Zyobot
Fleet admiral
Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
Posts: 17,352 
Likes: 7,260
|
Post by Zyobot on Jun 1, 2023 17:57:27 GMT
'Ba'athist Iraq Survives To The Present'.
Obviously, this assumes no Iraq War as a start. Even if he remains in power, though, Saddam's age would catch up to him and might end in a succession crisis once he croaks, considering how ferocious his sons were and what tends to happen whenever the top guy's gone for good.
|
|
miletus12
Squadron vice admiral
To get yourself lost, just follow the signs.
Posts: 7,470 
Likes: 4,295
|
Post by miletus12 on Jun 1, 2023 18:32:24 GMT
'Ba'athist Iraq Survives To The Present'. Obviously, this assumes no Iraq War as a start. Even if he remains in power, though, Saddam's age would catch up to him and might end in a succession crisis once he croaks, considering how ferocious his sons were and what tends to happen whenever the top guy's gone for good. It is called "fratricide". |
|
Zyobot
Fleet admiral
Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
Posts: 17,352
Likes: 7,260
|
Post by Zyobot on Jun 1, 2023 21:49:34 GMT
'Ba'athist Iraq Survives To The Present'. Obviously, this assumes no Iraq War as a start. Even if he remains in power, though, Saddam's age would catch up to him and might end in a succession crisis once he croaks, considering how ferocious his sons were and what tends to happen whenever the top guy's gone for good. It is called "fratricide". Yeah, I know, because both of Saddam's sons were ferocious maniacs raised as the sons of a brutal Middle Eastern strongman. That said, while Qusay seems to have been somewhat pragmatic and "restrained", Uday was dangerously deranged and unstable — and thus, the most likely of the two to "unexpectedly" join his old man in the grave shortly thereafter in a best-case scenario. In that event, I think Qusay is the default successor, and would probably govern more like Bashar al-Assad than an Arab Pol Pot. Alternatively, maybe the succession crisis devolves into an Iraqi Civil War, which could very well be nastier than even OTL Iraq War was...  |
|
|
|
Post by TheRomanSlayer on Jun 2, 2023 0:13:07 GMT
"PC: British Colonial Policy in a Mosley-led BUF Dictatorship" I'm not exactly sure what was the actual racial policy that the notorious British Union of Fascists had, but do you think that a BUF-ruled Britain would have been a nightmare for it's colonies and dominions? More precisely, would Mosley have been more brutal in his dealings with the British Raj?
I would say it depends on how much Mosley actually believed the racist side of the BS he was pushing. If he does and assuming that for some reason WWII is averted - which would be a big assumption - its going to be very nasty in places like India, at least until the Mosley regime collapses. Might lead to faster de-colonization elsewhere in the empire as a result but whether that would be good or bad for assorted areas would depend on events.
I could see Mosley promoting someone like General Reginald Dyer (the guy who played a role in the Amritsar Massacre) to a top position because he liked his ruthlessness. Heck, I would imagine the more unsavoury of the Mitford sisters given political roles, with Unity being a quasi-diplomat and Diana being the British fusion of Eva Braun and Soong Mei Ling. In this case though, an absence of WWII would probably be replaced with a larger conflict with the Soviet Union, which may very well end with a Soviet defeat, especially if the Royal Navy would play a major role in landings aimed at the Soviet coast lines. On the other hand though, would Mosley also call for reconquering the USA? I feel that might be his own deluded equivalent of Hitler's desire and delusion of lebensraum. |
|
miletus12
Squadron vice admiral
To get yourself lost, just follow the signs.
