New Reality Seeds

[Astromancer]

Originally Posted by awesomenessofme1

If you want a justification for Centrum here, then you could just go with them not wanting a nationalistic rivalry between the two largest English-speaking world powers. Ideally, they'd be bringing them closer together, ideally to the point of outright union, not pushing them apart.

That makes so much sense I'm ashamed I didn't think of it. Thank you, you are awesome.

[GreatWyrmGold]

Originally Posted by johndallman

If you're using real nuclear physics, this idea has a pretty bad problem. It was created by people who didn't understand crucial details.

Considering that Einstein was involved in the idea (at least looking over it and giving it his signature), I think it's more likely that the person explaining it doesn't understand crucial details and made a mistake in repeating the idea. Because I'm not a nuclear physicist and didn't bother to double-check any of the details before writing that explanation.

Originally Posted by Astromancer

[...]

The short humiliating naval war could totally derail the Anglo-American rapprochement of the later 19th century. Centrum and Homeline both don't want the risk of another Reich parallel. So, how to heal Britain's wounded pride and an American sense that they delivered God's just wrath on a foolish nation?

Basically, a tricky delicate espionage and diplomacy game. Mainly carried on in settings with overrefined social customs and mores.

Sounds like fun...but not with or for any of the players I actually know.

Originally Posted by awesomenessofme1

I don't remember there ever being any indication that Centrum cares about Reich parallels. In fact, there's a passage in the IW book where they are barely even aware of the concept and see it as a useful tool against Homeline.

Isn't there one Reich parallel which figured out how to go between worlds and is trying to Reich everything? Nobody wants competition.

———

You know what? With all the talk about Reichs over the background noise of "Nazi victory" parallel histories being so common, I kinda want to write a world where the Nazis lose. Earlier, I mean.

After the Great War, Germany suffered a sort of national trauma, due to a combination of morale, economic issues, and general post-devastating-continental-war malaise. Times like this are ripe for social change, and often not for the better. Exhibit A is, of course, what happened in our Germany at this time. But there are other ways that this social pressure could have gone.

In our timeline, German fascists co-opted the rhetoric of economic leftists (hence "National Socialists") before throwing proponents for such economic ideals in prisons and death camps, because oh yeah Nazis are kinda mean. Let's imagine another timeline where a faction of German Communists broke a bit with tradition to try and make their positions more politically appealing. Maybe steal some fascist scapegoating tactics (only focus on the bourgeoise instead of ethnic minorities), maybe add some traditional German symbols, that sort of thing. Instead of putting a socialist mask on fascism, put a nationalist mask on communism.

Nazi Germany was not the overwhelming behemoth that alt-history likes to portray it as, but it was arguably the most powerful nation in Europe. (The same argument could be made for the UK, USSR, and probably France, but "power" is an awfully vague term.) Having it turn Communist would have been alarming to basically everyone in the Western world. It wouldn't surprise me if some of the more fascist-sympathising and/or Commie-hating nations were pushed headlong into fascism from the advancing tide of Communism; I know enough about my homeland's history to suspect that the USA would probably be among the fascist or fascist-aligned powers, but I can't guess for anyone else.

Anyways, war is inevitable; the world wasn't terribly stable after the Great War, and neither the Great Depression nor the great shift of global power towards Communism would make it more stable. One scenario that comes to mind is Japan attacking China (which nobody outside Asia cares about, because it's just two Asian countries going at it), and then Japan moves on to take resources in Siberia, which starts a war between Japan's fascist allies and the USSR's Communist allies.

I'm already worried about catching flak for saying that early-20th-century America was fascist-ey enough to join Mussolini and Hirohito, and I don't want to amplify that flak by saying similar things about countries I'm less knowledgeable about, so I'll leave it there. The result of this war depends strongly on what countries go on which side, and how well they work together.
It would be reductive to say that the Axis lost WW2 because their cooperation wasn't as effective as the Allies', or to say that the Allies won because they collectively had more resources at their disposal than the Axis...but neither explanation is completely wrong, either.

[Astromancer]

Originally Posted by GreatWyrmGold

I'm already worried about catching flak for saying that early-20th-century America was fascist-ey enough to join Mussolini and Hirohito, and I don't want to amplify that flak by saying similar things about countries I'm less knowledgeable about, so I'll leave it there. The result of this war depends strongly on what countries go on which side, and how well they work together.
It would be reductive to say that the Axis lost WW2 because their cooperation wasn't as effective as the Allies', or to say that the Allies won because they collectively had more resources at their disposal than the Axis...but neither explanation is completely wrong, either.

