Rules/Cliches of AH

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Is this any more ridiculous than the (everlastingly stable) long line of German puppets all the way into Persia, a Japanese Siberia, a "Cossack State" centered just about anywhere, and the permanently detachable Ukraine in its 1960s borders? I don't think so. But we both have our biases, so it's all good.

I do agree with the autocratic state bit. It makes sense, because the only territorial successes it had was under autocratic governments with a populist appeal. You can thank the neighbourhood for that. However, you make it sound like there's something innate about this condition, rather than simply a function of the survival of the strongest alternative amongst many others.

It's not ridiculous for the things in your first paragraph to be established in a WWI-ish scenario, but it would be ridiculous for them to remain in that form, even if the CP win. All those things did happen to some extent. Do you think an independent Ukraine is impossible after WWI? I don't think it's reasonable to argue that. It wouldn't have exactly the same borders, ala the Recurrent Kazakhstan Problem, but it's pretty possible given a few chances from OTL. The Baltic States, Poland, and Finland managed to persevere, so the only unrealistic ideas are Japanese Siberia, a Cossack state, and any independent Belarus, which would require the entire populations of Poland and Lithuania to commit suicide and everyone in Russia to forget it's there.

But these are not as ridiculous as Greece gaining Eastern Anatolia and Istanbul. The population of Greece was 5M, half of which was in the northern area captured only in 1913, most of which was occupied by the CP during the war, and which had a minority Greek population. W. Anatolia and E. Thrace had a population several times that, and the Greeks would have to supply by sea and fight extremely seasoned veteran troops and officers on their home turf.

At least in CP-victorious TLs puppet states carved out of Russia had the support of an adjacent Germany and A-H.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

This generally doesnt happen that often anymore.

It happens in every scenario where it's remotely possible.

 

[Communist Wizard]

Russia was a totalitarian state in the communist era. It did have the opportunity to become a democracy in the 90s, and it did rather easily abandon that chance in favor of security in the Putin era. I said neo-totalitarianism, not totalitarianism. Maybe that term is too vague, but my point is that Russia is becoming autocratic, and Russians don't seem to care much.

And I think most of us are able to see it through a non-Soviet prism, but Putin et. al. have been perfectly happy to borrow from the past - and let's face it, poisoning dissidents with polonium in their sushi is pretty evil.

Eh, I'm not here to debate the rightness or wrongness of Putinism, but more or less to make sure people see it correctly, which is less Stalinist and more like Latin American conservative regime (well, not really, but far closer than Stalinism) or non-Communist East Asian post-WW2 regime.
Do we have any TLs which explore a liberal Russia, anyways? Even Kerensky survives situations typically devolve into something like Putinism. In any case, the most annoying thing is that if Russia's not a super-totalitarian regime or a basketcase, it often permanently fades into the background and does nothing of worth. Almost seems to buy into the whole "Russia needs a strong hand" myth.

 

[RGB]

But these are not as ridiculous as Greece gaining Eastern Anatolia and Istanbul.

Eh. Maybe your ridiculous example is worse, but mine happen a lot more often these days. You've done a good job exposing the Constantinople and Ionia problem. Your ridiculous example is driven by 1. Byzantophilia and 2. Greeks having presense in Smyrna etc. in real history, however briefly. Anyone who's only looking at map colour can easily arrive to the wrong conclusions, much like with CP puppets.

Meanwhile Russia's biggest unrealistic-splintering problem is that the ethnic settlement patterns before revolution do not match those of post-WW2 very well at all (let alone the Soviet republican borders), but the middle years are so poorly documented people can be forgiven for the confusion, I suppose. The second problem is the is that most people don't even care. Russia is a "beast" meant to splinter and then invade everyone afterwards, and as long as it does that, everyone's satisfied.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Eh. Maybe your ridiculous example is worse, but mine happen a lot more often these days. You've done a good job exposing the Constantinople and Ionia problem. Your ridiculous example is driven by 1. Byzantophilia and 2. Greeks having presense in Smyrna etc. in real history, however briefly. Anyone who's only looking at map colour can easily arrive to the wrong conclusions, much like with CP puppets.

Meanwhile Russia's biggest unrealistic-splintering problem is that the ethnic settlement patterns before revolution do not match those of post-WW2 very well at all (let alone the Soviet republican borders), but the middle years are so poorly documented people can be forgiven for the confusion, I suppose. The second problem is the is that most people don't even care. Russia is a "beast" meant to splinter and then invade everyone afterwards, and as long as it does that, everyone's satisfied.

I'll have you know I spent days studying the 1897 census before I splintered Russia, thank you very much! I really did, though. It's kind of eye-opening. The settlement patterns in the Tsarist era aren't that much different, though - just more advanced in the Soviet period. If anything, splintering Russia in the WWI era is simpler, because there are less Russians and Ukrainians scattered everywhere. Conversely, there's a much weaker idea of "Ukrainian" or "Bylorussian".

Where a lot of those scenarios really break down is in Central Asia, where the Soviet divisions are really bizarre.

I agree though, that Russia is treated with little nuance or research.