Posts: 7,470
Likes: 4,295
|
Post by miletus12 on Jun 2, 2023 2:21:25 GMT
Bashar al-Assad than an Arab Pol Pot. I would like to see someone create a thread comparing the two mass murdering butchers. Pol Pot was a deranged sociopath and cultist. I am not sure how to describe Bashar al Assad other than as a kind of Himmler; in Assad's specific case an ophthalmologist turned into a fascist instead of a chicken farmer like Himmler. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,861
Likes: 13,249
|
Post by stevep on Jun 2, 2023 12:51:41 GMT
I would say it depends on how much Mosley actually believed the racist side of the BS he was pushing. If he does and assuming that for some reason WWII is averted - which would be a big assumption - its going to be very nasty in places like India, at least until the Mosley regime collapses. Might lead to faster de-colonization elsewhere in the empire as a result but whether that would be good or bad for assorted areas would depend on events.
I could see Mosley promoting someone like General Reginald Dyer (the guy who played a role in the Amritsar Massacre) to a top position because he liked his ruthlessness. Heck, I would imagine the more unsavoury of the Mitford sisters given political roles, with Unity being a quasi-diplomat and Diana being the British fusion of Eva Braun and Soong Mei Ling. In this case though, an absence of WWII would probably be replaced with a larger conflict with the Soviet Union, which may very well end with a Soviet defeat, especially if the Royal Navy would play a major role in landings aimed at the Soviet coast lines. On the other hand though, would Mosley also call for reconquering the USA? I feel that might be his own deluded equivalent of Hitler's desire and delusion of lebensraum.
Well Dyer died in 1927 so that's not going to happen. Could seek someone similar although the reaction against the reports of the massacre would make that more difficult, along with the level of self-government that India already had by ~1935-40 whenever Mosley gains power.
Not sure about a war with the Soviets as a lot would depend on what's happened around the world. Its going to be very difficult for the Soviets to project power that far from their base, over very difficult terrain unless - which is possible but unlikely - Mosley really loses the plot and has made British rule really unpopular in India.
I don't think Mosley would consider anything like trying to 'reclaim' the US colonies as their way too large and powerful at this stage. There's a possibility of war if the US starts one, and Canada's position is going to be difficult in a world with a fascist Britain but I would still say its unlikely unless the US joins the general insanity of this world.
|
|
miletus12
Squadron vice admiral
To get yourself lost, just follow the signs.
Posts: 7,470
Likes: 4,295
|
Post by miletus12 on Jun 2, 2023 13:04:03 GMT
I don't think Mosley would consider anything like trying to 'reclaim' the US colonies as their way too large and powerful at this stage. There's a possibility of war if the US starts one, and Canada's position is going to be difficult in a world with a fascist Britain but I would still say its unlikely unless the US joins the general insanity of this world.
1. FDR is not that stupid. 2. R.B. Bennett and William King were not that stupid either. Expect them to join together with FDR in a "Let's get Mosley" coalition. There is nothing to be gained by a North American war when both nations have an ax to grind with a fascist London. |
|
|
|
Post by TheRomanSlayer on Jun 2, 2023 20:34:32 GMT
I don't think Mosley would consider anything like trying to 'reclaim' the US colonies as their way too large and powerful at this stage. There's a possibility of war if the US starts one, and Canada's position is going to be difficult in a world with a fascist Britain but I would still say its unlikely unless the US joins the general insanity of this world.
1. FDR is not that stupid. 2. R.B. Bennett and William King were not that stupid either. Expect them to join together with FDR in a "Let's get Mosley" coalition. There is nothing to be gained by a North American war when both nations have an ax to grind with a fascist London. That actually reminds me, that could be a scenario for an alternate history map project that I may be able to do, titled How to Destroy Your Own Empire in Three Simple Steps. One other thing too would be that the Westminster Statute of 1931 may or may not happen with Mosley in power. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,861
Likes: 13,249
|
Post by stevep on Jun 2, 2023 20:56:31 GMT
I don't think Mosley would consider anything like trying to 'reclaim' the US colonies as their way too large and powerful at this stage. There's a possibility of war if the US starts one, and Canada's position is going to be difficult in a world with a fascist Britain but I would still say its unlikely unless the US joins the general insanity of this world.
