Overlooked clichés

[Leistungsfähiger Amerikan]

World Wars

In almost every timeline I see, there are two World Wars, roughly around the same time as IOTL. But what's worse, is that people seem to expect them far in advance. You see posts like "When the Great War comes in this timeline, I think that..." and stuff, with nobody even considering that there might not be a Great War. Now granted, in many ATLs with a POD in the late 1800's, the causes of a Great War are all there. However, this is not an insurmountable barrier that requires every timeline to have a Great War-these issues can be resolved easily enough with a POD around German Unification. But even still, I've seen timelines where Napoleon wins and there is still a Great War in the early 20th century. I think this is waaay overused. However, what is far, far worse, is the Second 'Great War'. World War II IOTL came from specific and unique causes that stemmed from the outcome from the First World War--it was by no means inevitable. And I always see the scenario turned around--France, despite being a third rate power after being defeated in the atl-Great War, turned revanchist and invades the vastly more powerful Germany. In some cases the World Wars are ok, but overall I just think it is unoriginal, and overused.

 

[9 Fanged Hummingbird]

In almost every timeline I see, there are two World Wars, roughly around the same time as IOTL. But what's worse, is that people seem to expect them far in advance. You see posts like "When the Great War comes in this timeline, I think that..." and stuff, with nobody even considering that there might not be a Great War. Now granted, in many ATLs with a POD in the late 1800's, the causes of a Great War are all there. However, this is not an insurmountable barrier that requires every timeline to have a Great War-these issues can be resolved easily enough with a POD around German Unification. But even still, I've seen timelines where Napoleon wins and there is still a Great War in the early 20th century. I think this is waaay overused. However, what is far, far worse, is the Second 'Great War'. World War II IOTL came from specific and unique causes that stemmed from the outcome from the First World War--it was by no means inevitable. And I always see the scenario turned around--France, despite being a third rate power after being defeated in the atl-Great War, turned revanchist and invades the vastly more powerful Germany. In some cases the World Wars are ok, but overall I just think it is unoriginal, and overused.

"So if Constantine did not convert, what would be the Roman Empire's chances in WW2?"

 

[Dan1988]

"So if Constantine did not convert, what would be the Roman Empire's chances in WW2?"

Absolutely freakin' nil.

 

[wilcoxchar]

Sicily is pretty ruddy in terms of agriculture and industry, though. If a united Italy controls it, industry is going to be concentrated in the Po Valley-- if Spain/Aragon/Iberia control it, industry and agriculture will be somewhere on the Iberian Peninsula. If the Ottomans control it-- nuts, they've got better farmland elsewhere, so Sicily would be a military outpost and not much else.

New England had a pretty crappy agricultural output as well. And actually, Sicily's agriculture isn't that bad, it's just more suited to tropical crops than traditional European staple grains. Back in Roman times, Sicily was central to the Republic's grain supply IIRC. It could have also become one of the major sugar or citrus suppliers for Europe before the discovery of the Americas.

Well, virtually every Mediterranean people out there have made their mark on Sicily, so you have a point there.

Yep. The Greeks, Carthaginians, Romans, Byzantines, Fatimids, Normans, Angevins, Aragonese, Spanish, Savoyards, Austrians, Neapolitans, and Italians have all controlled Sicily at one point or another.

 

[I Blame Communism]

If there had been a very strong will on the part of Austrians to join Germany, they would have. There were a lot of political combinations in the interwar period that not a lot of people were in favor of but happened anyway - like the Turks getting Istanbul back, or Germany reoccupying the Rhineland. I don't think the average Austrian really regarded it as a massive priority - as evidenced by the close votes.

