Shitty Alternate History Thread - If only the Romans had AK-47's they would've survived...

  • 🔧 At about Midnight EST I am going to completely fuck up the site trying to fix something.
One timeline I think would be interesting is if Emperor Joseph I, didn't die unexpectedly from smallpox. As well as didn't contract syphilis that he passed to his wife rendering her infertile, he is a often overlooked figure
 
I don't know about that. If the rivers of central and southern europe were infested with gators, people would be much more wary of going near them, which would reduce their utility as transportation routes. France, without reliable access to the Loire and Rhone rivers in its formative years, is a very different place.
That has never stopped anyone anywhere. The actual gator infested American South depended mainly on those very rivers and swamps for transportation.
 
This does make me notice that in recent years there's been a real shift to "Nazis have no chance of winning whatsoever" as an article of faith on the site. It gets asserted with the same vehemence you used to see reserved for silly shit like Operation Sea Lion succeeding. It's almost like a religious thing. Since Hitler is secular Satan, he can't be allowed to ever win. This is where you get the weird idea you occasionally see that the Nazis would have "inevitably" imploded by 1950 if no one had done anything. Which is really ironic to see taken as an article of truth when it basically just says Chamberlain and all the US isolationists who always pop up as alt-history dictators were right.

Basically.

Modern Leftists have this juvenile way of thinking where their enemies have to be doomed to fail and completely inept (despite also being the big scary that will destroy the world, paradoxically). Maybe some of it comes from Marxism's smug belief in itself, maybe it's just the juvenility again. I find it disrespectful to the victors as it cheapens what they went through, what they overcame. This comes up with the Confederacy too, there's a similar dogmatic push to assuming they'd collapse (which can be an interesting premise, I've talked about a version of that on here, but I don't think it actually would have devoured itself, much less that it was the only possible outcome) if they won which clearly they couldn't have because they were eeeeeeeeeeeeeevil.

I think the Nazis were clearly quite successful that they got so far into the Soviet Union. They fumbled before America got directly involved but I don't see why with better decision-making they couldn't have won.

Basically, Leftists are retarded and deserve the rope.
To me claiming your foes would've destroyed themselves makes you look weak, especially in this context. If Germany, Italy, and Japan were small and doomed to fail, and if America was huge and going to win anyway, then a leftist should see America's conquest and 100-year occupation of those countries as imperialism. It's the traditional narrative of the Goliath Iron Hordes being narrowly beat by David's Homespun Freedom Fighters being traded for "Mike are we the baddies?" - if you assume leftists think thoroughly and aim for consistency, which they don't.
 
I saw this shitty YouTube short from some moron answering "What if guns never existed." What disgusted me was that the guy's analysis came down to:

1) The Indians would have fought back longer, by as much as 500 years

O really? A whole 500 years instead of the 400 they took? This tells me that the dude probably knows nothing about Indian history and thinsk they all fell over when Columbus showed up.

2) Europe would be weaker in general

And... that's it.

No mention of the absolutely massive impact that a never-ending age of castles and knights would have on the social structure of Europe. That by taking away guns you also basically take away the main military force that favors lower class revolutionaries.

Edit: Not to mention that all of Eurasia used firearms, no “gunpowder empires.” Literal pop culture grade school level understanding of world history.
 
Last edited:
This is a commentary on 2020: Shots Fired in particular and leftist 2nd American Civil War timelines in general, but it really does validate the meme about the left being unable to grasp what the right really believes in. The right is always portrayed as either dumb, evil, or both, with zero ability to organize beyond impromptu lynch mobs. "Socialism wins the 2ACW" timelines all have this same pattern to them where right extremists do the heavy lifting in tearing down the federal government only to overextend and fall to infighting and then get outmaneuvered and outfought by courageous People's Defense Forces who plan and execute action in perfect harmony and then socialism/syndicalism/democratic socialism stands triumphant.

I don't mind reading works by leftist authors as long as they're entertaining, but timelines like this fail even that standard because they can't bear to have even fictional leftists get beaten by the right so they fall into this pattern.

(I will give props to Shots Fired for acknowledging Kamala Harris as the worst person to have in the Oval Office when shit finally kicks off)
 
I've been thinking lots about WWII lately (rereading a lot of histories on it), and i got to wondering, would Italy remaining neutral have helped or hurt the Nazis? Would the allies have respected this neutrality? There was a question up until a few months before the Anschluss in Austria, whether Mussolini would object and actually oppose the Germans. Obviously he didn't.

If Italy doesn't enter the war, do the Germans bother with North Africa? Sure, they hoped to take the Suez Canal, but if they don't bother with North Africa, they only need to protect the coast of Greece (presuming they still take Greece, but a lot of the involvement in Greece was to my understanding them going to rescue the Italians from their Albanian adventure.

Did Italy help the Germans more than it hurt them, presuming the Italians don't attack. No Italians means not much of a southern front.

I'm not advocating a position, but wondering.
 
If Italy doesn't enter the war, do the Germans bother with North Africa? Sure, they hoped to take the Suez Canal, but if they don't bother with North Africa, they only need to protect the coast of Greece (presuming they still take Greece, but a lot of the involvement in Greece was to my understanding them going to rescue the Italians from their Albanian adventure.
The whole reason why Germany got involved in North Africa was because of Italy's screw up. And the whole reason why Germany got involved in Greece was also Italy's screw up. If Italy hadn't invaded Egypt, she would have most likely still invaded Greece, as Mussolini had ambitions on sort of restoring the Roman Empire, forming an Alliance of Latin countries, conquering "living space", expanding Italy's African colonies and making Italy the dominant power in the Mediterranean.