1. FDR is not that stupid. 2. R.B. Bennett and William King were not that stupid either. Expect them to join together with FDR in a "Let's get Mosley" coalition. There is nothing to be gained by a North American war when both nations have an ax to grind with a fascist London. 1) Well its bloody unlikely that Mosley could ever gain power in OTL. Plus one effect could be that FDR doesn't come to power for some reason. Which could make for a radically different US. However as I said its unlikely the US would do something like that unless you got a complete nutter in charge.
2) Given the different circumstances while the Canadians would be likely to want to liberate a fascist ruled Britain Roosevelt is probably going to be a lot less interested depending on events elsewhere.
|
|
|
|
Post by Max Sinister on Jun 2, 2023 23:43:48 GMT
Bashar al-Assad than an Arab Pol Pot. I would like to see someone create a thread comparing the two mass murdering butchers. Pol Pot was a deranged sociopath and cultist. I am not sure how to describe Bashar al Assad other than as a kind of Himmler; in Assad's specific case an ophthalmologist turned into a fascist instead of a chicken farmer like Himmler.
Well, Bashar was the "spare". If his older brother hadn't been assassinated, he could've stayed an ophtalmologist as he wanted to and would end up as a footnote of history, like Paula Hitler or so.
|
|
Zyobot
Fleet admiral
Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
Posts: 17,352
Likes: 7,260
|
Post by Zyobot on Jun 3, 2023 0:40:34 GMT
Bashar al-Assad than an Arab Pol Pot. I would like to see someone create a thread comparing the two mass murdering butchers. Pol Pot was a deranged sociopath and cultist. I am not sure how to describe Bashar al Assad other than as a kind of Himmler; in Assad's specific case an ophthalmologist turned into a fascist instead of a chicken farmer like Himmler. Not sure why you think that? He’s a POS dictator for sure, but Pol Pot unleashed Year Zero to forcibly turn Cambodia back to the Angkor Wat days and wiped out a quarter of his own people in four years. As far as I know, Al-Assad hasn’t done anything like that, with Syria’s crappy state due to the civil war currently raging instead of some ax-crazy primitivist who shot people for wearing glasses or speaking a foreign language. Back on-topic: I noticed you selectively quoted only the comparison I made — and didn’t engage with my larger question about what a persisting Ba’athist Iraq would look like. Due to Saddam’s age eventually catching up with him and his already-ferocious sons growing to despise each other, I think a succession crisis that ends in Uday’s death and Ousay’s ascendancy is the best-case scenario… and an Iraqi Civil War as the worst-case, which probably would resemble OTL Syria and also invite intervention from self-interested foreign powers who back one of various factions fighting to either keep power or carve out their own little haven once Saddam croaks. |
|
miletus12
Squadron vice admiral
To get yourself lost, just follow the signs.
Posts: 7,470
Likes: 4,295
|
Post by miletus12 on Jun 3, 2023 2:49:01 GMT
I would like to see someone create a thread comparing the two mass murdering butchers. Pol Pot was a deranged sociopath and cultist. I am not sure how to describe Bashar al Assad other than as a kind of Himmler; in Assad's specific case an ophthalmologist turned into a fascist instead of a chicken farmer like Himmler. He’s a POS dictator for sure, but Pol Pot unleashed Year Zero to forcibly turn Cambodia back to the Angkor Wat days and wiped out a quarter of his own people in four years. As far as I know, Al-Assad hasn’t done anything like that, with Syria’s crappy state due to the civil war currently raging instead of some ax-crazy primitivist who shot people for wearing glasses or speaking a foreign language. Back on-topic: I noticed you selectively quoted only the comparison I made — and didn’t engage with my larger question about what a persisting Ba’athist Iraq would look like. Due to Saddam’s age eventually catching up with him and his already-ferocious sons growing to despise each other, I think a succession crisis that ends in Uday’s death and Ousay’s ascendancy is the best-case scenario… and an Iraqi Civil War as the worst-case, which probably would resemble OTL Syria and also invite intervention from self-interested foreign powers who back one of various factions fighting to either keep power or carve out their own little haven once Saddam croaks. 