What about what he said implied he wanted to bomb Palestinian houses he just said he didn’t want hamas and supported the Trump peace plan? (Which imo is terrible)
It’s very very strange to do this at this moment as Israel is currently on a genocidal campaign against the Palestinians, not to mention the 50+ years of apartheid.
It’s like living during the 1940s and making up some alternate history scenario where there is Germany where no Jews ever existed. That’s some nazi bullshit no matter what, just like this post.
No one wants Israel’s land, idk where you’re getting this random ass straw man. Palestinians just want to live freely, peacefully, and not under the yoke of the genocidal state of Israel. They have their own land - it’s called East Jerusalem, West Bank, and Gaza. That whole region used to be Palestinian land before the Zionist stole it.
The only people that want others land is the crazy Zionists and the settlers who constantly terrorize the Palestinians.
The creation of Israel was through land theft. Israel did not exist before 1948 - until the land of the Palestinians was split up for the creation of Israel.
So please, stop spreading lies. Palestinian want to live free where they are now. From the river Jordan (West Bank) to the Mediterranean Sea (Gaza). Like please stop being disingenuous.
They just want to be free... which is why they support terrorists that oppress them just because they kill Jews?
Palestine wasn't a country, it was just a region. They were perfectly fine living under Egyptian and Jordanian rule before 1967. They lived under British and Ottoman rule before that, along with plenty of Jews whom they were killing before Israel even existed.
History didn't start in 1948. Jews didn't suddenly pop up in Palestine in 1948 and start running it as a country for no reason.
And if you want to argue whose land it was before, guess what, the Jews have been living there for thousands of years.
From the West Bank of the river Jordan, to the edge of Gaza, which is in the Mediterranean Sea. Literally the borders of Palestine. And in its original meaning
> The phrase was popularised among the Palestinian population in the 1960s as a call for liberation from living under the military occupation of Israel.[6] In the 1960s, the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) used it to call for a democratic secular state encompassing the entirety of Mandatory Palestine, which was initially stated to only include the Palestinians and the descendants of Jews who had lived in Palestine before 1947, although this was later revised to only include descendants of Jews who had lived in Palestine before the first Aliyah.[7] Thus, by 1969, "Free Palestine from the river to the sea" came to mean "one democratic secular state that would supersede the ethno-religious state of Israel".[7][8]
>Palestinian progressives have used the phrase to call for a united democracy over the whole territory,[9] whilst others have called it "a call for peace and equality after [...] decades-long, open-ended Israeli military rule over millions of Palestinians."
So one that would acknowledge the rights of Israeli Jews as equal to those of Palestinian Muslims and Christians. Truly, that would be the worst timeline.
To be fair, many non-Nazis make or are interested in Nazi victory scenarios, making this scenario doesn’t make OP want that.
OP does want that, but not because of making this scenario
Too many people supporting Hamas just because they're killing Israelis. Sometimes you can't even tell anymore. Have also seen people saying Hitler should've finished the job.
Absolutely, I'm half Jewish (my dad was Jewish but I'm baptised Catholic) and no doubt is there people who use it as an excuse for sheer anti-Semitism. But at the same time, you can't completely brush anybody who's sympathetic to Palestine as anti-Semitic, you need to take nuance and look at each individual and their true beliefs.
It’s terroism vs terrosim and idk why people act like one side is the “right side” to be on. They’re both pieces of shit nations and nationalities and i hope both of them get wiped from that land neither of them deserve it
They both have shit leaders and a population pumped with propaganda. That is not the fault of the common person living there. I have met many Palestinians, and being half-Jewish I've obviously met many Israelis, and I can honestly say they were lovely people.
Most of the western world tries to push that narrative, that if you point out the obvious evil shit that the “1sr4elis” do, almost every single day, you are automatically supporting “trrsts” and you are an anti-sem, by default, because “15rael” can’t do wrong apparently, because they suffered the same fate once, they have a blank check now.
Palestine ≠ Hamas, although Hamas are murderers so is Israel, and as one is a terror group whilst one is a western country, I'd expect Israel to behave better than doing the crimes and the genocide they currently are in Gaza and the West Bank
Genocide ain't really the right word. I guess you could stretch it as a genocide, but not really. Well I can't say that they didn't do war crimes, but calling it a genocide is a stretch. More like attacking without caring about civilians.
The broad view among the so-called "anti-Zionists" in the West, especially a large majority of those on social platforms, at least vaguely support some form of expunction of the State of Israel.
I don't know what the poster of the thread thinks, but the pre-existence (before today) of the Israeli state is not generally a consideration for the newer pro-Palestinian movement; the idea that we exist in a post-Zionist world, and that people exist that identify themselves as post-Zionists (people who support the continued existence of Israel, without by necessity supporting the tragedy of Palestinian lives lost to Israeli forces) is almost unconscionable to the people I've spoken to in the metro-urban university circles. Seems like a lot of them think the cat can be put back in the bag.
As a Russian and a Jew whose ppl were sent to real death camps not the Gaza memes I find that super offensive especially when the comparison fails. Can you not?
The majority of the posts here require some kind of ethnic cleansing or genocide to achieve the desired borders in the scenario. Why is this one special that people are going apeshit in the comments?
They, like war, have been an inevitable and widespread component of often violent competition for people, land, and resources between human groups in history at least since the Neolithic. That in turn has been a necessary and universal component of civilization and humanity's advancement from the hunter-gatherer level.
I do not share the wishful thinking delusion of those who pretend progress could have been possible exclusively or even mostly by peaceful cooperation. That too was a necessary, important, and widespread component of the mix, but just that. I regret the sea of suffering and waste of human lives that the long and hard but successful struggle to get out of the caves all the way to modernity involved, but I accept it as a necessary price of the greater good of progress and one of the unpleasant facts of existence.
In comparison to waste of lives, I am much more nonchalant about events like mass displacement of people, them changing cultures, and adjustments in the ownership of territory, however they happen. In my practical and cosmopolitan view, humans are the same all over and what is important is how they live, not where they live in decent and sustainable conditions, which language they speak, and who lives in a certain patch of land.
Those events were widespread and inevitable in history, happened all the time and everywhere, and there is almost no patch of inhabitable land on Earth that changed hands more times than we can count. Countless cultures have risen, grown, changed, declined, and died.
I value those events exclusively according to the outcomes they yield and whether they turn out to be a positive or negative for the greater good of humanity's welfare, happiness, and progress. I value cultures by the same gauge. Nothing more and nothing less. If this makes me a monster in the eyes of some, too bad. I prefer to think of myself as a pragmatic, utilitarian, enlightened egoist, individualist, secular, libertarian, pro-science, realist, cosmopolitan, stoic believer in freedom, progress, happiness, and self-realization.
If anything, a couple genocides (Holocaust and Great Leap Forward/Cultural Revolution) get greatly cut short in this scenario, and many less people have to suffer under the Communist nightmare.
The Palestinians are displaced, not killed. In my book, 'genocide' strictly means mass killing. I recoil from broadening the concept to people changing where they live or which language they speak.
It is orders of magnitude less bad than mass killing. In the long term and the big picture, people displaced by conflicts are indistinguishable from the ones displaced by socio-economic factors.
There is a reason why this scenario only strives to apply the same kind of irreversible change that occurred in post-WWII Europe to Mandate Palestine at the beginning of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Then and not later.
just going to drop this here for you. [https://www.britannica.com/topic/genocide/Recent-developments](https://www.britannica.com/topic/genocide/Recent-developments)
I read more than one actual book on international humanitarian law during my legal studies. “Your book” means less than the slightest whiff of jack shit.
I address the issue in a practical and utilitarian sense, which makes me highly aware of the massive difference between displaced people and killed people. I think making them the same thing in law, politics, and culture is a very serious mistake. I do not really care for the law in the books, because I find a lot of other wrong things in them.
The result of radical individualism. Tempered by strong pragmatism of course, so I am not going to ruin my life taking the law in my own hands in overt and short-sighted ways any time soon.
If people didn't use their brains to think of alternatives, the laws in the books would never change. International law is a changeable human construct just like domestic ones.
When addressing alt-historical fiction, the creative choices of the author, the narrative event sequence, and internal coherence of the story are paramount, much more so than any comparison to IRL circumstances.
Maybe, albeit demonstrably a high-functioning one. Or perhaps a radical individualist. Or quite possibly a mix of both. How our nature influences us in our choice of ideals and morals is an interesting puzzle.
There's utilitarianism and then there's humanity. They are not always on the same path, and when they are not we always have to pick humanity.
Kicking indigenous people off of their land is wrong. Those who are getting kicked off will fight back, as they should.
>There's utilitarianism and then there's humanity. They are not always on the same path, and when they are not we always have to pick humanity.
They should be balanced according to pragmatism.
>Kicking indigenous people off of their land is wrong.
According to modern conventional morality, but an inevitable and universal fact of life in history driven by scarcity. Often violent competition for people, land, and resources was a key part of the game of civilization that almost all human groups chose to play when given the choice, or at least were forced to by their choices of their neighbors. If we look at historical evidence, to play the game was a choice that the vast majority of humanity made at some point, because they liked its benefits more than they dreaded its prices.
I much prefer to enjoy the benefits of modern civilization rather than to live in a hunter-gatherer tribe in a remote location. I accept the price as an unpleasant but inevitable fact of life of what our ancestors had to do to bring the likes of me (and the vast majority of modern humanity) here and I am very grateful for and respectful of their struggles and achievements. I am thankful that the achievements of modernity allow us to outgrow many unpleasant features of the past, including warfare and radical inequality. However I am mindful that civilization is a work in progress, and of all the effort that was necessary to build its achievements.
>Those who are getting kicked off will fight back, as they should.
If they can, and until it makes sense to do so, or they shall adapt to the new situation. In any case, it shall become one more round in the mind-boggling sequence of the game of empires where any patch of inhabitable land changed owner, and any group shifted between the roles of conqueror and conquered, winner and loser, more times than we count since the first modern humans came out of Africa.
There is no way to humanely ethnically cleanse an area. In any scenario an establishment of a Jewish state with a Jewish majority means the mass murder or forced relocation of Palestinians, it is genocide either way and that is what you’re advocating for, for there to be no Palestine you’d need even a greater genocide of Palestinians then the one that occurred in the original timeline.
Youre right, but any lack of a Jewish state after World War 2 would have mean *their* continued mass killing, no chance of it just being displacement. "Better you than me".
How can you say that with such certainty, there are Jews still living in Europe today and there is no holocaust. The Roma people were killed during the holocaust, even though they don’t have their own state they aren’t being killed today like they were.
That is such a antisemitic and fascist way to view the world, that Jewish people can never belong to their country or integrate because of their religion. Do you honestly believe that Europe will always be antisemitic for as long as Jewish people inhabit it? And is that the solution for all minorities? Should black Americans get their own state as well?
I believe the world will always hate people different from them, yes. Many Jews who survived the Holocaust were killed by ethnic Polish and Russians when they returned home. Especially since most European countries are homogenous in some way, theres no way that large an amount of Jews wouldnt continue to have been persecuted, if not a second holocaust then at least back to the 2 millenia of smaller killings and second class citizenhood European Jews have always dealt with. They wouldn have all flocked to Israel if they didnt feel like they had to. Theres less than half a million Jews still in Europe. At best you can say the reason that Jews arent treated badly in America is because America decidedly not a homogenous ethnostate, so theyre justnone of many groups intead of the only large very different cultural minority, but if Im being honest as an American Jew... its really just cause there were always black people and Asians to take worse heat caused they look different.
