19th Century Reactions to the 20th Century

[Zyobot]

For obvious reasons, 20th Century people had plenty of historical knowledge and even eyewitness accounts of life in the 1800s. However, the people of the 19th Century, as they lived in the decades prior to then, did not--and I doubt that they could've imagined what their descendants would live to see.

Two World Wars, the Cold War, the decline of Europe's empires, and the United States' newfound global supremacy marked just some vast, geopolitical changes. Electricity and indoor plumbing became ubiquitous. Automobiles and airplanes altered human travel forever. Radio, TV, and the Information Age finally came to fruition. The global population exploded from just over 1 billion in the 1900s, to more than 6 billion by 2000. If anyone from the 1800s were to find out about these monuments of history to come, shock and awe would be all but a given.

So, how would people of the 19th Century react to ISOTed knowledge of what the 20th Century will bring?

Thank you in advance,

Zyobot

[lordroel]

Apr 24, 2019 1:25:11 GMT Zyobot said:

So, how would people of the 19th Century react to ISOTed knowledge of what the 20th Century will bring?

Thank you in advance,

Zyobot

I wonder if they react in shock ore in awe with some of the things we find normal.

[Zyobot]

Apr 24, 2019 2:53:48 GMT lordroel said:

Apr 24, 2019 1:25:11 GMT Zyobot said:

So, how would people of the 19th Century react to ISOTed knowledge of what the 20th Century will bring?

Thank you in advance,

Zyobot

I wonder if they react in shock ore in awe with some of the things we find normal.

True. I wonder what they'd make of the Space Race between a superpower America and Soviet Russia?

[lordroel]

Apr 26, 2019 2:10:36 GMT Zyobot said:

Apr 24, 2019 2:53:48 GMT lordroel said:

I wonder if they react in shock ore in awe with some of the things we find normal.

True. I wonder what they'd make of the Space Race between a superpower America and Soviet Russia?

Ore that there is a Soviet Russia and no longer a Imperial Russia.

[Zyobot]

Apr 26, 2019 7:48:31 GMT lordroel said:

Apr 26, 2019 2:10:36 GMT Zyobot said:

True. I wonder what they'd make of the Space Race between a superpower America and Soviet Russia?

Ore that there is a Soviet Russia and no longer a Imperial Russia.

I think the very fundamental characteristics and purpose of this "Soviet Union" would be alien to 19th Century people. A nation based on achieving this notion of "communism", with no (legal) private economic activity and top-down rule and central planning conducted by the state. Yes, I know that there was such a thing as big government in the 1800s, too.

The 1860s South would, if anything, likely find them an even greater threat than the abolitionists of the North. At least the latter is for capitalism, whereas the Reds are totally opposed to it. That's also discounting the USSR having the economic and technological (i.e. military) means to absolutely crush them, even more so than the Union IOTL.

[lordroel]

Apr 26, 2019 12:35:25 GMT Zyobot said:

Apr 26, 2019 7:48:31 GMT lordroel said:

Ore that there is a Soviet Russia and no longer a Imperial Russia.

I think the very fundamental characteristics and purpose of this "Soviet Union" would be alien to 19th Century people. A nation based on achieving this notion of "communism", with no (legal) private economic activity and top-down rule and central planning conducted by the state. Yes, I know that there was such a thing as big government in the 1800s, too.

The 1860s South would, if anything, likely find them an even greater threat than the abolitionists of the North. At least the latter is for capitalism, whereas the Reds are totally opposed to it. That's also discounting the USSR having the economic and technological (i.e. military) means to absolutely crush them, even more so than the Union IOTL.

Ore how people will react to the fact that Two World Wars have been fought and that there are waopons who in a single blast can destoy entire cities, they would consider the 20th Century madness.

[Zyobot]

Apr 26, 2019 12:37:07 GMT lordroel said:

Apr 26, 2019 12:35:25 GMT Zyobot said:

I think the very fundamental characteristics and purpose of this "Soviet Union" would be alien to 19th Century people. A nation based on achieving this notion of "communism", with no (legal) private economic activity and top-down rule and central planning conducted by the state. Yes, I know that there was such a thing as big government in the 1800s, too.

The 1860s South would, if anything, likely find them an even greater threat than the abolitionists of the North. At least the latter is for capitalism, whereas the Reds are totally opposed to it. That's also discounting the USSR having the economic and technological (i.e. military) means to absolutely crush them, even more so than the Union IOTL.

Ore how people will react to the fact that Two World Wars have been fought and that there are waopons who in a single blast can destoy entire cities, they would consider the 20th Century madness.

Certainly. Bolt-action and semi-automatic rifles, machine guns, military trucks, armored and mechanized vehicles, fighter jets, four engine bombers, and ironclad battleships, all mass produced in unmatchable quantities and operated by unprecedented numbers of people.

For those involved in the Napoleonic Wars, I can see the worst mindscrew being the size and scope of the World Wars, and how they make France's rampage look like a peasant revolt by comparison.

American Civil War soldiers would be especially horrified at World War One, with its additional mechanization of warfare and all the nasty technological advances on top of brutal industrialization and nightmarish healthcare. Passchendale, the Somme, and Verdun were every bit as bad as the turmoil of the 1860s, and surely even worse, from what I've read.

