Jump to content

Angrybk

Members
  • Posts

    304
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Angrybk

  1. I would vote for a more-or-less subservient New England/Mid-Atlantic region with the occasional terrorist activity, the South eventually tries for some sort of rebellion and gets crushed (and is subsequently even more restive), and lots of mini-states with conflicting alliances, infrequent warring, etc. in the rest of the country. I just don't see a "Britain plus the US equals hyper-power" thing working out. Although you might see Canada expanding South to an extent -- a Canadian (British) presence in modern-day Washington State, Michigan, etc.
  2. I'm not usually a fan of applying Theory to foreign policy -- human beings aren't predictable by any tech we currently have, social science is an oxymoron, etc. -- but this is a pretty interesting read. The authors' point is that China tends to get aggro when they get scared, not when they think they're on top. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/11/us-china-war/620571/ "Examples of this are plentiful. In 1950, for instance, the fledgling PRC was less than a year old and destitute, after decades of civil war and Japanese brutality. Yet it nonetheless mauled advancing U.S. forces in Korea out of concern that the Americans would conquer North Korea and eventually use it as a base to attack China. In the expanded Korean War that resulted, China suffered almost 1 million casualties, risked nuclear retaliation, and was slammed with punishing economic sanctions that stayed in place for a generation. But to this day, Beijing celebrates the intervention as a glorious victory that warded off an existential threat to its homeland."
  3. I was looking into the history of slavery in Texas and the actual practice of it seems to have been pretty low, except for East Texas. Which would make sense given that they had fewer plantations etc and more of a ranching industry. I would imagine that the revolution against Mexico was more due to “you can’t tell us what to do!” (Although, uh, that included keeping slaves).
  4. Also notable that all the legends aside, the Revolution was won via conventional battles not guerrilla warfare. Other big what-if is if Graves hadn’t been incompetent at the Battle of the Chesapeake — Britain losing a war because they lost a naval battle against the French is extremely ironic.
  5. My thoughts: 1) I can't see a second American Revolution happening, at least among the historical lines; I don't think the Founding Fathers were gods or anything, but they were extremely intelligent, competent and motivated people who had an outsized influence and came together in a weird coincidence. I don't think they were easily replaceable. A lot would depend on how soon the Revolution got stomped -- after Long Island, or later? In any case, they would basically all either be dead or emigrated. 2) How is Germany going to be able to do anything whatsoever with Alaska and why would it want to? It's on the other side of the planet and is mostly uninhabitable given 18th Century technology. Nobody except for the Russians were in any position to exploit it, nor did they want to. (Russia possibly f*cked up by not trying enough to get in there -- although Russia also f*cked up by not doing more than putting up a couple of forts in California, that could be another great alt-history right there). 3) As RO11 alluded to, there might be an opportunity for a weird Boer War equivalent where the South tries to hold out and fails. 4) Still voting for your B (if I understood it correctly). I think it would depend on whether or not the refugee flood was stemmed by the Revolution failing -- if not, there are going to be a shit-ton of people moving to North America and no way that Britain would be able to stop them (national borders don't matter if you don't have enough people to enforce them), so lots of weird mini-states etc. I don't think Britain had the manpower, troops, or motivation to stop that stuff from happening. It's a wide-open continent full of good stuff. It’s still a bit little weird to me that the US was able to hold that all together.
  6. Excellent post and thank you! Now to figure out how so many Germans ended up in Texas...
  7. Another data point to confirm or refute my “lots of mini Texas/Rhodesias/whatever” theory is how many immigrants were coming to the US because the US was a beacon of freedom vs it was a giant wide open continent with lots of arable land. One thing that’s always struck me is that Germans are a huge part of our ethnic makeup but there haven’t been many studies about why they moved here, probably because they were really boring and didn’t cause trouble.
  8. I think most of the Founding Fathers would have been pretty easily defused if the Brits hadn’t been so stupid and granted them some concessions. It wasn’t like they were Maoists or something.
  9. Oh, this one seems much better then the one I was thinking of
  10. More realistic than the Draka?!?! Oh actually I think I did come across that at some point, need to find link again.
  11. I vote B! Now to start the American Draka timeline!
  12. Yeah, and their crowning glory wasn’t even the revolution, it was the aftermath.
  13. Yeah, I'm surprised it's not a more popular alt-history topic -- I think it's mildly surprising that we won and built a functional country, it wouldn't take Alien Space Bats(tm) to end up very differently.
  14. Er, the Crimean War-era Brits seizing Alaska might be a bit of a challenge. IMHO I think the biggest factor is that none of the countries (I guess the Brits, a little) that had territory in the current USA had the slightest understanding of its potential. In theory the Russians could own California, France could own most of the middle east, Spain could own Florida, etc., but none of their rulers saw it as especially important. My alt-history vote re a failed revolution is that the Founding Fathers get executed, New England goes back to being rather somewhat loyal, the South is gonna be crazy for aforementioned reasons, and the rest of the current US is going to be a giant mess of failed or not-failed states. I don't think France or Spain had the slightest ability to stop immigrants from setting up their own stuff, and Russia didn't seem to care at all.
  15. I was about to type something vaguely along those lines, and was going to bring up the example of Texas as well. Assuming Brits don’t do anything to curtail immigration policy there are going to be a lot of very motivated, tough people who are looking toward the west, and France and Spain don’t have the ability to stop them. My best guess is a lot of mini Texases.
  16. Austria stuff is crazy for USAians who basically think it’s just like Germany but more hills and flowers or whatever https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/17/world/europe/austria-sebastian-kurz-scandal-chancellor.html
  17. If Britain’s anti slavery movement follows real life history, it’ll eventually be a massive source of tension with the Southern states. The New England merchant class could have been brought into line if the Crown had been more flexible, but for the South slavery was pretty existential (although I guess the giant plantation lifestyle was still nascent at that point).
  18. Although I also think that people (including me) are probably overthinking it a bit too much, it's basically "give me and people like me free stuff, don't let people who aren't like us get free stuff because they're bad."
  19. Just checking, anybody gotten any bad side effects from the vaccine yet? I have not.
×
×
  • Create New...