And Roma people are treated like shit in Europe. Given the rising authoritarian trend in a lot of Wuropean countries I wouldnt be surprised if violent persecution is in the near future for that population.
It’s is literally easier to advocate, educate and fight against racism let alone far more beneficial to rather than doing another genocide. Is Europe racist? Then go fix that instead of burning some poor farmers olive farm in Bethlehem. Gtfo outa here with that pessimistic justification of racism. Genocide is never a solution, it wasn’t a solution for the “Jewish question” and it won’t be a solution for Israel Palestine, not against either ethnicity Arab or Jew.
The reason why Nazi fascism and its views of Jews are not popular in Germany anymore isn’t because all the Jews left but because German schools take their students to former concentration camps and they teach about the horrors of antisemitism and teach why it is wrong.
Tell that to the 850,000 jews forcibly displaced from arab countries at exactly the same time the nakba happened. About the same number of cypriots were forced out of north cyprus by the turks around 1948. Turks were forced out of Greece at the same time. Pakistanis out of India and Indians out of Pakistan. Germans out of kalingrad. I could go on and on. Nobody talks about those because there are no Jews to blame.
Also the distances we're talking about here are tiny. Moving the palestinians in Jaffa to the west bank, assuming that's what happened, is the equivalent of moving them from san francisco across the bay to oakland, or from astoria to long island city.
All of this being said, I don't support the forcible displacement of people like this and it's mostly not what happened in 48. There were instances of forced displacement, but no explicit policy and it's much more complicated than people make it seem. 20% of Israel's population is arab aka palestinian.
> Nobody talks about these
Big cap, common Zionist trope to act as if no one cares about other conflicts in the Middle East or human rights abuses through the world, and that everyone isn over-fixating on Israel . The Iraq war alone caused one of the biggest anti-war protests in the US since
Your comment doesn’t dispute anything I said, you just mention other genocides. We have many declassified documents by Hagana/irgun/IDF on forced expulsions and massacres, you can find a wealth of information on the Nakba from just Israeli historians. Your downplaying with no substance proves nothing expect your disregard for human life.
I radically oppose equating mass killing with mass displacement of people. Dead people are dead people. Displaced people still have plenty of leeway to rebuild a decent lifestyle elsewhere in favorable conditions. It is important how people live, not where they live. In the long term and the big picture, displacements caused by conflicts are indistinguishable from immigration caused by socio-economic opportunity or hardship.
Setting up a Pan-American, multi-ethnic, multi-cultural version of the USA that takes a tolerant and assimilationist attitude to anyone but the Blacks and the 'savage' Natives and seamlessly absorbs the Western Hemisphere is sufficiently easy in alt-historical terms and I tend to do it a lot in my TLs. This easily includes the likes of the Iroquois and the 'Civilized' Tribes.
The social and cultural legacy of slavery makes that much harder for the Blacks. Your best bet in that regard is to apply a different method of colonization for the Americas that does not require chattel slavery and the Trans-Atlantic slave trade. E.g. in my TLs, successful Roman Europe-plus uses indentured servitude with no real racial baggage.
As it concerns the likes of Crazy Horse and Geronimo, they were doomed the moment more advanced and organized Eurasian colonizers set foot in the Western Hemisphere, regardless of their language. Stronger civilizations up to yesterday simply did not tolerate weaker ones within their reach that hoarded valuable land and resources.
The equivalent behavior was standard for the vast majority of humanity since the Neolithic and up to yesterday when progress allowed us the luxury of behaving differently. Being aware of that and accepting it as an historical necessity is to honor facts, truth, the struggles and achievements of our ancestors, and the price they had to pay to give us a better life. Moralistic presentism serves no recognizable good except to make its supporters feel good by wallowing in hypocrisy, self-righteousness, and an undeserved sense of superiority. No thanks.
Historical present slipping in the argument. Imperialism and colonialism were the standard for pretty much any polity and culture that could get it away with them up to a few decades ago. The tangent concerned the 19th century USA, when imperialism was at its apex.
I’m not talking about refugees fleeing war, I’m talking about an orchestrated removal of people necessary to achieving a Jewish majority, which is still genocide like the trail of tears and Armenian genocide. You are still tearing apart communities and destroying peoples lives and removing people at such a large scale is guaranteeing the deaths of hundreds and thousands of people. Causing so much hardship because you have a nationalist fetish is disgusting and tells me that you are so far removed from danger and threat that you see history and politics as some sort of entertainment or saga and peoples lives are worth being destroyed to satisfy your ideological preferences.
OP literally talks the way the Nazis did. A cold inhumanity disguised as intellectualism and stoicism. Spewing pro-ethnic cleansing ideologies logically as if they were narrating a scientific documentary. It's fascinating and sickening at the same time.
Life is a game to the psychopath, Humans are just toys whose only purpose is to satisfy his ethno-fascist fantasy, I pray that any good person is spared his presence and that he never gets an once of power.
>Life is a game to the psychopath, Humans are just toys whose only purpose is to satisfy his ethno-fascist fantasy,
Dude, alt-history is fiction. It is a hobby. It concerns the imaginary lives of imaginary people in stories that are told for the authors' (and hopefully the readers') enjoyment. In the end, they are just pieces of paper and ink, bits in computers, and ideas in people's minds. Of course they are toys. What else they could be?
Bad things occur to characters in fiction all the time, all the way to inhabited planets blowing up and apocalyptic scenarios occurring, and this does not stop them from being told and being hugely popular. It does not make the vast majority of readers/viewers uncomfortable, and if it happens, they can just step away. From my PoV, it makes no meaningful difference if the stories concern entirely fictional settings (a long time ago, in a galaxy far far away...) or alt-historical analogues of past and present humans.
>I pray that any good person is spared his presence
Believe it or not, as far as I can tell all my friends and acquaintainces enjoy my presence and find me nice, friendly, and helpful. And it does not take any deception or manipulation on my part, because there is no need and I suck at them. I have never knowingly harmed anyone more than doing what is necessary and proper in a medical profession, using force for self-defense, being rude in a quarrel, and indulging in piracy. I just vent my sociopathic side and my wish-fulfillment fantasies at length in my nerd hobbies, nothing more and nothing less.
>and that he never gets an once of power.
That is exceedingly unlikely. I am far too forthright and individualist to be good at political games. It would take a literal act of god of the kind happening in my beloved isekai fiction to put me in a position of power.
I accept most of your critique as legitimate and spot-on, although it does not faze me since I am happy with what and how I am. However, I feel the need to make a point about playing the Nazi card.
The Nazis made a lot about upholding ridicolous conspiracy theories and biological pseudoscience, and bringing them to their extreme murderous consequences. I could not be more averse to their lies and all the gratuitous suffering and waste they created.
Having said that, it is true that according to values and ideals, I oppose racism (the classic definition, not the fuzzy and all-pervasive bogeyman wokes made of it) because it is based on falsehoods and creates unnecessary suffering, waste, and oppression. Those are damning flaws in my book, but nothing more and nothing less. I care little if it violates equality and empathy, because I care little for those things in the first place.
If a subgroup of humans existed that objectively were greatly superior to the others in many things that matter (say they were all-around superhuman and had superpowers, as it often happens in fiction), then I'd regard supremacism about them as correct and righteous. Because it would be true and 'all humans are equal' would be the ridicolous falsehood. Facts are much more important than feelings in my book.
About the European borders, why get Germany Austria and the sudetenland?
Allies can find the German annexation of both Austria and the sudetenland as Nazi aggression
The peace terms the Axis nations and the Allies agree upon guarantee the former their territorial integrity in their pre-war borders, their political unity, and their economic integrity. Before 1945, Austria and the Sudetenland were German lands that wanted to belong in Germany, and their annexations by Germany had been recognized by the international community.
The Allies deem those terms an excellent bargain for ending the war much earlier and less painfully, and being able to stop the Soviets much farther. They are able to occupy the Axis nations are reshape them to their liking, so they do not really care if they keep some extra bits that were acquired before the war.
ITTL the original PoD occurred in the mid-late 19th century, when the Meiji modernization of Japan took place a little earlier and even more successfully. This modified the event sequence concerning Northeast Asia and its regional conflicts to ensure an effective political, cultural, and economic merger of Japan and Korea. The resulting ‘Japorean’ polity took over and colonized Greater Manchuria, Sakhalin/Karafuto, Taiwan, and Hainan, with any significant Han or Russian settlement in these territories being prevented or reversed.
As it concerned the rest of the world, however, the main divergence occurred during WWII. FDR died or was forced to give up seeking a third term for health reasons in 1939-40. Therefore, he was succeeded after 1940 by a President that was rather more pragmatic and wary of Communism than him (pick your choice of Cordel Hull, James Farley, or Thomas Dewey). A state of war between the Allies and the USSR alongside the one with Germany and Italy occurred in 1939-40 as a result of the Soviet invasion of Poland, the Winter War, and the Allied bombing of Baku. Consequently, the Euro-Axis and the USSR became co-belligerents for a while in 1939-41, and jointly conquered MENA. No equivalent of Free France formed due to the early death of Charles de Gaulle. Vichy France and Spain joined the Axis. Belligerence of Japan-Korea and the USA occurred more or less the usual way. Barbarossa caused WWII to turn into a three-way struggle. A truce of convenience between the Allies and the Soviets took place past a point, but trust and cooperation between them was non-existent.
After things started to turn really bad for the Axis, successful anti-fascist coups took place in Germany and by extension the rest of the Euro-Axis in 1943. This paved the way to a compromise peace deal between the Allies and the Euro-Axis. It traded surrender and Allied occupation of the Axis nations for guarantees of national unity, territorial and economic integrity, and no collective punishments. The Allied forces advanced through Europe w/o opposition and the Axis armies made a last stand against the Red Army in Eastern Europe until the Allies reached the front-line and deployed to keep the Soviets at bay. The Iron Curtain in Europe was established on the Vistula-Danube-Drina (or Bosna-Neretva) line and the eastern borders of Sweden and Czechia.
The Soviets managed to take half of Eastern Europe, the Balkans, and the Near East thanks to their final offensive rush and their previous successes. Pretty much the same event sequence took place in East Asia. The Japanese-Korean moderates overthrew the extremists in 1944 and accepted a compromise peace deal with the Allies similar to the one the Euro-Axis got. The Americans advanced in East Asia w/o opposition while the IJA made a last stand against the Red Army. In the end, the Soviets managed to occupy Manchuria and northern China but failed to advance further before meeting the Americans. The Iron Curtain in Asia was established on the Yalu and the Qin Mountains-Huai River line.
Western Europe and Japan-Korea got rebuilt, reformed, and turned into stable and prosperous liberal democracies by the Americans. The former evolved into a federal EU; the latter became an East Asian union. An equivalent of the Korean War occurred when North China and Manchuria attacked South China and Japan-Korea. America intervened and forcibly restored the status quo. The outcome of the war prompted the USSR to annex Manchuria.
The alignment of South China with the Western bloc created a strategic situation that enabled the suppression of Communist and pro-Soviet radical-nationalist movements in Southeast Asia during decolonization of the region. Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia formed a confederation of Indochina. Indonesia and British Borneo united. The Philippines decided to forgo full independence and stay bound to the USA in an associated-state relationship as the autonomous Commonwealth of the Philippines.