 

[Finn]

I'll have you know I spent days studying the 1897 census before I splintered Russia, thank you very much! I really did, though. It's kind of eye-opening. The settlement patterns in the Tsarist era aren't that much different, though - just more advanced in the Soviet period. If anything, splintering Russia in the WWI era is simpler, because there are less Russians and Ukrainians scattered everywhere. Conversely, there's a much weaker idea of "Ukrainian" or "Bylorussian".

Where a lot of those scenarios really break down is in Central Asia, where the Soviet divisions are really bizarre.

I agree though, that Russia is treated with little nuance or research.

Not to mention there are certain ethnic groups that got shipped of to Siberia during Stalin's regime, and then people act like they've always been there.

 

[RGB]

Not to mention there are certain ethnic groups that got shipped of to Siberia during Stalin's regime, and then people act like they've always been there.

Most of them did move back eventually. Except the Koreans and Germans.

But it's not only that; it's the Volga republics (not very exact at all); the North Caucasus (with its multiple waves of re-drawing; first they evict the Cossacks, the Caucasians move back into the lowlands. Then they evict the Caucasians; then they bring the Caucasians back into bizzare multiethnic republics. Then they build factories and the Russians/Ukrainians arrive anyway). And as Abdul mentioned, Central Asia. The Tajik border, for one, is completely stunning.

 

[machine3589]

It happens in every scenario where it's remotely possible.

Well, then I probably dont spend enough time on AH.com because Ive seen only one timeline with this. In most scenarios I see the Ottomans get wanked.

 

[Hendryk]

This generally doesnt happen that often anymore.

It is rather frequent, and in some cases it's not just a problem of not doing the research, but actual anti-Ottoman/anti-Turkish bias on the author's part. JJohnson's train wreck of a TL comes to mind.

 

[machine3589]

It is rather frequent, and in some cases it's not just a problem of not doing the research, but actual anti-Ottoman/anti-Turkish bias on the author's part. JJohnson's train wreck of a TL comes to mind.

JJonson wrote that rubbish almost two years ago. Since I have been on this board, I have yet to witness an actual post-1900 timeline where this happens. Treads about the issue are not uncommon (one every month, AFAIK), but not timelines.

What is frequent is people claiming the "Greek Istambul" cliche happens all the time. Similarly to the myth that Nazi victory scenarios are a dime a dozen on AH.com.

 

[fortyseven]

JJonson wrote that rubbish almost two years ago. Since I have been on this board, I have yet to witness an actual post-1900 timeline where this happens. Treads about the issue are not uncommon (one every month, AFAIK), but not timelines.

What is frequent is people claiming the "Greek Istambul" cliche happens all the time. Similarly to the myth that Nazi victory scenarios are a dime a dozen on AH.com.

It varies but maps with a Greek Anatolian coast consistently appear in the Map Thread.

 

[MNP]

It varies but maps with a Greek Anatolian coast consistently appear in the Map Thread.

Yeah, and Kabraloth exploded with rage when it did thought he even mentioned that it was this ONE timeline.

 

[CT23]

Has this cliche been mentioned?

'If Britain invades the US during the Civil War, the US stands not only a good chance of winning the war, but ending it even sooner than OTL.'

 

[machine3589]

It varies but maps with a Greek Anatolian coast consistently appear in the Map Thread.

Again, even there it is not uncommon, but still far from appearing consistently.

 

[Ridwan Asher]

Again, even there it is not uncommon, but still far from appearing consistently.

Please don't accuse me of seniority, but considering you've only got here by late 2009, you've already missed quite many, many things.....

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Well, then I probably dont spend enough time on AH.com because Ive seen only one timeline with this. In most scenarios I see the Ottomans get wanked.

Can you point me to a scenario where the Ottomans are being wanked? Go check the Maps thread.

 

[machine3589]

Can you point me to a scenario where the Ottomans are being wanked? Go check the Maps thread.

Ive been through the map tread, and I havent seen "Greek Istambul" on more then a dozen maps.


And maybe wank is not the right word. Most scenarios with a pre-1900 PoD make them do better. Sometimes much better.

 

[Ridwan Asher]

Ive been through the map tread, and I havent seen "Greek Istambul" on more then a dozen maps.


And maybe wank is not the right word. Most scenarios with a pre-1900 PoD make them do better. Sometimes much better.

I suspect you of only exploring the 6th Map Thread. There were 5 previous incarnation of the Map Thread. Given it will be a frackin' hazzle exploring all of them, I guess you should be forgivable. Nevertheless still you can only say that because you're new, and only got here when the Ottoman-wank counter culture has been already fairly successful in the board.

 

[machine3589]

I suspect you of only exploring the 6th Map Thread. There were 5 previous incarnation of the Map Thread. Given it will be a frackin' hazzle exploring all of them, I guess you should be forgivable. Nevertheless still you can only say that because you're new, and only got here when the Ottoman-wank counter culture has been already fairly successful in the board.

This still means the "Greek Istambul" cliche doesnt happen as much as implied sometimes. Well, at lest not anymore.

 

[Finn]

It could be worse. It could be like that Greater Deutschland "Timeline" where Greece is rewarded with all of Anatolia!