Discussion in 'Alternate History Discussion: Before 1900' started by Byzantine fanatic, Nov 21, 2018.
You should specify, worst for the decision maker or worst for anyone living in TTL 3rd Millennium?
Were doing so well except for #2.
Leave politis out of here.
I’d beg to differ
..on what? I stated that Europe didn't their borders off of pure fiat you just showed me an map of ethnic conflict in Africa
Even if he said yes and the “West” was defeated , which I still don’t think its guaranteed would happen, 5 minutes later it’s Germany vs Russia. Neither side was going to live and let live with anyone especially each other. The ideology of both sides and their leaders personalities dictate conflict. The SU May be more patient and take a longer approach but conflict is unavoidable
It was certainly ugly OTL, but what was the alternative? Didn’t the Muslim dominated regions want to separate?
Most Indians didn’t want it. Only the Muslim elite actually pushed for it, and even then, Sikhs, Hindus and Muslims have lived Punjab, Sindh and the rest of Modern day Pakistan in (relative) peace in the region for centuries. If the British had ruled India only slightly better, partition would most likely not have happened and India would be on par with China in terms of power, maybe even greater. All of South Asia would be infinitely better most likely as well.
I’m saying that their borders were a far cry from anything that might have promoted internal stability in many cases. Perhaps a lot of civil strife and genocide (like Rwanda and Darfur) could have been avoided, prevented, or toned down if the Europeans had been more considerate of ethno-linguistic borders.
Even if you made the argument that the Berlin congress to divide Africa is what they based borders off of, that in itself was half-arbitrary, half-self-interest, with no knowledge of (and therefore no possible consideration of) African interests.
Rwanda's borders are those of the Native African Kingdom, and Darfur was conquered and attached to what would later be Sudan by the Egyptians...
I must confess to not knowing much in specificity other than what I’ve heard about Africa and decolonization. I’ve heard that conflicts like those in Libya, Ethiopia, Somalia, Morocco, Algeria, and others have been caused in part by European-drawn borders. I’ve heard that in Rwanda, the genocide was the legacy of artificial ethnic divisions by the Belgians to control the populace.
Maybe a better option, though, would be the political and economic aspect of decolonization, like building truly independent states, politically and economically, not catered to European interests.
I still think that the borders could have been done better, and were at least somewhat arbitrary. Certain areas, like Tripolitania and Cyrenaica were considered separate regions for most of their histories (Tripolitania being closer to Tunis, Cyrenaica closer to Egypt). Countries like Mauritania, Benin, and Ghana have nothing in common with the ancient societies that once held them.
I could, of course, be completely wrong. If so, please enlighten me.
Too my understanding there already was a distinction between Hutus and Tutsis (although it may have been more of a class difference than an ethnic one) in Rwanda. That said the policies of the Germans and later the Belgians certainly made race relations far far worse.
Interesting that you mention that. As prior to the Civil War Libya was one of decolonization's success stories with high HDI scores and a strong economy. The fact that Gaddafi was a dictator sucked, but a post-colonial pod could probably remove him without torching the entire state aparatus in the process.
In the case of Benin and Ghana the locals actually adopted those names, the Europeans actually called them Dahomey (after the Kingdom that occupied the area) and The Gold Coast (interestingly they felt the gold bit was important enough to put on their flag, but still felt the need to adopt the name of an empire from a completely different part of Africa). Mauritania is pretty indefensible though.
To be fair, a major reason why was because the most radical of the radical militarists had taken over Japan and purged the relative moderates for the "crime" of realizing the reality of Japan's situation and swallowing the bitter pill of surrender.
Here are the words of Otto von Bismarck to the German ambassador in Vienna, Heinrich VII Prince of Reuss, in Berlin, 3 May 1888:
"…The result of a war (against Russia) would never result in the destruction of the main power of Russia, which rests upon millions of Russians of the Greek [Orthodox] confession. Even if separated by treaty, these would just as soon reunite, like the parts of a splattered drop of mercury.
This indestructible empire of the Russian nation, made strong through its climate, its vast spaces and its resiliency…would after its defeat remain our sworn opponent thirsting for revenge, exactly like France now is in the West…the “smashing” of a nationality by 3 great powers has not happened in connection with the Poles in 100 years.
The vitality of the Russian will be no less; in my opinion we would do well to treat them as a basic danger against which we maintain protective dikes, but which we cannot eliminate from the world.
By attacking Russia we would only further consolidate it; by waiting we could possibly witness their internal decay and decomposition before we experience their attack, and that even sooner, the less we hinder them by threats from plunging deeper into the Orient."
Bismark was right. Attacking Russia was suicide, and Germany's leaders should have recognised that and pursued the same policies as Bismark towards Russia, which kept the peace for decades through skilful diplomacy.
This map is suspicious.
Why is Algeria shown as red, with "conflict events" all over it? What time period does this map show?
There was a civil war in Algeria in the 1990s, but that had nothing to do with ethnicity. Algerian people are largely indistinguishable from their Moroccan and Tunisian neighbours.
The conflict was caused by the government refusing to accept that an Islamist party had clearly won the democratic election. So the root of the issue was conflict over the relationship between the state and the Islamic religion, not any non-existent ethnic issue.
I can't speak for the rest of the map but if that one example is wrong, it does make one wonder whether the rest of the map is equally suspicious.
Probably, now that I think about it.
Not saying it was smart to attack The Soviet Union, saying there is no way Nazi germany and Soviet Union are going to be allied for any significant period of time after a victory over the west. Both sides wanted world domination and their ideologies and views of the other were incompatiable.
The discovery of fire, between 0.2 and 1.7 million years ago.
The English Reformation. It caused a huge loss of priceless artworks (I've seen estimates that upwards of 80% of all visual art in England was destroyed...), the dissolution of the monasteries (which in many areas were the main source of support for the poor) caused widespread hardship and an increase in beggary and vagrancy, and the effort required to impose these changes on an unenthusiastic populace caused Elizabethan England to become essentially a police state. Plus, neither Mary nor Elizabeth caused a civil war due to being a woman, whereas the ripples caused by the break with Rome continued to destabilise English/British politics until well into the 18th century, so you can't even argue that Henry needed to get a new wife and father a male heir to prevent a repeat of the Wars of the Roses.
Napoleon rejecting the Frankfurt Memorandum
Kerensky not accepting German peace overtures
The decision of Ming dynasty figures after Zheng He to turn inward
Louis rejecting the overtures of moderate reformers before he lost his head.
The Pope rejecting the victorious Savoyard's offer of the Vatcan plus the Borgo as the basis for a post-Italian unification papal polity.
Separate names with a comma.