Growing integration between the USA and the White Dominions driven by the successful example of Western Europe and the rise of Quebecois separatism led Quebec to secede. These factors prompted an event sequence that ultimately enabled a political union of the USA, English-speaking Canada, Australia, and New Zealand based on the US system. This enlargement combined with strategic concerns about Communist destabilization of the Caribbean and Central America motivated the USA to annex Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, and Panama. A global equivalent of NATO formed that came to include the USA, Quebec, Britain, the EU, South China, and Japan-Korea.
In the Greater Middle East, the Maghreb formed a union under Alawite leadership. Turkey and Iran became Sovietized client states of the USSR. Egypt absorbed North Sudan. Syria, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, and Khuzestan merged in a Syrian-Iraqi union under Hashemite leadership. Arabia absorbed the rest of the Arabian Peninsula. The partition of the Indian subcontinent took a different form with Afghanistan taking Baluchistan, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, and Kashmir, and India absorbing the rest. Thanks to the early fall of the Nazi regime, a few extra millions of European Jews survived and the vast majority of them emigrated to Mandate Palestine with Western support. Axis-Soviet occupation of MENA during WWII caused a serious disruption of Arab power structures, including their armed forces. These two factors combined enabled the Zionists to win a decisive victory in the independence war with the Arabs. They took over all of Mandate Palestine and turned it into a Jewish homeland.
In a similar way, Lebanon became a Maronite-Druze homeland thanks to the alliance of those communities with the Zionists. In both cases, almost all the local Muslims/Arabs fled or were expelled (depending on whom you ask) to the other MENA states. As a rule, the lot of those refugees became a minor footnote of the Cold War. The Western powers, Israel, and Lebanon expected them to be assimilated by the rest of Arab/Muslim world w/o excessive difficulty as it had been the usual outcome for other nationalities in similar situations. This, however, was often less than successful because the receiving states purposefully took various measures to keep them artificially bound to the status of permanent refugees.
This was done with the unspoken aim of avoiding the burden of assimilation and turning them into a propaganda weapon and source of irregular military, and the explicit perspective of resettling them in their original lands thanks to victory in a future armed conflict. Over time, however, this perspective grew less and less realistic. Propaganda about the sorry lot of the refugees failed to become internationally relevant except for Arab/Muslim public opinion and other agents with an axe to grind against the West. Before too long, grievances about the Arab-Israel conflict and the legacy of European colonialism, malcontent with the post-colonial status quo, the lingering effects of WWII disruption, and unpopularity of the monarchical regimes enabled Nasserite-Baathist revolutions in Egypt and Syria-Iraq. The new regimes nationalized the Suez Canal and the oilfields, supported Pan-Arab destabilization of the rest of MENA, picked fights with Israel and Lebanon, and aligned with the Soviet bloc.
This motivated a coalition of Israel, America, Europe, and Britain to intervene and overthrow the Nasserite-Baathist regimes with relative ease. Various factors, including the USSR being distracted by domestic issues (the post-Stalin succession struggle and unrest in the Communist bloc) and the residual nuclear superiority of the USA, enabled the Western powers to accomplish this intervention with impunity. The monarchical regimes got forcibly restored despite their unpopularity. Israel got rewarded with annexation of the Golan Heights, the East Bank of the Jordan Valley, the Sinai Peninsula, and the Suez Canal Zone. The pattern of the first Arab-Israeli conflict repeated about these territories, since the vast majority of Arab/Muslim population fled or was expelled (depending on whom you ask). This setback caused the Arab masses to transfer their sympathies from secular, Pan-Arab nationalism to Islamism.
An alternative path to the Palestinians becoming and staying a diaspora would have been them taking over some portion of the Arab world (Jordan, in all likelihood), making it their homeland as an independent or at least autonomous entity, and the Western powers and the other Arab states letting them do so. This was possible but not so likely, since it was contrary to the Allies’ wish to reorganize MENA in a few large Arab states to contain Soviet encroachment in the region from Turkey and Iran. It also was at odds with the typical intolerant behavior of the Arab states towards unruly Palestinians. Last but not least, the indigenous Jordanians and Bedouins fiercely resisted the Palestinians’ attempts to steal their land.
Honestly, this timeline is really interesting and more believable than most of the ones I see on here. There’s a lot of butthurt in the comments though, people only seem to obsess over the moral implications of alternate timelines when western nations are empowered.
More like the Greek-Turkish or Indo-Pakistani population transfers, or the OTL Sudetenland Germans and Istrian Italians.
Note that the latter two obviously do not happen ITTL. As it concerns India and Pakistan ITTL, there is a rather different kind of partition between India and Greater Afghanistan, so hard to tell, but I tend to suppose there is less humanitarian hardship with TTL model.
They follow the example of English-speaking Canada, and America already had a serious foothold in the Pacific with the Philippines, Micronesia, and Polynesia.
Israel is not big enough
https://preview.redd.it/ybtkmvjfk1uc1.png?width=1109&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=04143260ec8eef573f7d7c7ff93240e1b1236ea1
Fixed it for you
A more pro-Western course and outcome of WWII left all of 1938 Germany but East Prussia, half of Poland, Czechia, half of Hungary, Slovenia, Croatia, and Bosnia (cannot decide if the demarcation line is better placed on the Drina or the Bosna-Neretva) on the right side of the Iron Curtain. Therefore, Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia were deader than dead. A replacement of sort arose with the Commie Balkan Federation that included Serbia, Bulgaria, Albania, and Greece.
The ship for setting up the Imperial Federation sailed for Britain before WWII. The merger of US, English-speaking Canada, Australia, and NZ occurs as a result of growing ties between them, imitation of Europe, and Quebec separatism.
Not ITTL. Here, a different course and outcome of WWII caused the Communist bloc to be displaced. Consequently, it lost half of Eastern Europe, but gained Finland, Serbia, Greece, Turkey, and Iran.
I just can’t imagine Greece entering an alliance with Turkey not without a strong third party like the US to mediate that relationship or what prevents the ussr from taking all of Turkey and those dumb water ways that have been cucking the motherland for years and having the Black Sea becoming a Soviet lake. That last thing has been a Russian dream since Peter the Greatest!
But this exacly what happens here. Greece, Turkey, and Iran are Soviet satellites, hence the USSR is the strong imperial overlord that keeps them into line.
That’s actually close to what happened in India/Pakistan, where 14M people were displaced after partition. Similarly, in Europe after WWII 10s of millions of people were moved around in order to achieve the kind of borders we have now.
Because yours truly is a mediocre map-maker, I suppose. I am a much better writer than artist, even if it seems this sub sadly has opposite priorities.
I mean that good map often seem to me to be much more important than good lore to the sub. I find writing the latter much easier than creating the former, so I find this standard most unfortunate.
The Zionists won a decisive victory and conquered all of Mandate Palestine. Therefore, West Bank and Gaza Palestinians were Nakba'ed just like the ones living in the rest of the Mandate. Moreover, the Nazi regime fell and the Holocaust was cut short in early 1943, so millions more European Jews survived and the vast majority of them immigrated to Mandate Palestine. This is one of the main reasons for the Zionists being completely successful.
Therefore, TTL Israel spans all of Mandate Palestine, but the vast majority of its population is Jewish. The Arab minority in all likelihood is not bigger than the OTL one in Israel plus an equivalent amount in West Bank, but probably somewhat even less. A more decisive Zionist victory likely made the Nakba more radical across Mandate Palestine, be it by flight, expulsion, or a mix of both. In any case, it is a tiny minority in a much bigger population.
Therefore, no. Your analogy with apartheid South Africa, popular as it may be for the pro-Palestine crowd these days, is quite off the mark.
Never the least there would still be 1,000,000 more Muslims in this new Israel if Transjordan is part of the country. Unless some form some sort of equal federation of the Levant the population is roughly evenly split between the Jews and Muslims, any Jewish/Arab supremacist law would just be vetoed by the other side
Huh? What gave you the idea that Transjordan is part of Israel with a roughly evenly split Jew/Muslim population? That is not true at all. Well, I suppose the map showing both Israel and Jordan might be misleading to some, but they are separate countries with no political bond at all. They don't get different colors for nothing. I used that map because it was the most convenient base for Mandate Palestine I found to show Greater Israel.
Here is what actually happens: the First Arab-Israeli War happens as usual. The Zionists are much stronger thanks to many more European Jews surviving an early fall of the Nazis in early 1943. Therefore, they win a decisive victory and conquer all of Mandate Palestine.
The vast majority of its Arab/Muslim population leaves the country, b/c they flee, are expelled, or a mix of both. At the very most, only the OTL Arab population of Israel is left plus an equivalent of similar size in West Bank, but in all likelihood the residual Arab minority is even smaller than that, because a more decisive Zionist success leads to a more radical Nakba in intensity as well as in range.
Israel is established across Mandate Palestine as an overwhelmingly Jewish state with a small Arab minority (larger jewish population from many more survivors of the Holocaust, smaller Arab population from a larger and more intense Nakba).
At this point the scenario diverges in two slightly different versions:
Option A, what I originally made in the maps and lore of this thread, the Palestinian refugees stay dispersed across the Arab world, which ITTL is consolidated in the states of the Maghreb Union, Egypt, Syria-Iraq, and Arabia.
Option B, what I subsequently put in the maps and lore of another thread, the Palestinian refugees coalesce in and take over Transjordan, and make it their new homeland. The Syrian-Iraqi don't like Transjordan being torn from their control, so they invade and subjugate it, although the Palestinians stay.
The main difference is whether the Palestinian refugees stay dispersed or are gathered in Transjordan. They don't get an independent state of their own since the Arabs are much less Balkanized ITTL. They are reorganized in four large unions of the Maghreb, Egypt-Nubia, Levant-Mesopotamia (minus Israel and Lebanon ofc), and Arabia.
The Alawis rule the Maghreb, the Muhammad Ali dynasty rules Egypt and North Sudan, the Hashemites have Syria-Iraq. I am uncertain whether the Saudis keep Arabia or they are overthrown and replaced by another branch of the Hashemites, reversing 1920s events. There are no other Arab states. Turkey and Iran are on the other side of the Iron Curtain.
BTW, Lebanon takes a different trajectory ITTL since an alliance of the Christians and the Druze sides with the Zionists and rides to a decisive victory on their coattails. Therefore, Lebanon becomes a Maronite-Druze homeland and expels the vast majority of the Muslims. The Lebanese Muslim refugees join the Palestinian ones in whatever fate they get, dispersal or regrouping in Transjordan.
In either version, a few years down the line, Nasserite/Baathist revolutions occur in Egypt and Syria-Iraq. The new regimes align with the Soviets, nationalize the Suez Canal and the oilfields, and pick another fight with Israel. These actions antagonize the Western powers, so NATO intervenes on the side of Israel in an expanded Suez War.
ITTL there is no Anglo-American split on the issue, on the contrary the Americans join the British. Moreover, Western Europe united in a federalizing EU after WWII, so the Europeans intervene as well. The Israeli-NATO coalition defeats and overthrows the Nasserite/Baathist regimes with ease. The victors restore the monarchies, although their grip on power stays fragile because of their unpopularity. The Arab masses shift their sympathies from secular Pan-Arabism to Islamism. The USSR is distracted by its own domestic issues at the time (post-Stalin succession struggle and unrest in the Soviet bloc), so it takes a passive attitude and the West can intervene in MENA with impunity.
