XX-XXI Century Alternate History Clichés

[ajdb0614]

Kaiser Wilhelm II's withered left arm is responsible for the World Wars, Hitler and the Holocaust.

Any TL that has Willy being born with a perfect pair of limbs has him turn into a Diplomatic-Political-Military genius who decisively wins the Weltkrieg and single-handedly turns Germany into the Bestest Reich Evar, eternal master of Europe and the world's first hyperpower. Oh, and everyone ITTL is somehow chill with all of that.

 

[TwisterAce]

These are the only cliches I can provide for now:

Germany will always reunite, even if the Soviet Union doesn't collapse and the Cold War continues in some form.

Since the 2016 election, in any AH election Hillary Clinton will always win the popular vote but lose the electoral vote.

The following are cliché Presidents: Scoop Jackson, Huey Long, Barack Obama, any Kennedy, and Richard Nixon. There are more, but these are the most prominent.

Don't forget AH.com's favorite AH president: Hubert Horatio Humphrey Jr.!

 

[longsword14]

The defence rests, your Honour.

Command and control of French tanks was bad.
N. America being invaded easily is another cliche. Nobody is invading over a week's notice, and Canada is screwed. This is just how it is, it may have turned into a cliche by now.

 

[Augenis]

Some more Soviet/Russia clichés:

The 20th Century is always a bad time for Russia. Russia will always bounce from crisis to crisis and suffer many deaths.

If Germany wins WWI they will make sure that the Bolsheviks lose the Russian Civil War

If the Bolsheviks lose the Russian Civil War syndicalism will become the most powerful far-left ideology.

The Tsar will be restored at some point.

Russia cannot into democracy.

Okay, now you're just attacking Kaiserreich.

 

[Napoleon IV]

Okay, now you're just attacking Kaiserreich.

Now that I think about it Kaiserreich is probably the origin of most of those clichés. Seinfeld is Unfunny and all that.

 

[Asami]

Okay, now you're just attacking Kaiserreich.

Now you know how I feel, several of these being attacks on Hakkō Ichiu. Kinda makes you not wanna write anything.

 

[Augenis]

Now you know how I feel, several of these being attacks on Hakkō Ichiu. Kinda makes you not wanna write anything.

To be fair, I only joined the Kaiserreich team in December of last year, so I didn't have any input on any of those paths anyway.

 

[Napoleon IV]

That there is a nuclear taboo at all. More likely, sans the city busting of WW2, that they're seen as tactical problem solving.
Likewise the odd status of poison gases; if burning someone to death with jellied petrol or white phosphorous is OK why not mustard gases?

A lot of nations actually treat napalm and white phosphorus as being bad like chemical weapons, and their status is a big subject of debate in international law. At any rate, the reason there's a taboo on chemical weapons has to do with history. The widespread use of chemical weapons in WWI was a very scarring experience, and led people to consider chemical weapons one of the worst things in the world. Napalm and white phosphorus don't have that history in much of the West (which until very recently was where international laws and norms were decided), so they aren't nearly as taboo.

 

[dandan_noodles]

If there's a guerrilla rebellion, the guerrillas always win, even if there are no large conventional forces to actually press on to final victory. You see this Sino-Japanese TLs, where the Communists just existing after the Nationalists' army has been destroyed guarantees Japanese defeat. Just because the U.S. lost the Vietnam war doesn't make guerrilla warfare a magic bullet that can overcome crushing materiel superiority.

Communist-wanking in general gets on my nerves, I guess; if a regime is corrupt and authoritarian, you know it's destined for imminent collapse unless it's communist, in which case they're no longer problems.

 

[Miss Construction]

The USA will always be a liberal democracy and its flip the USA is an authoritarian hell hole waiting for the slightest butterfly.

 

[theg*ddam*hoi2fan]

To be honest I have to ask... Does it matter if a TL uses clichés as long as (a) it's plausible and (b) it's well-written?

Now you know how I feel, several of these being attacks on Hakkō Ichiu. Kinda makes you not wanna write anything.

Don't say that Your TL is easily one of the best on the site.

 

[Augenis]

To be honest I have to ask... Does it matter if a TL uses clichés as long as (a) it's plausible and (b) it's well-written?

Do you even need to ask? Of course it doesn't matter. In fact, one of the biggest cliches of all is trying to avoid cliches while disregarding anything else.

Besides, in my opinion, many of the "cliches" listed here are simply just common AH tropes, and tropes are a positive thing to have.

 

[Riain]

Command and control of French tanks was bad.
N. America being invaded easily is another cliche. Nobody is invading over a week's notice, and Canada is screwed. This is just how it is, it may have turned into a cliche by now.

Yes, 1 man turrets are no goid, despite the French tanks ostensibly having good stats in terms of gun power, armour and engine power.

Secretary of war Stimson noted in his 1914 report that raising and equipping volunteer armies to a modern standard takes at least 6 and more likely close to 12 months. Until that time the US is reliant upon the 3 divisions of the Regular Army and the 12 recently organised but well and truly underequiped divisions of the national Guard. Stimson stressed the vulnerability of the US in this 6-12 month window, which is plenty of time for an invasion to be organized by countries with large standing armies. I was shocked when I learned all this, but it's a fascinating subject particularly the US field artillery of the period.

