I hate people saying a scenario is “unrealistic” if you asked anyone in 1930 how realistic they thought it would be for Germany to conquer all of Europe in 5 years they would say thats ridiculous
The plausability argument is something I really needed. My friend wanted to make a group in a certain game, which would be set in northwestern Germany. The problem is that he wanted it to have split off from Germany around 2008 and have basically little to no changes. I simply told him, "There is no way this is going to work without me having to either change history or change all of northwestern Germany to Frisians.".
The thing is, what is realistic? 13 British colonies uniting and becoming the strongest nation on earth? A "sandpit" inheriting a declining bit of land on the baltic coast, which would lead to them eventually forming one of the strongest nations in european history?
Second one does sound like fiction. But I would argue that the US was almost destined to be a world power. Geography just plays too much into it. It’s honestly more impressive how European countries conquered the world instead of a civilisation starting in China, India or the US
@@francogiobbimontesanti3826 "Civilization starting in the US"🤣. On a more serious note, I disagree with you. I see it as absolutely possible that the US stagnates, or at least doesn't become as strong as it is today
@@hardbassmonkey Why wouldn’t it make sense? They had corn, beans, plenty of agricultural land, river connecting everything. Plenty of iron and copper literally laying around on the ground. Plenty of trees, no termites (that normally hampers building permanent settlements in tropical areas) etc. it’s so weird how china with a very similar climate to the south had a civilisation but the US didn’t.
@@francogiobbimontesanti3826 I was a little slow on that, you meant the territory of the USA. Well it could be the fact that humans came to the continent of America fairly late. Also, don't forget that the civilization doesn't come overnight. When the Spanish reached Ameriva, the Aztec Empire existed for a mere 500-1000 years if I remember correctly. So yeah, I get your point
@@hardbassmonkey the Aztecs existed for 90 years only. But civilisation in me só America was around for more than 3000 years and over 5500 in Peru. It’s really is just a turned out that way kind of reason for why North America didn’t have a large civilisation.
When creating alternate history, it's about creating a world that is a result of your point of divergence. Just to give a plain example: what if Belgium never existed? It's an idea we can fathom, in a way. But if you then ask the question: what about King Albert I of Belgium? If there was no Belgium, would he have been King of some other country? Would he have been even born? We as Belgians just cannot imagine our history without Albert. For us, that is not realistic, because Albert had a profound influence on our history. But it might as well never have happened. Still, we often are intrigued by the idea of the United Kingdom of the Netherlands enduring. So yeah, I get why alt history is not realism, nor does it require it.
The problem is that when someone tries to create an alt history, they would start to look for ideas and end up seeing OTL facts that would make their scenario “impossible” to exist, being a major mistake that many people make when they're trying to create a alt history. And one of the reasons many people make cliché scenarios is because they are usually the most “likely” to have happened, This is why alternative histories full of divergences like Godspeed: a flame for winter and Pax Britannica are rare, as they are too “unrealistic” for a person who thinks that alt history need to be realistic.
Realism according to JSH: Dividing Europe between catholic and protestants because Germany failed to Anschluss Austria is a realistic scenario. BUT Germany losing WW1 is unrealistic in any alternate history scenario.