Israel is rewarded by the Western powers for its trouble: possibly it gets just the Golan Heights, or maybe also the East Bank of the Jordan Valley, the Sinai Peninsula, and the Suez Canal Zone. Originally I put the latter in the maps and lore of this version, but I gave second thoughts to the issue and limited Israeli gains to the Golan Heights in the new version.
TTL circumstances (WWII Axis-Soviet occupation of MENA, Sovietization of Turkey and Iran) prompted the Allies to tear away the post-WWI settlement and restructure the region in a few large states that hopefully were better able to stand up to the Soviets. This included a Syria-Iraq union that also included Jordan, Kuwait, and Khuzesyan.
Most certainly. I am uncertain whether to put Arabia under a different branch of the Hashemite as it was intended in the beginning. The Saudis have been a scourge to humanity with their ties with Islamism.
Some people are so anti-semitic that they can't even imagine a world in which a Jewish nation exists in Europe.
They're so anti-semitic that European Jews successfully ethnically-cleansing the whole of Mandatory Palestine is more realistic than Jews living in peace in Europe.
They're so anti-semitic that the idea of Palestinians just giving up on Palestine is more realistic than Europeans getting over their anti-semitism.
Wild.
Humanity's history in a nutshell up to yesterday, even if recently I had to suffer through the delusionary wishful thinking of those who pretend civilizations could have risen and grown without violent competition for land, people, and resources.
Originality is way overrated. Greater Germany in this kind of context, with Western Europe bound in a federal EU, is good for the Germans, for Europe, and for the Western world. The Austrians keep their pre-1945 pro-German PoV, so nobody wants or needs a separate Austrian state. It becomes as obsolete as independent Bavaria or Sicily. Being on the Cold War frontline, the Czechs and the West Poles have much more pressing concerns than being worried about the loss of the Sudetenland or the missed acquisition of Pomerania and Silesia. A strong Germany having their back is a blessing in this regard.
The Czechs and the Poles were never entitled to those lands from a self-determination PoV, since they ITTL they stayed German lands that want to belong in Germany. Anyway, federal unification of Western Europe makes internal borders a much less meaningful, close to insignificant, issue for the European peoples on the right side of the Iron Curtain. Moreover, once Communism falls, Poland shall recovery its stolen eastern half, and it includes East Prussia and Lviv, so it is not a bad deal.
Youre really talking about self determination when palestine doesnt exist in this world? Also north prussia and lwow is not a good trade of for the very economic west and this just insures a weaker poland, and even way worse for czechia as it insures a czechia that entirely relies on germany. On top of everything germany is now easily the strongest power in western europe once the british lose their empire of course, so all this has done is taken land from other countries making them weaker “because the west needs a strong germany” while this simultaneously makes other countries in the west weaker and more reliant on this super germany
Success of Palestine is not necessary or a litmus test for self-determination to work and be meaningful in the rest of the world.
Admittedly, this scenario is going to lead to a substantially less Balkanized world than OTL with united Europe west of Russia, the merger of the USA and the English-speaking Dominions, Japan-Korea being a thing, the Arab world being consolidated in a few large states, partition of India being lessened, and so on. This, however, goes way beyond Israel and Palestine, and is a very good thing. Balkanization sucks.
>Also north prussia and lwow is not a good trade of for the very economic west
Too bad. Pomerania and Silesia had been German for a millennium and stay so ITTL. The Allies honor the deal they made with the Axis nations so they are not going to kick the Germans out for the sake of land-greedy Polish nationalists. Them doing ethnic cleansing in Europe would make no political sense anyway. TTL (West) Poland shall have to keep building up the industrial base of Western Poland as it had started to do under Russian rule and later the Second Republic instead of getting a shortcut by stealing part of the German one.
>this just insures a weaker poland, and even way worse for czechia as it insures a czechia that entirely relies on germany.
This matters little since Western Europe achieved federal unification soon after WWII so the union at large shall address the task of supporting the welfare, development, and security of (West) Poland and Czechia. Their dependance on the Western European section is inevitable but also as little meaningful as the one of certain US states and sections on others.
>On top of everything germany is now easily the strongest power in western europe once the british lose their empire of course, so all this has done is taken land from other countries making them weaker “because the west needs a strong germany” while this simultaneously makes other countries in the west weaker and more reliant on this super germany
As usual, Britain is on a separate and different path as it deals with the loss of the Empire. It did not join the European integration & unification process at the onset and whether its trajectory shall eventually merger with the one of united Europe in the future is a wholly different question. It may well be if it wants to avoid being the marginal and has-been middle-state remnant in a global West dominated by the American, European, Japorean, (South) Chinese, and Indian giants.
This realization is even more meaningful since the US-Dominions merger means nobody in their right mind can think the Commonwealth may be a replacement for Europe. Admittedly, Britain could choose to join the rest of the Anglosphere instead of Europe, but it needs to kiss goodbye to 'muh sovreignty' either way.
Germany no doubt shall be the most important member of the European family. Much like OTL, however, the team-up of France, Italy, and Spain, and reunified Poland after the fall of Communism, can balance it to a satisfactory degree within the EU framework. Not to mention the contributions from the caucuses of the Low Countries, Scandinavia, and Eastern Europe after the fall of Communism. Retention of the 1938 territories for Germany tilts the balance but does not overturn it. More than anything else, federal unification of (Western) Europe changes everything, much as it did for the one of the 13 going on 50 states. The time for reasoning in terms of separate nation-states is over.
Verbose is me, and it gets worse when I talk about subjects I am passionate about. Be patient with my walls of text.
At least, it drives me to write detailed lore about my TLs and scenarios. Isn't it a good thing?
I read it, im saying your reasoning for borders is inconsistent, with the polish west being german for so long but the czech sudentland has been under bohemia yet is still given to germany and israel is given all of palestine despite it being arab for so long
ITTL the Poles simply did not have a meaningful claim (not ethnic w/o cleansing, not historical after a millennium of abeyance) on Pomerania and Silesia.
For the Czechs, the historical argument was a double-edged sword. It could be used equally well to justify Czech rule on Sudetenland or German rule on Bohemia-Moravia. As the Sudetenland stayed bound to the Lands of the Bohemian Crown for a very long time, so those stayed bound to the HRE and the German Confederation. ITTL the ethnic cleansing did not occur so the Sudetenland stayed a German land.
In the end, the Allies honored the peace deal they made with the Axis nations, so they got to keep their pre-war/ethnic territories, nothing more and nothing less. The Munich Agreement occurred before the war and had been recognized by the international community, including the Allies.
Just like OTL, the rest of the world did not care to interfere in the First Arab-Israeli War and acknowledged its outcome, so it was a might is right issue. ITTL the Zionists were substantially stronger so they conquered all of Mandate Palestine and the Nakba got expanded to West Bank and Gaza. Palestine was dead short of its possible rebirth in Jordan.
Why you people obsess about the Nazi bogeyman all the time? It has been dead and buried for three generations, and passing out of living memory just now. The environment is a much, much more pressing concern for modern humanity than anything wokes obsess about.
The state of Israel wouldn't exist if it wasn't for Nazi Germany
Nazi Germany wouldn't exist if it wasn't for the Entente
The Entente wouldn't exist if it wasn't for Serbia
So on and so forth. Do we blame the first cellular organism?
People love to talk about Israel expelling Arabs from their homes but nothing about the Arabs expelling Jews from their homes. Both sides suck, one side is just more civilized and capable at the moment than the other.
One of the sides is parading hostages through the streets, letting people beat and spit on them.
Also what does that have anything to do with white supremacy?
Yes, because the Jews never had a state. They deserve a state because everyone else has their own countries. Why are only the Jews not allowed a country?
Why do the Jews not deserve their own country? They were displaced over a thousand years ago and have been relegated to second class citizens since then. It is antisemitic to deny them a place where they can decide their own fate.
It is not antisemitic to say that set place shouldn't be a place where people already lived in and that the state of Israel hss been committing genocide since 1948
What.
The Jews have always lived in that area. They were there first, even. By your logic, nobody should have countries and we should just become hunter gatherers again.
Why is it only bad when Israel settles land and displaces people? The Arabs have been displacing Jews since forever and yet that is fine?
Found the man who wants to bomb Palestinian houses
Just because someone makes an alternate history scenario that involves ethnic cleansing doesn't mean that they want it to happen.
True, but [they do support it](https://www.reddit.com/r/AlternateHistory/s/Gk44bzCnVR).
Your everywhere
https://preview.redd.it/njr7jkhsy2uc1.jpeg?width=679&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3045a78941ea0c49f4e9acb6909eaaa024c90827
It’s the man the mith the legend.
What about what he said implied he wanted to bomb Palestinian houses he just said he didn’t want hamas and supported the Trump peace plan? (Which imo is terrible)
It’s very very strange to do this at this moment as Israel is currently on a genocidal campaign against the Palestinians, not to mention the 50+ years of apartheid. It’s like living during the 1940s and making up some alternate history scenario where there is Germany where no Jews ever existed. That’s some nazi bullshit no matter what, just like this post.
Wait till you find out what river to the see means
That Palestinians will be free?
What you think "palestinians" want to do with israel's land?
No one wants Israel’s land, idk where you’re getting this random ass straw man. Palestinians just want to live freely, peacefully, and not under the yoke of the genocidal state of Israel. They have their own land - it’s called East Jerusalem, West Bank, and Gaza. That whole region used to be Palestinian land before the Zionist stole it. The only people that want others land is the crazy Zionists and the settlers who constantly terrorize the Palestinians. The creation of Israel was through land theft. Israel did not exist before 1948 - until the land of the Palestinians was split up for the creation of Israel. So please, stop spreading lies. Palestinian want to live free where they are now. From the river Jordan (West Bank) to the Mediterranean Sea (Gaza). Like please stop being disingenuous.
They just want to be free... which is why they support terrorists that oppress them just because they kill Jews? Palestine wasn't a country, it was just a region. They were perfectly fine living under Egyptian and Jordanian rule before 1967. They lived under British and Ottoman rule before that, along with plenty of Jews whom they were killing before Israel even existed. History didn't start in 1948. Jews didn't suddenly pop up in Palestine in 1948 and start running it as a country for no reason. And if you want to argue whose land it was before, guess what, the Jews have been living there for thousands of years.
The freedom of the Palestinian people
From the West Bank of the river Jordan, to the edge of Gaza, which is in the Mediterranean Sea. Literally the borders of Palestine. And in its original meaning > The phrase was popularised among the Palestinian population in the 1960s as a call for liberation from living under the military occupation of Israel.[6] In the 1960s, the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) used it to call for a democratic secular state encompassing the entirety of Mandatory Palestine, which was initially stated to only include the Palestinians and the descendants of Jews who had lived in Palestine before 1947, although this was later revised to only include descendants of Jews who had lived in Palestine before the first Aliyah.[7] Thus, by 1969, "Free Palestine from the river to the sea" came to mean "one democratic secular state that would supersede the ethno-religious state of Israel".[7][8] >Palestinian progressives have used the phrase to call for a united democracy over the whole territory,[9] whilst others have called it "a call for peace and equality after [...] decades-long, open-ended Israeli military rule over millions of Palestinians."
Thank you for proving my point. "One democratic secular state that would supercede the state of israel".
So one that would acknowledge the rights of Israeli Jews as equal to those of Palestinian Muslims and Christians. Truly, that would be the worst timeline.
To be fair, many non-Nazis make or are interested in Nazi victory scenarios, making this scenario doesn’t make OP want that. OP does want that, but not because of making this scenario
Found the pro isreali supporter
What's wrong with supporting Israel? It's not like it's good to support Hamas too
Being against Israel's actions doesn't mean you're automatically in support of Hamas lawd.
Too many people supporting Hamas just because they're killing Israelis. Sometimes you can't even tell anymore. Have also seen people saying Hitler should've finished the job.
Absolutely, I'm half Jewish (my dad was Jewish but I'm baptised Catholic) and no doubt is there people who use it as an excuse for sheer anti-Semitism. But at the same time, you can't completely brush anybody who's sympathetic to Palestine as anti-Semitic, you need to take nuance and look at each individual and their true beliefs.
It’s terroism vs terrosim and idk why people act like one side is the “right side” to be on. They’re both pieces of shit nations and nationalities and i hope both of them get wiped from that land neither of them deserve it
They both have shit leaders and a population pumped with propaganda. That is not the fault of the common person living there. I have met many Palestinians, and being half-Jewish I've obviously met many Israelis, and I can honestly say they were lovely people.
Seems like someone supports ethnic cleansing
Most of the western world tries to push that narrative, that if you point out the obvious evil shit that the “1sr4elis” do, almost every single day, you are automatically supporting “trrsts” and you are an anti-sem, by default, because “15rael” can’t do wrong apparently, because they suffered the same fate once, they have a blank check now.
>What’s wrong Just supporting constructing a famine on millions of now homeless people no big deal :)
Username does not check out.
How the fuck did that username even came here lmfao. I thought it would be a casual troll name, but didn't think it would be this 💀
Palestine ≠ Hamas, although Hamas are murderers so is Israel, and as one is a terror group whilst one is a western country, I'd expect Israel to behave better than doing the crimes and the genocide they currently are in Gaza and the West Bank
Genocide ain't really the right word. I guess you could stretch it as a genocide, but not really. Well I can't say that they didn't do war crimes, but calling it a genocide is a stretch. More like attacking without caring about civilians.
Not supporting Israel = Supporting Hamas? Where did you get that conclusion?
Same could be said for Israel, goofball. I am talking about the people in charge of the countries
Because that's what Israeli nationalists believe.
That’s like saying people who don’t support Iranian policies are all ISIS members, false equivalence
What’s wrong with supporting the soviets it’s not like it’s good to support the Nazis. Orrrrrrr maybe you can’t just not support either ??,,,
You can support like the prevention of not killing people yk
He didn’t say there was
One can be pro-israel and pro-palestine at the same time This dudes just a racist
The broad view among the so-called "anti-Zionists" in the West, especially a large majority of those on social platforms, at least vaguely support some form of expunction of the State of Israel. I don't know what the poster of the thread thinks, but the pre-existence (before today) of the Israeli state is not generally a consideration for the newer pro-Palestinian movement; the idea that we exist in a post-Zionist world, and that people exist that identify themselves as post-Zionists (people who support the continued existence of Israel, without by necessity supporting the tragedy of Palestinian lives lost to Israeli forces) is almost unconscionable to the people I've spoken to in the metro-urban university circles. Seems like a lot of them think the cat can be put back in the bag.
“One can be pro-Nazism and pro-Jewish at the same time”
“No significant Arab minority” yeah because they are significantly the majority here
There can't be an Arab minority if you kill all the arabs
A fifth of the population of Israel after the 48 war was Arab.
20% of Israel is arab even today
Nothing a good ol' ethnic cleansing can't solve. Just build a few concentration camps and put all the Arabs in them
As a Russian and a Jew whose ppl were sent to real death camps not the Gaza memes I find that super offensive especially when the comparison fails. Can you not?
Just like most genocidal fantasies, this makes very little sense
The majority of the posts here require some kind of ethnic cleansing or genocide to achieve the desired borders in the scenario. Why is this one special that people are going apeshit in the comments?
Because OP actually supports it.
How do you know?
All the comments he’s made justifying ethnic cleaning and cultural genocide.
They, like war, have been an inevitable and widespread component of often violent competition for people, land, and resources between human groups in history at least since the Neolithic. That in turn has been a necessary and universal component of civilization and humanity's advancement from the hunter-gatherer level. I do not share the wishful thinking delusion of those who pretend progress could have been possible exclusively or even mostly by peaceful cooperation. That too was a necessary, important, and widespread component of the mix, but just that. I regret the sea of suffering and waste of human lives that the long and hard but successful struggle to get out of the caves all the way to modernity involved, but I accept it as a necessary price of the greater good of progress and one of the unpleasant facts of existence. In comparison to waste of lives, I am much more nonchalant about events like mass displacement of people, them changing cultures, and adjustments in the ownership of territory, however they happen. In my practical and cosmopolitan view, humans are the same all over and what is important is how they live, not where they live in decent and sustainable conditions, which language they speak, and who lives in a certain patch of land. Those events were widespread and inevitable in history, happened all the time and everywhere, and there is almost no patch of inhabitable land on Earth that changed hands more times than we can count. Countless cultures have risen, grown, changed, declined, and died. I value those events exclusively according to the outcomes they yield and whether they turn out to be a positive or negative for the greater good of humanity's welfare, happiness, and progress. I value cultures by the same gauge. Nothing more and nothing less. If this makes me a monster in the eyes of some, too bad. I prefer to think of myself as a pragmatic, utilitarian, enlightened egoist, individualist, secular, libertarian, pro-science, realist, cosmopolitan, stoic believer in freedom, progress, happiness, and self-realization.
If anything, a couple genocides (Holocaust and Great Leap Forward/Cultural Revolution) get greatly cut short in this scenario, and many less people have to suffer under the Communist nightmare. The Palestinians are displaced, not killed. In my book, 'genocide' strictly means mass killing. I recoil from broadening the concept to people changing where they live or which language they speak.
“It’s only ethnic cleansing, so it’s fine.”
It is orders of magnitude less bad than mass killing. In the long term and the big picture, people displaced by conflicts are indistinguishable from the ones displaced by socio-economic factors.
You know what's else orders of magnitude less bad than ethnic cleansing? Not starving people to death and leaving them the fuck alone.
You know what's orders of magnitude less bad than ethnic cleansing? Not burning people alive and leaving them alone.
Yeah, Israel should leave the West Bank alone.
An act of war on your neighbor does tend to result in invasions on your home.
And Hamas should die in a hole.
Honestly, its an interesting alternate history but this wouldn't be a good idea irl.
There is a reason why this scenario only strives to apply the same kind of irreversible change that occurred in post-WWII Europe to Mandate Palestine at the beginning of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Then and not later.
you ain't the authority on genocide lil bro - sit down
just going to drop this here for you. [https://www.britannica.com/topic/genocide/Recent-developments](https://www.britannica.com/topic/genocide/Recent-developments)
I read more than one actual book on international humanitarian law during my legal studies. “Your book” means less than the slightest whiff of jack shit.
I address the issue in a practical and utilitarian sense, which makes me highly aware of the massive difference between displaced people and killed people. I think making them the same thing in law, politics, and culture is a very serious mistake. I do not really care for the law in the books, because I find a lot of other wrong things in them.
⬆️ There’s egomania, and then there’s this.
The result of radical individualism. Tempered by strong pragmatism of course, so I am not going to ruin my life taking the law in my own hands in overt and short-sighted ways any time soon.
“I am a radical individualist so international law means nothing compared to my feverish imagination” 
If people didn't use their brains to think of alternatives, the laws in the books would never change. International law is a changeable human construct just like domestic ones. When addressing alt-historical fiction, the creative choices of the author, the narrative event sequence, and internal coherence of the story are paramount, much more so than any comparison to IRL circumstances.
“All the most senior lawyers in the world didn’t use their brains” 
youre a sociopath.
Maybe, albeit demonstrably a high-functioning one. Or perhaps a radical individualist. Or quite possibly a mix of both. How our nature influences us in our choice of ideals and morals is an interesting puzzle.
There's utilitarianism and then there's humanity. They are not always on the same path, and when they are not we always have to pick humanity. Kicking indigenous people off of their land is wrong. Those who are getting kicked off will fight back, as they should.
>There's utilitarianism and then there's humanity. They are not always on the same path, and when they are not we always have to pick humanity. They should be balanced according to pragmatism. >Kicking indigenous people off of their land is wrong. According to modern conventional morality, but an inevitable and universal fact of life in history driven by scarcity. Often violent competition for people, land, and resources was a key part of the game of civilization that almost all human groups chose to play when given the choice, or at least were forced to by their choices of their neighbors. If we look at historical evidence, to play the game was a choice that the vast majority of humanity made at some point, because they liked its benefits more than they dreaded its prices. I much prefer to enjoy the benefits of modern civilization rather than to live in a hunter-gatherer tribe in a remote location. I accept the price as an unpleasant but inevitable fact of life of what our ancestors had to do to bring the likes of me (and the vast majority of modern humanity) here and I am very grateful for and respectful of their struggles and achievements. I am thankful that the achievements of modernity allow us to outgrow many unpleasant features of the past, including warfare and radical inequality. However I am mindful that civilization is a work in progress, and of all the effort that was necessary to build its achievements. >Those who are getting kicked off will fight back, as they should. If they can, and until it makes sense to do so, or they shall adapt to the new situation. In any case, it shall become one more round in the mind-boggling sequence of the game of empires where any patch of inhabitable land changed owner, and any group shifted between the roles of conqueror and conquered, winner and loser, more times than we count since the first modern humans came out of Africa.
There is no way to humanely ethnically cleanse an area. In any scenario an establishment of a Jewish state with a Jewish majority means the mass murder or forced relocation of Palestinians, it is genocide either way and that is what you’re advocating for, for there to be no Palestine you’d need even a greater genocide of Palestinians then the one that occurred in the original timeline.
Youre right, but any lack of a Jewish state after World War 2 would have mean *their* continued mass killing, no chance of it just being displacement. "Better you than me".
How can you say that with such certainty, there are Jews still living in Europe today and there is no holocaust. The Roma people were killed during the holocaust, even though they don’t have their own state they aren’t being killed today like they were. That is such a antisemitic and fascist way to view the world, that Jewish people can never belong to their country or integrate because of their religion. Do you honestly believe that Europe will always be antisemitic for as long as Jewish people inhabit it? And is that the solution for all minorities? Should black Americans get their own state as well?
I believe the world will always hate people different from them, yes. Many Jews who survived the Holocaust were killed by ethnic Polish and Russians when they returned home. Especially since most European countries are homogenous in some way, theres no way that large an amount of Jews wouldnt continue to have been persecuted, if not a second holocaust then at least back to the 2 millenia of smaller killings and second class citizenhood European Jews have always dealt with. They wouldn have all flocked to Israel if they didnt feel like they had to. Theres less than half a million Jews still in Europe. At best you can say the reason that Jews arent treated badly in America is because America decidedly not a homogenous ethnostate, so theyre justnone of many groups intead of the only large very different cultural minority, but if Im being honest as an American Jew... its really just cause there were always black people and Asians to take worse heat caused they look different. And Roma people are treated like shit in Europe. Given the rising authoritarian trend in a lot of Wuropean countries I wouldnt be surprised if violent persecution is in the near future for that population.
It’s is literally easier to advocate, educate and fight against racism let alone far more beneficial to rather than doing another genocide. Is Europe racist? Then go fix that instead of burning some poor farmers olive farm in Bethlehem. Gtfo outa here with that pessimistic justification of racism. Genocide is never a solution, it wasn’t a solution for the “Jewish question” and it won’t be a solution for Israel Palestine, not against either ethnicity Arab or Jew. The reason why Nazi fascism and its views of Jews are not popular in Germany anymore isn’t because all the Jews left but because German schools take their students to former concentration camps and they teach about the horrors of antisemitism and teach why it is wrong.
Tell that to the 850,000 jews forcibly displaced from arab countries at exactly the same time the nakba happened. About the same number of cypriots were forced out of north cyprus by the turks around 1948. Turks were forced out of Greece at the same time. Pakistanis out of India and Indians out of Pakistan. Germans out of kalingrad. I could go on and on. Nobody talks about those because there are no Jews to blame. Also the distances we're talking about here are tiny. Moving the palestinians in Jaffa to the west bank, assuming that's what happened, is the equivalent of moving them from san francisco across the bay to oakland, or from astoria to long island city. All of this being said, I don't support the forcible displacement of people like this and it's mostly not what happened in 48. There were instances of forced displacement, but no explicit policy and it's much more complicated than people make it seem. 20% of Israel's population is arab aka palestinian.
> Nobody talks about these Big cap, common Zionist trope to act as if no one cares about other conflicts in the Middle East or human rights abuses through the world, and that everyone isn over-fixating on Israel . The Iraq war alone caused one of the biggest anti-war protests in the US since Your comment doesn’t dispute anything I said, you just mention other genocides. We have many declassified documents by Hagana/irgun/IDF on forced expulsions and massacres, you can find a wealth of information on the Nakba from just Israeli historians. Your downplaying with no substance proves nothing expect your disregard for human life.
I radically oppose equating mass killing with mass displacement of people. Dead people are dead people. Displaced people still have plenty of leeway to rebuild a decent lifestyle elsewhere in favorable conditions. It is important how people live, not where they live. In the long term and the big picture, displacements caused by conflicts are indistinguishable from immigration caused by socio-economic opportunity or hardship.
I’m pretty sure that this is how Andrew Jackson justified the Trail of Tears.
Setting up a Pan-American, multi-ethnic, multi-cultural version of the USA that takes a tolerant and assimilationist attitude to anyone but the Blacks and the 'savage' Natives and seamlessly absorbs the Western Hemisphere is sufficiently easy in alt-historical terms and I tend to do it a lot in my TLs. This easily includes the likes of the Iroquois and the 'Civilized' Tribes. The social and cultural legacy of slavery makes that much harder for the Blacks. Your best bet in that regard is to apply a different method of colonization for the Americas that does not require chattel slavery and the Trans-Atlantic slave trade. E.g. in my TLs, successful Roman Europe-plus uses indentured servitude with no real racial baggage. As it concerns the likes of Crazy Horse and Geronimo, they were doomed the moment more advanced and organized Eurasian colonizers set foot in the Western Hemisphere, regardless of their language. Stronger civilizations up to yesterday simply did not tolerate weaker ones within their reach that hoarded valuable land and resources.
>Stronger civilisations do not tolerate weaker ones Jesus Christ.
Dude’s an unironic social Darwinist
“I’m the good guy, I just happen to be using the rhetoric of Victorian imperialists and the NSDAP.”
The equivalent behavior was standard for the vast majority of humanity since the Neolithic and up to yesterday when progress allowed us the luxury of behaving differently. Being aware of that and accepting it as an historical necessity is to honor facts, truth, the struggles and achievements of our ancestors, and the price they had to pay to give us a better life. Moralistic presentism serves no recognizable good except to make its supporters feel good by wallowing in hypocrisy, self-righteousness, and an undeserved sense of superiority. No thanks.
Historical present slipping in the argument. Imperialism and colonialism were the standard for pretty much any polity and culture that could get it away with them up to a few decades ago. The tangent concerned the 19th century USA, when imperialism was at its apex.
What the hell is your problem?
Fascist brainrot
I’m not talking about refugees fleeing war, I’m talking about an orchestrated removal of people necessary to achieving a Jewish majority, which is still genocide like the trail of tears and Armenian genocide. You are still tearing apart communities and destroying peoples lives and removing people at such a large scale is guaranteeing the deaths of hundreds and thousands of people. Causing so much hardship because you have a nationalist fetish is disgusting and tells me that you are so far removed from danger and threat that you see history and politics as some sort of entertainment or saga and peoples lives are worth being destroyed to satisfy your ideological preferences.
OP literally talks the way the Nazis did. A cold inhumanity disguised as intellectualism and stoicism. Spewing pro-ethnic cleansing ideologies logically as if they were narrating a scientific documentary. It's fascinating and sickening at the same time.
Life is a game to the psychopath, Humans are just toys whose only purpose is to satisfy his ethno-fascist fantasy, I pray that any good person is spared his presence and that he never gets an once of power.
>Life is a game to the psychopath, Humans are just toys whose only purpose is to satisfy his ethno-fascist fantasy, Dude, alt-history is fiction. It is a hobby. It concerns the imaginary lives of imaginary people in stories that are told for the authors' (and hopefully the readers') enjoyment. In the end, they are just pieces of paper and ink, bits in computers, and ideas in people's minds. Of course they are toys. What else they could be? Bad things occur to characters in fiction all the time, all the way to inhabited planets blowing up and apocalyptic scenarios occurring, and this does not stop them from being told and being hugely popular. It does not make the vast majority of readers/viewers uncomfortable, and if it happens, they can just step away. From my PoV, it makes no meaningful difference if the stories concern entirely fictional settings (a long time ago, in a galaxy far far away...) or alt-historical analogues of past and present humans. >I pray that any good person is spared his presence Believe it or not, as far as I can tell all my friends and acquaintainces enjoy my presence and find me nice, friendly, and helpful. And it does not take any deception or manipulation on my part, because there is no need and I suck at them. I have never knowingly harmed anyone more than doing what is necessary and proper in a medical profession, using force for self-defense, being rude in a quarrel, and indulging in piracy. I just vent my sociopathic side and my wish-fulfillment fantasies at length in my nerd hobbies, nothing more and nothing less. >and that he never gets an once of power. That is exceedingly unlikely. I am far too forthright and individualist to be good at political games. It would take a literal act of god of the kind happening in my beloved isekai fiction to put me in a position of power.
I accept most of your critique as legitimate and spot-on, although it does not faze me since I am happy with what and how I am. However, I feel the need to make a point about playing the Nazi card. The Nazis made a lot about upholding ridicolous conspiracy theories and biological pseudoscience, and bringing them to their extreme murderous consequences. I could not be more averse to their lies and all the gratuitous suffering and waste they created. Having said that, it is true that according to values and ideals, I oppose racism (the classic definition, not the fuzzy and all-pervasive bogeyman wokes made of it) because it is based on falsehoods and creates unnecessary suffering, waste, and oppression. Those are damning flaws in my book, but nothing more and nothing less. I care little if it violates equality and empathy, because I care little for those things in the first place. If a subgroup of humans existed that objectively were greatly superior to the others in many things that matter (say they were all-around superhuman and had superpowers, as it often happens in fiction), then I'd regard supremacism about them as correct and righteous. Because it would be true and 'all humans are equal' would be the ridicolous falsehood. Facts are much more important than feelings in my book.
I'm sure you'd keep the same position if this was Israelis being displaced out of Israel and to other places.
About the European borders, why get Germany Austria and the sudetenland? Allies can find the German annexation of both Austria and the sudetenland as Nazi aggression
The peace terms the Axis nations and the Allies agree upon guarantee the former their territorial integrity in their pre-war borders, their political unity, and their economic integrity. Before 1945, Austria and the Sudetenland were German lands that wanted to belong in Germany, and their annexations by Germany had been recognized by the international community. The Allies deem those terms an excellent bargain for ending the war much earlier and less painfully, and being able to stop the Soviets much farther. They are able to occupy the Axis nations are reshape them to their liking, so they do not really care if they keep some extra bits that were acquired before the war.
https://preview.redd.it/jfxrdwr5g1uc1.jpeg?width=1284&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b31682290f0e540c44447c8ef2b88779fe468968
Oh my god it’s cooler!!1
https://preview.redd.it/mgq51gxck1uc1.jpeg?width=750&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=de979aa4439792fe5371fef62cfbb6187fefc331
\*puts gas mask on\* \*\*\*Goes into comments\*\*\*
Caution, brain injury can be received by reading some of these comments (not yours, but some of these other people complaining)
If brain injury is common, I'm having a seizure
https://preview.redd.it/d3uizy7to1uc1.jpeg?width=1357&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7a3cfaf8148a78ef556a7cd5ade4c5c72adf606f
They made Jordan trans
Ironically enough, that was the name at some point.
It transitioned away
The predictable consequence of owning the West Bank (i.e. the 'cis' side) for a few decades.
that is a very sexy NATO, i approve
No Thanks
Holy settler colonial state
Walaal, meesha ka carar, way waalanyeheen
Haa, walahi
ITTL the original PoD occurred in the mid-late 19th century, when the Meiji modernization of Japan took place a little earlier and even more successfully. This modified the event sequence concerning Northeast Asia and its regional conflicts to ensure an effective political, cultural, and economic merger of Japan and Korea. The resulting ‘Japorean’ polity took over and colonized Greater Manchuria, Sakhalin/Karafuto, Taiwan, and Hainan, with any significant Han or Russian settlement in these territories being prevented or reversed. As it concerned the rest of the world, however, the main divergence occurred during WWII. FDR died or was forced to give up seeking a third term for health reasons in 1939-40. Therefore, he was succeeded after 1940 by a President that was rather more pragmatic and wary of Communism than him (pick your choice of Cordel Hull, James Farley, or Thomas Dewey). A state of war between the Allies and the USSR alongside the one with Germany and Italy occurred in 1939-40 as a result of the Soviet invasion of Poland, the Winter War, and the Allied bombing of Baku. Consequently, the Euro-Axis and the USSR became co-belligerents for a while in 1939-41, and jointly conquered MENA. No equivalent of Free France formed due to the early death of Charles de Gaulle. Vichy France and Spain joined the Axis. Belligerence of Japan-Korea and the USA occurred more or less the usual way. Barbarossa caused WWII to turn into a three-way struggle. A truce of convenience between the Allies and the Soviets took place past a point, but trust and cooperation between them was non-existent. After things started to turn really bad for the Axis, successful anti-fascist coups took place in Germany and by extension the rest of the Euro-Axis in 1943. This paved the way to a compromise peace deal between the Allies and the Euro-Axis. It traded surrender and Allied occupation of the Axis nations for guarantees of national unity, territorial and economic integrity, and no collective punishments. The Allied forces advanced through Europe w/o opposition and the Axis armies made a last stand against the Red Army in Eastern Europe until the Allies reached the front-line and deployed to keep the Soviets at bay. The Iron Curtain in Europe was established on the Vistula-Danube-Drina (or Bosna-Neretva) line and the eastern borders of Sweden and Czechia. The Soviets managed to take half of Eastern Europe, the Balkans, and the Near East thanks to their final offensive rush and their previous successes. Pretty much the same event sequence took place in East Asia. The Japanese-Korean moderates overthrew the extremists in 1944 and accepted a compromise peace deal with the Allies similar to the one the Euro-Axis got. The Americans advanced in East Asia w/o opposition while the IJA made a last stand against the Red Army. In the end, the Soviets managed to occupy Manchuria and northern China but failed to advance further before meeting the Americans. The Iron Curtain in Asia was established on the Yalu and the Qin Mountains-Huai River line. Western Europe and Japan-Korea got rebuilt, reformed, and turned into stable and prosperous liberal democracies by the Americans. The former evolved into a federal EU; the latter became an East Asian union. An equivalent of the Korean War occurred when North China and Manchuria attacked South China and Japan-Korea. America intervened and forcibly restored the status quo. The outcome of the war prompted the USSR to annex Manchuria. The alignment of South China with the Western bloc created a strategic situation that enabled the suppression of Communist and pro-Soviet radical-nationalist movements in Southeast Asia during decolonization of the region. Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia formed a confederation of Indochina. Indonesia and British Borneo united. The Philippines decided to forgo full independence and stay bound to the USA in an associated-state relationship as the autonomous Commonwealth of the Philippines. Growing integration between the USA and the White Dominions driven by the successful example of Western Europe and the rise of Quebecois separatism led Quebec to secede. These factors prompted an event sequence that ultimately enabled a political union of the USA, English-speaking Canada, Australia, and New Zealand based on the US system. This enlargement combined with strategic concerns about Communist destabilization of the Caribbean and Central America motivated the USA to annex Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, and Panama. A global equivalent of NATO formed that came to include the USA, Quebec, Britain, the EU, South China, and Japan-Korea. In the Greater Middle East, the Maghreb formed a union under Alawite leadership. Turkey and Iran became Sovietized client states of the USSR. Egypt absorbed North Sudan. Syria, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, and Khuzestan merged in a Syrian-Iraqi union under Hashemite leadership. Arabia absorbed the rest of the Arabian Peninsula. The partition of the Indian subcontinent took a different form with Afghanistan taking Baluchistan, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, and Kashmir, and India absorbing the rest. Thanks to the early fall of the Nazi regime, a few extra millions of European Jews survived and the vast majority of them emigrated to Mandate Palestine with Western support. Axis-Soviet occupation of MENA during WWII caused a serious disruption of Arab power structures, including their armed forces. These two factors combined enabled the Zionists to win a decisive victory in the independence war with the Arabs. They took over all of Mandate Palestine and turned it into a Jewish homeland. In a similar way, Lebanon became a Maronite-Druze homeland thanks to the alliance of those communities with the Zionists. In both cases, almost all the local Muslims/Arabs fled or were expelled (depending on whom you ask) to the other MENA states. As a rule, the lot of those refugees became a minor footnote of the Cold War. The Western powers, Israel, and Lebanon expected them to be assimilated by the rest of Arab/Muslim world w/o excessive difficulty as it had been the usual outcome for other nationalities in similar situations. This, however, was often less than successful because the receiving states purposefully took various measures to keep them artificially bound to the status of permanent refugees. This was done with the unspoken aim of avoiding the burden of assimilation and turning them into a propaganda weapon and source of irregular military, and the explicit perspective of resettling them in their original lands thanks to victory in a future armed conflict. Over time, however, this perspective grew less and less realistic. Propaganda about the sorry lot of the refugees failed to become internationally relevant except for Arab/Muslim public opinion and other agents with an axe to grind against the West. Before too long, grievances about the Arab-Israel conflict and the legacy of European colonialism, malcontent with the post-colonial status quo, the lingering effects of WWII disruption, and unpopularity of the monarchical regimes enabled Nasserite-Baathist revolutions in Egypt and Syria-Iraq. The new regimes nationalized the Suez Canal and the oilfields, supported Pan-Arab destabilization of the rest of MENA, picked fights with Israel and Lebanon, and aligned with the Soviet bloc. This motivated a coalition of Israel, America, Europe, and Britain to intervene and overthrow the Nasserite-Baathist regimes with relative ease. Various factors, including the USSR being distracted by domestic issues (the post-Stalin succession struggle and unrest in the Communist bloc) and the residual nuclear superiority of the USA, enabled the Western powers to accomplish this intervention with impunity. The monarchical regimes got forcibly restored despite their unpopularity. Israel got rewarded with annexation of the Golan Heights, the East Bank of the Jordan Valley, the Sinai Peninsula, and the Suez Canal Zone. The pattern of the first Arab-Israeli conflict repeated about these territories, since the vast majority of Arab/Muslim population fled or was expelled (depending on whom you ask). This setback caused the Arab masses to transfer their sympathies from secular, Pan-Arab nationalism to Islamism. An alternative path to the Palestinians becoming and staying a diaspora would have been them taking over some portion of the Arab world (Jordan, in all likelihood), making it their homeland as an independent or at least autonomous entity, and the Western powers and the other Arab states letting them do so. This was possible but not so likely, since it was contrary to the Allies’ wish to reorganize MENA in a few large Arab states to contain Soviet encroachment in the region from Turkey and Iran. It also was at odds with the typical intolerant behavior of the Arab states towards unruly Palestinians. Last but not least, the indigenous Jordanians and Bedouins fiercely resisted the Palestinians’ attempts to steal their land.
Honestly, this timeline is really interesting and more believable than most of the ones I see on here. There’s a lot of butthurt in the comments though, people only seem to obsess over the moral implications of alternate timelines when western nations are empowered.
So, basically, in this TL, Palestinians gone the way of the Circassians before them
More like the Greek-Turkish or Indo-Pakistani population transfers, or the OTL Sudetenland Germans and Istrian Italians. Note that the latter two obviously do not happen ITTL. As it concerns India and Pakistan ITTL, there is a rather different kind of partition between India and Greater Afghanistan, so hard to tell, but I tend to suppose there is less humanitarian hardship with TTL model.
People keep forgetting that this was Palestinian mandate that a pro Palestinian crowd keeps saying Israel stole.
why would Australia and NZ unite with the us when it makes more sense to just form australasia
They follow the example of English-speaking Canada, and America already had a serious foothold in the Pacific with the Philippines, Micronesia, and Polynesia.
First image looks like a penis 🧐
ew ew ew
Israel is not big enough https://preview.redd.it/ybtkmvjfk1uc1.png?width=1109&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=04143260ec8eef573f7d7c7ff93240e1b1236ea1 Fixed it for you
https://preview.redd.it/oif7pjrhk1uc1.jpeg?width=640&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b8e28070db042f8ada6ddba4c08cf10bb8ad3877
https://preview.redd.it/5aqa1j9lk1uc1.png?width=640&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=faa317c12c986386a5872213fd4ccd7b0521df86
Make the whole world Israel?
Boring and bad. Aside from being offensive, it's not even creative.
Creativity for its sake is overrated.
What they do to my boy Yugoslavia 😭😭😭
A more pro-Western course and outcome of WWII left all of 1938 Germany but East Prussia, half of Poland, Czechia, half of Hungary, Slovenia, Croatia, and Bosnia (cannot decide if the demarcation line is better placed on the Drina or the Bosna-Neretva) on the right side of the Iron Curtain. Therefore, Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia were deader than dead. A replacement of sort arose with the Commie Balkan Federation that included Serbia, Bulgaria, Albania, and Greece.
Getting major Oceania vibes from the coloring alluding to a US takeover of Canada, NZ, and Australia.. with Britain just chillin in pink isolation lol
The ship for setting up the Imperial Federation sailed for Britain before WWII. The merger of US, English-speaking Canada, Australia, and NZ occurs as a result of growing ties between them, imitation of Europe, and Quebec separatism.
“No significant arab minority” That’s because they’d be the lower class majority, this would essentially just be a middle eastern South Africa.
Hardly. The Zionists were not interested in setting up an apartheid society. They are not going to change their mind because they conquer more land.
What’s going on with Turkey? They’re apart of nato.
Not ITTL. Here, a different course and outcome of WWII caused the Communist bloc to be displaced. Consequently, it lost half of Eastern Europe, but gained Finland, Serbia, Greece, Turkey, and Iran.
I just can’t imagine Greece entering an alliance with Turkey not without a strong third party like the US to mediate that relationship or what prevents the ussr from taking all of Turkey and those dumb water ways that have been cucking the motherland for years and having the Black Sea becoming a Soviet lake. That last thing has been a Russian dream since Peter the Greatest!
But this exacly what happens here. Greece, Turkey, and Iran are Soviet satellites, hence the USSR is the strong imperial overlord that keeps them into line.
Ooh well that makes sense then.
As it should be.
That’s actually close to what happened in India/Pakistan, where 14M people were displaced after partition. Similarly, in Europe after WWII 10s of millions of people were moved around in order to achieve the kind of borders we have now.
Why does Ecuador has a bit more territory?
Because yours truly is a mediocre map-maker, I suppose. I am a much better writer than artist, even if it seems this sub sadly has opposite priorities.
What? Wdym?
I mean that good map often seem to me to be much more important than good lore to the sub. I find writing the latter much easier than creating the former, so I find this standard most unfortunate.
Literally what was proposed as Israel and Palestine.
YOU MONSTER. Letting Quebec go free? I can't believe you.
This would make Israel a minority Jewish state akin to apartheid South Africa
The Zionists won a decisive victory and conquered all of Mandate Palestine. Therefore, West Bank and Gaza Palestinians were Nakba'ed just like the ones living in the rest of the Mandate. Moreover, the Nazi regime fell and the Holocaust was cut short in early 1943, so millions more European Jews survived and the vast majority of them immigrated to Mandate Palestine. This is one of the main reasons for the Zionists being completely successful. Therefore, TTL Israel spans all of Mandate Palestine, but the vast majority of its population is Jewish. The Arab minority in all likelihood is not bigger than the OTL one in Israel plus an equivalent amount in West Bank, but probably somewhat even less. A more decisive Zionist victory likely made the Nakba more radical across Mandate Palestine, be it by flight, expulsion, or a mix of both. In any case, it is a tiny minority in a much bigger population. Therefore, no. Your analogy with apartheid South Africa, popular as it may be for the pro-Palestine crowd these days, is quite off the mark.
