New Reality Seeds

[David Johnston2]

There's a big problem with that if the Poles look at a map and realize that since Germany has no border with Russia, if it wants Russian land it's going to need to take over Poland. In order to sell that alliance the Germans have to present the Poles with a plausible objective for the war that will tell them that Germany has something to gain from it that won't be at the expense of Poland.

What they would need is for the Russians to attack Poland so that the Germans can pretend that their goal is to preserve Poland as a buffer state, possibly offering to capture part of Russia and trade it for the part of Germany that Poland got after World War I.

Even then it's a big loss to Germany if they don't get the Skoda works which were a big boost to their tank production.

[ericthered]

If you want to emphasize a reasoned, rational Germany bent on dominating eastern europe, it might be worth looking at the winter war. Germany has a lot better potential for sea power than Russia does, at least on the Baltic. Making the soviets feel safe about invading the baltic states and then supporting them in a war has some potential. The west would probably be happy about such a war: they really didn't want to fight, and fears of the soviets were not entirely unreasonable. They certainly won't force themselves into such a war, the spirit of the times being what it was.



Such an action probably isn't possible in the third Reich, but an alternate right wing Germany could probably pull it off. The Nazis got a lot of support from philosophical allies who'd just as happily back someone else preaching militarism, anti-communism, and the stab in the back story.

[Astromancer]

Originally Posted by ericthered

Such an action probably isn't possible in the third Reich, but an alternate right wing Germany could probably pull it off. The Nazis got a lot of support from philosophical allies who'd just as happily back someone else preaching militarism, anti-communism, and the stab in the back story.

I don't say this world is likely, just interesting. On top of that it's a very dangerous and tricky problem for anyone who wants to limit the bloodshed. Although the Russian agitating for shooting Stalin to get him out of the way is getting a respectful hearing on Homeline.

[fchase8]

Originally Posted by Prince Charon

A lot of people include Christianity, Islam, or both out of sheer cultural inertia (it's just sort of... there, without thinking about why), even in timelines where they really should have been butterflied away. Also, some of the people posting in this forum may well be sincere Christians or Muslims, and include it because they think 'God wills it.'

Ezcalli had Christianity (albeit based focused in Western Africa, not Europe), despite a divergence in like 500 B.C. But it also had the same Aztecs as in Homeline history rising, two millennia after the divergence (there was even a sidebar about the extreme inertia and unlikelihood of the parallel).

Given how much Christianity changed after Christ, one could find a bunch of chances for it to diverge (or disappear, like in Roma Aeterna) in any reality, even those with divergence points after 0 A.D. or 33 A.D. Since that doesn't happen that much, there does seem to be some sort of inertia with regards to Christianity.

And perhaps other major world religions, like Islam (which had its own winding path, including splits, after Mohammed's death). Caliph, which diverged strongly with Homeline, has an Islam quite close to Homeline's (the biggest mentioned liturgical difference seemed to be praying to Mecca three times a day, instead of five...).

[malloyd]

Originally Posted by fchase8

Caliph, which diverged strongly with Homeline, has an Islam quite close to Homeline's (the biggest mentioned liturgical difference seemed to be praying to Mecca three times a day, instead of five...).

This *is* a major doctrinal difference, comparable to the Protestant Reformation ditching a bunch of traditional sacraments. It's rooted in much the same sort thing - there are 3 explicit salah in the Qur'an, the other two are traditional - with support in the Hadith, but still, not actually Quranic.

It's worth keeping in mind that it's not always easy for outsiders to *tell* if something is or is not significantly divergent in a religion, because a lot of the stuff that's directly observable, and hence needs to be written up in any playable description, since it's what everyone will see, is ultimately customary (adiaphoral as the religious professionals might label it) while stuff that does count as essential doctrinal difference deeply separating two sects can sometimes be invisible, sometimes even to the non-professional members of said sects.

[AlexanderHowl]

Imagine a timeline where the cross is considered blasphemous by Christians because it was the instrument of Jesus's death and instead uses the chalice as its principle symbol of faith. The cross would become associated with Satanism and any first in scout that sported a cross as a piece of jewelry would face unexpected attention and hostility. Of course, the chalice is also symbolic of the blood of Christ, so the rituals may be bloodier than someone from Homeline might expect.

[PTTG]

I've always enjoyed the idea of Hellenist/Christian syncrytism. The pieces are all there; Iesu was the son of Zeus, many of his teachings are the same (seen as the patron god of forgiveness, etc...)

Lots of fun potentials, I think.

[malloyd]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl

Imagine a timeline where the cross is considered blasphemous by Christians because it was the instrument of Jesus's death and instead uses the chalice as its principle symbol of faith. The cross would become associated with Satanism and any first in scout that sported a cross as a piece of jewelry would face unexpected attention and hostility. Of course, the chalice is also symbolic of the blood of Christ, so the rituals may be bloodier than someone from Homeline might expect.

Historically crucifixes are relatively late. The 9th century AD is about as early as we can push evidence for people carrying them around as jewelry. Indeed the cross itself is barely present in the first 3 centuries of Christian art, and even after that many of the early "examples" are in fact labarum (the chi-rho of Constantine) or have circular bits - "Coptic crosses" pretty clearly derived from the Egyptian ankh, or outright sun wheels. It's actually quite easy to imagine a timeline where it never catches on and nobody would think there was any particular association between crosses and Christ.

[Astromancer]

The first story to feature a Reality Quake was printed in the 1930s. They didn't call it a Reality Quake. The protagonist, a scientist who forsaw the event, and a young lady, who was one of is students at the college he taught at, seem to have crossed to a world of his choice. The others got home alive.

The world after the Reality Quake was different. A vast flock of Passenger Pigeons had popped between worlds. Some cities were missing. I need to both look up the story and do something with the idea.

[Astromancer]

Originally Posted by malloyd

Historically crucifixes are relatively late. The 9th century AD is about as early as we can push evidence for people carrying them around as jewelry. Indeed the cross itself is barely present in the first 3 centuries of Christian art, and even after that many of the early "examples" are in fact labarum (the chi-rho of Constantine) or have circular bits - "Coptic crosses" pretty clearly derived from the Egyptian ankh, or outright sun wheels. It's actually quite easy to imagine a timeline where it never catches on and nobody would think there was any particular association between crosses and Christ.

When an Ankh is used as a Christian symbol it is called a "Crux Ansata." Yeah, I'll check my spelling. Here's a link with the Crux Ansata explained at the top of the second paragraph.