Italy's invasion of Greece would probably still end poorly, but now the question is whether or not Germany or Britain would intervene? Since Italy isn't at war with the Allies and she isn't an ally of Germany, they'd little reason to. Italy might try to to get Bulgaria to join in against Greece.
If Italy conquers Greece, Yugoslavia would be next and she would be pressured into joining Italy's sphere, which may cause a coup or a civil war.

Germany's main goal was the conquest of the Soviet Union. If Italy was waging wars in the Balkans or the Mediterranean, I don't think they'd care as long as Britain wasn't involved. And that all of this didn't harm Germany's attempt to ally with Hungary and Romania, who she'd need for the coming invasion with the Soviet Union. The same would be true if Italy doesn't Invade Greece at all.

If Italy doesn't defeat Greece then it would be an embarrassment for Mussolini, but I don't think it would be enough to get him deposed yet.

In any case, without North Africa and Yugoslavia to manage, Germany would be able focus more on the Eastern Front and have a few more men to spare, but I don't know it that would change much.

But the most important thing is: Without a weak target like Italy though which they could bring the fight to their enemy, Britain would have nothing to do. If Britain decides to hold on, and is supported by the United States, then Germany would still declare war on the US. The Torch Landings would still happen, but instead of proceeding to Sicily, they would land in Southern France next.

Goddamn. There's so much to consider that I don't know how to format it all neatly. And it starts to hurt my brain. I hope this is shitty enough for this shitty alternate history thread.
 
Hearing a Twitter rumor that the Pentagon raided operational coffers to send to Ukraine. Might be bullshit, but given the stupidity around Ukraine...
 

1708415871757.png1708415897874.png

Here's a Youtube short of a guy asking "What if the roman empire never fell?". He goes on to rehash the dark ages myth , and says that if the western roman empire never collapsed politically then we'd be on the moon before 1000 A.D.

The comments section ripped him a new asshole though which was nice to see.
 
And we're back, once again, to that obsession of progressives; anti-Confederate virtue signaling! (Why do they put such peculiar fervor into the denunciation of a tyranny a century and a half dead? Why are they so invested in the litigation of issues already settled in their favor? Those were rhetorical by the way; we all know that it is because it is the doctrinal compulsion of the woke to take up the burden of their ancestors' sins.) Tonight we have an alternatehistory.com timeline: "Until Every Drop of Blood Is Paid: A More Radical American Civil War". (Please note that it has a TvTropes page because of course it does.)

This asks the question of the site's constituents: what if the Civil War and the historical developments subsequent went exactly as we wish they had, and the freed Negroes had been, in our conception, duly elevated in their station?

The actual answer to this question is provided by A. the results of actual ethnic-grievance politics from Reconstruction to the present, and B. pertinent observation of modern South Africa, but the website's sundry denizens suppose the development of events thus would produce a superior society free of the sin of racism.

Here's a good sample, for your inspection: the thread's idea of how Gone with the Wind would turn out under these circumstances.
(Page 418 of the thread, for those curious)

Planter class character: They stole our birthright.
Scarlett: They only thing they did was put us in our place.
Planter Class character: Scarlett...
Scarlett: If there's one thing I've learned over the years is that before the war and Reconstruction is that we Southerners lived in this bubble, we took, we fed ourselfs, we thought we were superior to everybody just because we had land and we owned other human beings?
Planter Class character: Human beings?
Scarlett: I've grown over the years, I've learned, I've watched. I'm not the same spoiled girl I was back in 1860. If anything I'm a better person than I was in that time. My husband Rhett had made me a better person, Mammy has made me a better person, the old south is gone and good riddance I say.
Planter class character: What happened to you Scarlett?
Scarlett: Like I said I grew up, I live in the present. But you and your ilk live in the past and that is why you will never succeede.
Planter Class Charcter: You are no lady.
Scarlett: Frankly my good man, I don't very much give a damn.

Can you imagine any Southerner, immediately after the Civil War, speaking like this or submitting to this White-guilt doctrine (regardless of its being a more or less justified in this specific context)? The fine folks at alternatehistory.com can, because they have no apparent conception of the Southern personal honor culture that abhors such submission to shame and degradation. My god, it's in the lyrics of "The Bonnie Blue Flag" (third line of the last verse): "And rather than submit to shame, to die we would prefer,". This incredible failure to comprehend the culture of the South, or the belief systems of any of their opponents, drives me to continual agitation with the Left.
 
Those were rhetorical by the way; we all know that it is because it is the doctrinal compulsion of the woke to take up the burden of their ancestors' sins.
This incredible failure to comprehend the culture of the South, or the belief systems of any of their opponents, drives me to continual agitation with the Left.

Like you said, they don't understand their enemies and simply assume they are all evil. For all their cries of empathy and emotion they are blind and cannot place themselves in the shoes of others. And because of the way that AH.com has been run by Ian & gang anyone who might point out that such absurd characterizations are insane, ahistorical, strawmen and anachronistic has either been driven away from the site or cannot speak up for fear of being banned.
 
Technically a double post but I just came across this and holy shit they made a game about "le funny ISOT modern army curb stomps ancient army"


If this ends up being just 20% as cool as the trailer makes it look it will be a goddamn masterpiece.
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: byuuWasTaken
Back