And of course, this is a predominantly English-language site...
What is a common thing or trope that always seem to happen?
- Thread starter Viking25
- Start date
True
But well you can always have the english colonize [insert place], be it realistic or not
Or, going full ASB, have a SI who's actually dedicated to making the country he's wanking (partly) anglophone
But even if we stick to only OTL anglophone countries, Australia, South Africa and New Zealand are right there
Same for caribbean nations that Britain kinda took over
So I think its still mostly lack of interest/laziness
I mean I did have this one TL where New Zealand joins Australia and then has its leader almost immediately afterwards bully his way into becoming Prime Minister. Not sure if this counts as a wank tbf considering having to carry along that one country that couldn't even beat a bunch of overgrown Chicken would probably be a pretty big handicap for New Zealand but its an idea.
And I had that idea where NZ beats the Japanese Empire with jetboats since apparently you guys invented it but hey we dont talk about that~
While not sure it always happens it sure seems to get suggested a lot that in ISOT's the county in question should cozy up to the US despite the nations penchant for de-stabilizing and overthrowing its enemies, its allies and anyone else they feel like to prop up dictators that turn their countries into the US's personal piggy bank.
Oh and no, before anyone accuses me, I am not suggesting China or 'Russia' would be better allies, frankly I think subordinating one's self to any of the past, current or future great powers who have a penchant for undermining the Sovereignty of anyone they can is stupid.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
In none time travel related one's and I may have mentioned this before but "The US will win and become the ultimate super power of the world, nothing can be done to change this, the US is gonna win and win big, the US is unstoppable!" being a general refrain is tiring.
Oh and no, before anyone accuses me, I am not suggesting China or 'Russia' would be better allies, frankly I think subordinating one's self to any of the past, current or future great powers who have a penchant for undermining the Sovereignty of anyone they can is stupid.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
In none time travel related one's and I may have mentioned this before but "The US will win and become the ultimate super power of the world, nothing can be done to change this, the US is gonna win and win big, the US is unstoppable!" being a general refrain is tiring.
Last edited:
Don't forget that in many cases these countries are so focused on making friends with the United States that they often engage in actively antagonizing other countries for "reasons" like "in the future you will be an enemy of the United States and therefore mine, so I'm going to treat you now" or "being friendly with you will lead to America hating me, prepare to be actively fucked in every possible way!"
Usually 'Russia' exists in their Soviet edition
I was trying to find a way to summarize Russian empire, USSR and modern...ish Russia in one word and kind of failed
Mhm, yeah that very much plays into the same general tropes and trends which usually have people suggesting countries just hurl tech and advisors at the US and otherwise support their interests rather than their countries own or ay of their neighbors. Which honestly just make no sense to me, as in is its incomprehensible to me.
My theory is that basically a lot of the cartels are American nationalists and assume that everyone has as high an opinion of America as they do. It is not unlike the line of reasoning that holds that the British Empire was so beneficial to the world that it needs to be preserved in the form of an Imperial Federation. Or the demonstrably false premise that "the balance of power is a guarantee of peace, prosperity and stability (please ignore all those stupid wars we have waged in the name of maintaining the damn balance of power, as well as this degenerating into two world wars )"I was trying to find a way to summarize Russian empire, USSR and modern...ish Russia in one word and kind of failed
Mhm, yeah that very much plays into the same general tropes and trends which usually have people suggesting countries just hurl tech and advisors at the US and otherwise support their interests rather than their countries own or ay of their neighbors. Which honestly just make no sense to me, as in is its incomprehensible to me.
I'm unsure what you mean by Cartels, but I do think there's something of a trend in certain areas of people to take the US's propaganda more seriously than one really should.
Ultimately they are every bit as imperialistic as the other modern day empires, totally fine with propping up everything from coups, to dictator at the expense of democracy and genocides if it serves what they feel to be their interests. The main distinction between the parties is only sporadically foreign policy and far more often is about domestic policy. IE less "How do we treat everyone else" and more "How do we treat our own?" Cos the former is always going to be "In whatever way gets the US the most money and control. As noted, not to say, for example, China don't do the exact same thing, they just tend to be fifty fifty on gobbling up other countries as the UUSR did or subordinating them as the US does.
Oh gods I haven't seen much if that one for the Brits outside of weirds with flags for capes screaming about it on the news and such, but yeah, I see your points of comparison and feel they land disturbingly well.
I meant posters (users) instead of cartels, the translator screwed me.
