Alternate History Ideas and Discussion

stevep

Well-known member
@stevep What odds would you place on the US ever actually entering an alt-WWI where the Anglo-Germano-Italo-Austro-Hungaro-Ottomans face off against the Franco-Russo-Serbians?

Assuming that forces and industrial capacity were similar to OTL I would say very unlikely simply because the former bloc would be so much stronger than the latter.

It would depend on the details, for instance does the western operations start with a massive German attack on France via Belgium or is it on the defensive against France while committing its main forces against Russia in support of Austria?

In the former case with France having to consider threats from Britain, including blockade as well as possible landings, and Italy France might fall or be so badly weakened its shortly required to make peace. Especially if as OTL its loses its primary industrial area and can't rely on imports from allies and neutrals because Britain is now an enemy preventing both. Similarly Russia can't rely on western industrial supplies - albeit limited - or finance from Britain.

In the latter then Russia is in for a lot of grief although they might well trade space for time. France faces blockades and possible attacks as well as the whittling away of their imperial empire while its own attacks on Germany or Italy are likely to be very costly.

Coupled with American isolationism and that Britain can now rely on Germany to supplement its own industrial/military needs and supply the latter with raw materials, food and funds I can't really see anything that would drag it into the conflict. Unless as WolfBear says France tries USW in which case there's a chance if the war lasts long enough the US ends up against France which tilts the odds even more against them.
 

WolfBear

Well-known member
Assuming that forces and industrial capacity were similar to OTL I would say very unlikely simply because the former bloc would be so much stronger than the latter.

It would depend on the details, for instance does the western operations start with a massive German attack on France via Belgium or is it on the defensive against France while committing its main forces against Russia in support of Austria?

In the former case with France having to consider threats from Britain, including blockade as well as possible landings, and Italy France might fall or be so badly weakened its shortly required to make peace. Especially if as OTL its loses its primary industrial area and can't rely on imports from allies and neutrals because Britain is now an enemy preventing both. Similarly Russia can't rely on western industrial supplies - albeit limited - or finance from Britain.

In the latter then Russia is in for a lot of grief although they might well trade space for time. France faces blockades and possible attacks as well as the whittling away of their imperial empire while its own attacks on Germany or Italy are likely to be very costly.

Coupled with American isolationism and that Britain can now rely on Germany to supplement its own industrial/military needs and supply the latter with raw materials, food and funds I can't really see anything that would drag it into the conflict. Unless as WolfBear says France tries USW in which case there's a chance if the war lasts long enough the US ends up against France which tilts the odds even more against them.

What odds would you put on France ever eventually resorting to USW in this TL?

Also, off-topic, but how would you realistically get a lot of South Asians to settle in Central Asia? This could be in independent Central Asian countries or in a surviving Greater Russia that avoids decades of Communist rule and that permanently keeps Central Asia.
 

Atarlost

Well-known member
Also, off-topic, but how would you realistically get a lot of South Asians to settle in Central Asia? This could be in independent Central Asian countries or in a surviving Greater Russia that avoids decades of Communist rule and that permanently keeps Central Asia.
Getting a lot of anyone to settle in Central Asia is tricky. There are no decent river systems for transport and the climate isn't very good for agriculture (these are linked). There's a reason the steppe people were nomadic.

They'd have to find something like oil or important rare earths or maybe -- if it happens when it's still the monetary standard -- gold there and I think it's the wrong sort of geology for oil.
 

WolfBear

Well-known member
Getting a lot of anyone to settle in Central Asia is tricky. There are no decent river systems for transport and the climate isn't very good for agriculture (these are linked). There's a reason the steppe people were nomadic.

They'd have to find something like oil or important rare earths or maybe -- if it happens when it's still the monetary standard -- gold there and I think it's the wrong sort of geology for oil.

What about building canals there?
 

WolfBear

Well-known member
@stevep @Atarlost @Skallagrim How would you get a lot of immigrants to settle in a Russia that has avoided decades of Communist rule? Especially, but not only, both East Asians and South Asians since they're in relatively close proximity to a Greater Russia. By "a lot", I mean REALLY huge numbers, comparable to the 30 million Latin Americans whom the US has accepted since 1965:


PH_2015-09-28_immigration-through-2065-06.png
 

WolfBear

Well-known member
I find it interesting that a lot of times when US Presidents were assassinated or nearly assassinated, there were foreign leaders who were assassinated or nearly assassinated at roughly the same time. For instance:

1865: Abraham Lincoln; 1866: Otto von Bismarck
1881: Russian Tsar Alexander II and James Garfield
1900: Italian King Umberto II; 1901: William McKinley
1981: Ronald Reagan and Pope John Paul II (head of state for Vatican City, which is its own independent country). Unlike all of the assassination attempts above, both of these assassination attempts narrowly failed, though in both cases their target did get shot and suffered severe blood loss.
 

