Alternate History Ideas and Discussion

WolfBear

Well-known member
What autocracy? carlist fought for ancient freedoms.And,they were not statists,so they would not fuck economy.
Europe was free in medieval times without liberals and masons - or,to be precise,lost its freedom thanks to them.

Well, it was certainly better to live in France under Louis XVI than under the Reign of Terror. But living in France under the Third French Republic was even better, other than perhaps during World War I.
 

ATP

Well-known member
Well, it was certainly better to live in France under Louis XVI than under the Reign of Terror. But living in France under the Third French Republic was even better, other than perhaps during World War I.

Louis XVI was ENLINGHTENED autocrat.Carlist were not - they wanted return of medieval laws and medieval freedoms.People in those times really were more free then in our times.
Especially,if they use Salamanca school of economy.
 

stevep

Well-known member
What autocracy? carlist fought for ancient freedoms.And,they were not statists,so they would not fuck economy.
Europe was free in medieval times without liberals and masons - or,to be precise,lost its freedom thanks to them.

For ancient freedoms for the elites of the arisocracy and clergy as well as an autocratic monarchy. Those groups are also the reason why the Spanish state and economy were such a mess.
 

WolfBear

Well-known member
@Circle of Willis @Skallagrim I have a question for you guys: Just how much more difficult do you think that it would have been for Britain to enter an alt-WWI later on if WWI would not have broken out in the summer of 1914 but would have instead broken out later? The reason that I'm asking this question is because the situation in Ireland was getting awfully heated due to Irish Home Rule and Ulster Protestants refusing to accept rule by Dublin, up to the point of them being willing to use military force to prevent this, with a lot of British officers of Ulster Protestant descent refusing to take up arms against them. The outbreak of World War I when it occurred in real life caused Irish Home Rule and thus this problem to be postponed until later since the war delayed the implementation of Irish Home Rule, but with a later World War I, the implementation of Irish Home Rule won't be delayed. So, how will the chaos and mess there, especially in Ulster, have affected Britain's calculations in regards to entry and participation in any future alt-WWI?
 

WolfBear

Well-known member
If push really comes to shove, I think they'd be able to crush the Hungarians, and terminate the dualist structure altogether. The Germans, Croats, Slovaks, Ruthenians, Romanians and Jews in the Hungarian half would surely consider it an improvement.

Would Hungary then be governed similar to how the Southern (ex-Confederate) US was governed during Reconstruction, with the Hungarian minorities playing the role that blacks, scalawags, and carpetbaggers played in the Reconstruction-era Southern US?
 

WolfBear

Well-known member
@stevep I've got a question for you: If Russia avoids the Bolshevik coup in 1917 and instead fights WWI to the finish (which really just means holding on until the Western Powers can defeat Germany in the West and thus win the entire war), just how solid do you think that Russia's influence in post-WWI Europe will be? I can count on France, Italy, Yugoslavia, Romania, and Czechoslovakia being reliable Russian allies, and even Poland should be cooperative since it will likely understand that it needs Russian military assistance in order to protect the Polish Corridor in the event of any future war with Germany. This is assuming that Russia itself would not be a revanchist power in this scenario, which makes sense since being a winner in World War I would not create much of a need for revanchism. Russia I would presume would also try to milk its fair share of WWI reparations from Germany. I think that Britain, Germany, and Hungary will adopt a more Russoskeptical line but I don't know if any other countries will ever actually be willing to join them. I think that Belgium will be pro-Russian if France is and so long as Belgium is not blatantly threatened by Germany.
 

Skallagrim

Well-known member
Would Hungary then be governed similar to how the Southern (ex-Confederate) US was governed during Reconstruction, with the Hungarian minorities playing the role that blacks, scalawags, and carpetbaggers played in the Reconstruction-era Southern US?
I very much doubt that would be necessary. For one, unlike the Southern states, which were (with the exception of West Virginia) kept in the same territorial form, the dualist stucture of the Empire would be wholly dissolved, and the non-Hungarian regions of the former Hungarian half would all be immediatised.