1. Look at this experiment. You have to take into consideration that the author is an idiot. The experiment actually proved how easy it was for human beings in general to fall into conformist patterns of mob behavior. All that was required was someone be given unquestioned authority, who was: a. not qualified to lead, and who had no moral compass whatsoever. b. not restrained by a system of checks and balances.  2. Let me quote what I considered was pertinent here from the citation I supplied: Alarm bells should have gone off in a moral person, who was self-regulated; to end the dangerous experiment and instruct the class in methods of critical thinking of how to "non-conform" to the group-mind they had been turned into, Z. The teacher did not do that, did he? I am a most unpleasant person in real life, because I "non-conform". I question everything and I naturally oppose, because it is my contention that freedom and moral right, which are inseparable, require nonconformity from a sizeable section of the population of humanity in general to prevent the rest of the go-along-to-get-along mass of us from turning into non-thinking-numbed-empathy animals. Our Founding Fathers, the better ones, knew this truth about human beings. An American should be non-conformist. It is how our system was designed. ============================================ Pol Pot was a racist and a powermad individual who used a "religion" (communism), and a willing minority of loyalists to enslave and terrorize a nation. The result was Ak-47 armed death squads who murdered the designated "enemies of the state" as defined by Pol Pot. Bashar al Assad was a racist and a powermad individual who used a "religion" (Bath'ism) and a willing minority of loyalists to enslave and terrorize a nation. The result was security forces bug-sprayed with nerve gas, the designated "enemies of the state" as defined by Bashar al Assad. Show me the difference. Bath'ist Iraq would have looked exactly like what we found and smashed, Z. (^^^) It was actually the morally right thing to do to smash it into competing self-interest group factions, who check and balance each other. It just went "Confederate" on us, when we overstayed our welcome. Because once we left, as bad as it is today, it is still infinitely better than what we found. You remember Saddam Hussein's loyalists from his minority tribe, loyal to him, which was how he misruled Iraq, bug-sprayed the Kurdish people? |
|
miletus12
Squadron vice admiral
To get yourself lost, just follow the signs.
Posts: 7,470
Likes: 4,295
|
Post by miletus12 on Jun 3, 2023 3:04:34 GMT
2) Given the different circumstances while the Canadians would be likely to want to liberate a fascist ruled Britain Roosevelt is probably going to be a lot less interested depending on events elsewhere. When FDR had a chance to push decolonization, what happened? |
|
Zyobot
Fleet admiral
Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
Posts: 17,352
Likes: 7,260
|
Post by Zyobot on Jun 3, 2023 4:00:30 GMT
Not sure why you think that?He’s a POS dictator for sure, but Pol Pot unleashed Year Zero to forcibly turn Cambodia back to the Angkor Wat days and wiped out a quarter of his own people in four years. As far as I know, Al-Assad hasn’t done anything like that, with Syria’s crappy state due to the civil war currently raging instead of some ax-crazy primitivist who shot people for wearing glasses or speaking a foreign language. Back on-topic: I noticed you selectively quoted only the comparison I made — and didn’t engage with my larger question about what a persisting Ba’athist Iraq would look like. Due to Saddam’s age eventually catching up with him and his already-ferocious sons growing to despise each other, I think a succession crisis that ends in Uday’s death and Ousay’s ascendancy is the best-case scenario… and an Iraqi Civil War as the worst-case, which probably would resemble OTL Syria and also invite intervention from self-interested foreign powers who back one of various factions fighting to either keep power or carve out their own little haven once Saddam croaks. 1. Look at this experiment. You have to take into consideration that the author is an idiot. The experiment actually proved how easy it was for human beings in general to fall into conformist patterns of mob behavior. All that was required was someone be given unquestioned authority, who was: a. not qualified to lead, and who had no moral compass whatsoever. b. not restrained by a system of checks and balances. 