Atarlost

Well-known member
@stevep @Atarlost @Skallagrim How would you get a lot of immigrants to settle in a Russia that has avoided decades of Communist rule? Especially, but not only, both East Asians and South Asians since they're in relatively close proximity to a Greater Russia. By "a lot", I mean REALLY huge numbers, comparable to the 30 million Latin Americans whom the US has accepted since 1965:
As I think I said before, you need a really big mineral extraction rush.

The problem for your goals is that large parts of the US have pretty good weather. Russia east of the Urals has absolutely terrible weather and Russia west of the Urals doesn't exactly have great weather. Western Europe is warm because of an ocean current. The farther east you go the less impact that has. Russia is at about the same latitude range as Canada and far from the moderating influence of any non-frozen ocean. Figure out what it would take to get those Mexicans to want to skip over the US and go to Canada and you have some idea what it would take to get South Asians to immigrate into Russia. More permissive Canadian social programs didn't do the trick in the 1990s.
 

WolfBear

Well-known member
As I think I said before, you need a really big mineral extraction rush.

The problem for your goals is that large parts of the US have pretty good weather. Russia east of the Urals has absolutely terrible weather and Russia west of the Urals doesn't exactly have great weather. Western Europe is warm because of an ocean current. The farther east you go the less impact that has. Russia is at about the same latitude range as Canada and far from the moderating influence of any non-frozen ocean. Figure out what it would take to get those Mexicans to want to skip over the US and go to Canada and you have some idea what it would take to get South Asians to immigrate into Russia. More permissive Canadian social programs didn't do the trick in the 1990s.

A lot of Indians and Chinese did, in fact, move to Canada over the last several decades, relative to Canada's total population, of course.
 

TheRomanSlayer

Unipolarity is for Subhuman Trogdolytes
Not to mention that South Asians would have to go through Afghanistan in order to reach Russian Central Asia, and even then, they'd be living among the Muslim majority Central Asian Turkic peoples. However, there was also a precedent for the East Asians to move to Central Asia. I give you the Koryo-saram as an example. They were only relocated to Central Asia because Stalin deported them from the Soviet Far East for fear that the Koryo-saram would act as Japanese spies, never mind that most Korean independence movements were fighting Japan.



Obviously the deportations of the Koryo-saram wouldn't happen in a non-communist Russia, but you'd still have a large Koryo-saram presence in the Russian Far East that would be more or less remain intact.
 

WolfBear

Well-known member
Not to mention that South Asians would have to go through Afghanistan in order to reach Russian Central Asia, and even then, they'd be living among the Muslim majority Central Asian Turkic peoples. However, there was also a precedent for the East Asians to move to Central Asia. I give you the Koryo-saram as an example. They were only relocated to Central Asia because Stalin deported them from the Soviet Far East for fear that the Koryo-saram would act as Japanese spies, never mind that most Korean independence movements were fighting Japan.



Obviously the deportations of the Koryo-saram wouldn't happen in a non-communist Russia, but you'd still have a large Koryo-saram presence in the Russian Far East that would be more or less remain intact.


A lot of South Asians are, in fact, Muslim, so living among Muslims would not be too radical for them.
 

stevep

Well-known member
What odds would you put on France ever eventually resorting to USW in this TL?

Also, off-topic, but how would you realistically get a lot of South Asians to settle in Central Asia? This could be in independent Central Asian countries or in a surviving Greater Russia that avoids decades of Communist rule and that permanently keeps Central Asia.

Belated reply as I got hit by the April Fool's prank so couldn't reply for a couple of days.

I would say low as France is likely to be forced to make peace before it could do too much on such an approach. At least unless pre-war decisions, since they would be do heavily outclassed against the RN, made them decide to try something like USW rather than their traditional surface raider approach.

Can't really see any incentive on either side for S Asians to settle Central Asia under Russian rule?
 

WolfBear

Well-known member
Belated reply as I got hit by the April Fool's prank so couldn't reply for a couple of days.

I would say low as France is likely to be forced to make peace before it could do too much on such an approach. At least unless pre-war decisions, since they would be do heavily outclassed against the RN, made them decide to try something like USW rather than their traditional surface raider approach.

Makes sense.

Can't really see any incentive on either side for S Asians to settle Central Asia under Russian rule?

A much better quality of life, no? Especially in the late 20th century and later.
 

Atarlost

Well-known member
It would have become so by the late 20th century had Russia avoided decades of Communist rule, though.
No it wouldn't. Countries and people invest where they expect returns and there's nothing to invest in in central Russia unless as I've said before there is some sort of mineral extraction boom. A non-Communist Russia would develop European Russia and a bit around Vladivostok, but the rest is just a void that economically insignificant Cossacks bounce around in.
 

