What territory do you belong to?
In this thread, we discuss general history-altering pivots and what we would expect and prefer following the turn of events.
For example:
Hillary Clinton winning the election.
Vietnam having lost the war.
The USSR not dissolving.
China having remained a republic.
The Indian Sepoy Rebellion succeeding.
The British having quashed American Independence.
Keep it recent enough to be predictable with impending technology.
Other urls found in this thread:
althistory.wikia.com
twitter.com
I am a Jap
>The British having quashed American Independence.
The animosity would have still been there, and Patriot presence would ultimately lead to the colonies being granted sovereignty sharing the same monarch as Britain, much like modern-day Commonwealth realms. It's unclear when/whether they would confederate, but it's likely by the end of the 18th century we'd have the United Provinces of America.
I thought Sweden was independent?
>Vietnam having lost the war
Either China buckles under pressure and dissolves, or co-aligns with Russia more tightly. Tibet is free.
fuck this is a tough one. Can't see it ending well with commie influence in the South-East Asias.
>The Man in the High Castle
Why would Japan occupy Colombia and Chile? The military expenses would be way higher than simply trading with them. If they wanted influence there because of geopolitics, they would simply bribe the right people and use them as satellites. Bribing is much, much cheaper than occupying, I mean orders of magnitude cheaper.
There is one nice alt-history project here: althistory.wikia.com
Basically, Stanislav Petrov is assigned to a different unit in September '83 and the world goes full Fallout mode. The untouched Southern Hemisphere countries (Brazil, Australia, Paraguay, etc.) rebuild the world from the ashes.
I fucking hate people making maps without any real understanding of culture/history, let's take these so called maps of Maya or central American nations, you could arguably separate the three Mexican states in the Yucatán peninsula, which one did exist independently and say Tabasco Chiapas to join into those, and those last two are already a stretch given they always held strong connections to central Mexico going back to pre-Columbian times. How the fuck do you justify taking oarts of states like Puebla, Oaxaca or Veracruz? Large portions opf these were literal parts of the Aztec empire and they form a continuum with central Mexico, with many of it's most important ethnicities, eg Mixtecs or Huastecs largely mixing and overlapping in territory with Nahuas. The Tehuantepec isthmus is geophysically far more isolated from the Southeast and culturally embeded in central Mexico.
Going into the first separation, again, one that seeks to restore Guatemala or to create a Mayan state Soconusco is a name that comes from Nahuatl, it was always part of the Mexican sphere of influence which was stronger in Yucatán even in it's irelative isolation as it was far less conected with the Mayan kingdoms in Guatemala.
Mwxican southern borders do in fact refelect the division in between the Aztec/Nahua area of influence in Mesoamerica as oposed to the more independent Mayan city states of the terminal post Classic which derived into what are today Central American nations.
This frequent arbitrary division in meme maps whose main criteria is either geographical Central America (arguably everything east of Tehuantepec, although only southeast Chiapas in Mexico is part of the Central American isthmus/volcanic bridge proper) or the Maya area oif influence (which disregards profound differences amongst the Maya and would amount to joining Romance nations as distrinct as France, Spain and Italy in Europe) is beyond idiotic.
Where there are overbearing powers that are known for embracing an excessive version of manifest destiny, would it be fair to expect that the ethnic divisions of Central America would become irrelevant to them (Central Americans), in pursuit of survival and self-rule?
These areas were notorious for their raw resources, like Silver and Coal in a vaaast array of other things.
Something similar can be said of Mexico's northern borders which are not completely arbitrary either, the original intent of the Americans during the Mexican American war, and prior to the existence of the Panama canal was to take what was then the most northernly viable route to connect the Atlantic with the Pacific, that's going from Tampico in Tamaulipas to Mazatlán in Sinaloa. The real reason they eventually did decide against that plan is that there were far too many Mexicans in that territory, going north all the way to Sonora and the Colorado delta area, given Mexicans were numerous in the sea of Cortés/gulf of California and that much of that northern territory was mostly considered barren desert the border was drawn at what was then thought to be the best compromise of territorial expansion and minimizing the number of Mexicans which would have to be incorporated into the American population, and this was actually farther north than it is today, as the mesilla purchase was later made necessary for the US given the practicalities of building a railroad in the region, The original intent had been to allow for many of the large stretches of desert in northern Mexico and the the southeast US to act as a natural barrier. That got wrecked with American southern expansion, starting with with the California gold rush and the associate impulse to irrigate much of semi-arid california and areas between it and Texas, as well as the growth and twining of border cities due to commerce. Having said that the border does reflect the perceptions of what 19th century Americans thought was territory too Mexican to asimilate.
