What is a common thing or trope that always seem to happen?
- Thread starter Viking25
- Start date
“I don’t even know who you are.”
“You will”
In all seriousness, the other options like Bakunin or Sverdlov being leaders could be interesting in how it’s executed, especially the former. The latter I can see being similar in principles to Stalin but less paranoid, which may mean less extreme persecutions and purges at least.
That or when they are in such a vital strategic area that the small nations are able to take advantage of and get the larger nations to play well with them (Singapore, UAE, Panama, etc).
Panama was invaded by USA when looks like Panama was not enough submissive in DC' eyes, Singapore relys on UK/US support, and UAE was esentially ignored.
Sure but they still managed to be important enough for the great powers to depend on them.
Too often, when I see country TLs/scenarios, it's either a complete wank or a complete screw. Like either countries that get wanked stay that way, or countries that get screwed stay that way. I would appreciate seeing scenarios where countries see more frequent changes in fortune where they experience some successes and some failures depending on the scenario. No country is perfect and will make pitfalls (or will see nations get more powerful alongside them). Likewise, unfortunate countries can still try to accomplish something or reduce their misfortune somehow.
Have you read Anno Obumbratio?
It kinda follows that pattern
I haven't. That period of history is usually not my interest, but I will take a look at it.
One of the reasons I love wcv215's Byzantine TL. The rise and fall, ebb and flow, like real history.
My question in this regard is, if one country's OTL is considered to be a screw (ie. everything went wrong at the wrong time), is it considered to be a wank to have a TL where that country overcomes its OTL problem?
I have a TL where I admittedly make the situation favorable for my protagonist country but at the same time, it's difficult to make that situation favorable and not have some pushback, a reaction to an action, or whatever else you want to call it. The Indonesia in my TL successfully weathered the Asian Financial Crisis and came out the other side with growth figures its OTL version can only dream of, but it became a net oil importer earlier than in OTL and in likelihood imports more food than in OTL as well. It's also more assertive in foreign policy and spends more on defense but at the same time it has nations which are wary of it.
No. A wank would be that everything that can go right for the country goes right, nothing that could go wrong goes wrong, everything aligns in the right direction, all OTL problems are avoided or nullified (and do not arise new problems), all neighbors put their efforts into diplomatically appeasing the country and even in extreme cases request to be annexed because they admire the country to that extreme.
Not necessarily. Improvements don’t mean wanks. A wank is when a nation gets vastly improved upon and where everything goes perfect.
About the last part: countries requesting to be annexed; I thought about whether it would count at as a wank for countries to be voluntarily annexed only if that their demand for a tangible benefit was met. Like for example, country B would be willing to join a federation of other states not only because they’d be equals with other administrative divisions but also benefit from economic aid going their way as part of said country. Or pan-ethnic movements willing to join another country due to sharing same ethnicity. It’s something I’ve seen a few times in alternate history but also in real life. Would that count as a wank if they’re not doing it necessarily because they love the country but rather conditionally if they were to benefit from it (and that the state gives them concessions as part of the agreement)?
Last edited:
In this case the wank is only for the country that annexes.
This is because, although the authors try to deceive the public into believing that this is something sought and desired, this generally results in unfair and unequal treatment where the small country is forced to annex under implicit financial threats that, in If it refuses, the big country will put all its efforts into ensuring that the small country's economy will be destroyed until its options are to be annexed (under even worse conditions) or face financial collapse (which of course will be considered a threat even WORSE than extinction as a nation and culture).
In the hypothetical case that some type of "economic aid" is granted, this aid will be crumbs: clearly insufficient to cover even the most basic needs of the country, balanced by the fact that, for every dollar invested in aid, the big country extracts ten dollars thanks to the economic exploitation of the small country.
Of course, the only branches of the new administration that receive sufficient funding are the local branches of the propaganda ministry (to bombard the people with propaganda about how they are much better off now than before even when this couldn't be more false) and the police and military forces (to crush with extreme prejudice and lethal force anything that even remotely smacks of disaffection toward the new ruling regime).
To be fair I think the distinction comes from the fact that if bad things happen to the country anyway, that's not considered a straw even if objectively the country is doing better than OTL.