 

[Byzantion]

I've seen the Civil War thread and I think this could also be a good idea.

I'd say MacArthur as the "American Führer"

Post your b̶e̶s̶t̶ worst clichés

WW1 , WW2 and Cold War remain in the order as OTL even with completley different acteurs. Sometimes there are reversed acteurs and previous historical events. Fascist France or Axis US. Alternate Cold Wars between Nazi Germany and Japan/US. Communist Germany against fascist Russia.
OTL figures rise to high positions in ATL scenarios despite massive butterflies.

 

[longsword14]

snip

How large a force would it even require for the invader to bring the war to a conclusion ? How many B grade units can the defence whistle up in 6 months? When does N America detect a build up?
A lot harder than what you imply. If the invader does not gobble it all up in just one campaign, then the attempt is screwed.
Canada is lost anyway.

 

[Riain]

How large a force would it even require for the invader to bring the war to a conclusion ?

Dunno, what is the goal and how does the campaign fare, how long is a piece of string?

How many B grade units can the defence whistle up in 6 months?

Given that prior to WW2 NG units only had to do an initial 5 day camp and drill a couple of times a month I'd suggest that all 12 NG divisions that were organised under the Stimson Plan of 1912-13 would be B grade. The US had no reserves, they tried to get men to enlist in the Reserves once their 4 years was up but after the better part of a decade only 27 men were on strength. In addition when the NG was mobilised for service on the Mexican border in mid 1916 they had to weed out a lot of men who were unfit, including amputees.

When does N America detect a build up?

It's not when its detected, but when it is realised that there is a serious threat that requires a military build-up. The law was changed prior to WW1 that the NG had to be federalised before volunteers could be called for, at which point the Congress could authorise all units on strength to be bought up to wartime strength with 150 rather than 65 men to a company for example. I don't know if the US, or any less militarised country for that matter, is particularly onto it when it comes to expanding the military in good time which is why the Europeans kept such large forces around at all times.

A lot harder than what you imply.

I would never imply that it isn't hard, but the cliché is to dismiss the very idea that the US could even be invaded let alone struggle to prevail against superior forces in an initial campaign. I merely point out the correlation of forces in the world makes the idea possible and that an initial blow would be severe for the US.

Canada is lost anyway.

How/why is that? Canada would be a staging point for multiple Corps, given the US only has 15 divisions I doubt they'd have much to spare to conquer Canada with Corps/Army strength attacks coming from Mexico and Canada and Brigade/Division sized landing at various points along the US coast.

 

[JackLumber]

How large a force would it even require for the invader to bring the war to a conclusion ? How many B grade units can the defence whistle up in 6 months? When does N America detect a build up?
A lot harder than what you imply. If the invader does not gobble it all up in just one campaign, then the attempt is screwed.
Canada is lost anyway.

And why is Canada lost? Because you say so? America has tried to take Canada twice both times it thought it would be easy and both times they failed miserably.
America has no guarantee of being able to take Canada until after ww1 before that it's painfully likely that it will fumble around struggling against Canadian militiamen and then get chased out of Canada by British regulars as per the usual.

 

[longsword14]

And why is Canada lost? Because you say so? America has tried to take Canada twice both times it thought it would be easy and both times they failed miserably.
America has no guarantee of being able to take Canada until after ww1 before that it's painfully likely that it will fumble around struggling against Canadian militiamen and then get chased out of Canada by British regulars as per the usual.

Comparing USA of late 1900 to 1812 is silly. All of these threads are based on waffle, if somebody can whistle up the shipping, men and material combined with the political capital in Europe to invade USA proper with Canada as a base, then the much large enemy down south can easily take care of Canada.
The useful bits of Canada are not that deep from the border, nor would the objective of a single campaign be complete occupation but the capture and destruction of all potential means by which the enemy invades. Canadian militia men are no better than American troops, are far lesser and would have to get into pitched battles if they wish to keep the invader away from its objectives.
America could not take Canada because they did not have an army that they did not need to go on a conquest of Canada which they had not planned. All these scenarios assume that the world goes mad, and N America stays the same.

 

[Arkenfolm]

Containment thread is here: https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...successfully-invade-the-united-states.417864/

 

[JackLumber]

Comparing USA of late 1900 to 1812 is silly. All of these threads are based on waffle, if somebody can whistle up the shipping, men and material combined with the political capital in Europe to invade USA proper with Canada as a base, then the much large enemy down south can easily take care of Canada.
The useful bits of Canada are not that deep from the border, nor would the objective of a single campaign be complete occupation but the capture and destruction of all potential means by which the enemy invades. Canadian militia men are no better than American troops, are far lesser and would have to get into pitched battles if they wish to keep the invader away from its objectives.
America could not take Canada because they did not have an army that they did not need to go on a conquest of Canada which they had not planned. All these scenarios assume that the world goes mad, and N America stays the same.

Charles de salaberry sent 4000 americans packing with a scrapped together group of Canadians who numbered less than half that, face it Americans cannot into Canada