Mexico today is as close to a country with natural borders as it exists in the Americas, it is a plausible succesor to the Aztec empire in the sense that it's the cultural area the succesor kingdom of Mexico came to culturally dominate, both north and south.
Nazis controlled region. Might not be too bad since my family is german-american anyway.
The nazis would have probably gotten us incorporated into their Reich sooner or later.
I read the novel last year and liked it. But I was little disappointed by the fact that the issue of the Nazis and the Japanese is not so important, the subject of destiny is the real theme.
Aside the fact that my family moved directly here (myself being Torontonian here for Lawschool) after the war...
The Reich's opinion on Indians were so fluid, complimentary but critical of the conditions. But, his aim for separating 'races' ethnicities would have me shipped off more likely.
nah desu your independence is what sparked these commonwealth countries wanting sovereignty, and partly why rhodesia tried and failed and died
if we worked out an agreement instead of a war, you might well have remained a full part of the british empire which would have kept the others from wanting sovereignty too
there would eventually be a bigger devolution of power to each commonwealth state, and each would be an equal member of the newly formed imperial federation
essentially the empire wouldn't have died but would have been reshaped as a union between equals
basically what we have today really, but better for everyone
For those countries south of the Mexican border and even Panama (once a part of Colombia) yes, but in the Mexican side no, as I explained Chiapas and Tabasco had been a cultural part of central Mexico since pre-Ciolumbian times, even although they extended into Mayan territory, Yucatán might have been considered an exception up until the 19th century (even so it was it's own thing, and less a part of Central America than Mexico) but it's connexion to Central mexico and Mexican identity today is ireversible. Yucatán lost any chance for independence when it's white elites came begging for Mexico to save them from the Maya uprising in the caste wars. The end result was to a large extent demographioc change, with Amerindians from elsewhere in Mexico being settled in the peninsula as late as the early 20th century and ity's middle class/mestizos overwhelmingly Mexicans today. Once again, Yucatán was never really a part of Central America as the concept that emerged after independence of the area from Spain, and Maya peoples had lost their unity centuries before European conquest.
Southern Mexico was not, most of the silver (Mexico has for half a millenia been the world's largest producer) was mined in the bajío and a few areas in central Mexico (eg Taxco) not in the south. For most of it's history the southern third of Mexico has been dense jungles in mountainous terrain which was very difficult to exploit, the most valuable commodites (vanilla, chocolate, chicle) came from the southern gulf of Mexico region, while industry and agriculture was concentrated in Oaxaca and places north. Mexican central America basically produced sugar cane, some fruits and hardwood, everyting else was basically for internal consuumption. Yucatán had an henequén boom in the late 19th century. Other than the deserts of Yucatán most of the area was nothing but malaria, snakes and jungle.
That's not the true map of the man in the high castle though
Fair enough, the war was largely about American autonomy (including most prominently, but not limited to, "no taxation without representation") and not needing an island an ocean away to handle our affairs, and it was only with British hostility to that concept and a failure to return to salutary neglect, along with Thomas Paine and other Enlightenment rhetoric, that outright independence became the goal.
I-I thought I was fine...
Wasn't there a Buffer State between Japan America and Nazi America? And wasn't the Mediterranean Sea dried up for farmland?
I thought having pre-colonial trade history & politics covered was enough but that is piquing my interest...
Yes, also the Germans have exterminated almost all the Blacks of Africa.
Why does turkey still exists? They didn't helped us.
Also Finland is looking good.
There was, the neutral zone straight down the mountains. Suppose the author of the image decided it wasn't relevant.
Damn that is ruthless even for the author. I learnt Africans were low on the eugenics list, but were marginalized very heavily rather than exterminated.
It will be a paradise having an empty Africa for us
In the book they say Germans used African corpses industrially. Like for fertiliser, and they used the finger joints for lighter hinges.
Aren't we nice allies ? You even get the Arabian peninsula
I'm assuming Hitler's insanity led him to that conclusive manslaughter? His testimony on negroes was less required of gassing etc.
That is pretty much what locals here dream of, at least on europe should have looked
>tfw DST Laurentie
German occupied France. I'd be pretty butthurt, honestly. Not that the Germans have won, that'd be alright, just that they divided us up that much.
Come on, we could much better allies than Italy or fucking Spain. You frame it as "Fuck the British" alliance, let us keep most of our territories (just take Alsace-Lorraine because you delusion yourself into thinking they're Germans), mend our ego by saying our defeat was because of the treachery of our commie-Jewish government, and we'd be best friends forever.