Yes Fascism had appeal in the late 20's early 30's world wide, and that includes the USA. The Ku Klux Klan came as close as any Fascist group has to being a national party. I would suggest that many of the things that made them popular (mainly that they were a male fraternal organization that "seemed" to get things done) ultimately prevented them from being a political party and a sustained force. Communism, which was far more popular than most folks think, actually tripped up over similar things. Long story short, the Ku Kluxers often acted like petty crooks and they often obviously were petty violent crooks, and the Communists also constantly acted like petty crooks. To get a Fascist or Communist America you need Fascists or Communists that don't act like crooks. As most Fascists seem in fact to be crooks, it's easier to work with Communists.

Frankly, I'd try altering something like Technocracy or a similar "Third Way" movement and have them go Fascist after getting power.

[Astromancer]

Try this one...

On this Q5 Low Manna world Superheroes have shown up in the mid 1950's.. As in some other supers worlds America seems to have all the superheroes. Even the ones who have origins elsewhere tend to go live in America. Like DC Silver Age comics the supers are spread all over the USA, but are oddly absent outside the USA. This disturbs the Russians, badly.

One powerful young wizardess has started looking for places for people to go if there's a nuclear war, which given this world is going through the Cuban Missile Crisis feels likely. All of this would be of little interest except the local Zatanna equivalent seems to have discovered Homeline. And she has brought a group of powerful supers to ask Infinity for help.

They want some empty Earths and an alliance. They'll trade want they need to except the freedom of their people. The magicians of this world have already placed a magical ban on unauthorized world-jumping so a blitz attack is out of the question.

The world these forks come from has already been changed by Supers. The West and Japan are TL7+1 societies (America and Canada fully, the others are rapidly catching up) and advanced in Spaceflight. Mages are rare, but powerful. The power levels for the supers seem to resemble 1960's Marvel Comics, but those included Dr. Strange, Magneto, and the Silver Surfer.

Meanwhile their world's USSR is nearly at critical.

[Astromancer]

In this Q6 world the Popes after the year 1500 are no longer the same as on Homeline. The why isn't known. However, once Luther put up his 95 Theses, the Pope decided he was worth hearing out. The local year is 1524, Luther and Hudrych Zwingli (a Swiss reformer and major influence on the Church of England) are leading a major council to reform the Church. Centrum is upset, they worry that without the Catholic/Protestant struggle Britain might remain a minor and basically trivial power without an empire. They're determined to disrupt the council. Meanwhile, the Cabal is sneaking around and they seem to block some Certrum moves and aid others. What are they up to?

Basically, spies and swashers in Renaissance Italy.

[Astromancer]

On this Q6 low manna world functional magic begins to be codified in the late 15th century. However mages are rare and governments tend to clamp down on serious knowledge of spells and magic. In most ways society is unchanged until 1865 when an African American Mage prevents John Wilkes Booth from killing Lincoln. Reconstruction still goes poorly, but far less disastrously. With Lincoln rather than Andrew Johnson in office between 1865 and 1869, Grant, whose presidency is being reassessed and given more respect, starts from a much better place.

America, because of greater opportunities for African Americans and other non-Whites (it's better, much better, but not good) brings non-European magics into the analysis of Thaumatology and makes major strides. By 1890 America has a means to detect potential Mages as young as five years old.

Centrum doesn't like this more radical free-wheeling America and sees its rapid growth and technological, scientific, thaumalogical, and artistic ferment as scary. This parallel's USA is already TL6 and moving fast. This society has made Difference Engines work. Constitutional reforms have made the House of Representatives proportionally elected and the Senate is both elected by the people and elected by Ranked Voting. The constitutional amendment to abolish the Electoral college and have the presidency decided by popular vote using ranked voting looks likely to pass. This radical and vibrant America is facing a more stagnant and reactionary Europe who people's look at America with frank envy and ask pointed question about their own societies. Centrum sees a collapse of empires as the likely outcome.

Centrum, Homeline, and the Cabal all see this world as very likely to figure out the Secret for themselves and are both trying to skim and scam occult knowledge and deflect serious studies that might go in the wrong directions.

[Astromancer]

Try this one...