On the issue of the parties being "different inside, the same outside" I have observed that it often leads to a miscommunication involving Americans taking horrific offense that anyone dares to imply that the two parties are much alike or even the same...while they ignore the fact that from the outside what is seen is that the two parties speak with one voice when it comes to deciding which country they are going to fuck.
And yes. I would say that more than taking the propaganda seriously, it would be that people assume that the United States always acts in an enlightened way and in the best interest of all (and they take offense when you point out that it is not). As well as leading to strange... conclusions...
I remember a TL where the basic premise is that, due to one of these political cannons, a Soviet spy arrives in POTUS replacing FDR. Of course, one of the basic premises of this TL is "Every person who in OTL was accused of being a Soviet spy - it doesn't matter if this was true or not - TTL IS a Soviet spy." Ok. This is a bit too convenient but well, it can be.
What I had a hard time believing was the part where, as part of Stalin and the KGB's efforts to screw America from the inside... the President-spy focuses all of his efforts on tying America to the UN.
The implication, mentioned by one of these Soviet spies, is that "forcing the United States to assume internationalist obligations" is a desired goal of Stalin. My problem with this is that it implies that Stalin believes that the US actively engaging with the rest of the world (instead of becoming isolationist and giving the USSR a free hand in Eurasia) is so inherently detrimental to the US that the Soviet leadership WOULD WANT the US to do it, naturally!
I'm not sure who you mean by "people wearing flags as capes".
Last edited:
Ah I see, fair enough.
Yeah, like I should note that there are some countries that avoid dealing with the US in general because the parties do have at least 'some' differences when it comes to certain specific countries and as a result make the US an unreliable figure in that regard as well. But over all, in most foreign policy especially the back door stuff over the overt war stuff, the two parties tended to be of a similar enough mind that relying on the US is just bad business.
That too, like 1940's America is not going to react well to any 'Asian' country that suddenly has advanced technology or wants independence from all foreign powers.
That is wildly absurd and very silly sounding to me
I mostly mean like nationalistic bigots who scream about how they "Civilized the world" and other shit along those lines.
Planet of Hats
Donor
I've said it in threads like this before, but definitely explorers getting to the New World and running into the Aztecs, no matter when the POD was. Even PODs hundreds of years before, with earlier or later arrivals, run a good chance of running into the Aztecs.
From what I can tell, the Aztecs were a flash in the pan in the Mesoamerican context, and their emergence was far from inevitable, especially with earlier PODs. The explanation here is probably as simple as the impact of colonialism on our knowledge of pre-Columbian society. Knowledge of this part of history is fragmentary and sometimes very opaque, and digging it up takes a lot of effort and time.
From what I can tell, the Aztecs were a flash in the pan in the Mesoamerican context, and their emergence was far from inevitable, especially with earlier PODs. The explanation here is probably as simple as the impact of colonialism on our knowledge of pre-Columbian society. Knowledge of this part of history is fragmentary and sometimes very opaque, and digging it up takes a lot of effort and time.
This is going to sound a bit insulting and weird but ''fake balkanization'' tends to be a thing that is quite common.
The idea behind is fairly simple, in a timeline a group/province gains independence/civil war makes it a statelet fairly common across the world one way or another.
Why do I call it fake? The answer it seems their are more exist as area of denial to prevent another nation from having it if that makes sense.
My example for this is say Baluchistan, say for example the Pakistan province becomes free what should happen going to be a pain in the neck, by that a decent figure of the population travels to and from from Afghanistan and Iran, it would it to have countless border clashes and diplomatic disputes with the nation around them for that if nothing else, It's got a sizeable minorities the dominant group don't have the best history with alongside a very big rural/urban divide that's partially related to the their minorities.
That said it's not hopeless, they have a decent diaspora in Arabia, some cards to play against their neighbors and a few resources that can help state build and likely can draw upon a part of the now shattered Pakistani army and nationalism can do some crazy things.
Often however when this happens Pakistan is for lack of a better word gets ''deleted'' as much as possible with dots on the map now appearing on the remains of it's corpse is it's importance to the world from now on.
It tends to happen to China and Turkey where it often seems the statelet's that used to inhabit these nations often seem to exist on map than seem well states with troubles and gains you would them to have.
The idea behind is fairly simple, in a timeline a group/province gains independence/civil war makes it a statelet fairly common across the world one way or another.
Why do I call it fake? The answer it seems their are more exist as area of denial to prevent another nation from having it if that makes sense.
My example for this is say Baluchistan, say for example the Pakistan province becomes free what should happen going to be a pain in the neck, by that a decent figure of the population travels to and from from Afghanistan and Iran, it would it to have countless border clashes and diplomatic disputes with the nation around them for that if nothing else, It's got a sizeable minorities the dominant group don't have the best history with alongside a very big rural/urban divide that's partially related to the their minorities.
