halialkers: Xeltrigan male, hooked nose, long jaw, mohawk, light green robes (Karzanur H'ven Marshada)
On AH.com, one of the most inveterate Nazi-wankers was banned for being a sockpuppet. This is a real-life version of a http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BrickJoke in that when Eurofed's account first showed up, somebody said "You're a sockpuppet" to which Eurofed said "No I'm not. I happen to like the same topics and do most of the same ideas, but I am not a sock puppet." And as it turned out, yes, actually, he had been one the whole damn time. And in reading through the threads of his very first account, I'm impressed it took people that long to realize Eurofed was a sockpuppet. I had forgotten about that first account (but when you've been on a forum since 2003.......).

I'm going with Buddy Christ because that fascist scumbag didn't like Christianity, so it's a deliberately ironic choice (and I refuse to waste the Jesus facepalm on him).

halialkers: (Lord Arzharnin Vahani)
Over an offense that never in my perspective seems to apply to anyone else on the forum, related to what in the older days on the forum was a general practice: threads start on one topic and three posts later are discussing something completely different. cut for length )
If this looks like flouncing, I will simply clear that up now: it's not flouncing so much as reminiscing of the old days on a forum (when I'm literally one of the only guys left from the old board as it is) plus bemusement at why anyone would take an Internet forum seriously enough to try to troll it or get around bans to the degree I've seen on that one. It's actually quite pathetic, really. There was that one troll from Australia (Rockingham) who came up with eleventy-dozen accounts to try to get back on it, and there's a new version of that with some guy named Masteraccount. I obviously have liked AH.com enough to stay there since 2003, but why would anyone be *THAT OBSESSED* with an Internet forum? 

......

You know what? Forget it, I don't even wanna know.

I might also note that the weirdest thing for me is that I was essentially the last guy left from the old board who's a regular poster who remembers the Heterosexual Reconquista and the days when Mike Collins and Chris were engaging in rampant shenanigans, and actually have that same problem of a memory that doesn't work for nostalgia that leads me to raise an eyebrow at some of the forum's members wanting a return to the classical forum. The last thing AH.com would need would be a return to the days when abrasive assholes clashed over Islam the tribal backwards cult of conspiracy and the Ottomans, the Irrestible, the Inexorable.

Well, I did add randomness to the tags with this entry. LOL. XP
halialkers: (Default)
Now, there are a great number of gripes that can come with what we call East Asia. One particular irritation is the presumption that cultures are always the same. Japan was not and has not been always the militarized imperialistic state it was from the brief period from the Meiji Restoration to 1945. It has in fact been mostly a feudal landholding society under various Bafukus that have maintained a rather strong grip on politics in a sense even to the present.

In terms of East Asia itself, people tend to always presume that China will unify. China is an improbable entity, especially to claim a single continuous existence for 2,200 years as has been the case. China started out as an association of related feudal cultures, while the unified China can be visualized much as the modern-day EU might potentially become. The idea that a single Empire would unite all of what is today the PRC, let alone that ruled by the Manchus is somewhat-difficult, and was only accomplished by Zheng of Qin after some rather savage versions of barbarian behavior. And even then the various Chinese empires would fracture into multiple successor states, much as the Roman Empire did. The PRC, too, is one of the largest Chinese empires to have ever existed in terms of the power that Chinese states have wielded. There are any number of cases where Europe could have remained a unified culture where China becomes instead a mess of competing states much like Hindustan.

Then there's the issue that in terms of East Asian culture, China's breakup under the Dowager Empress is a case where if fictional it would seem somewhat-racist. What is unusual about modern-day East Asia is the weakness of China, not the strength of Japan. And then there is the situation where in East Asian participation in AH that Confucianism takes over China. Legalism might just as easily have done so. So might Mohism or another of the various philosophical schools of Chinese culture. If that happens, that has a great impact on any East Asian scenario where the Chinese influence their neighboring cultures. Where South Asia suffers from mostly being entirely neglected, East Asia suffers from inadequate attention to certain societies at the expense of others.
halialkers: (Default)
Certain strings of Eurasian culture tend to get more attention paid to them in Alternate history than most. Europe in general tends to get more attention than other parts of Asia, simply because it has a greater publishing industry and people tend for obvious reasons to favor their own histories of their own culture. Other parts of Asia.....North Asia tends to fall to Russia too often, but complaints about Russia in AH are going to be in post # VI. East Asia, the cultural region that draws on Classical Chinese, tends to get a somewhat-skewed version of its history, but some degree of attention. Southwest Asian history will be post # V. Today's topic is what happens to India in AH or in historical fiction in general, which tends to be almost nothing of significance.