Those aren't valid comparisons at all. Germany's army had ceased to exist, and the whole state had come this close. Whereas the rebranded Ottoman state was intact and its army had retreated undefeated into Anatolia. When faced with terms that they weren't prepared to accept, the Ottoman/Turkish forces were able to restart the war, and since Russia was gone, France and Italy had lost interest, Britain was exhausted, and Greece is small, they "won" as such things are measured, despite all the general devestation

Whereas Germany and Austria were both utterly defeated, and France was absolutely opposed to their unification, making it realistically impossible in 1919. But in terms of the decisions taken by the elected Austrian political leadership (as opposed to those taken at Versailles by the victorious powers, and which one is more representative of "Austrian will"?), they did unite with Germany. That a majority existed was confirmed by unofficial votes throughout the 20s: close or not, Anschluss still won. A bit later, extra-Viennese Austria was a Nazi bastion.

Germany re-occupying the Rhineland is a frankly silly comparison. This is almost two decades after the war: Germany has massively recovered, rebuilt its power and prestige, and has seen Britain become almost friendly and France withdraw behind the Maginot line. Troops are gone from the Rhineland (as of five years ago) and the Saar issue no longer gums things up (as of one year ago). The situation has changed massively; and these changes also explain why, exactly two years down the line, Germany and Austria united, to much public enthusiasm from the Austrians, who were often strongly Nazi, even in Vienna. If most Austrians didn't care about the Nazi message, including Anschluss, why did they fall on their Jewish neighbours with such unrestrained savagery even in a city which Hitler hated?

So your comparisons aren't valid at all. Have you any other response to such clear evidence as the 1919 and disguised 1931 bids, the unofficial votes, and numerous statements from inside Austria (Faeelin has some handy quotes somewhere)?

Don't forget, also, that Austria was given a very strong incentive to go back on its unification in 1919: its finances were being given frantic life-support by the "Reparations Commission", which quickly transformed itself into an aid organisation precisely because the Entente recognised that the Austrian state needed every possible carrot and stick if it was to be kept away from Anschluss.

 

[othyrsyde]

As the others said, you are mostly wrong. Numbers do matter. Even if the Spaniards themselves were outnumbered 100:1, they were still leading an army of 200,000+ native auxiliaries. The native allies won the war for them, before also being wiped out.

On another Mexico-related note, northern Mexico is always annexed by the USA, or if the CSA wins, they somehow buy it off or conquer it. Even more bizarrely, if Texas is independent then northern Mexico is annexed by them, usually through warfare, even though they were lucky enough to win against Santa Anna in the first place. It's especially bad if you go to that ATL Map thread, if Mexico isn't fully annexed you can bet half of it is owned by the USA/CSA/Texas. Most irritating cliche, and yet is always accepted because few people other than me actually care.

I agree. In some TLs it makes logical sense for this to occur; but it almost always happens (or Canada is eaten). Little is also taken into account the cultural changes this will bring about, by absorbing millions of people of a different culture; the area taken in OTL, was largely a wilderness. Taking the rest of Mexico, or larger chunks, would not go down like that. So far I've only seen Jared take this into account in 'DoD'.

 

[I Blame Communism]

Say what?

"Undefeated" may be the wrong word, but I mean to say that morale, supplies, organisational structures, and in general capability to fight remained intact despite tactical defeats in the Mashriq. The German army, meanwhile, dissolved.

 

[RGB]

"Undefeated" may be the wrong word, but I mean to say that morale, supplies, organisational structures, and in general capability to fight remained intact despite tactical defeats in the Mashriq. The German army, meanwhile, dissolved.

Well, I think the best way to describe it is that despite everything that happened, Turkey at least had some army left that was capable of fighting, as opposed to some other participants.

I wouldn't call them undefeated though.

 

[9 Fanged Hummingbird]

Another, far more general, cliche, is the tendency of mapmakers and TL-writers to view different countries and lands (besides their own and the few they are familiar with) as nothing more than territory. Most countries' strength in TL's is directly proportional to their size, save for European countries, where it is sometimes the inverse.

 

[wilcoxchar]

Another, far more general, cliche, is the tendency of mapmakers and TL-writers to view different countries and lands (besides their own and the few they are familiar with) as nothing more than territory. Most countries' strength in TL's is directly proportional to their size, save for European countries, where it is sometimes the inverse.