2. Let me quote what I considered was pertinent here from the citation I supplied: Alarm bells should have gone off in a moral person, who was self-regulated; to end the dangerous experiment and instruct the class in methods of critical thinking of how to "non-conform" to the group-mind they had been turned into, Z. The teacher did not do that, did he? I am a most unpleasant person in real life, because I "non-conform". I question everything and I naturally oppose, because it is my contention that freedom and moral right, which are inseparable, require nonconformity from a sizeable section of the population of humanity in general to prevent the rest of the go-along-to-get-along mass of us from turning into non-thinking-numbed-empathy animals. Our Founding Fathers, the better ones, knew this truth about human beings. An American should be non-conformist. It is how our system was designed. ============================================ Pol Pot was a racist and a powermad individual who used a "religion" (communism), and a willing minority of loyalists to enslave and terrorize a nation. The result was Ak-47 armed death squads who murdered the designated "enemies of the state" as defined by Pol Pot. Bashar al Assad was a racist and a powermad individual who used a "religion" (Bath'ism) and a willing minority of loyalists to enslave and terrorize a nation. The result was security forces bug-sprayed with nerve gas, the designated "enemies of the state" as defined by Bashar al Assad. Show me the difference. Bath'ist Iraq would have looked exactly like what we found and smashed, Z. (^^^) It was actually the morally right thing to do to smash it into competing self-interest group factions, who check and balance each other. It just went "Confederate" on us, when we overstayed our welcome. Because once we left, as bad as it is today, it is still infinitely better than what we found. You remember Saddam Hussein's loyalists from his minority tribe, loyal to him, which was how he misruled Iraq, bug-sprayed the Kurdish people? Honestly, I'd say your references actually underscore what I said about Pol Pot. To recapitulate, the difference is the severity to which Pol Pot enslaved and terrorized his nation (a descriptor that I 1000 percent agree with, on him and Assad both). Because again, unlike Assad, Pol Pot did the enslaving and terrorizing to an even worse degree by killing 21 percent of his own population and literally abolishing money, property, religion, and high technology throughout Cambodia — all without an internal civil war raging! You want to call Assad a "racist and power-mad individual"... then consider me in full and absolute agreement. Pol Pot was both that, and a bloodthirsty Luddite who purged more of his own people per capita than anyone else I can think of — including Hitler. As for the other items in your reply: Listen, I didn't come to talk current politics (via you invoking Trump and Biden here). Moreover, even disregarding that, you also seem to jump all over the place. First, by citing a behavioral experiment, then leaping to present-day American politicians, then going on about all the foresight the Founders had, then capping it off with how ATL Iraq would've been the same as IOTL. Frankly, it gets a bit old when you keep shoehorning your usual fixations into discussions about non-American matters and trumpet your own political views, neither of which I'm happy to engage with — especially given how you repeatedly fixate on them. 👎 |
|
miletus12
Squadron vice admiral
To get yourself lost, just follow the signs.
Posts: 7,470
Likes: 4,295
|
Post by miletus12 on Jun 3, 2023 6:11:08 GMT
than anyone else I can think of Try Stalin. Pot had a smaller population base and had a higher %, but killing off 33 million in a population of 170 million or 19.4 % or thereabouts is kind of up there. Concrete, familiar, recent examples of why America is historically built the way it is. You want Franklin Buchanan and Woodrow Wilson? You get power mad idiots elected, you need checks and balances to contain them. Linear thought. You begin with why human beings allow idiots to govern them by showing a lab-rat example of the group-mind at work. Then you show an American example of current note, since the big global fear at the moment is that Americans will turn into nutters. Then you explain the antidote to that possibility and historically cite who invented the antidote. Then you reach back to show how Syria, Cambodia and Iraq had the same lack of checks and balances in their cases to allow three similar idiots to rise unchecked to power along with the similar consequences of their accession being war, racism, and attempted genocide. And in the case of Cambodia there was a civil war, Z. Pot won it. It seems that in all-out revolutions or power struggles, with no checks and balances traditions, that is usually what happens. The best organized gangster wins and then applies his nutty bigoted enemies to be killed list as he goes on a slaughter spree. Just ask the Kurds. |
|