Skallagrim

Well-known member
No it wouldn't. Countries and people invest where they expect returns and there's nothing to invest in in central Russia unless as I've said before there is some sort of mineral extraction boom. A non-Communist Russia would develop European Russia and a bit around Vladivostok, but the rest is just a void that economically insignificant Cossacks bounce around in.
There would be a resource extraction boom. Saying "it won't happen unless a thing that would definitely happen actually happens" is a weird caveat.

The notion that a non-communist Russia would only develop European Russia and a bit around Vladivostok contradicts all pre-war trends, and runs counter to elementary logic. Here's some relevant maps showing development in OTL:

soviet_pet_deposit_82.jpg


az-Soviet-Coal-big.jpg


russia-natural-resources-map.jpg


t0vdbqadfgr41.jpg



Anyone with even half a working brain can see the obvious axes of development after a simple glance at these maps. Now, once you take into account how utterly terrible communism is at allocating economic means, and then consider what the USSR still managed to do, the conclusion can't really be missed. A non-communist Russia would have developed the relevant regions to a far greater degree.



....all that being said, I still don't actually think that the Russian interior would become "more developed than the Raj" (assuming, of course, a Raj that stays intact and continues its own pre-war developmental trends). Nor would such a scenario as this yield the (frankly ridiculous) outcome of massive South Asian migration into Russia. A non-communist Russia would be so much better off that Russia's own pre-war demographic trends would continue. This means that there would be many, many more Russians. A fair number of them would be settling the Russian interior.
 

stevep

Well-known member
I would agree with Skallagrim that there would be substantial development in C Asia in a continued Russia empire. That might also include the step the Soviets took OTL which has been disastrous for the region, i.e. massive cotton production, although I would hope not.

Would also agree its unlikely to attract settlers from South or East Asia both for the reason Skallagrim mentioned, the natural increase in Russians - and probably local Central Asians being much larger and also that Russia even under the Czars was not a good place to live if you were poor or non-Slavic and doubly so if you fitted both categories. Even more so with people from large states such as India or China as your probably going to be seen as a potential 5th column by the government and probably a fair number of the Slavic and local populations.
 

WolfBear

Well-known member
....all that being said, I still don't actually think that the Russian interior would become "more developed than the Raj" (assuming, of course, a Raj that stays intact and continues its own pre-war developmental trends). Nor would such a scenario as this yield the (frankly ridiculous) outcome of massive South Asian migration into Russia. A non-communist Russia would be so much better off that Russia's own pre-war demographic trends would continue. This means that there would be many, many more Russians. A fair number of them would be settling the Russian interior.

South Asian countries right now have a GDP PPP per capita of significantly less than $10,000:


Meanwhile, if Russian Central Asia was all at least as wealthy as present-day our TL's Kazakhstan in this TL, then they would be something like 3-5 times wealthier than the South Asian countries. If that's not a huge magnet for immigration to Russian Central Asia, along with Russian Central Asia's relative proximity to South Asia, then I don't know what is.

And Yes, Russians would be settling the Russian interior, including Central Asia. Ditto for Ukrainians. But the thing is that this isn't actually incompatible with also having a lot of South Asians settle in Central Asia. For instance, here in the US, a lot of white Americans have also moved to the Sun Belt over the last several decades in addition to a lot of immigrants moving there. These two things are not mutually exclusive by any means and thus should not be viewed as such!
 

WolfBear

Well-known member
I would agree with Skallagrim that there would be substantial development in C Asia in a continued Russia empire. That might also include the step the Soviets took OTL which has been disastrous for the region, i.e. massive cotton production, although I would hope not.

Would also agree its unlikely to attract settlers from South or East Asia both for the reason Skallagrim mentioned, the natural increase in Russians - and probably local Central Asians being much larger and also that Russia even under the Czars was not a good place to live if you were poor or non-Slavic and doubly so if you fitted both categories. Even more so with people from large states such as India or China as your probably going to be seen as a potential 5th column by the government and probably a fair number of the Slavic and local populations.

Mass Russian/Slavic migration into Central Asia and mass South Asian migration into Central Asia actually aren't incompatible with one another! And while Kazakhstan is likely to have significantly more people, the effect on southern Central Asia is likely to be more limited since that region didn't suffer as much from Communist demographic devastation and since in this TL a lot of Central Asians might move to Russia's Slavic core during the 20th century in search of better job opportunities, with a lot of them permanently deciding to settle there. Think of a Russian version of the Great Migration of African-Americans to the Northern and Western US between 1910 and 1970, where over a third of the US's total Southern African-American population left the Southern US in search of greener pastures. Central Asia will eventually become a very nice place to live, but probably in the late 20th century and later, similar to the late 20th century boom that the Sun Belt in the US experienced. Before 1945 or so, few people outside of the Southern US actually wanted to move to the Southern US, to my knowledge.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top