps were we are supposed to guess what there is no answer too. So long as it isn't reposted five times in three days like the others though, that is not the worst of things. Waaaaait, Turkey has Rhodes here. Alright, jettison the map.

 

[DracoLazarus]

Excluding the Prefecture of Okinawa. As well as areas the Koreans claim. I imagine the Volcano Islands were also left behind, though impossible to tell here. I am imagining this might be one of those maps were we are supposed to guess what there is no answer too. So long as it isn't reposted five times in three days like the others though, that is not the worst of things. Waaaaait, Turkey has Rhodes here. Alright, jettison the map.

The issue is I don't see the Dom-Tom on the map, and the contested French lands are essentially Mayotte

 

[Gwrtheyrn Annwn]

Excluding the Prefecture of Okinawa. As well as areas the Koreans claim. I imagine the Volcano Islands were also left behind, though impossible to tell here. I am imagining this might be one of those maps were we are supposed to guess what there is no answer too. So long as it isn't reposted five times in three days like the others though, that is not the worst of things. Waaaaait, Turkey has Rhodes here. Alright, jettison the map.

You could be right actually, though I think contested territory is a link of some sort.

 

[Clandango]

The issue is I don't see the Dom-Tom on the map, and the contested French lands are essentially Mayotte

Not sure how that relates to minty post, though I suppose I wrote it confusingly, and did reference the Japanese contested areas in part. I imagine the ISOT didn't swipe up a lot of areas, considering how many French areas didn't come along. If this was about disputed areas, they certainly went about it inconsistency by not showing the Syrian claims to the Golan Heights and Hatay, the civil war and disputes form that there, the disputed Egyptian border with Sudan (which I feel everyone should accept as the real one), the stuff with Cyprus, Gibraltar, plus the stuff with Western Sahara. And Spain seems to have lost a city to Morocco. Could you zoom in on Italy for me? I am on my iPad and cannot see if San Marino and the Vatican have the colors of terra nullis.

 

[Gwrtheyrn Annwn]

Could you zoom in on Italy for me? I am on my iPad and cannot see if San Marino and the Vatican have the colors of terra nullis.

They are terra nullis yeah.

 

[TheDetailer]

Not sure how that relates to minty post, though I suppose I wrote it confusingly, and did reference the Japanese contested areas in part. I imagine the ISOT didn't swipe up a lot of areas, considering how many French areas didn't come along. If this was about disputed areas, they certainly went about it inconsistency by not showing the Syrian claims to the Golan Heights and Hatay, the civil war and disputes form that there, the disputed Egyptian border with Sudan (which I feel everyone should accept as the real one), the stuff with Cyprus, Gibraltar, plus the stuff with Western Sahara. And Spain seems to have lost a city to Morocco. Could you zoom in on Italy for me? I am on my iPad and cannot see if San Marino and the Vatican have the colors of terra nullis.

The Vatican and San Marino are not there.

 

[Chrzęścimir]

1600 AD

 

[Max Sinister]

The ideal form of Algeria IMO is that the Sahara turns green and Algerian farmers come down to farm this new land.

That's something I'd support too.

 

[HeX]

I think you are both underestimating the French, Austrians and Russians and overestimating the power of the British and Germans. I would not go so far as to say that Germany and GB could not have won this war (although that is debatable) but to say it "would not be a very close fight" is ridiculous.

...

Essentially, GB, which has no foothold on continental Europe, and a Germany fighting on all sides will have a very tough time winning this war. Its not outside the realms of possibility that they could have won but its at best fairly unlikely.

I should note though, that for all my issues with the outcome of your scenario it is a good map.

Actually, I'd argue that an Anglo-German alliance would've almost certainly won WW1. After all, Germany fought a war on two fronts extremely well in OTL, and would've most likely beaten the entirety of the Entente had it not been for America stepping in. With the aid of Britain (who lost the most men in OTL WW1), it's very likely Britain and Germany combined would've overwhelmed the French, and then the dynamic duo could turn around and smack down Russia and A-H.