Spies in the Cabal report that events on a Q4 parallel going through the year 1588 have them freaked out. When Homeline investigates these events they're shocked. About three weeks after the events at Tilbury Camp John Dee introduces Edward Kelley to the Queen. Only the Cabalists report this isn't the real Edward Kelley (the Cabal seems to think he's one of the Tuatha De Danann in disguise). Dee and "Kelley" get Elizabeth to drink a Cordial. By November 17 the queen appears to be in her early 20's. Sightings of Angels proclaiming that "God has favored England both with the Armada's defeat and the Queen's rejuvenation" are witnessed all over Europe. To add to the strangeness, none of the Armada's ships have survived. Many, known to be among those surviving most often in other parallels, are taken by Rogue Waves in sight of port.

Someone is trying to change history, but why? As Frances Yates pointed out in Astraea: The Imperial Theme in the Sixteenth Century plenty of people saw Elizabeth Tudor as uncanny. Both Protestants and Catholics seriously asked if she was going to be the one to bring in the Millennial Kingdom. Does someone want to create a Millennial Kingdom to order?

[Anders]

Originally Posted by GreatWyrmGold

You know what? With all the talk about Reichs over the background noise of "Nazi victory" parallel histories being so common, I kinda want to write a world where the Nazis lose. Earlier, I mean.

One way to have the Germans lose the war earlier is to have the attack on France fail. It was a huge gamble - Churchill suspected that an attack could come through the Ardennes and wanted the French to put more emphasis on defense in that sector. Contrary to modern myth, the French soldiers fought very bravely, but their commanders were incompetent. A more competent French leadership could have turned the Western Front into a quagmire á la World War One. And then Stalin sweeps in from the East...

[johndallman]

Originally Posted by Anders

Contrary to modern myth, the French soldiers fought very bravely, but their commanders were incompetent. A more competent French leadership could have turned the Western Front into a quagmire á la World War One.

The competence would have had to be applied at least a decade earlier. Here's a review I wrote of The Seeds of Disaster: The Development of French Army Doctrine, 1919-39, by Robert A. Doughty:

The title sums it up: this is how the French built themselves an army doctrine, equipment and training that failed completely in 1940. That is an example of something that the French seem inclined towards: forming a core idea, building everything around that, and sticking to it, because it's their idea.

In this case, the idea was that all Frenchmen would serve in an army that was an expression of the nation. That sounds good, but a lot of things that were needed to make that work were lacking.

NCOs and officers need more training and experience than privates. The French had some long-term professionals in the army, but they didn't want to have very many. So the first step in mobilisation was that all the units which were already active at mobilisation time would split themselves into three parts, be filled up with reservists and would then be operational. Of course, that didn't work. Nobody knew anybody, nor had any trust in them. If the Germans had been able to invade in late 1939, the French would have done even worse. By spring 1940, the units had at least integrated themselves and were able to follow their orders. That's the next problem.

Because of the limited training, and the shortage of professionals, as well as the experience of learning how to fight WWI at its end, their doctrine was very much built around methodical fighting. That had a front line of infantry, supported by lots of artillery. The artillery wasn't very mobile, so infantry attacks could not advance very far before the artillery had to stop firing and start moving. Artillery movement has to happen in overlapping phases, so that some of the guns are always available. It gets pretty slow, and the officers were extensively training in managing this, but not very much in anything else.

They were sure that tanks could be important, but each branch did its own thing with vehicles. The infantry built tanks that were intended to accompany infantry attacks, essentially as mobile strong points. The cavalry were well aware that horses were obsolete on the battlefield, and recognised that vehicles could let cavalry thinking be useful again. But they didn't have much budget, and nobody else was listening to them. Armoured divisions were eventually formed, when the Germans showed in Poland that they were useful, but the French were still figuring them out when it all became a moot point.

But the biggest problem was the high command. The French government never really trusted their army - it wasn't that long since Napoleon - and created a command structure where the generals could not do very much, because the civilian ministers chaired the committees with power. Then they appointed ministers who left everything to the military, not realising that military people like to follow rules. The outcome of this was that existing doctrine was endlessly re-affirmed and elaborated, not challenged or reconsidered.

They succeeded in building a system where people's moral feelings and sense of duty retarded military development. It would be hard to do this so well deliberately.

[Prince Charon]

Originally Posted by johndallman

The competence would have had to be applied at least a decade earlier.

Would the Crash of '29 have been a plausible point for the leadership to get shaken up in a way that could increase competence?