You only get that feeling until you play a game of EU2 as Lithuania.

 

[I Blame Communism]

Well, I think the best way to describe it is that despite everything that happened, Turkey at least had some army left that was capable of fighting, as opposed to some other participants.

I wouldn't call them undefeated though.

Exactly. One can dispute the terminology, but if Germany had said "screw these terms, we can't save our empire but we'll save something (Anchluss, maybe)!", the German state would have gone to hell in a handcart.

 

[9 Fanged Hummingbird]

You only get that feeling until you play a game of EU2 as Lithuania.

save for European countries, where it is sometimes the inverse.

Beaten to the punch in the post you quoted, .

EDIT: Unless I thought wrong and you meant it is hard. But I did say sometimes, right? Right?

 

[wilcoxchar]

Beaten to the punch in the post you quoted, .

EDIT: Unless I thought wrong and you meant it is hard. But I did say sometimes, right? Right?

Yes, I did mean that playing Lithuania in EU2 is hard. You think it'll be easy because it covers most of eastern Europe but then you realize that the land is crap and you have Russia, the Ottomans, Austria, Hungary, Poland, the Teutonic Order, and Sweden as your neighbors.

 

[Sam]

Wars accelerate technology. Plus strange ideas about economics in general.

ignoring that if Japan hadn't Meiji'd in OTL it would have been a much easier target for western colonisation/vassalisation than China.

Hmm. What makes you think that?

 

[Spitfiremk1]

One that i have noticed (and am probably guilty of perpetrating my self) is that some state/colony called Katanga always seems to come into existence, and if it's a colony, it's always British.

 

[MerryPrankster]

But ethnic nationalism isn't inevitable. Otherwise, why didn't the Germans of Austria-Hungary throw off their Hapsburg oppressors and rush to join the German Empire? I would agree though that Balkanized Germany is more common than united. It seems to me that you need a pre-Napoleonic or at least Napoleonic POD for a realistic non-united Germany. Once you have a totally predominant Prussia...

They tried after WWI and their Allied oppressors wouldn't let them.

Then we had 1938. But after that came WWII.

 

[MerryPrankster]

If there had been a very strong will on the part of Austrians to join Germany, they would have. There were a lot of political combinations in the interwar period that not a lot of people were in favor of but happened anyway - like the Turks getting Istanbul back, or Germany reoccupying the Rhineland. I don't think the average Austrian really regarded it as a massive priority - as evidenced by the close votes.

I'm not even sure I agree that nationalism is inevitable in the rise of democracy. Britain and the USA seem to have avoided it...

Never underestimate the potential for raw, adulterated power to utterly smash the will of the people to bits.

3/4 of human history has been "a boot stamping a human face, forever."

Bonus points if it's wielded by hypocrisy and self-righteousness.

 

[MerryPrankster]

I'm not even sure I agree that nationalism is inevitable in the rise of democracy. Britain and the USA seem to have avoided it...

Manifest destiny? A sort of polyglot "Melting Pot" nationalism.

More sinisterly, WASP domination and "White Man's Country."

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

"Undefeated" may be the wrong word, but I mean to say that morale, supplies, organisational structures, and in general capability to fight remained intact despite tactical defeats in the Mashriq. The German army, meanwhile, dissolved.

The Ottoman army was still intact and combat-ready upon Armistice, but after that it was almost completely demobilized. The Nationalists had to start from scratch, and their reoccupation of Istanbul was a bluff backed by enormous and demonstrated will.

I don't think Austria could have unified with Germany directly after the war, but it certainly could have before the Anschluss.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Manifest destiny? A sort of polyglot "Melting Pot" nationalism.

More sinisterly, WASP domination and "White Man's Country."

I don't think you can say that we've ever suffered from the European disease - sometimes excessive patriotism, but not nationalism. 18th & 19th c racism are a different issue.