The problem is that Indian culture is both ancient and has exercised a very wide influence. While Christianity and Islam reflect a syncretism of Jewish culture with Greek and Arabic cultures respectively, Indian culture has syncretized with other parts of Asia in the form of Buddhist influences. Buddhism is the world's fourth-largest religion and would have been impossible without the influence of a prince from Maghada. Yet Indian contributions to world history are often ignored in other ways, as well. India, for one thing, is the ultimate origin of the Romany people, whose absence will change Europe. The subcontinent has also been a major cultural center and is the center of the largest subset of the Indo-European language family, as well as cultures with no other links anywhere else. It has also been a major center of Islam, and has one of the oldest Christian cultures in the world in Kerala.

Yet in AH there is almost complete ignorance of India and how it might impact things. AH that focused on an India that remained independent of colonial control and ironically not a unified state or that details what impact an evangelistic Hinduism might have had on the subcontinent and the world should be written. Another in the AH-Gripes series.
halialkers: (Default)
Let's get one thing straight, shall we? Slavery in the US model was feudalism at its finest. Feudalism is de-centralized and incapable of fighting modernity, as the Crimean War had proven not so long prior. The Confederate slave system was even worse. Like most such systems it was quite repressive, it relied on the naked power of the slaveowner to exploit the slaves.

Now, this system was going to go up against the power of the United States, which had never lost a war prior to that, and which had survived worse defeats from the Indian tribes at that time than the Confederate Army would ever deliver during the War of the 1860s. So.....that's not enough, the CSA will always beat the USA with General Lee in charge. Except that General Lee led a much smaller army that took much higher casualties against a foe that could put more guns and men on the field at all times. You cannot win such a war on that terms.

Then there's the utter handwaving of the fact that 1/3 the Southern population will be for obvious reasons anti-Confederate (the blacks). And there will be in most scenarios a sizeable Unionist population, unless the North manages to get all the slave states as one bloc, which would be virtually the only scenario, and requires a radically different USA.

Yes, the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia beat much larger armies. The truth is that it wasn't the CS Armies that beat the US ones, it was the US ones that beat themselves. The moment Lee faced a competent Union general his "Charge at all times" mentality went down in bloody defeat as it was going to.

In short, like with World War II, any scenario vaguely recognizable will still see the Union win, just in different fashions to actual history. Which have their own fascinating scenarios. Imagine a Civil War without emancipation......:eek:
halialkers: (Default)
This will be the first in a fifteen-part series related to my gripes on the most common cliches I've seen in Alternate History and why they are all improbable at best, though in an infinite Multiverse I hestitate to use the word Impossible:

Starting with the most common: Nazi Germany winning World War II:

There is little way, barring two circumstances, for Hitler's Wehrmacht to win World War II on their own. The first circumstance is for the British to sue for peace in 1940. The second is for Hitler to accept Stalin's attempts to negotiate in 1941. Barring those two, the Nazi war machine will destroy itself.

First, in any scenario that presumes a war like we know, one sparked between the UK and France v. Germany, that requires Adolf Hitler to knock out the UK. He cannot do so with the resources at his disposal. The Wehrmacht lacked heavy bombers, and there was not enough time in five years to build them, especially with Hitler's ever-shifting Executive Meddling in war designes. The German navy will most likely get mauled in a Scandinavian campaign, presuming the Allies come to the obvious conclusion of taking out a major supply of German iron ore. A victory at Dunkirk might have destroyed the BEF, but that happened in the 1914 War and we know how that affected the British War Effort.

Second, Hitler will inevitably invade the Soviet Union, and he will destroy his chances to make allies of the Soviet peoples who hated Stalin's guts. Nazism was all about gathering all the German-speakers into a single Germany, and that single Germany would expand on a foundation of Slavic corpses. While no prejudice is rational, Nazi prejudice gave them no ability to treat subhuman Slavs as easy, particularly if we presume a Purge of the Red Army to strengthen the overconfidence already instilled by racism and racial indoctrination. Adolf Hitler's forces took more casualties in six months in 1941 than had already happened in the previous two years of the war. And unless he can knock the USSR out of the war, which his racism will stop him from doing so, the best the Germans can hope for is a draw, and neither the UK (for geopolitical reasons) or the USSR (for sheer survival reasons) will grant him that.

Third, the USA will likely get drawn in. If we presume that James Garner becomes President, even, Hitler will still likely sign an Anti-Comintern Pact with Imperial Japan. Japanese expansionism will still pose a threat to the USA, and I can see Hitler declaring war regardless of who the US President is. So....only Hitler would start a Second World War, and with Hitler in charge, Germany will lose. And if Von Stauffenberg or some other plotter kills him, so what? The Wehrmacht did as many atrocities as the SS did, so it's not likely that the Soviets or the West will be inclined to seek peace anyway.

Stay tuned for Part II: The Confederacy winning the US Civil War.

Profile

halialkers: (Default)
halialkers

September 2017

S M T W T F S
     12
34567 89
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Oct. 23rd, 2017 04:04 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios