Editorial: Last Post of 2017

Hello everyone! Here we are, at last, on the final day of this God forsaken year. It's been stressful, chaotic, and at times mortifyingly painful to experience, but, here we are.

Normally I don't talk alot about myself, but, suffice to say, 2017 has not turned out to be one of the years I'll remember fondly. I lost my first post-university job in March because of computer stuff, and it has been nine months of worrying about how to pay student loans, high expectations of what kind of time I had at my disposal, and in turn outlandish goals that I just really never had any hope of completing, including multiple writing projects and helping out on the family farm at the same time. I had hoped to get a couple fairly large alternate history writing projects done, but neither are close.

On the bright side, I do have a new job at a local furniture store. It's been pretty good so far, and will help with the student loans. But with a full 9-6 day Monday to Saturday, that basically means that writing is now very much a secondary concern of mine, for weekends and a few hours in the evening after supper and before bed.

So, with that, I'm going to have to drastically change how I do things.

First, this blog will be pretty much on indefinite hiatus (which, to be frank, is where it was already). I had been working on several scenarios to post on here, but I just haven't got them done thanks to the holiday season, NaNoWriMo and other things. Hopefully in a couple months, once work has settled down and I've managed to take some major steps in writing (see the point below!), I can come back and provide some new scenarios for you all to enjoy.

Second, I'm going to be focusing on one of my larger projects, a series of short stories in alternate histories that involve transportation. My goal, my New Years Resolution, is to complete that story, edit it, and get it published (most likely as an e-book) by the end of 2018. If I manage to get another story somewhat close to publishing after, that will be a big bonus, but not my ultimate goal.

Third, when this blog does come back, it will change a lot. The Fake News/Onion-esque thing, while it was fun to write, isn't really what most of you came here to read. And while fun to write when I have the idea, It's been nearly impossible to actually make more of them, if for no other reason than the total information and news overload of the past years. Somedays looking at the headlines on CBC News and the New York Times is like browsing the Onion, and it's just so... exhausting to rehash it all again. And the scenario's I've written, while interesting and fun, are really, really long. So, I'm going to be working on trying to make them shorter, sweeter, and to the point, similar to This Day in Alternate History blog.

So, TL;DR version: I'm putting the blog on hold to write stuff, and when I come back, it will be AltHistory all the time, and hopefully shorter and better.

So off to 2018, and see you all next year!

Editorial: Social Changes in Alternate History

Sorry for the delay in posting new topics. Been busy with life, work and other projects.

But this has been a question that I've been thinking a lot about lately, especially in regards to what is going on around the world right now: How do our beliefs and ideals change over time? And how much can a small group of people change an entire nation's ideology?

I'm not much of a social historian. I like my wars and battles and big momentous events, and I do believe, somewhat, in the "Great Man" theory of history, though not for every single event. However, I do recognize that underlaying social currents support the above, but I don't believe that changes in society and culture always directly lead to historical developments as some social historians like to claim.

In fact, I think major social changes can happen very quickly, and often with just a minor push in a certain direction, and often more willing to fall back to traditional forms, if modified, than to embrace new, foreign concepts.

The example I keep thinking about is Nazi Germany. The Germany of 1933 was in chaos, despite having one of the most democratic constitutions in the world. For decades, the belief was that more democracy is better, right? That's what the framers of the Weimar Republic must have been thinking when they wrote their constitution. With enough time to retrain the Monarchists, the Militarists, the Communists and the Nationalists to the benefits of a peaceful, inclusive government, then Germany would become a beacon of democracy. The problem, of course, was that it was running against hundreds of years of German history. But with time, of course...

But then Hitler and the Nazi's came, pushing very early on for a government lead by a strong leader (Hitler, of course, was sure it was going to be him) and to do away with the silly democracy. And enough Germans, using that silly democratic system, believed the Nazi's to vote them into power in 1933. Soon after, Hitler rendered the constitution moot, ruling as an absolute dictator, using a secret police, military expansion, propaganda and racism to strengthen his rule.

And millions of Germans went along with it, even though just a few years before they were willing to let the democratic experiment run it's course.

So what happened? To a degree, it was a retrenchment of old German and Prussian ideals: a strong military to defend the nation and bring glory, a strong, paternalistic leader to guide the people, suspicion of ideas of "liberty" and "democracy", and a belief that fate was with them. But it also had the more sinister anti-Semitism, violence, fear and blatant propaganda to go with it, and turned National Socialism into the sinister ideology that we hate today, the one that has devolved to the point where you would call someone you fundamentally hate and disagree with a "Nazi," wether they support that ideology or not.

But the thing is: had the Nazi's won World War Two, had Hitler conquered the world, he would have been right. Not because we are totally and completely wrong to the "true" nature of humanity, but because we would believe and accept it. It would have drilled into our heads in school, blared from our TV, radio, movies, and repeated, time and again, that Fascism, National Socialism, is the best thing in the world, the true ideology of humanity, and that Communism and Democracy were failed experiments at best, or worse: detrimental, vile and destructive ideologies out to destroy the world.

This is something to remember when looking at alternate history, and a pratfall that many (myself included) have fallen in: the winners write the history. They also can shift the social ideals through education and propaganda, they can make defeats into victories, or they can make victories in defeats. We today believe that democracy and capitalism is the best because it "won." We think it's natural because it's what the majority of the world believes. But at one point half the world thought that totalitarian dictatorships was the way to go, and centuries ago kings and emperors ruled the world. While racism is something that we still struggle with today, we recognize it as something we have to get rid of. In an alternate history, or even in the not-so-distant past, we actively encouraged it.

So when reading or writing an alternate history, remember that just because democracy, capitalism, free speech, free religion and others "won," that's not always the case. And in a few short years, it could be the other way entirely.

Editorial: Parallelism and Alternate History

So I hope you all had a good holiday season. I've been pretty busy with family and work, and getting into playing Overwatch, which, like everything that I get into, is long after everyone else already gets into it.

But I digress. It has been fun! Even if I can't hit anything when I shoot.

So, you know... pew pew dead. That's how I roll!

Anyway, back to Alternate History and talking about it.

One thing that has come up a lot in my discussions with fellow Alternate Historians is the use of parallels to our history in AH, and to what degree we should use it. Some say that parallelism is sloppy writing and should be avoided, while other's say that it helps connect events in the minds of readers so should be used liberally. I've had people especially drag Harry Turtledove through the mud for his parallelism in his Timeline 191 series, which I'll get to in a bit.

I'm somewhere in the middle, as some of the writing I've done on the Alternate History Wiki and on this blog are anything to consider. I think it's most important when doing AH that I write a good story that is understandable to people who have, at most, a small grasp on the history of the era. This is why the most popular topics of AH in English: World War Two and the American Civil War, because almost everyone in Canada, the US and the UK know about those two events. And, as we all know, the US is the centre of the world...

And it's reasons like that that this map exists.

Most people know some of the details, like D-Day happening on June 6, 1944, and the Americans joined the war when Japan surprise attacked Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. But in most cases, they don't understand why the war happened, the underlying causes, the more subtile events, or even the other nations involved (I blame the Cold War and rather nationalistic historical educational systems we still have for downgrading the role of other nations, especially the USSR).

So this is where the value of parallelism can come in handy. For those people that enjoy a good story, but don't have the full depth of knoweldge of a historical setting, using familiar dates can help to anchor the story into the time period, even if the causes and results of the Alternate History are vastly different.

It's also a reason why I'm not totally opposed to see big names in stories and timelines that started decades, if not centuries before they would have been born OTL. In fact, in my big French Trafalgar, British Waterloo TL, I'm very guilty for doing this. Partially because I was still in high school and only just starting my AH career, and also because I simply suck with making up new names, as many readers of mine could point out. Though, to be honest, the biggest reason was because I always wanted a picture beside the name in articles like the "Presidents of the US" and "Prime Ministers of France." Kind of hard to do that when you just make up people. But, I made it fairly clear, namely through changing dates of birth and death, that there are still some butterflies: most have been hanged by up to ten years in either direction of their OTL birthdays.

Birthdays can get weird in parallel timelines.

But there are the pratfalls of sticking to parallelism too closely. Timeline 191 is one of the more blatant examples: World War One starting the same day that it did OTL, with the same reason for the war (the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, but by bomb instead of gunshot), and then the USA and CSA duking it out over three years of trench warfare. I've had people go on about how the South shouldn't have been able to withstand against the full might of the US, but I have my theories as to why the CSA could have lasted as long as they did (and something I will go into further detail later). It's even more blatant when a fascist CSA attacks the US on June 22, 1941 in Operation Blackbeard, which is basically a copy-replace of Nazi Germany's Operation Barbarossa that took place on the same day, and with major battles occurring on the same day ATL as major battles occurred OTL. Some of these do seem a bit forced and ridiculous, but I can understand why Turtledove did it, if just to ensure that for new readers to alternate history that they aren't thrown out of the loop. That said, he could have handled it better in my opinion, and better paralleled the ideas and emotions of the time (which he did some extent), and broke free from the tyranny of dates and timing.

But he's the New York Time's Best Selling Author, and I'm a procrastinating 24 year old on the internet. So what do I know?

Not as much as he does about growing a beard, that's for certain

Anyway, sorry for the month long silence. Hopefully I'll get back to a more regular posting schedule in the near future. But if you have any suggestions or comments, find me on Twitter @tbguy1992, or email me at tbguy1992@gmail.com

Editorial: An American Westminster Democracy?

With all the hoopla of the current election in the United States, and all the talk of primaries, conventions, the Electoral College, polls, scandals, etc. etc., it can all seem just a little bit overwhelming.

Mostly because of him...

American democracy has a lot going for it, but it's a hopelessly outdated system, with only minor tweaks since it was put together by the Founding Fathers in 1787. Take the Electoral College: it was designed to make sure the "mob" didn't dominate the country, with men above the political fray making the deciding vote on who would be President. The Senate was to be elected by the different states, and only the House of Representatives was elected by the citizens at large (and back then, only white men with some property). But over the years, eventually almost every office in the US, from President to Judges to State Governors to Dog Catchers were elected, though I think jobs like judges should be kept above the partisan fray. The checks and balances of the system are also something to be proud of, until of course it bogs down when two ideological opposites are in charge of the Executive and Legislative branch.

But the problems with the US system is still immense. The Electoral College is unfair for everyone: Smaller states have a larger vote than bigger states, but at the same time only a few states, like Florida and Ohio, can determine who will win the Presidency. Federal electoral districts are drawn up by the states, and in many states they are gerrymandered to give the party a better chance in Washington. It's more or less the way for successful candidates being able to choose their voters, and not the other way around.

I present to you... the Illinois Fourth District. Do I need to explain why this is stupid?

So why don't we just scrap it? Why not try a government system like in the United Kingdom and Canada? Of course, history wise we know it wasn't going to be even considered by the new US, considering what Parliament in far-off London did to piss off the colonialists, and I'll be the first to admit there are some issues with this form of government. But let's do a thought experiment, and see how the US would look if it had a system of government similar to the Westminster parliamentary system?

Well first of all, everything you know about US elections will have to be thrown out the window. Their will be a Prime Minister who is the leader of the government, and is usually the leader of the largest party (or coalition of parties) in a representative body, which can still be the House of Representatives in this version. The President can still be head of state, and he can be powerful (like in France) or weak (in Germany) as see fit. My guess, in order to maintain some checks and balances, the President would have a lot of power in this alternate American system. I'd give him the power to call elections for the House of Representatives (either with or without the "advice" of the PM), veto laws, and appoint judges and other executive positions, barring confirmation from the Senate. How the President is selected can be left up to debate. Maybe this is where the Electoral College would come in, but I'd be more willing to just have him either elected directly by the people, or selected by a joint session of Parliament/Congress. The Senate, if it would be similar to the UK or Canada, would have appointed members: say they are chosen by the State Legislators to sit until they retire, are removed, or died. In Canada, the mandatory retirement age is 75, so something similar could be seen here.

As soon as you reach sixty, you not only get the Seniors Bonus discounts at the Senate Restaurant, you also can apply for a lift chair in the chamber!

The Prime Minister, however, will have a huge amount of power, being the leader of the largest party in the House of Representatives. Now, the way the House would be divided up will be similar to OTL, but with one huge change: the electoral districts will be set by an independent, non-partisan committee. The UK's districts had been before determined by the monarch when Parliament and the House of Commons was being set up, but in many cases they didn't change. It got to the point in the early 1800s that many of the largest growing industrial towns like Manchester and Birmingham had no representation, while agricultural areas that had only a tiny population, or sometimes no population at all (Old Sarum, for instance, had only seven voters), would still elect two (TWO!) Members to Parliament. These "Rotten boroughs" were eventually done away with in 1832, though it wouldn't be until 1944 that non-partisan electoral boundary committees were set up to determine the boundaries. The US, in this Alternate History, might be sooner than that.

Elections will also be interesting. In the case of the federal government, they could serve a term as long as 4 or 5 years before mandatory elections, as long as the Prime Minister, and by extension his party, maintains control. Now, elections can be called sooner: In the event that the largest party doesn't have an overwhelming majority, a vote of non-confidence, say the opposition uniting to defeat the PM's budget or a major platform policy, can be enough to force the PM to ask the President to dissolve the House and call elections. For example, in Canada, between 2000 and 2015, we had six elections (2000, 2004, 2006, 2008, 2011, 2015), of which only three resulted in a "majority" government, or one where one party had more than half the seats (2000, 2011, 2015).

Justin Trudeau's hair also won a seat in a Montreal area riding, further bolstering the Liberal majority.

So, how would this version of the House of Representatives be made up? First, we'll say there are 435 seats, like OTL, and that they are evenly distributed by a non-partisan body like in Canada and the UK. If we use the numbers from the 2012 election (as it would be more representative of the US population, as turnouts are lower in "midterm" election IRL, and would more accurately determine the US's political view point at the time), the Democrats would have more seats, but only 212 seats. The Republicans, with 207 seats, would be the opposition. The other 16 would be held by third parties...

BUT WAIT! Unless the US decided to also change to something other than a first past the post system for elections, then it's not a guarantee that the Democrats would actually have that many seats, or that third parties would even gain a seat (which, unfortunately, is a problem still with the US's two party system). Possibly they might have more than that. After all, say there are three districts, each with 100,000 voters. In one district, 80% of the voters chose the Democrat, so that seat went to the Democrat. In District Two, 80% of the Vote went to the Democrat. But say in District three, the Democrat got 45% of the vote, the Republican 40%, and a Libertarian candidate the other 15%. Even though the Democrat didn't get a full 50%+1, he still won the election. This is just as true in the current system as it would be in the Westminster Democracy.

As with any election, you need three things... A map, different coloured pens, and numbers to decide everything!

However, one thing about the Westminster Democracy: third parties do have a much easier time in getting seats, especially regional parties. In the UK, the Scottish National Party holds 54 Seats, and with the other third parties and independents, there are 89 seats that are not held by the Conservatives of Labour party in a 650 member House of Commons. Similar in Canada: The Liberal Party holds 184 seats, the Conservatives 99, the New Democratic Party 44, the Bloc Quebecois at 2, and the Green Party at 1. But the Liberal Party, despite winning so many seats, only actually received 39.5% of the vote. So in the alternate US system, third parties, especially regional parties, would have a much easier time getting seats. For all we know, a "New Confederacy" Party could have swept the Southern States, or split the vote with another party to let a different party win.

"See, if only we didn't vote for the 'Haven't Got a Chance in Hell' Party, we could have prevented the Conservatives from winning!"

So would this system be better? In some ways, such as allowing third parties a chance to get more seats, yes. It would also make the House of Representatives more powerful in the Federal Government, as it's the body most directly in turn with the average citizen, with a President that has more limited powers and a senate composed mostly of appointees. In breaking deadlocks, perhaps. After all, if the party in power doesn't have a commanding majority, or a formal coalition, then it could be taken down at any moment, and a new election being held. But in more accurately representing the vote, that would be a no. In some cases, with more third parties, it could be worse than it currently is with the gerrymandering in the US system.

Now I'm not saying the US should use this system. But I think the US system needs a complete overhaul. It was established when a man on a horse was the fasting transportation possible, and concerns about full-fledged democracy was a major concern to the framers of the Constitution. But now with cars, cell phones, the Internet and cable news networks, the old fashioned system is showing it's strains, and will eventually completely fall apart.

Unless that is actually what America wants to do...

But what do you think? What would the United States be like if it took the political system Ye Old Englande? Or if you have a topic or idea you would like me to talk about, please leave comments below, email me at tbguy1992@gmail.com, or tell me on Twitter @tbguy1992.

Editorial: Summer Break

So I know I haven't been posting as often or as frequently as I used to... if there ever was a time I managed to post regularly, that is. I started this blog almost a year ago now, and I've had a lot of great responses, provoking discussion among friends and denizens of the internet.

However, with work, jobs, family, and a multitude of other projects I'm working on, including my Fallout Fanfic, the old NaNoWriMo story I was working on, commissions for a few very, very patient people and other writing here and there, I've taken on way too much, and haven't been able to do anything at a decent time.

So, I've decided to put this blog on hold until early-mid September. Hopefully by that time I will have some time to work on other projects and wrap them up, and even get a few articles here written up and ready to post weeks in advance. When I do come back, I will pick a day of the week, and make that an "upload" day, so your alternate history will be on a more predictable schedule.

But also I'm curious as to what you guys think: do you like what you've seen so far? What do you want to see more of? Less of? Any suggestions for an alternate history scenario for me to research and write? Please feel free to tell me, either in the comments, on Facebook, or on Twitter.

Otherwise, have a good summer, and see you in the fall!

I'm gonna go take a nap now. It's too hot and muggy!

Editorial: Why Conspiracy Theories Don't Work IRL

Sorry I haven't been posting much. Work and family and working on other projects has kept me busy.

But today there is something I want to get off my chest, something that has been nagging me forever, namely how conspiracy theories are used in books, TV shows, and other media.

It's a very popular to believe in conspiracy theories. After all, throughout all of time, history has been written by the victors, and they are very insistent on remaining the victors for a long time to come. Conspiracy theories offer possible explanations for events that seemed to happen from left field when you look at history. The very popular President JFK being assassinated in 1963. The Twin Tower's collapsing into a ball of dust and flame in 2001. Possible aliens landing in Roswell in 1949.

All of these have various conspiracies around them that popped up the moment that they happened., Then there are the other ones that have been around for centuries: the Illuminati, the Rothschild's, the Knights Templar. In fiction, you often see these shadowy figures manipulating people, governments, businesses, the whole world for their personal gain. And every story of a business executive who gamed the system and made a fortune, or the politician who could do no wrong, attacking corruption suddenly being brought down. All of it feels like someone is really controlling things behind the scenes, especially in fiction. And in fiction, a well done secret conspiracy makes all the sense in the world.

But I can't buy it in real life. There are too many variables, too much that could go wrong, too much that can be uncovered. Sure, people claim things are happening, that Queen Elizabeth is a lizard (by the way, Happy 90th Birthday, your Majesty) or that the US government is mind controlling everyone. But the thing is, they don't have proof. The proof they claim to have is faulty, or missing, or destroyed or what have you. Frankly, unless it's revealed, it doesn't exist. Besides, most conspiracy theories contradict each other, ruling most of them implausible already.

But, think about it. One organization that controls everything in the world, every government, every big business to ensure it's own goals, such as to a New World Order? How could that be possible? If it was, wouldn't the 193 member states of the UN actually be working together on certain issues, like, say, making the UN more powerful and the member states weaker? Or that they try to screw things up to make a New World Order seem more feasible? The UN and everyone around the world may have their issues, but there are bright spots, like the recent agreement in Syria. I can't buy it. Of course, everyone would claim that secrecy is the reason why you wouldn't hear it. But how can a secret that big be kept for so long? Eventually someone would blab, reveal too much information, Anonymous would get a hold of secret cache of data, etc. etc. Besides, the Illuminati was founded in mid 18th century Bavaria to promote democracy in an absolutist monarchist regime. Not exactly the kind of people back then who would want to unify the world under a totalitarian system, right?

HOWEVER, there is a big caveat here that I want to make clear. Just because something hasn't been revealed doesn't mean it exists, we just don't know it yet. Sometimes it takes decades, centuries for forgotten information or classified documents to be revealed. It took 30 years after World War II for everyone to find out the work of Allan Turing and Bletchley Park to be revealed. It was 100 years before the Bank of England said if there was gold on the Titanic, (and there wasn't much on board, unfortunately, and not shipped by the Bank).

Also, conspiracies happen all the time, but they are much, much smaller, and are more likely to fail than succeed. A small group that believe something, and have the means and willpower to put them into practice. But usually it's for something like overthrowing a dictator (or an elected government with a dictator) or complicated business dealings.

In general, this opinion of mine goes back to when I was studying at university. My history professors made it clear that there are multiple viewpoints and ways to study history: economically, social, "great man" theory, Marxist, etc. etc. And we may not have all the facts, as they were lost or destroyed. But the facts that we do have are there, and can't be ignored. Taking some info that supports your cause, but ignoring the bigger amount of data that doesn't support doesn't make it true, it makes it even more false. And you can't fake all the information out there. People try to edit Wikipedia all the time to push their personal beliefs, and it gets quickly reverted.

So, the way I see it: until evidence comes to light that counteracts information already available, I personally cannot accept things like the Cuban Soviet Mafia Republican Military got together to brainwash Lee Harvey Oswald to kill President Kennedy. If we were to find that evidence, then yes, fine, I'll listen, and maybe change my viewpoint. But history is already so big, so broad, so interesting that I don't have the time, energy, or patience to listen to every bat-shit insane theory.

Of course, if you believe in conspiracy theories, everything I just said would prove to you that I'm part of the conspiracy theory, because that's what a member of the conspiracy theory would say: there is no conspiracy theory.

So, yeah, I wasted my time writing this and your time reading it. Another win for the Freemason Alien Scientology cult.

Editorial: Could the Confederacy Survive Independence?

For being an Alternate Historian, I still haven't talked about the American Civil War much. Part of the reason is that while it's interesting, I just don't know enough about it to write a full POD/TL with a Civil War theme. Also, because of the current political climate in the US, I really don't want to start a huge flame war, even if it won't directly effect me. Being a Canadian has its advantages and disadvantages.

By the way... THIS is the actual Confederate National Flag. Actually, one of them. The "Stars and Bars" was a battle flag, not the national flag. The more you knooooowww...

But, I'm not going to talk about how the CSA is independent. Instead, I want to talk about if the CSA could actually survive as an independent state in the long run. And, to be honest, the prospects don't look good.

First, a few things I'll mention. This though came up when I recently started re-reading Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty by Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson. Their basic argument is that only society's that allow political and economic inclusiveness, i.e. allowing the vast majority of people to have a say in politics and have little to no barriers to participating in the economy will have constant, steady growth. On the flip side, "extractive" societies that have neither political or economic freedom or a large percentage of the population may have the illusion of growth, but eventually would collapse without "creative destruction," infighting amongst elites, or the destruction of the state by outside forces. Also, as AltHistorians would be pleased to know, they are very much supporters of the ideas of small changes changing everything. They call it critical junctures, but it's basically a Point of Divergence.

This is a very brief and simple oversimplification, but I want to use this model for explaining how an independent Confederate States of America would act.

Pretty sure this won't be the way. And, frankly, I don't give a damn what you think. This is my blog!

So, which is more important in the inclusive/extractive divide? The politics or the economics? Acemoglu and Robinson claimed that both are necessary, and you can't have one without the other, but that either inclusive politics can lead to inclusive economies, or inclusive economies to inclusive politics. But they also stressed that changes to make things more inclusive can also be reversed to make them extractive.

What is the Confederacy that would theoretically start in 1865 be then? It would, by far and large, be an extractive economy with minor inclusive, but mostly extractive politics. The biggest reason is slavery.

The CSA had about 9.1 million people in the 1860 Census, of which 3.5 million were African-American slaves. That's over a third of the population held in bondage, mostly on agricultural plantations growing cotton and other produce mostly for export. Of the non-slave population, there were only 132,000 free blacks, and then only 316,000 slave owners. For the most part, as a bit of a generalization, the slave owners were the political, economic, and military leaders of the CSA: the majority of the government and the top military leaders were either slave owners or fully agreed with the idea of keeping blacks down. So, that leaves 5.2 million white men, women and children in the rest of the country, and most of them were farmers, but mostly ill-educated, growing food on subsistence levels on land that wasn't as good as the wealthier plantation owners could purchase and grow cotton on, with whatever extra they made being sold in local towns for products they couldn't make on their farm.

After all, you can't exactly eat cotton. 

So, with a small percentage, like 2.89 percent, of the population owning another third that had no rights at all, this isn't exactly an "inclusive" economic of political situation. The CSA is also a major Agricultural nation, with "King Cotton," the dominate product being produced, mostly for export to European factories. The North, on the other hand, was rapidly developing industry, railroads, technology, etc. that was far ahead of the South, with a very small industrial capacity, with a large chunk of the workers being slaves. It's often said that the North basically out built and out produced the South in everything, even food production, during the war. This wouldn't change after the war.

But this is details that most people who have an interest in the Civil War knows. What I want to know is if the CSA could survive as an independent nation. And my answer is: if the CSA doesn't reform it's society and economy (free the slaves for a start, then not allow something like Jim Crow develop), then it wouldn't survive as an independent nation without outside support, say from the UK and France.

With a large chunk of the economy and the population owned by a small portion, who jealously guarded their rights, land and property, it's hard to see how the CSA could experience economic growth as the Industrial Revolution began to spread out from the UK and the USA around the world. If the plantation owners want to keep their slaves on the land, they wouldn't like factories that could offer a chance, however slim, to allow slaves to increase their standard of living (even if the wages are a fraction of the wages that whites would be paid). There would also be poor white farmers, muscled off their land to allow plantations to grow bigger to grow more cotton or food, who would go to the cities to industries, where they would be closer together, and eventually agitate for more rights. This is seen time and time again in history, as poor farmers/peasants left the land to the cities to work in the factories for a wage barely above living, who eventually demand, strike, and fight for better wages and conditions. The US, UK, Germany, France, Russia... they all had it. The CSA would be no different. But would a small elite that made it's wealth from plantations allow factories, owned by other people, to make fortunes and join them? Maybe, sure. If a middle class develops, would those same individuals allow them a bigger say in government? Perhaps. Would they allow slaves? Very unlikely.

And... uhh... *sigh* you know, it's really hard to make jokes about slavery. It's just generally depressing.

This doesn't even take into fact that, by the end of the Civil War, the UK and France had gotten India and Egypt to grow more cotton to make up for the blockaded CSA. Where before the war the South was the biggest source of cotton in the world, by the end of the war, Egypt had taken the title. So even if the South won, the cotton that was backed up in warehouses all over the South would be virtually worthless. King Cotton was no more.

So, unless the political leadership of the South, mostly powerful plantation and slave owners, were willing to free the slaves, and allow them to compete with poor whites in a broad, market oriented economy, the South wouldn't be able to survive economically. In the long run, tensions between the US and the CSA would most likely lead to more wars. Every decade after the Civil War, the US would grow more rich and powerful, while the CSA may have some growth toward an industrial economy, but never to the same degree. As long as the CSA has allies in Europe that aren't dragged into other wars (say World War 1), then the CSA could survive for a long time. But if those alliances falter, the US has a chance to knock the CSA down a few pegs without anyone in Europe caring.

Even if the CSA survives past a possible World War, it's unlikely they would make it to a second one, especially if a third of the population is still considered a second class (or slave) to the whites, and a few people control the vast majority of the wealth and political power, and their economy lags behind as the rest of the world advances in an industrial revolution.

This is just one theory, and mostly based on a book that some people agree with and some people don't. I won't get into that.

This is the book I'm talking about, and you can get it from Amazon here. It's not Althistory, but it can help to explain why things in history happened the way they did, which is important!

But what do you think? Could an independent Confederacy survive the Civil War? Or if you have a topic or idea you would like me to talk about, please leave comments below, email me at tbguy1992@gmail.com, or tell me on Twitter @tbguy1992.

Editorial: Why the Butterfly Effect is Impossible to Write About

The other day, I saw an article on Mitro's Alternate History Weekly Update about the Butterfly Effect, which is basically that something as small as a butterfly flapping it's wings in Mongolia could cause hurricanes in the Caribbean, to show how a small effect could have massive repercussions down the road. In AH, it's usually done to show that a time traveler going back in time, step on a butterfly in the Jurassic Period will result in a present (to the time travel) totally and inconceivably different from what he was used to. Because the butterfly died, instead of being eaten or dying somewhere else, totally changes the future.

To be frankly honest, I think it's a total pile of... well you get the picture.

Theoretically, it would make sense, I guess (baring in mind that a huge meteor would almost undoubtably would still hit the earth and wipe out the Dinosaurs, so wiping the slate clean). However, the thing about the Butterfly Theory that I don't like as a writer is the fact that it's impossible to totally comprehend the changes that could happen, and therefore it can never be done right.

Example: If a time traveler did go back in time, stepped on a butterfly, and begin the whole cascade of events to make the future different, it would possibly mean that humanity evolved completely differently: language, philosophy, understanding of nature, science, Religion, nationality, races (if either exist). But no one single person, or even a team of people, could comprehend the full change that would occur. And when a writer tries to put that into thought, the only way they can do that is to write it in what the readers comprehend, which is the modern world that they live in, which totally negates the effects of a butterfly effect.

Anyway. When I look at alternate history, I prefer a different metaphor, the "pebble in the pond." You throw one in, and the ripples go outward. In most cases, a simple pebble will a large ripple outwards, but eventually it settles down again. Any fish in the water may be scared away by the pebble, and swim in a different pattern than they originally where, but they are still there, mostly the same, if just in different spots. Of course, you can throw a bigger pebble in, and the ripples would be bigger, at first, but then it calms down again. Then you can throw in a boulder, splash all the water out, and call it a nuclear war. I dunno, the analogy is starting to break down.

Either way, I guess the thing I'm trying to say is that when you write alternate history to be read by other people, it needs to have some connection to the people who want to read it. That's why I personally am not opposed to keeping people who are in OTL in an Alternate History, because it provides a basis point to let people connect with the world you created, and also to show exactly how much things are different. Winston Churchill as a leader of an underground British Resistance? Abraham Lincoln as the founder of a fascist state? Prime Minister Donald Trump?

What I've always been more concerned about with Alt History is plausibility and making sure the story makes the most sense when it's looked at as part of a larger timeline. When you write a TL to be enjoyed by other's, storytelling also comes into effect, and sometimes making a good story is better than making things weird and different for alternate history. And of course, "Rule of Cool" and all that.

I don't totally support the Butterfly Theory, at least at it's most extreme. But I understand that things can and will change in Alternate History. I just don't support changing every single little thing just to prove you are making an alternate history. There are so many other ways to do it, some with just bringing up people who are famous in our history, with some changes to names, manners and/or role in history. Because, well, sometimes Hitler needs a break.

Hah, who am I kidding. He'd still be a dick.



But what do you think? Should the butterflies have prevented this article from being written? Or if you have a topic or idea you would like me to talk about, please leave comments below, email me at tbguy1992@gmail.com, or tell me on Twitter @tbguy1992.

Editorial: Seven Things I Learned From NaNoWriMo

As you may have noticed, I haven't really posted much last month. Well, there is a reason for that, and I think it's a good one: I was participating in the National Novel Writing Month challenge. Write a 50,000 word story between November 1 and 30. And, well, I did it!

I was working on an alternate history story where magic and steampunk technology exist side by side in a Europe that roughly parallels our history, but with people using special crystals to use magic... and I lost most of you. Either way, I wrote 50,000 words on that topic, and the story is no where near done. Will most likely some day get back to figuring out how to rework and finish it.

Anyway, trying to write 50,000 words in 30 days taught me a lot about writing, especially when you want to do Alternate History. So, To get myself back into the swing of things, here's a list of things I learned from NaNoWriMo to help with anyone trying to write or who may want to do NaNoWriMo next year

1. Know what you want to talk about. I had the Steampunk/magic idea for a very long time, before I first tried NaNoWriMo way back in 2013, and while some ideas from then are the same, I realized I still had no idea how the world changed, and what the big differences were. After 42,000 words, and a couple weeks of staring at my computer screen trying to add something, anything, I gave up and went back and spent the last 8000 just writing elements of world building. Nations, wars, the fundamental background of the story, how the magic works, why the steampunk group and the magic people were fighting, all that. 
2. Find and make the time to do it. On November 1, 50,000 words may seem a daunting, but doable challenge, which it is. But you need to keep working on it. I set myself a goal of at least 2000 words a day, which is slightly higher than the 1,667 or so a day that NaNoWriMo suggests needs to be written a day in order to win. But even then, with a full time job, helping on the family farm, helping the rest of the family, and a lot of other things (like Fallout 4), finding the time was really hard. So in the evening, after getting home from work, helping on the farm, supper and dishes, I would sit at my computer in my room and punch out 2000 words before I did anything else, like Fallout 4. You need to find the time, and have people respect that time. Which brings me to my next point...
3. Tell other people you are doing this. This is especially in the case where you live with someone else, like your parents, roommates or significant other. Don't keep it a secret that you are trying to write 50,000 words in a month. Even before I started I told my mom and dad that I was going to do this, so they were more understanding of the times when I locked myself in my room to try to write. Without that notice, they would have been a lot more annoyed, if not concerned, at what I was doing, especially since I liked to put myself away in my corner of the house to be alone...
4. You got to power through writer's block. Writer's block is a terrible thing. Staring at a blank, white screen or piece of paper trying to figure out words to go on paper, your mind a swimming mess of confusion and agony... but you got to get through it. When you do NaNoWriMo, or any other big, time sensitive project, you just got to go. Write down the first thing that comes to your mind. Don't erase it, because you need 50,000 words, remember? You can edit later in December or January. And usually that first sentence will go a long way to clearing things up.
5. Take a break, and do something else. Just like chocolate, video games, alcohol, sports and anything else, too much of a good thing can be bad for you. Writing is the same way. If you find yourself stumped, and can't go any further, feel free to walk away for an hour or two. That's the times when I would go play a video game, read a book, take a nap, stare at the ceiling. Anything but look at the Google Docs file I made just for NaNoWriMo. Then, when you are ready, you can go back with, if not fresh eyes, then at least a bit of a reboot or refresh. That will go a long way to help.
6. Reach out and talk to fellow writers. There is nothing like a good support group, and the best help you can get with NaNoWriMo is other people also participating. I had an internet friend from Seattle invite me to a group chat of other writers, almost all of whom I never met before. But they were very friendly and helped me with my problems, as much as I tried to help them in return. A couple did finish NaNoWriMo as well, and provided encouragement to the rest to keep going, and get it done as well.
7. It's not the end of the world to not hit the goal. November is a short month, tied for second last place with April, June and September. Life has a nasty habit of suddenly springing surprises on those that have a goal and want to do something on a certain day. I didn't get more than 20,000 words in 2013 because of University, and I dared not try it in 2014 for the same reason. There were times when it felt like I was burnt out on this story, and I was getting ideas for other stories I wanted to write, as well as commitments like work and this blog and other things. I did power through it, but there are many people who weren't able to do it. But remember: there is always next year. And there are still eleven other months you can write, so why just try to do it in one? NaNoWriMo is more to show that anyone that wants too can participate, and can win. If not, at least you did some writing, right? Doesn't matter if you only got 10,000 or went all out and did 100,000, you still wrote, and that's what NaNoWriMo is about.

NaNoWriMo is over for 2015, but there is still 2016 and many more years in the future that you can do this. I plan to do it again, hopefully next year, and maybe next time I can be more prepared next time so it won't be as stressful or painful. And all these tips can help with your normal writing as well.

Anyway, will get back to regular Alternate History next week. Until then, good luck with the word counts, my fellow Alternate Historians!

Apologies!

I'd like to give a quick sorry to everyone that's checking out this blog, hoping for new content. Been kind of busy this month with NaNoWriMo, my job and helping my family (and Fallout 4 when I find some time). But starting December, will most likely be starting with a post a week for a while, possibly on Wednesdays. Or it will turn into a "whenever I feel like it, I dunno" posting schedule, but who likes that?

Anyway thank you everyone that has been checking it out even though I've been a bit slow these past few weeks. Please Stand By, we will be returning with our regularly scheduled Alternate History soon!

Editorial: The Results of Alternate History Elections

Yesterday was Election Night in Canada. Well, it will be yesterday when this is published, as I'm writing this on Monday. Yay for future writing!

Anyway, even though Justin Trudeau of the Liberal Party lead a Red Sweep of the Election (and I added this as soon as I heard the CBC Projection), I'm not here to talk about the actual election, as shocking as the release of the results were. Instead, I want to spend a few minutes talking about elections in Alternate History, or rather, the different outcomes that can come out of it. Mostly because, as a politics geek that also does alternate history, I try my best to put together the actual elections in my timelines, and I want to see other people do it as well.

But here is the list of the elections that you usually see in Alternate History scenarios...

And select which of the following points you like most!

1: The "Meh, Same as OTL" Elections

These are the ones where someone doesn't even bother rewriting history, unless it's just to place a different name in place of the different candidates. If feeling really ambitious, sometimes the colours of the parties on the nice big map is reversed as well, just to confuse everyone. There are a lot of first time alternate histories that devolve into this, though hints of it can be seen in bigger works. 

This is usually a sign that the Alternate Historian just doesn't give a damn about politics, but wants to flesh out their world. Maybe they are more focused on the culture, wars, or sports of their TL, which is fine. But the problem is, they are just copy-pasting the results for Wikipedia without understanding why it happened, and giving few answers as too why. And, as my first year politics professor at University told me, everything is political. Why one movie is banned while another one is allowed to be shown? Politics. Why a nation, or a coalition of nations decides to bomb and invade another? Politics. And why does one team have a brand new sports stadium, or is moved to another city? Once again, politics.

"Everything is Art. Everything is Politics." -Thomas Mann

If it's a "secret history," then it makes sense. Of course, that's not what I talk about in this blog, it's alternate history. Even taking the butterfly effect into account or not, there will be some different outcomes in elections if things go differently. Could Abraham Lincoln have won a second term if Atlanta wasn't captured just a few weeks before? Would Dwight Eisenhower be able to be nominated, much less win the presidency, if he wasn't the Supreme Allied Commander in Europe? Could Winston Churchill be named Prime Minister if the UK never entered World War Two? In all these cases, I feel the answer is no. So, just take a few minutes, do a little of research on Wikipedia, and try to make the Political leader in charge at least be somewhat realistic, or at least try to tie it into the timeline better.

2: The "Straw Man/Mary Sue" Elections

Basically this is when the elected official that is the primary focus of the work either leads the country into disaster or into a golden age based on their policies, and is pretty much used by the author in order to show how their preferred or opposing candidate would run the nation. This is usually two sides of the same coin, and almost always devolves into political bias, and it's pretty easy to tell the author's bias. An Independent in 2000 on the AltHistory Wiki is an example, as well as A World of Laughter, A World of Tears where Walt Disney is elected President of the US when Eisenhower isn't able to run in 1956. Believe me, it really does not end well. The West Wing might be a TV example, though not to the same degree as their other ones mentioned here.

Though, Aaron Sorkin has pretty much made this a liberal fantasy. According to every conservative person ever.

I'll be honest, I hate these kinds of elections/politics in alternate history, even though some of these, World of Laughter especially, are very well written. It's just how implausible most of them are, where the recently elected official, usually the President of the US, is able to put into practice all of the stuff he wants to do soon in office, the Congress passes it all, and the repercussions are either leading the country to total ruin, a new tyrannical dystopia, or starting a new utopia of whatever colour stripe the author is.

If anyone follows American politics, especially of the last 15 years, it should be pretty clear that it just can't happen like that. President Obama managed to get the Affordable Healthcare Act through Congress before a massive Tea Party inspired backlash managed to put the Republican party in control the House of Representatives and the Senate. Ever since then political gridlock has held the government in the US hostage. It's fair to say that if a very liberal Democrat got into office, no matter real life or alternate history, that the Republicans could mount similar tactics to what has happened today, and vice versa. And it's really rare where political programs not only work as advertised, but even better. For all the great things the New Deal did, most of them actually really didn't do much in the long run besides immediate relief, and many were struck down by the Supreme Court or Democrats that thought Roosevelt was going to far.

The wheelchair told him to do it.

3. The "Nazi Party" Election

This is a very extreme form of the election I mentioned above, and basically it involves a party with a few questionable policies but a charismatic and forceful leader taking advantage of a political or economic crisis to not only run in an election, but win. This would then be followed by dismantling democracy, jailing dissidents, pushing propaganda on the rest of the populace (along with a brutal secret police) and plotting how to glorify the nation, or have it catch up with a competitor.

I call it this because this is exactly how Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party came to power in Germany. And in alternate history I have no problem with this kind of scenario, but only if it's done right. Harry Turtledove's Timeline 191 series did this for the Confederate States of America, with Jake Featherstone and his fascists, racist Liberty Party winning the elections to not only the Presidency by the CS Congress. So, while some of the things felt a bit suspicious (like trying to get the Supreme Court to vote itself irelevent... what?) over all it's a fairly good example. I still have to see if maybe Turtledove's Joe Steele, which is still sitting on my bookshelf unread as I write this, handles it just as well.

Oh this will be a nice book. I'm sure of it...

But in many circumstances how it comes about is complete baloney. The background to such an event has to make sense: economic disaster, a resentful nation with a humiliating peace treaty, and/or a political gridlock and division that makes the other problems even worse when no one can deal with it. It's not possible for a nation that has a strong democratic tradition, with a respected constitution and government structure, when everything is going alright (well, mostly alright; nothing is perfect after all) to then suddenly allow a dictator to come to power, even if legally through elections. It's only in the most desperate moments: a losing war, an even worse Great Depression, a general feeling of misery and anger, that allows demagogues to come to power.

4. The "Screw the Smaller Elections, Just the President Matters" Election

This is the one where the writer just doesn't give a crap about the hundreds of congresspeople, Members of Parliament, or whatever title is given to the representatives of the people that are voted. No, the only vote that's important is the guy at the top: the President, the Prime Minister, the Big Cheese. After all, that's the guy that get's the nuclear briefcase, the big house, and the ability to basically shut down all TV stations to just say hi.

"My fellow Americans... how are you? Why won't you call? Don't you still love me???"

These AH's focus on the Head of Government (or Head of State) as the primary source of power in a nation. While some nations might be like that (*coughPutincough*), most democracies try to balance it out between the Legislative, Executive and Judicial branch, preventing one person from dominating the government.

This is different from the previous point I made, mostly in that while the nation may still be democratic, but the writer only focuses on the top leader. I can see why some people would do this, but I think it's also important that, even if the focus is on the leader of the party, that at least the numbers of the representatives who will be elected and have to work with the President.

5. The "I've Done My Homework" Election

Theses are really hard to pull off, and usually you will only see these take place in made up nations, not real ones. When working on one like this, the big colorful maps with all the ridings, electoral districts, or Electoral College votes plotted out, the math done, and believable candidates with platforms that make sense, politicking, debates, etc. etc...

After all, no one would ever believe it if you did something like this in fiction...

The only problem with these ones is how hard they can be to put together. First, in an alternate history, maybe populations have shifted, or new states or provinces are there, and others aren't. But a very dedicated, map fanatic Alternate historian will go so far as to make their own electoral maps, election rules, and run the election. Of course, if the rules are changed they could make it easier on themselves and do away with the maps all together, and instead focus on proportional representation or other forms of voting. Because, let's face it, saying a party got 35% of the vote is easier than making up hundreds names, numbers and candidates, all for one alternate history.

As much as I like these AH Elections, I still want to see an actual story, not just focused on the election. You could make 338 articles on every riding in Canada, or the 650 some in the House of Commons of the United Kingdom... but we only have so much time and energy.

6. The "Elections? What Are Elections?" Election

1984 writ large. It's not just Oceania that doesn't have a democracy, but every nation in the world. It could come in different flavors: communism, fascism, military dictatorship, technocracy. Basically elections aren't even necessary, and will most likely never be held, or restricted to only certain people. Frankly, this is just a story driven one, as even North Korea has to stage elections, though it's a "everyone will vote for the one candidate or you will be shot" kind. You will not see these in real life, no matter who brutal the dictatorship.

Seriously? You don't even try Big Brother? Wow...

This has just been a short look at some of the different ways elections are handled in Alternate Histories. While each of the ways mentioned above have their place, in most places I want more Number 5 kinds, but those are pretty tough to make, so even just a Number 4 would be okay... Number 3 and 6 if they fit into the story. I really, really want 1 and 2 to be completely done away with, but it will be hard to remove those.

At least we have elections to determine this!

Editorial: A Look Back at My First AH Timeline, "French Trafalgar, British Waterloo"

Way, way, way back when I started in Alternate history back in High School (okay, it was only seven years ago, but still!), I started a timeline at the Alternate History Wikia called French Trafalgar, British Waterloo (also known as FTBW), which since then has had over 230 pages in the category that fleshes out the world that I created. It also is a featured alternate history on the Wikia, and won several Sterling Awards, and is still considered my pride and joy.

That said, looking back on it now, having finished a Bachelor of Arts in History and English, I realize that there are some problems with it, mostly due to it being my first alternate history, and some things that I didn't realize when I started. So, I decided to go over it, and pick out a few things...

Because if there is something I like doing, it's going over my old stuff to see all the bugs and terrible things I did back then,

1. Better POD

As the title suggests, the Battle of Trafalgar is the major tipping point, where the French Navy defeats the Royal Navy under Admiral Horatio Nelson. Trafalgar is such a big part of British lore, and the fact that from 1805 until 1945, the British Navy was recognized to rule the waves of the world, and built a massive empire based on that control of the seas. So, if Trafalgar turned out different, it should have been a huge blow to the British, right?

After a few years of research on the Napoleonic Wars, I'm starting to think that no, it most likely wouldn't have been the point when Napoleon could have won the war. For one thing, when Trafalgar was taking place in October 1805, Napoleon had already turned his army to Central Europe, defeating the Austrians at the Battle of Ulm. So it wasn't possible for Napoleon to take advantage of the temporary set back of the Royal Navy to invade England. Not to mention that the fleet Nelson had was only a small part of the larger navy, and there would be more than enough ships to still prevent the French from invading.

Even though, really, you could wipe out all those ships with a match.

The problem is that I don't know if there would have been many better chances for the Napoleonic Wars to change. Maybe if the Treaty of Amiens had lasted longer, allowed Napoleon a chance to build up a navy or ensure that the rest of Europe wouldn't rise up, then possibly Trafalgar could have been decisive. Possibly the only way that Napoleon could have won the war was just keep winning battles of whatever coalition the British paid to rise up, and keep his attention focused on Western Europe. No occupation of Spain (leading to the Peninsular War), no invasion of Russia in 1812, no trying to replace every monarch in Europe with a Bonaparte. Maybe then the British could tire from the war, and eventually make peace. But knowing the British, that would be a tall order. They hadn't let a little thing like Hitler taking all of Europe to stop them from giving in (though that was more Churchill's speech making and bull dog will than anything else), so could enough costly defeats convince the British to give in? That's a good question, and possibly a better POD in the long run.

2. Too Much Focus on Big Name People

At the very beginning of the TL, the name Marshal Micheal Ney pops up. A lot. Back then, that name was one of the first besides Napoleon that I knew on the French side of the war, so I basically made him the man that would make the world change to what I wanted it to be: a large, stable French Empire surviving to the modern day. I did that a lot, and it's quite clear throughout the entire TL, in all the lists I made of major Presidents, Prime Ministers, famous people. Always big names in our history, just with a different job title. President Tom Hanks anyone?

"Life is like the US Presidency... you just never know what you are going to get. HANKS 2016!"

There is only one "major" fictional person I added, and it was the third Emperor of the Napoleonic Empire, the son of Napoleon II, who in OTL died at the age of 18, having never married, had kids, or even spoken French. So I made a new one, but then killed him off when he was younger to then go back to "real" people, namely the IRL Napoleon III, the nephew of the first. However, I did use the Butterfly effect to a degree, as I usually changed the years when born and died from their IRL dates. I'm not a lazy alternate historian. Just... a bit distracted.

I know why I didn't do that much: I wanted pictures of people to put beside the names, espeically of Emperors and Kings and Presidents. But I really should have been more willing to make more fictional people. I went half way to this later when I started digging deep into the lists of MPs in Britain to pick the man who would be the Dictator of a National Socialist UK in my alternate World War 2, in this case John Beckett, a British Labor and Fascist leader. Most important to me: he had a picture. In future alternate histories on the Wikia (if I get around to working on them...) I'd be more willing to try to use more fictional people, if at least based on IRL people.

But there are people you just have to mention. Like this guy.. uhh... what's his name again?

3. Short and Sweet Country/People/Event Profiles

The thing that pains me the most when I look at FTBW is all the red links that still exist. I want to go back and flesh out all those points that at the time I thought would be important: battles, treaties, big names, etc. etc. And I've done alright at some of them, especially the wars, but there are also so many articles I started that consist of an infobox I copy-pasted from the previous nation, with a few edits, and a "WIP" notice on top, if I even remembered that. Oh, and categories. If I didn't do them, the chief admin and editor Lordganon would swoop in and do it for me. I still think he mutters "Oh God damnit" every time I forget a category. Oops. Sorry.

However, after I did that, I moved on to the next one, and then never came back to flesh it out. Many of those pages have been WIPs for years at this point, mostly just waiting for me to come back to fill it out. But I wanted to make each one a big, definitive history of that nation in my universe. Every. Single. One. Now I realize it makes sense to do it for the French Empire, the United States, and Russia, but not for Switzerland, Hispaniola, or Mozambique. So if and when I do go back, that is most likely what I will do. Just make a short, sweet, and simple history of each nation.

Because everyone wants to know the history of the country with the AK-47 on the flag.

The same goes for the people. Every US President on my list has an article, just no information besides the infobox. I should try to at least work on a brief synopsis of their life.

4. Trying to Get Other People to Help

This is perhaps one of the more recent problems I've had. I go on the chat for the Wikia, I get a few people go "OMG, TB SHOWED UP!" and then some people say "I really liked your FTBW timeline." At that point I'm both proud and excited. Then I ask if they would be interested in helping out. Usually it's a yes, especially when they know more of a certain subject than I know, like sports, movies, Asian and African history. But then nothing ever happens. And I get sad.

I should know better by now. FTBW is not 1983: Doomsday, a collaborative timeline that has been worked on by hundreds of people over the years. FTBW is my timeline, the one that helped develop me as an alternate historian. I shouldn't be looking or begging for help. I should just work on it, and stop trying to get other people to help me. I won't turn down anyone asking if they can submit something, but I shouldn't be soliciting people to help me.

Yes, I should listen to the actor that everyone thinks ruined Indiana Jones and Transformers!

5. Actually Go Back And Work On It

The previous point leads into this one: the fact that since 2012, I really haven't done more than add an article here, add a picture there. The timeline kind of stops dead in 2011, so there is over four years I need to add on to make it current.

The problem is that my interests seem to change on a dime. For a while I was working on other projects on the Wikia like my Choose Your Own Alternate History, projects off the Wikia like my Fallout Fanfic, school, family, work, video games... so many things that want my attention. So things like FTBW, which I still really enjoy, just get's shunted down the list. I have notes everywhere in books of ideas I wanted to add into FTBW, but most of them are still there, waiting for me to do something.

Someday, I plan to go back. Maybe not a full time thing like when I was in High School, but maybe something where I add a post a day. Edit the first pages to make it sound better. Standardize the maps. Flesh out the culture and the world I created. Someday, maybe in the future, I might even go and write short stories based on the universe I created. It's an idea I've toyed with for a long time now, and something that I may eventually do. But I want to finish FTBW. Someday.

I'll think of a funny caption tomorrow.

State of the Blog Post #1

It's been about two months since I decided to start a blog, and despite a few ups and downs, I think things have been going well! I've only missed one week, mostly due to the passing of my grandmother, but I've done my best to have something up every Tuesday and Friday. So, go me! I know the "real history" aspect has kind of fallen by the wayside, but I realized a lot of the stuff I was doing was either simply rewriting Wikipedia or talking about stuff that only a few people would be somewhat interested in. So... Alternate history scenarios, rants and other posts away!

Things may start getting a bit hectic in the near future, as just yesterday I started a new job at a local newspaper. I'm going to do my best to keep up with a twice weekly posting schedule, but that may have to change if I just can't write as much as I feel I can. Also may mean that the pictures, as much as I enjoy having them, may be either going away or losing their comments underneath.

Anyway! On to the main reason for this post. Two months might seem like a short or a long time, depending on how you look at it. However, I need some feedback, because I'm not sure what works and what doesn't yet.

So, I have ideas for how I want to develop the blog from here on out. Some of them are for sure, some of them are iffy, some of them are passing moments of fancy.

First, I'm thinking of doing "Theme Months," where all the posts I make that month would be on one topic. So far I have a World War Two and Roman month planned out, and then what ever other ones I may come up with. I was thinking of starting that with the next post on Friday, but I may put it off until November. We shall see.

Another thing I wanted to do was something that caught my interest on the Alternate History Weekly Update, which is "What Happens Next," such as this one based on Harry Turtledove's WorldWar and Colonization series. I'm not sure how that will work out, or if I may just submit a few ideas there, but it's something to think about.

I also wanted to take a stab at trying to write some alternate history based on other media, such as movies, TV shows, video games and books. I already have a few ideas there, but nothing written down yet.

An idea I had was maybe writing more, but shorter scenarios, along the lines of the This Day in Alternate History blog. Most of these would be written up based on suggestions I receive in comments, Twitter, Facebook and email, and would mostly be ideas that I'd think wouldn't require a full length article.

On the opposite side of the coin, I may try my hand at writing full length short stories for this blog. This is one of the ideas I've been debating about for a while, and I could go either way. I might only do this if I achieve my goal of writing a larger work of Alternate history stories, maybe as way of promotion. Again, I don't know.

Lastly, I've also been thinking that maybe someday in the future I could revisit or expand on some of the scenario's I've already been writing about here. This wouldn't be for a while, but something that I will keep in mind, especially many people's comments on things that I never thought of when I wrote the article.

So what do you guys think? I'm always open to more ideas, as the "ideas" part is usually the hardest thing for me. I will most likely be trying all the things I mentioned above at some point or another, but this is sort of a notice that I may be trying new things in the future.

Anyway, I'm writing this late at night (again) when I should be going to sleep. So let me know what you think!

Editorial: Five Things I Hate Seeing in Alternate History

If you are reading this blog, it's a pretty good chance you are doing so because you like Alternate History, and decided to put up with my twice a week rambles on topics that as of yet is not World War Two or the American Civil War (don't worry, I have a plan for them...). If not, it's because your a family member or a friend and I asked you to look at this blog. In that case, HI MOM /DAD/ BROTHER/ GRANDPARENT/ AUNT/ UNCLE/ COUSIN/ FRIEND/ ACQUAINTANCE!

However, I decided to take a moment and write what I think are some of the most important things when it comes to writing and enjoying Alternate History. This is not because I haven't read anything really historical in the past week to help me research a topic, or I'm holding onto ideas for just the right time, forget about them, then never actually do it. Neither of those.

But consider this perhaps a somewhat short and concise explanation of some of the pet peeves and cliches that I see popping up over and over again that just makes me cringe and want to set whatever I'm reading on fire. I've always wanted to get it off my chest, so might as well do it sooner or later.

1: The Lack of Plausibility. The best praise an alternate historian can get for something they write in the genre is "This is really plausible." My favorite line, one I got for my short story "From Enigma to Paradox" published in Substitution Cipher was "chillingly plausible" by Publishers Weekly. Publishers Weekly! This is an acknowledgement that the story that has been written is not only good, but the background and plot work together to present an effective "what if?" scenario, and one that, if events happened differently, could be real history.

That said, there is nothing that will destroy my personal interest in a story quicker than if the scenario isn't plausible, or isn't well explained, or feels like it was shoe-horned in just to seem "cool." One example is the novel His Majesty's Dragon, also known as Temeraire, where dragon's are placed in the Napoleonic War. When I was first reading the book, it just irked me. It took a while to figure it out, but I eventually figured out that it was because dragons were just put into the timeline, and though it's mentioned that dragons have been used by militaries and nations for centuries, human history developed exactly as in our timeline, which I think completely destroyed any sense of plausibility for me. I'd think that if dragon's had always existed, that it would do a lot more than just establish air warfare a bit earlier.

2: Alien Space Bats and Deus Ex Machina. In general, I don't like "serious" alternate history stories that thrown in a Alien Space Bat. What is an Alien Space Bat? Well, basically it's a deus ex machina. What's a deus ex machina? Click on the links I provided and stop asking silly questions! But basically it's when something otherworldly or unnatural comes in, either to start a story, provide conflict, or help clean it up. There are times when it works, like "The Race" that invades Earth in the middle of World War Two in Harry Turtledove's Worldwar series, but it's one of the few times it works. After the aliens are introduced as having somewhat modern weapons and technology in 1942, Harry then keeps it all grounded in reality, or as close as he can imagine it to be.

But the bad ASB stories, like Harry Harrison's Stars and Stripes trilogy were, suddenly, the UK is not only at war with the US over the Trent Affair, but also the Confederacy, then the US and CSA invade England... yeah, that's not happening. Scenarios that pull magic or advanced technology or aliens out of no where, have it fix a problem in the story, then never heard from again, is not only sloppy writing, but very, very, very bad alternate history.

3. The Butterfly Effect. If you have read my big timeline on the Alternate History Wikia, French Trafalgar, British Waterloo, you'll realize that I'm not a huge fan of The Butterfly Effect. Besides the fact that it's hard to find pictures of people you make up to place in something like the List of Presidents of the United States in a TL, it really doesn't make sense to me that if one very tiny thing changes, like say a butterfly that flapped it's wings in our timeline is killed before it can do it in another, it will rewrite all of human history... I don't think so. This is usually used when dealing with Time Travel stories, but it also pops up in more serious alternate history as well.

However, I also know that if something changes in 1805, say the French win the Battle of Trafalgar, that there will be consequences, and changes up to 1905, 2005, 2105, etc. But I don't think it will be as big or as drastic. After all, unless Napoleon winning a sea battle is actually the signal of the End Times, people are still going to be born, grow up, have children, do something important, then die, leaving a generation behind to continue on. So, even if the date of birth, death, name, and their importance in history changes (like say Richard Nixon not being the President but a used car salesman, to use a popular trope), I think that most of the people we know may still be around, just, you know, different. This isn't to say that people that may have lived in our Timeline wouldn't be born in this time, or people not born wouldn't be born either way, but I don't want to say "Oh hey, I killed a dinosaur in the Jurassic, now chickens will  rule the earth when I get back!" The Butterfly effect is something that has to be used carefully, and not just to make everything different for the sake of making something different. It should make sense. It should be... well, plausible.

4. "Ameriacentric" Everything. From the stats on my blog as of last night when I wrote this, the largest single group of people to view my blog are from the United States. 1,349 to be exact. The next closest, my home country of Canada, is a minuscule 193. So, I'm sure this will hurt some feelings (and lose me some views when I say it) but the US is not the center of the universe, and certainly shouldn't be the center of every single Alternate History scenario ever. Yet... it happens. I know I've done my fair share of Alternate History scenarios that focus on the US, but I also try, more often than not, to provide a more fair, balanced, and international view.

But when you have mostly Americans writing and consuming Alternate History, then you get "Ameriacentric" Alternate history, and then you have something like the god-awful Spike TV Alternate History TV show (of which all I could find were links to the terrible reviews of it, including by Matt "Mitro" Mitrovich over at the Alternate History Weekly Update), where, since the US (and the UK and Canada, but are never mentioned) failed in D-Day, the Nazi's bombed New York and won the war. Forget that the USSR had several million men nearly to the borders of pre-war Germany, and the US had the Manhattan Project... because the US lost, the world lost. The US had a big factor in World War Two, but if the US never entered World War Two, I highly doubt the Nazi's could have taken on the Soviet Union and won, or even lasted much longer than Hitler's death.

5. Never Enough Research, Never Enough Time. One thing I've found out time and time again when I was working on my alternate history, on the Wikia, for "From Enigma to Paradox" and now here on this blog, is that no matter how much I know about a subject, or what I think I know about a subject, it's never enough. When I started French Trafalgar, British Waterloo in high school, all I really knew about the Napoleonic Wars was Napoleon, Nelson dying at Trafalgar, marching into Russia in the winter time is a bad idea, and Waterloo. When I started writing it, I quickly found Wikipedia was my best friend. So many things I didn't know, and that I sort of winged as I worked on it, until by now, while maybe not an expert of the Napoleonic Wars, I have a pretty good understanding of it. However, I also couldn't research everything about the Napoleonic Wars, because I talked about much more than that: I've gone up to at least 2010-2011, so I need to have a basic understanding, or better than average knowledge, of over 200 years of history. And even then there are a lot of gaps and places I never talk about. I've had people write to me since I started this blog pointing out things that I never thought of, such as the effect of the Space Race in my first post, What if The USSR Never Got the A-Bomb? Since then, I have a list of things other people have asked me about in my different scenarios that I never talked about, but to some people is more important than what I wrote about. I'm not saying I'm right and their wrong, but that I just simply didn't have the time or knowledge to write about it.

It is so vital, so important, that you know the real history before you start changing it. This ties into everything else I talked about: without adequate research, the willingness to change and edit things, and the ability to connect the dots between people, places and events, you will write implausible, ASB, willy-nilly Butterfly effected, 'MURICA driven timelines and stories that to the average person won't make sense and to alternate historians make us cringe and shout at our computer screens in impotent rage.

This isn't directed at one person or anything, but it's supposed to provide maybe an idea of what new Alternate Historians should be looking at to develop their writing and understanding. It's also really important to state that everyone has a different idea of how an AltHistory scenario will play out, and often times more than one. If you ask a group of 10 Alt Historians something, say "What if the Nazi's won World War 2," you'll most likely get a hundred different scenarios, all different from each other.

Perhaps the most important thing I will say to a new Alt Historian that's reading this for the first time is that no matter what you write about, as long as it's plausible and not full of ASB and decently researched, I would read it and think it's alright, if not fantastic.