[Panzerlied]

Apr 26, 2019 13:17:37 GMT Zyobot said:

Certainly. Bolt-action and semi-automatic rifles, machine guns, military trucks, armored and mechanized vehicles, fighter jets, four engine bombers, and ironclad battleships, all mass produced in unmatchable quantities and operated by unprecedented numbers of people.

For those involved in the Napoleonic Wars, I can see the worst mindscrew being the size and scope of the World Wars, and how they make France's rampage look like a peasant revolt by comparison.

American Civil War soldiers would be especially horrified at World War One, with its additional mechanization of warfare and all the nasty technological advances on top of brutal industrialization and nightmarish healthcare. Passchendale, the Somme, and Verdun were every bit as bad as the turmoil of the 1860s, and surely even worse, from what I've read.

And Hitler, with his insane war of aggression against Europe and his genocide against selected people, he will make Napoleon look like a saint.

[lordroel]

Jun 25, 2019 13:25:34 GMT Panzerlied said:

Apr 26, 2019 13:17:37 GMT Zyobot said:

Certainly. Bolt-action and semi-automatic rifles, machine guns, military trucks, armored and mechanized vehicles, fighter jets, four engine bombers, and ironclad battleships, all mass produced in unmatchable quantities and operated by unprecedented numbers of people.

For those involved in the Napoleonic Wars, I can see the worst mindscrew being the size and scope of the World Wars, and how they make France's rampage look like a peasant revolt by comparison.

American Civil War soldiers would be especially horrified at World War One, with its additional mechanization of warfare and all the nasty technological advances on top of brutal industrialization and nightmarish healthcare. Passchendale, the Somme, and Verdun were every bit as bad as the turmoil of the 1860s, and surely even worse, from what I've read.

And Hitler, with his insane war of aggression against Europe and his genocide against selected people, he will make Napoleon look like a saint.

Do we not forget Stalin, ore is he not mention due him being on the winning side of World War II.

[Panzerlied]

Jun 25, 2019 13:26:45 GMT lordroel said:

Do we not forget Stalin, ore is he not mention due him being on the winning side of World War II.

Most likely, he will be mentioned. And people, especially the monarchy will react... badly. Maybe they kill the ancestors of future communist thinkers and leaders?

[Zyobot]

Jun 25, 2019 13:36:52 GMT Panzerlied said:

Jun 25, 2019 13:26:45 GMT lordroel said:

Do we not forget Stalin, ore is he not mention due him being on the winning side of World War II.

Most likely, he will be mentioned. And people, especially the monarchy will react... badly. Maybe they kill the ancestors of future communist thinkers and leaders?

Probably, yeah. Considering the sheer bloodbath that communism will (or in this case, probably would) unleash in the next century alone, Marx's future followers will make M. Robespierre & Company look pretty tame by comparison.

[stevep]

Jun 25, 2019 15:12:52 GMT Zyobot said:

Jun 25, 2019 13:36:52 GMT Panzerlied said:

Most likely, he will be mentioned. And people, especially the monarchy will react... badly. Maybe they kill the ancestors of future communist thinkers and leaders?

Probably, yeah. Considering the sheer bloodbath that communism will (or in this case, probably would) unleash in the next century alone, Marx's future followers will make M. Robespierre & Company look pretty tame by comparison.

  Does that kill the idea however?  Or possibly make it worse because people thinking that way are both unknown to the authorities and have additional reasons to take an extreme stance.  A lot of moderate socialists might also think they have to take a harsher stance as well.

[Zyobot]

Jun 25, 2019 19:01:04 GMT stevep said:

Jun 25, 2019 15:12:52 GMT Zyobot said:

Probably, yeah. Considering the sheer bloodbath that communism will (or in this case, probably would) unleash in the next century alone, Marx's future followers will make M. Robespierre & Company look pretty tame by comparison.

  Does that kill the idea however?  Or possibly make it worse because people thinking that way are both unknown to the authorities and have additional reasons to take an extreme stance.  A lot of moderate socialists might also think they have to take a harsher stance as well.

So, you fear that we could see 20th Century-style socialist extremism manifest decades earlier than IOTL?

[stevep]

Jun 25, 2019 19:02:18 GMT Zyobot said:

Jun 25, 2019 19:01:04 GMT stevep said:

  Does that kill the idea however?  Or possibly make it worse because people thinking that way are both unknown to the authorities and have additional reasons to take an extreme stance.  A lot of moderate socialists might also think they have to take a harsher stance as well.

So, you fear that we could see 20th Century-style socialist extremism manifest decades earlier than IOTL?

  Well unrestrained capitalism will prompt reaction and if liberal democracy doesn't do enough, which it might well fail to do in some especially illiberal state sooner or later there will be violent reactions.  Its possible that in such cases if the regime struggles neighbours might aid it to prevent any sort of communist state arising.  However they may not if they see benefits from a rival suffering collapse and disorder.

  Sooner or later some sort of communist i.e. autocratic marxist system will be tried simply because it will seem so good a prospect to those in dire poverty with no alternative to improve their conditions.  As such its more likely to occur in a more autocratic state such as Russia, Austria or possibly a surviving imperial France or a Prussia that doesn't see Bismarck's social reforms and military successes.  It might occur in Britain or the US but I suspect is a lot less likely there.  Ideally true democratic social democracy will be a lot more common as in OTL but it could be less successful in this world simply because too many in power associate it with communism.

[Zyobot]

Since the issue of early Red revolution has been brought up, who might the most likely candidates to spearhead them? And in which nations would said uprisings occur, if any?