"Hungary" would thus be a territorially reduced member state of the Empire, with no authority over Slovakia, Transylvania, Ruthenia or Croatia. (I assume that Vienna wouldn't want the Romanians too powerful, so I think Hungary would be allowed to retain the Székely Land, and probably a land strip stretching towards it.)

Furthermore, the Hungarian elites most interested in maintaining the old status quo would be replaced by more co-operative reformists, who'd get to carry out their 'domestic' agenda for Hungarian politics in echange for accepting the new reality.

The resulting Austrian Empire would either be quasi-federal, or at least embrace a measure of political devolution. This would allow the Czechs, Slovaks, Ruthenians, Poles, Greek Catholic Ukrainanians, Hungarians, Romanians, Croats and Slovenes a degree of self-government over the internal affairs of their own constituent provinces/states within the Empire, and would almost certainly give all their languages official status (besides German, the 'imperial language') in all domestic matters.
 

ATP

Well-known member
For ancient freedoms for the elites of the arisocracy and clergy as well as an autocratic monarchy. Those groups are also the reason why the Spanish state and economy were such a mess.
Nope,freedom of provinces and God.And spanish economy was fucked by liberals and masons,who decide to ignore Salamanca school/basically what later Austrian school was/ of economy.
And carlists would use Salamanca school,not liberals - thus saving economy.

You are victim of leftist propaganda in that case.
 

stevep

Well-known member
@Circle of Willis @Skallagrim I have a question for you guys: Just how much more difficult do you think that it would have been for Britain to enter an alt-WWI later on if WWI would not have broken out in the summer of 1914 but would have instead broken out later? The reason that I'm asking this question is because the situation in Ireland was getting awfully heated due to Irish Home Rule and Ulster Protestants refusing to accept rule by Dublin, up to the point of them being willing to use military force to prevent this, with a lot of British officers of Ulster Protestant descent refusing to take up arms against them. The outbreak of World War I when it occurred in real life caused Irish Home Rule and thus this problem to be postponed until later since the war delayed the implementation of Irish Home Rule, but with a later World War I, the implementation of Irish Home Rule won't be delayed. So, how will the chaos and mess there, especially in Ulster, have affected Britain's calculations in regards to entry and participation in any future alt-WWI?

Very good point and an important issue. Would depend on the exact circumstances and who does what. For instance the government was supporting Home Rule, albeit with attempt to appease the fears of the Protestants while a lot of the establishment including as you say many in the army opposed it. So you have potential for bitter conflict both in Ireland and in the British mainland - although hopefully the latter wouldn't descend to actual fighting or attempts to overthrow the government.

The outbreak of WWI OTL pushed the question into the long grass to a degree but also made it more difficult to solve. Because the effect of the invasion of Belgium brought a lot of support for it in Ireland and Redmond got a lot of moderate Irish Catholics to volunteer for the army as a result - and also because it showed loyalty to the idea of staying in the wider union. However this allowed the hard line fanatics to be unopposed and mismanaging things after their attempted coup in 1916 only made matter s worse. Plus when the 1918 elections were held most of those moderates were still in the army and unable to vote. I have seen it suggested that this was a big factor in the Sinn Fein success then.

If the war is delayed then a lot would depend on:
a) How long its delayed - for instance post 1916 then its often suggested German would switch to a defensive role in the west because they feared Russian would be too powerful and mobilize too rapidly. In that case there's probably no invasion of Belgium to alienate British feeling.
b) How the issue is resolved and how stable that is as to whether there is a lasting solution, which is probably unlikely with the difference between the two extremes and how stable that leaves the union.
c) What else changes in the wider world and similarly the causes of a later WWI.
 

