Miscellaneous >1900 (Alternate) History Thread

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 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 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?
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...
 
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.
This seems like a needlessly aggressive and derogatory portrayal.
 
Alternate history idea:
"Operation long jump": the Nazis plan to assassinate Stalin, Churchill and FDR. During a conference

What would be the net benefit of this attack for the allied Nations? I mean would their replacements I have benefited their respective countries?

Also, how much of a Target would that put on Otto skornsicsy back? (I know that's not how you spell it, but I'm not going to take the time to look up a Nazis name. It's the werewolf fucker)
 
Last edited:
Suppose the Brusilov offensive fails and Romania stays neutral in 1916, how likely would it be for Romania to join the Central Powers after the February Revolution in Russia?
 
Alternate history idea:
"Operation long jump": the Nazis plan to assassinate Stalin, Churchill and FDR. During a conference

What would be the net benefit of this attack for the allied Nations? I mean would their replacements I have benefited their respective countries?

Also, how much of a Target would that put on Otto skornsicsy back? (I know that's not how you spell it, but I'm not going to take the time to look up a Nazis name. It's the werewolf fucker)
Net benefit is IMHO impossible

You can get things which are not bad, and which in the long-run turn out OK and even good, but the impact of the assassination of the main Allied leaders can never be overcome by some simple equation.

Attlee is Deputy Prime Minister, and certainly takes over in the interim. It's up to the King if he wants to ask the Tories to find another Prime Minister from among their number, or if they are willing to serve under Attlee. I imagine that Tories being Tories, once they have a new leader in place they are going to want him to be Prime Minister. There is going to be a period of uncertainty, anger, confusion, and rivalry here.

In the US it is easier to say who is taking over, but it's also a whole barrel of stinking fish because it is going to be Henry Wallace. The political establishment had come to hate him, and the later the assassination the worse things are, because under the US constitution in operation Wallace remained VP until late January 1945, even though his successor on the November 1944 ticket, Truman, would have been VP nominate for 2 months.

The Soviet Union might be even more of a mess. Molotov would be the logical stabilising successor, but whether he could establish his powerbase quickly enough to fend off threats to his own position is another question.
 
Suppose the Brusilov offensive fails and Romania stays neutral in 1916, how likely would it be for Romania to join the Central Powers after the February Revolution in Russia?
As long as Germany is happy with a neutral Romania, and is able to get all the supplies it needs from them, I would think that the later Romania can leave it before entering the war the better. After all, they want to occupy Bessarabia and annex it, but they don't want to have to see their forces march on Sevastopol or Kiev as part of a German army
 
As long as Germany is happy with a neutral Romania, and is able to get all the supplies it needs from them, I would think that the later Romania can leave it before entering the war the better. After all, they want to occupy Bessarabia and annex it, but they don't want to have to see their forces march on Sevastopol or Kiev as part of a German army
What I'm curious about is wether the Romanians would be willing to consider joining the CP in the first place or not. AFAIK both the Romanian elite and the public were strongly francophilic. Would the opportunity to reclaim Bessarabia be enough to persuade the Romanian leadership to reconsider their position and join the (seemingly) winning CP, despite this previously mentioned francophilism? Or Romania not joining the CP (even if they do actually end up winning) is more likely?
 
What I'm curious about is wether the Romanians would be willing to consider joining the CP in the first place or not. AFAIK both the Romanian elite and the public were strongly francophilic. Would the opportunity to reclaim Bessarabia be enough to persuade the Romanian leadership to reconsider their position and join the (seemingly) winning CP, despite this previously mentioned francophilism? Or Romania not joining the CP (even if they do actually end up winning) is more likely?
What tends to happen is that everyone jumps in at the end. If you look at the list of Allied powers by Versailles, you have a load, especially in Central and South America, who only joined when it was obvious that the Central Powers would lose. This is even more obvious in WW2, but the creation of the United Nations skews that, so that even Turkey eventually declared war on Nazi Germany.

Romania in a Central Powers victory world is likely to be completely surrounded by victors. Not only that, but the Black Sea might also be entirely a German-and-allies lake, if we assume that Georgia, Ukraine etc are going to become independent here. IMHO the only way for Romania to both secure its own territory, its own security, and its territorial ambitions will be to join the Central Powers eventually.
 
Hello everyone, I have a non-SI AH TL in mind, and I need you guys' help.

My TL is a Neonpunk dystopia world, where after the Oil Crisis of 1973 and 1978 being worse than in our timeline, a Great Depression 2.0 happens, causing the world economy to collapse more or less. The Soviets still invade Afghanistan, and with a global recession, communist countries collapse as well. This Neonpunk world is far poorer and less advanced technologically than in our timeline, with late 80s-early 90s tech in the 2010s.

My main question is that in my TL, a Russian Civil War starts after the collapse of the USSR between Reds and Whites, and I was wondering which regions would side with. For example, Siberia would be pro-Red or pro-White? What about the rest of Russia?
 
Putting aside plausability, what kind of effects could an Austro-Hungarian-Italian customs union have on these countries' economies in the short-, mid- and longterm? The POD is the 1890s.
 
If the CP wins WW1 with the Ottomans in tow, would the British have given the Ottomans the 2 battleships that they seized in 1914 or would they keep/scrap them?
 
Alternate world where 🏈 is the global sport and ⚽ is American only

https:// twitter.com/AltHistoryHub/status/1596943126286913536

Seems terrifying.
 

Driftless

Donor
Alternate world where 🏈 is the global sport and ⚽ is American only

https:// twitter.com/AltHistoryHub/status/1596943126286913536

Seems terrifying.

Worlds worst than Hell to be honest.

The American political commentator George Will on American style gridiron football: "Football, as I say, combines violence punctuated by committee meetings called huddles. It just replicates the worst aspect of American life.":biggrin:

Of course, I've heard a somewhat related comment about British field sports: "Soccer/Football is a gentleman's game played by hooligan's and Rugby is a hooligan's game played by gentlemen". (I prefer Rugby, though it would be a stretch to call me a gentleman.....:p:rolleyes:)
 
If the CP wins WW1 with the Ottomans in tow, would the British have given the Ottomans the 2 battleships that they seized in 1914 or would they keep/scrap them?
Well, if the Central Powers win because the High Seas Fleet gets lucky and sinks a chunk of the Grand Fleet, the ships might not be there to be reclaimed
 
Top