That said it's not hopeless, they have a decent diaspora in Arabia, some cards to play against their neighbors and a few resources that can help state build and likely can draw upon a part of the now shattered Pakistani army and nationalism can do some crazy things.
Often however when this happens Pakistan is for lack of a better word gets ''deleted'' as much as possible with dots on the map now appearing on the remains of it's corpse is it's importance to the world from now on.
It tends to happen to China and Turkey where it often seems the statelet's that used to inhabit these nations often seem to exist on map than seem well states with troubles and gains you would them to have.
Ah, yes, it is a trope that I have criticized more than once. That idea of seeing ethnic minorities only as the core of future allied states.
I even find it insulting to the extent that it only gives value to these peoples and nations to the extent that they can be used to balkanize a country that the author of the TL dislikes.
It is especially obvious when you consider that in most cases the development of these "countries" is limited to "And then Chrysostan became a democratic federal republic that signed an agreement with the Protagonist Empire that it undertook to transfer to it the 70 % of its resources for the next 200 years, not to sell said resources to anyone the Lead Empire designates as its enemies, to extradite to the Lead Empire anyone requested, and to accept the presence of military bases and troops from the Lead Empire equivalent to at least 50% of Chrysostan's army" or something like that.
I mean, for that you could directly annex that "country" to the Protagonist Empire, because certainly no one is going to believe that the Republic of Chrysostan is really independent in those conditions.
Especially if we consider that if, for example, Chrysostan was one of these states that were inside Russia... well, of course, all Russians must be forcibly expelled from Chrysostan "to guarantee the security and independence of the new Republic ".
Or to use a more extreme example. Any Kurdistan that exists would have to be extremely dependent on the superpower that helped bring it into existence in the first place because all the neighbors will hate them to death. Especially if, as usual, this Kurdistan proceeded to deport all non-Kurds out of its territory "to ensure our safety from those who hate us" and to focus all its foreign policy on aggressively attacking its neighbors whenever the power that promoted Kurdistan felt they needed to "throw their weight" in the region...
Note, while i'v seen this idea a couple of times I do think you A would need to force a loaded gun to the head of the leader to do this given it would burn the bridges of everyone around them, indeed they would be similar to North Korea given theirs's way in hell their neighbors would let them use their ports or not have them under a embargo for the largest ethnic cleansing the middle east has seen in some time.
B I think it's akin to Yugoslavism in many ways except people know a bit less about the MENA region to think it will work, given many Kurds are mutually intelligible, have a diverse amount of faiths and a lot of grudges and struggles for power I think the mega Kurdistan will be very bloody for a couple of decades and or see itself torn apart and picked apart by it's neighbors if it emerged the same time as Yugoslavia.
After having talked about the balkanization trope based on dividing the country by force in a war, I am going to talk about the trope that for lack of another name I have called “The evil separatist”.
In principle, we might think that this trope is not very different from the previous one: that is, a territory declares its independence from a larger country by force of arms, and immediately initiates “special military operations” to “stop an aggressor hostile” (referring to the country from which they are separating). At the same time, he almost immediately begins the forced expulsion of "minorities who only know how to hate" to "protect us from the threat posed by this fifth column of hostile populations." Any atrocities they commit will be framed as "legitimate self-defense against an evil oppressor who seeks our destruction as a people."
The only significant difference, at least in theory, is that this territory, instead of being supported and supported by a hostile invader who is tearing the big country apart, has become independent by its own means and initiative.
In principle, and in theory, this should translate into this country receiving the same sympathetic treatment as its “independent” counterparts: being portrayed as innocent and poor victims of the unrestrained brutality of the country they are freeing themselves from, right?
Well no, it is not like that.
This independent territory will be systematically portrayed, both outside and inside the TL, as a terrorist entity in rebellion. A dictatorial and tyrannical regime, made up of people who only know how to hate and who became independent solely and exclusively because of their racist and insane hatred. A group of thugs that pretends to be a government, that is absolutely not legitimate, and that obviously deserves to receive the most cruel and ruthless treatment by the authorities of the big country. Regardless of how badly they were treated by the authorities of the big country, it will be systematically assumed that they have no legitimate reason to rebel, and that they are actually traitors who hate the country.
Of course, no one will see the slightest contradiction between advocating at the same time “these people hate this country and we'd actually be a hell of a lot better off if they just walked away and left us alone” and “nothing is more just and good than forcing these people, whom we detest anyway, to remain a part of our country even if it means waging a civil war to keep the country united by force.” Any war crime, no matter how heinous, automatically and immediately becomes "strict justice and karmic retribution" if it is perpetrated against this entity and its inhabitants.