By the way, as a Kaiserboo it is my duty to defend Kaiserreich. When Germany got reworked, so did the lore. And they added more depth to the Germany not doing submarine warfare. "In the reworked lore, restricted submarine warfare in accordance with internationally accepted prize laws (already re-launched in 1916) continued regularly after Wilhelm’s decision in January, and surprisingly turned out to be much more successful than the hardliners had anticipated. However, over time, its efficiency began to decrease as Britain was able to adapt via the introduction of increasingly efficient anti-submarine measures. Plus, unlike in the current lore, the British blockade was not lifted in late 1917 with the sinking of an American ship carrying Christmas gifts - Germany had to endure the crippling blockade until the bitter end. Thus, *in 1918, the unrestricted submarine warfare question would once again become a highly relevant matter in Germany’s highest political echelons - more on that later." basically there are reasons as to why it was not continued was because it basically became more and more useless with Englands anti-submarine measures. And Germany doesn't just have unnecessary plot armor as you described, its more like Germany severely struggled to keep going on and managed to barely come out top in the end. Which is also why they don't just annex large chunks of France and Belgium and get to completely puppet Belgium. And only end up with small pieces of territories, like Arlon being given to Luxembourg due to its German speaking presence and parts of Verviers due to its strategic value from Belgium. And only annexing the Western Slopes of the Vosges Mountains and Belfort for defensive purposes due to its mountains, as well as Longwy and the Briey Basin for its steel production from France. Here is the link: www.reddit.com/r/Kaiserreich/comments/17eij25/minor_monday_53_the_germany_rework_and_new_german/?rdt=56826 sorry to be a nerd about all of this, and I'll just put the fries in the bag if you want
I never said Kaiserreich was bad, its just not "Realistic", with the video arguing that realism is pointless to attempt to achieve in alternate history anyway. Thanks for your in depth comment
Unrestricted submarine warfare was mostly suspended in 1915. The decision to resume it was a gamble, the Germans knew it would probably drag in the US, but were hoping that they could defeat France before Americans manage to mobilize and cross the ocean. I don't consider it a stretch to have Germany make the opposite choice, or even just delay making a decision, and then decide against it when Russia checks out and makes Ukrainian grain available, which improves their prospects in a more long-term war.
Thats what i say! While i don't like if realism is completely thrown out the window like Stalin is King of Britain or JFK is the Pope but i dont care if a scenario isnt realistic as long as its interesting
Thank you so much! I was looking for advice on alternate history. People told me how to make alternate history but not how to make 'good' alternate history. This video was perfect. I think fleshed-out scenarios are better than 'realistic' ones.
Having an alternate history scenario end up with the same result as history because it's 'realistic' seems to be coming more and more common, at least on the channels I follow. Thanks for the work you've shared and this video as well.
And it's super boring because then you just watched an empty video that would be better if you just watched a person talking about the original point in the title
I think this would lead to a stronger monarchy because the Magna Carta wouldn’t be signed by king Richard. I could see a republic coming out of the civil war however, maybe Cromwell becomes a leveller?
Okay thats cool and all but I wanna know, whats the difference between the unrealism you described and unrealism like "gERMONY WON BECAUSE MOR TANK!!!1111"
Since Alt Hist is Fiction anything that you can think of that is poor fiction like "Somehow palpatine Returned" (anything new without being foreshadowed) would fall under this unrealistic aspect.
I don’t care about “how realistic it is. Obviously I don’t want France to be destroyed or something crazy like that but I still don’t care about realisticism. I care about an interesting story. In your Bourbon video Napoleon wouldn’t go to the Americas, but I still liked it because it wasn’t our history.
Good video, but at 6:36 some really bad background beeping starts and it hurts to listen to. I think, at least. There’s a slight chance it could just be me
@@LoreDad The Novel of Man in the High Castle is one of my favorite pieces of alternate history for that reason. Didn't even try to make the scenario realistic because Philip knew what he wanted to focus on, the philosophy and ethics of a world where the bad guys won.
What if the boer South African rebellion's succeeded and South Africa became independent or a Colony of the Netherlands again like they we're before the batavian Revolution french Revolution Napoleonic wars beat the British
What is realism? If you told people in the past that some highly taxed british colonies would become the strongest nation in the world, you'd probably be laughed at
If i write alt history i always try to make gofy but posible but posible stuff. Lice in pax Polanica (Polish lithuania big) id aded "Red siberia" as a joke but why woukd they exest? Wdll i say while writing this "yea poland send russian from ukraine just to polisie them" dous it make sense no but it's posible so I add them. Not every alt history nead to be serius wan ad himer prussia? soviet union with election? North korean britan? If you want add them just add some resion