stevep

Well-known member
@stevep I've got a question for you: If Russia avoids the Bolshevik coup in 1917 and instead fights WWI to the finish (which really just means holding on until the Western Powers can defeat Germany in the West and thus win the entire war), just how solid do you think that Russia's influence in post-WWI Europe will be? I can count on France, Italy, Yugoslavia, Romania, and Czechoslovakia being reliable Russian allies, and even Poland should be cooperative since it will likely understand that it needs Russian military assistance in order to protect the Polish Corridor in the event of any future war with Germany. This is assuming that Russia itself would not be a revanchist power in this scenario, which makes sense since being a winner in World War I would not create much of a need for revanchism. Russia I would presume would also try to milk its fair share of WWI reparations from Germany. I think that Britain, Germany, and Hungary will adopt a more Russoskeptical line but I don't know if any other countries will ever actually be willing to join them. I think that Belgium will be pro-Russian if France is and so long as Belgium is not blatantly threatened by Germany.

As usual it would depend on the circumstances. If Russian military morale hadn't collapsed after the revolution - that collapse being at least partially due to Lenin and the other Bolsheviks then I could see the provisional government survive until victory. The PG did seem to be very liberal in terms of its aims with no demands for annexations, although it did seek to oppose movements towards independent by states such as Finland and Estonia.

Similarly with how things happened after the armistice and the following elections inside Russia. Which is likely to open many cans of worms as while peace would have come there were substantial foreign debts and the issue of land reform most openly importantly. As such in the 20's Russia in this case is likely to be largely introvert with its concerns not looking far beyond its borders for a while and you could see anything from a reasonably stable if I suspect weak liberal democratic state developing to full scale civil war and anything from right wing dictatorships, possibly even with the return of the Romanovs to some extreme group like the Bolsheviks gaining power. The latter could be unlikely however as without that golden chance in 1917/18 they were probably too weak to overthrow an elected government.

From the point that it largely resolves its internal issues - whichever way it does - Russia will play a bigger role in world affairs but how it does would depend on events inside Russia and in the wider world.
 

WolfBear

Well-known member
‘Largest Possible Imperial Japan’.

Avoid the Spanish-American War in 1898. Then if WWI still eventually occurs, avoid WWII and/or the Fall of France later on and have Japan conquer Korea, Taiwan, the Philippines, and all of China sooner or later. I suppose that a war with the Netherlands over Indonesia could also be possible. Anything more I fear would trigger a large-scale war that Japan would have decent odds of losing.
 

WolfBear

Well-known member
Be more specific - does Manchukuo count?

Yes.

Avoid the Spanish-American War in 1898. Then if WWI still eventually occurs, avoid WWII and/or the Fall of France later on and have Japan conquer Korea, Taiwan, the Philippines, and all of China sooner or later. I suppose that a war with the Netherlands over Indonesia could also be possible. Anything more I fear would trigger a large-scale war that Japan would have decent odds of losing.

I forgot to mention that Japan also gets northern Sakhalin after winning the Russo-Japanese War.
 

WolfBear

Well-known member
Also, another AHC while I'm at it:

'AHC: Have the Russian Empire annex Mongolia'

The Russian Empire can survive longer in this TL.
 

Zyobot

Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
‘Ernst Röhm And The SA Take Power’.

Based on what I know about him and more “revolutionary” Nazis in general, I doubt the outcome would be great. That said, it’s hard to be as bad as Hitler and all the right bastards he kept aboard IOTL, which makes the verdict something of a toss-up to me.
 

ATP

Well-known member
‘Largest Possible Imperial Japan’.
Take Philippines in 1898 before USA,and do not occupy it,only have bases and special connections.
Take Siberia in 1920,not caring about USA /in OTL they saved soviets from Japan/
In 1931 take Manchukuo,like in OTL
In 1940 attack,but only Holland.
Later,let others fight their wars.

'AHC: The largest realistic possible Austrian/Hapsburg Empire (Austria-Hungary)'

Made them take Poland throne in 1588.Take England in the same year.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top