This is seen most notably in the American Civil War TLs, when the "Nazi States of America", led by a grouping of all the crazy right-wingers in America, proclaim their independence and immediately begin the extermination of all non-whites.
In addition to this, the "Nazi States of America" (or whatever the country in question is called) will act in a way that, in addition to including all acts that are previously celebrated as "necessary to guarantee the security of this nation", will add others who seem more destined to attract upon themselves the hatred of the entire rest of the planet, and make it clear to the rest of the world that there is no one who is more vile and evil than they (and that, therefore, nothing is more good and fair than supporting the Federal Government), than based on some kind of plan.
Expect from them things like invading neighbors, deploying nuclear weapons (if they have them) against rebellious cities, opening death camps, and immediately implementing whatever Nazi policies they can emulate.
It may be objected that this type of regime seen in the American Civil Wars actually IS evil, and no one will argue with it. But the problem here is that this "This is an evil regime that must be stopped" treatment is received even by separatists who aren't trying to be cartoonishly evil.
Unless, of course, they are from ethnicities that "fall in sympathy": the Islamic Caliphate of Kurdistan starting a systematic genocide of the Turks as part of their efforts to gain independence from Turkey is all very well, but the Lakota Nation declaring independence from The United States is a strategic threat that deserves to be repressed with the full force of the American military.
In principle, we might think that this trope is not very different from the previous one: that is, a territory declares its independence from a larger country by force of arms, and immediately initiates “special military operations” to “stop an aggressor hostile” (referring to the country from which they are separating). At the same time, he almost immediately begins the forced expulsion of "minorities who only know how to hate" to "protect us from the threat posed by this fifth column of hostile populations." Any atrocities they commit will be framed as "legitimate self-defense against an evil oppressor who seeks our destruction as a people."
The only significant difference, at least in theory, is that this territory, instead of being supported and supported by a hostile invader who is tearing the big country apart, has become independent by its own means and initiative.
In principle, and in theory, this should translate into this country receiving the same sympathetic treatment as its “independent” counterparts: being portrayed as innocent and poor victims of the unrestrained brutality of the country they are freeing themselves from, right?
Well no, it is not like that.
This independent territory will be systematically portrayed, both outside and inside the TL, as a terrorist entity in rebellion. A dictatorial and tyrannical regime, made up of people who only know how to hate and who became independent solely and exclusively because of their racist and insane hatred. A group of thugs that pretends to be a government, that is absolutely not legitimate, and that obviously deserves to receive the most cruel and ruthless treatment by the authorities of the big country. Regardless of how badly they were treated by the authorities of the big country, it will be systematically assumed that they have no legitimate reason to rebel, and that they are actually traitors who hate the country.
Of course, no one will see the slightest contradiction between advocating at the same time “these people hate this country and we'd actually be a hell of a lot better off if they just walked away and left us alone” and “nothing is more just and good than forcing these people, whom we detest anyway, to remain a part of our country even if it means waging a civil war to keep the country united by force.” Any war crime, no matter how heinous, automatically and immediately becomes "strict justice and karmic retribution" if it is perpetrated against this entity and its inhabitants.
This is seen most notably in the American Civil War TLs, when the "Nazi States of America", led by a grouping of all the crazy right-wingers in America, proclaim their independence and immediately begin the extermination of all non-whites.
In addition to this, the "Nazi States of America" (or whatever the country in question is called) will act in a way that, in addition to including all acts that are previously celebrated as "necessary to guarantee the security of this nation", will add others who seem more destined to attract upon themselves the hatred of the entire rest of the planet, and make it clear to the rest of the world that there is no one who is more vile and evil than they (and that, therefore, nothing is more good and fair than supporting the Federal Government), than based on some kind of plan.
Expect from them things like invading neighbors, deploying nuclear weapons (if they have them) against rebellious cities, opening death camps, and immediately implementing whatever Nazi policies they can emulate.
It may be objected that this type of regime seen in the American Civil Wars actually IS evil, and no one will argue with it. But the problem here is that this "This is an evil regime that must be stopped" treatment is received even by separatists who aren't trying to be cartoonishly evil.
Unless, of course, they are from ethnicities that "fall in sympathy": the Islamic Caliphate of Kurdistan starting a systematic genocide of the Turks as part of their efforts to gain independence from Turkey is all very well, but the Lakota Nation declaring independence from The United States is a strategic threat that deserves to be repressed with the full force of the American military.