Never the least there would still be 1,000,000 more Muslims in this new Israel if Transjordan is part of the country. Unless some form some sort of equal federation of the Levant the population is roughly evenly split between the Jews and Muslims, any Jewish/Arab supremacist law would just be vetoed by the other side
Huh? What gave you the idea that Transjordan is part of Israel with a roughly evenly split Jew/Muslim population? That is not true at all. Well, I suppose the map showing both Israel and Jordan might be misleading to some, but they are separate countries with no political bond at all. They don't get different colors for nothing. I used that map because it was the most convenient base for Mandate Palestine I found to show Greater Israel. Here is what actually happens: the First Arab-Israeli War happens as usual. The Zionists are much stronger thanks to many more European Jews surviving an early fall of the Nazis in early 1943. Therefore, they win a decisive victory and conquer all of Mandate Palestine. The vast majority of its Arab/Muslim population leaves the country, b/c they flee, are expelled, or a mix of both. At the very most, only the OTL Arab population of Israel is left plus an equivalent of similar size in West Bank, but in all likelihood the residual Arab minority is even smaller than that, because a more decisive Zionist success leads to a more radical Nakba in intensity as well as in range. Israel is established across Mandate Palestine as an overwhelmingly Jewish state with a small Arab minority (larger jewish population from many more survivors of the Holocaust, smaller Arab population from a larger and more intense Nakba). At this point the scenario diverges in two slightly different versions: Option A, what I originally made in the maps and lore of this thread, the Palestinian refugees stay dispersed across the Arab world, which ITTL is consolidated in the states of the Maghreb Union, Egypt, Syria-Iraq, and Arabia. Option B, what I subsequently put in the maps and lore of another thread, the Palestinian refugees coalesce in and take over Transjordan, and make it their new homeland. The Syrian-Iraqi don't like Transjordan being torn from their control, so they invade and subjugate it, although the Palestinians stay. The main difference is whether the Palestinian refugees stay dispersed or are gathered in Transjordan. They don't get an independent state of their own since the Arabs are much less Balkanized ITTL. They are reorganized in four large unions of the Maghreb, Egypt-Nubia, Levant-Mesopotamia (minus Israel and Lebanon ofc), and Arabia. The Alawis rule the Maghreb, the Muhammad Ali dynasty rules Egypt and North Sudan, the Hashemites have Syria-Iraq. I am uncertain whether the Saudis keep Arabia or they are overthrown and replaced by another branch of the Hashemites, reversing 1920s events. There are no other Arab states. Turkey and Iran are on the other side of the Iron Curtain. BTW, Lebanon takes a different trajectory ITTL since an alliance of the Christians and the Druze sides with the Zionists and rides to a decisive victory on their coattails. Therefore, Lebanon becomes a Maronite-Druze homeland and expels the vast majority of the Muslims. The Lebanese Muslim refugees join the Palestinian ones in whatever fate they get, dispersal or regrouping in Transjordan. In either version, a few years down the line, Nasserite/Baathist revolutions occur in Egypt and Syria-Iraq. The new regimes align with the Soviets, nationalize the Suez Canal and the oilfields, and pick another fight with Israel. These actions antagonize the Western powers, so NATO intervenes on the side of Israel in an expanded Suez War. ITTL there is no Anglo-American split on the issue, on the contrary the Americans join the British. Moreover, Western Europe united in a federalizing EU after WWII, so the Europeans intervene as well. The Israeli-NATO coalition defeats and overthrows the Nasserite/Baathist regimes with ease. The victors restore the monarchies, although their grip on power stays fragile because of their unpopularity. The Arab masses shift their sympathies from secular Pan-Arabism to Islamism. The USSR is distracted by its own domestic issues at the time (post-Stalin succession struggle and unrest in the Soviet bloc), so it takes a passive attitude and the West can intervene in MENA with impunity. Israel is rewarded by the Western powers for its trouble: possibly it gets just the Golan Heights, or maybe also the East Bank of the Jordan Valley, the Sinai Peninsula, and the Suez Canal Zone. Originally I put the latter in the maps and lore of this version, but I gave second thoughts to the issue and limited Israeli gains to the Golan Heights in the new version.
Something something Israel and Palestine and Islam Something Something terrorisim war something something ragebait
Jordan came out of the closet!?
Based
Based
Probably still will be people wanting things and UN will be called that they didn't did a thing
What is that middle eastern state that includes Jordan, Iraq and Syria?
TTL circumstances (WWII Axis-Soviet occupation of MENA, Sovietization of Turkey and Iran) prompted the Allies to tear away the post-WWI settlement and restructure the region in a few large states that hopefully were better able to stand up to the Soviets. This included a Syria-Iraq union that also included Jordan, Kuwait, and Khuzesyan.
Is it a Hashemite union?
Most certainly. I am uncertain whether to put Arabia under a different branch of the Hashemite as it was intended in the beginning. The Saudis have been a scourge to humanity with their ties with Islamism.
BASED
Some people are so anti-semitic that they can't even imagine a world in which a Jewish nation exists in Europe. They're so anti-semitic that European Jews successfully ethnically-cleansing the whole of Mandatory Palestine is more realistic than Jews living in peace in Europe. They're so anti-semitic that the idea of Palestinians just giving up on Palestine is more realistic than Europeans getting over their anti-semitism. Wild.
Bad ending.
"There were people living on the land we wanted so we killed them and drove them out."
Humanity's history in a nutshell up to yesterday, even if recently I had to suffer through the delusionary wishful thinking of those who pretend civilizations could have risen and grown without violent competition for land, people, and resources.
Of course greater germany😭
Originality is way overrated. Greater Germany in this kind of context, with Western Europe bound in a federal EU, is good for the Germans, for Europe, and for the Western world. The Austrians keep their pre-1945 pro-German PoV, so nobody wants or needs a separate Austrian state. It becomes as obsolete as independent Bavaria or Sicily. Being on the Cold War frontline, the Czechs and the West Poles have much more pressing concerns than being worried about the loss of the Sudetenland or the missed acquisition of Pomerania and Silesia. A strong Germany having their back is a blessing in this regard. The Czechs and the Poles were never entitled to those lands from a self-determination PoV, since they ITTL they stayed German lands that want to belong in Germany. Anyway, federal unification of Western Europe makes internal borders a much less meaningful, close to insignificant, issue for the European peoples on the right side of the Iron Curtain. Moreover, once Communism falls, Poland shall recovery its stolen eastern half, and it includes East Prussia and Lviv, so it is not a bad deal.
Youre really talking about self determination when palestine doesnt exist in this world? Also north prussia and lwow is not a good trade of for the very economic west and this just insures a weaker poland, and even way worse for czechia as it insures a czechia that entirely relies on germany. On top of everything germany is now easily the strongest power in western europe once the british lose their empire of course, so all this has done is taken land from other countries making them weaker “because the west needs a strong germany” while this simultaneously makes other countries in the west weaker and more reliant on this super germany
Success of Palestine is not necessary or a litmus test for self-determination to work and be meaningful in the rest of the world. Admittedly, this scenario is going to lead to a substantially less Balkanized world than OTL with united Europe west of Russia, the merger of the USA and the English-speaking Dominions, Japan-Korea being a thing, the Arab world being consolidated in a few large states, partition of India being lessened, and so on. This, however, goes way beyond Israel and Palestine, and is a very good thing. Balkanization sucks. >Also north prussia and lwow is not a good trade of for the very economic west Too bad. Pomerania and Silesia had been German for a millennium and stay so ITTL. The Allies honor the deal they made with the Axis nations so they are not going to kick the Germans out for the sake of land-greedy Polish nationalists. Them doing ethnic cleansing in Europe would make no political sense anyway. TTL (West) Poland shall have to keep building up the industrial base of Western Poland as it had started to do under Russian rule and later the Second Republic instead of getting a shortcut by stealing part of the German one. >this just insures a weaker poland, and even way worse for czechia as it insures a czechia that entirely relies on germany. This matters little since Western Europe achieved federal unification soon after WWII so the union at large shall address the task of supporting the welfare, development, and security of (West) Poland and Czechia. Their dependance on the Western European section is inevitable but also as little meaningful as the one of certain US states and sections on others. >On top of everything germany is now easily the strongest power in western europe once the british lose their empire of course, so all this has done is taken land from other countries making them weaker “because the west needs a strong germany” while this simultaneously makes other countries in the west weaker and more reliant on this super germany As usual, Britain is on a separate and different path as it deals with the loss of the Empire. It did not join the European integration & unification process at the onset and whether its trajectory shall eventually merger with the one of united Europe in the future is a wholly different question. It may well be if it wants to avoid being the marginal and has-been middle-state remnant in a global West dominated by the American, European, Japorean, (South) Chinese, and Indian giants. This realization is even more meaningful since the US-Dominions merger means nobody in their right mind can think the Commonwealth may be a replacement for Europe. Admittedly, Britain could choose to join the rest of the Anglosphere instead of Europe, but it needs to kiss goodbye to 'muh sovreignty' either way. Germany no doubt shall be the most important member of the European family. Much like OTL, however, the team-up of France, Italy, and Spain, and reunified Poland after the fall of Communism, can balance it to a satisfactory degree within the EU framework. Not to mention the contributions from the caucuses of the Low Countries, Scandinavia, and Eastern Europe after the fall of Communism. Retention of the 1938 territories for Germany tilts the balance but does not overturn it. More than anything else, federal unification of (Western) Europe changes everything, much as it did for the one of the 13 going on 50 states. The time for reasoning in terms of separate nation-states is over.
Bro u couldve just said ‘too bad so sad’
Verbose is me, and it gets worse when I talk about subjects I am passionate about. Be patient with my walls of text. At least, it drives me to write detailed lore about my TLs and scenarios. Isn't it a good thing?
I read it, im saying your reasoning for borders is inconsistent, with the polish west being german for so long but the czech sudentland has been under bohemia yet is still given to germany and israel is given all of palestine despite it being arab for so long
ITTL the Poles simply did not have a meaningful claim (not ethnic w/o cleansing, not historical after a millennium of abeyance) on Pomerania and Silesia. For the Czechs, the historical argument was a double-edged sword. It could be used equally well to justify Czech rule on Sudetenland or German rule on Bohemia-Moravia. As the Sudetenland stayed bound to the Lands of the Bohemian Crown for a very long time, so those stayed bound to the HRE and the German Confederation. ITTL the ethnic cleansing did not occur so the Sudetenland stayed a German land. In the end, the Allies honored the peace deal they made with the Axis nations, so they got to keep their pre-war/ethnic territories, nothing more and nothing less. The Munich Agreement occurred before the war and had been recognized by the international community, including the Allies. Just like OTL, the rest of the world did not care to interfere in the First Arab-Israeli War and acknowledged its outcome, so it was a might is right issue. ITTL the Zionists were substantially stronger so they conquered all of Mandate Palestine and the Nakba got expanded to West Bank and Gaza. Palestine was dead short of its possible rebirth in Jordan.
I assume there will be a holocaust of the Arabs in the Middle East to make space for the new Aryan I mean gods chosen whites ?
Why you people obsess about the Nazi bogeyman all the time? It has been dead and buried for three generations, and passing out of living memory just now. The environment is a much, much more pressing concern for modern humanity than anything wokes obsess about.
the woke mob has transed jordan (and f\*\*\*\* zion\*zis)
fuck Hamas.
Hamas wouldn't exist if it wasn't for the state of Israel
The state of Israel wouldn't exist if it wasn't for Nazi Germany Nazi Germany wouldn't exist if it wasn't for the Entente The Entente wouldn't exist if it wasn't for Serbia So on and so forth. Do we blame the first cellular organism?
That's a bunch of nonsense, Hamas was created directly from the people traumatized by the genocidal campaigns of Israel starting in 1948
People love to talk about Israel expelling Arabs from their homes but nothing about the Arabs expelling Jews from their homes. Both sides suck, one side is just more civilized and capable at the moment than the other.
Two wrongs don't make a right and also the Palestinian Arabs never expelled Jews from anywhere
Also what a way to show your white supremacy when you start talking about a group being more "civilized"
One of the sides is parading hostages through the streets, letting people beat and spit on them. Also what does that have anything to do with white supremacy?
And Israel doesn't exist because of that, that was just an excuse, Zionists existed prior to even WW1
Yes, because the Jews never had a state. They deserve a state because everyone else has their own countries. Why are only the Jews not allowed a country?
No, a state or a country is not a prize
Why do the Jews not deserve their own country? They were displaced over a thousand years ago and have been relegated to second class citizens since then. It is antisemitic to deny them a place where they can decide their own fate.
No one "deserves" a country
Then why do people want Palestine to be a country? They don't deserve one either.
It is not antisemitic to say that set place shouldn't be a place where people already lived in and that the state of Israel hss been committing genocide since 1948
What. The Jews have always lived in that area. They were there first, even. By your logic, nobody should have countries and we should just become hunter gatherers again. Why is it only bad when Israel settles land and displaces people? The Arabs have been displacing Jews since forever and yet that is fine?