Miscellaneous >1900 (Alternate) History Thread
- Thread starter RMcD94
- Start date
Bern and Madrid are both good ideas, but Albania on the other hand wasn't quite ready to host the games, imo. Taking the Rif War into consideration, the Spanish might not have money to spare to host the event (they could host the next one though), so that leaves Bern. Would it be a better choice than Amsterdam?
Grey Wolf
Donor
Amsterdam certainly seems the most likely; it was a losing candidate for the 1916 games, and even hosted some parts of the OTL 1920 games of Antwerp. Holland as a neutral nation would be acceptable, and their bid in 1912 for 1916 showed they had the capacity to hold it.
Is there a timeline where the Alexander the Great TV show gets picked up, and so both William Shatner and Adam West are unavailable for Star Trek and Batman?
Sting Rebellion? (A rebellion is staged to draw out potential rebel leaders so they can be all brought to one place and then arrested or killed?) Has this ever happened before? I could see this happening of government or military agents attempt to stage a rebellion or coup to draw out the actual rebels, and the whole thing is revealed as a scam and all the rebels are captured or killed afterwards?
We need a generalized thread for: "What If Nazi Germany Got <random advantage> While Continuing to Lack Naval Strength and Fossil Fuels"
I'm not sure if this is the right thread to ask, but why do so many people seem obsessed with butterfliing horrible/evil/disliked acts, by killing the perpetrators before they do them?
I mean, we might think that it would be enough to make sure that person is not born. Or that the person is not in a position to do whatever warrants his conviction. Or some other option other than a "karmic death" along the lines of "Criminal Joe dies from a suspiciously specific 'accident' / shot to death before he can do [Insert atrocity]. No one was ever convicted of this accident / the killer is never identified."
By "suspiciously specific accident" I mean things like "OTL Joe Criminal was infamous among other things for his mistreatment of dogs, TTL is killed by a pack of wild dogs."
I mean, we might think that it would be enough to make sure that person is not born. Or that the person is not in a position to do whatever warrants his conviction. Or some other option other than a "karmic death" along the lines of "Criminal Joe dies from a suspiciously specific 'accident' / shot to death before he can do [Insert atrocity]. No one was ever convicted of this accident / the killer is never identified."
By "suspiciously specific accident" I mean things like "OTL Joe Criminal was infamous among other things for his mistreatment of dogs, TTL is killed by a pack of wild dogs."
Well he also didn't want to drop it to Shawn so it probably still happens regardless
No matter what the timeline, Bret Hart will always screw Bret Hart. And he can look himself in the mirror and know that.
I'm not sure, I didn't even know who Kefauver was until now.
But do not worry. We're talking about Taft.
It's so commonplace and cliche "Taft comes to power and somehow manages to completely tear the country apart and screw it up for the next six decades at least" that you can present a Tojo-Stalin ticket as designated rivals... and Taft will still lose to them.
In the peace of 1919, Austria is turned into a monarchy... in personal union with Italy. With the two sharing a customs and monetary union, and the Austrian military limited to a defence force, and Italy guaranteeing Austria's independence.
Britain and France push for it, as they think it will guarantee against any Anschluss attempt, and allow Italy to come home with a valuable prize.
Would Italy want it ?
Would it compensate the lack of expected territorial gains in the Balkans or Africa ?
Britain and France push for it, as they think it will guarantee against any Anschluss attempt, and allow Italy to come home with a valuable prize.
Would Italy want it ?
Would it compensate the lack of expected territorial gains in the Balkans or Africa ?
An Austro-Italian customs and monetary union would enormously benefit Austria, especially Austrian banks and industry. In absence of wealth redistribution mechanisms, Italy (aside from its primer sector) would lose with this arrangement.
Grey Wolf
Donor
I guess in general you have the pull between the Great Man theory of history and what might be called the Marxist theory of history. Did a bad event happen because a particular person was in a specific position of power at an exact time, or were forces of history driving SOMEONE to do this, and the individual who did it was the one most likely to, but absent him, someone else would be the one most likely to?
Last edited:
I think the Marxist theory of history is something else... What you describe of historical forces is the theory that Marx tried to amend with his "dialectical materialism".
As far as I know there are at least three historical theories:
1) Great Man Theory: The random acts of very specific individuals can and do alter history to a great extent. If these individuals did not exist, history would have stalled or even regressed, because no one else could do the same.
2) Historical Determinism Theory (I'm not sure what the real name is): In reality, the Great Man is just a reflection of pre-existing cultural, political, and social trends in society. Far from being an actor of change, the Great Man is actually the mere spokesman for change. As a consequence of this, even if you take out the Big Man (by shooting Washington at Bunker Hill for example), the end result will be the same, because due to "forces of history" someone else will take Washington's place and lead the change of anyway.
3) Marx's dialectical materialism: This seeks to amend the two previous theories by stating that, ultimately, the decisive factor of historical change is the "relations of production", the "material conditions", and the constant opposition between capitalists and proletarians. As well as affirming that none of the cultural, political and social factors (not of course the great Man, unless said Great Man is called Karl Marx) matter at all, since ultimately it all comes down to economics.
"It's the economy, stupid" to put it in contemporary terms.
I personally believe that theory 3 is the one that is doing the most damage to historiographical analysis because it results in generations of historians determined to deny any weight and relevance to all factors that are not strictly economic, as well as to be horribly aggressive against anyone. who does not share his obsession with the economy.
But regarding my original question, I think this would fit more into the other big question in history: is it legitimate to punish someone for something they haven't done yet?
Judging by the number of TLs and scenarios where this type of punitive mentality is applied, it seems that many people believe that the answer is a resounding "Yes, without the slightest doubt, punishing someone for something they have not done is nothing but justice. ". What seems absurd to me is that many of these people then claim to be in favor of the rehabilitation and reintegration of other WTF criminals.
Then there's the issue that killing someone before he commits a crime probably won't prevent someone from stepping up to fill the void...