Alternate History Ideas and Discussion

[stevep]

Why nightmare? OTL gave part of world to commies.Japan winning certainly would be better.
And,i am taking about attacking dutch during Battle of England - Churchill could do nothing then.

Attacking soviets later - they could win and take Siberia,then made separate peace with soviets.
Sralin offered peace to germans at least till 1942 - but greedy idiots ALWAYS wonted moar.
Smart Japan here would say :OK,we take half of Siberia" ,and never join war on german side.

Britain has to act, albeit with very little simply because:
a) the Dutch government in exile, who's main base is the DEI is an ally. It would undermine our entire stance in terms of fighting to defend small nations to abandon an ally and also undermine the will of other allies to continue the fight.
b) Given that there are important other allies [i.e. ANZ] and many important colonial possessions Malaya, Burma, India etc that would be extremely vulnerable to further Japanese expansion once they have the DEI and imperial Japan has already shown itself as an extremely vicious and expansionist racist regime only an utter idiot would not expect that Japan would attack British interests as soon as their ready.
c) Even in the unlikely event of Japan occupying the DEI and stopping there even the threat of it would tie up a lot of allied resources. Think Australia would be willing to send virtually its entire professional army to the ME region with Japan on its doorstep? Or that India wouldn't have to deploy its own forces eastwards?

Because your talking about a situation where two of the most brutal and murderous regimes in the 20thC are even more successful and destructive. In worse case scenario Britain is defeated and the Nazis and Imperial Japan dominate virtually all of Eurasia for several decades at least. Death toll would be ~100M+ at least before they finally collapse. N America might survive as an island of civilization but then your could see too many fools thinking they need to go the dictator route as well to 'defend themselves'. Of course in such a scenario 'race enemies' such as the Slavs and alternative power centres, such as the churches are going to be among those who get hammered.

Slightly less bad would be Britain forced to make peace with Germany and able after a long fight to defeat Japan but even in the east the death toll is going to be appalling there and still going to be even worse in Europe. You might still get communism in China in this case as an exhausted Britain isn't going to be either able or willing to try and maintain some sort of order there.

Best case is that the US realise they have to get directly involved in which case Britain is already weakened and neither US or Japan are really ready for this war. Japan is more prepared but the US have much, much greater resources although in this scenario their will to fight could be markedly less. Coupled with the fact that a US dow on Japan would mean the loss of the Philippines along with Wake and Guam and possibly a bigger naval disaster than Pearl Harbour its likely that they could insist on only really fighting the Japanese or making the Germans a lesser target. Even if they do get serious about Hitler the power most likely to be helped by this would be your beloved Soviet Union as Hitler might not have time and an excuse to attack it.

 

[stevep]

The RSDLP remains a large, but internally divided party.

I'm not sure how the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks ended up splitting, considering that they both had similar aims of bringing a socialist like government in Russia in the first place.

Because the Mensheviks were willing to work with groups outside the party and respect at least some human rights while Lenin and his factor wanted total control of everything.

As with just about everything in communism the two names are lies. The Mensheviks were the more numerous group but Lenin managed to organise a vote that led to the split when many of them weren't about and his own followers were in the majority so he got his group named the majority [Bolshevik] and the outvoted group the minority [Mensheviks].

 

[Zyobot]

Because the Mensheviks were willing to work with groups outside the party and respect at least some human rights while Lenin and his factor wanted total control of everything.

As with just about everything in communism the two names are lies. The Mensheviks were the more numerous group but Lenin managed to organise a vote that led to the split when many of them weren't about and his own followers were in the majority so he got his group named the majority [Bolshevik] and the outvoted group the minority [Mensheviks].

Yeah, as I understand it, the Bolsheviks were actually reviled by most people — with most of their success due to White Russian disunity, their superior organization, and bloody terror campaigns that cowed the general population into submission by force of arms.

In fact, I've heard the percentage of the Russian population that were active revolutionaries at the time was an extremely violent, forceful minority that numbered in the single digits, though of course, it's not like Nicholas II was terribly popular, either. Quite the opposite, in fact — much of which could've been avoided if he weren't such a stodgy absolutist who refused to see where the wind was blowing.

 

[stevep]

If anything, China/Chinese might even use its/their numerical advantage to dominate the entire Japanese Empire in the long(er)-run in this TL, not just China itself! That would be a real China-wank TL lol!

Possibly. Its the way China has tended to overcome its many conquerors. However while they have generally been more successfully militarily they have tended not to have the same level of social cohesion and also, if only after while learn to respect Chinese culture and values. Plus their centre of political and economic - and often military power - have generally moved into China.

With imperial Japan its racist and xenophobic on a Nazi level and a powerful established state in its own right and the Japanese emperor isn't going to move into a palace in China. They had been taught to hate and despite everybody and see themselves as a divinely lead race. Hence they saw the Chinese as slaves rather than subjects and while that might change over time its going to be difficult when only massive levels of brutality are keeping a lid on the boiling pot that would be the Japanese empire over China.

I would say, especially if Japan added more areas such as OTL SE Asia [both on land and the DEI] to their subjects/slaves then its likely to collapse eventually simply because of the burden to controlling so many people by little more than brute forces. Its however, without external intervention changing things, to see an exhausted Japan retreat into its core territories, which would probably include at least Korea and Taiwan, leaving behind a shattered wilderness where China and SE Asia used to be.

 

[stevep]

Yeah, as I understand it, the Bolsheviks were actually reviled by most people — with most of their success due to White Russian disunity, their superior organization, and bloody terror campaigns that cowed the general population into submission by force of arms.

In fact, I've heard the percentage of the Russian population that were active revolutionaries at the time was in the single digits, though of course, it's not like Nicholas II was terribly popular, either. Quite the opposite, in fact — much of which could've been avoided if he weren't such a stodgy absolutist who refused to see where the wind was blowing.

Very true. The Bolsheviks, because they had committed to it allowed an election after they made peace with the Germans but only got about 20-25% of the vote. They insisted on a proposal that gave them almost unlimited control of the Parliament when it opened, which was rejected by the other parties. They then went to lunch and when they returned found the Parliament blocked off by armed Bolshevik soldiers.

If it wasn't that they feared the Whites more - and a fair number of them were extremely autocratic - a lot of the parties, such as the Mensheviks and Social Revolutionaries would never have supported them in the civil war. They only found out after it ended that the Bolsheviks were even worse.

 

[Zyobot]

Very true. The Bolsheviks, because they had committed to it allowed an election after they made peace with the Germans but only got about 20-25% of the vote. They insisted on a proposal that gave them almost unlimited control of the Parliament when it opened, which was rejected by the other parties. They then went to lunch and when they returned found the Parliament blocked off by armed Bolshevik soldiers.

Geez; no wonder the Bolsheviks built their brand around terror instead of persuading the electorate or the pursuit of genuine justice for the Russian people. In which case, better catch up on some Stephen Kotkin books I never finished, seeing as he goes into much greater detail on this stuff.

Honestly, though? I wonder how much of Lenin's example inspired Hitler and his gaggle of hateful gangsters over in Germany. I know he and Stalin "traded" inspiration when it came to crushing their respective enemies, but for as much as the Nazis railed against "Judeo-Bolshevism", it wouldn't surprise me if Hitler studied Lenin's takeover closely in private and gleaned some "useful" insights that he put to use later.

If it wasn't that they feared the Whites more - and a fair number of them were extremely autocratic - a lot of the parties, such as the Mensheviks and Social Revolutionaries would never have supported them in the civil war. They only found out after it ended that the Bolsheviks were even worse.

Now I'm wondering what a victorious White Russia might've looked like, assuming the Bolsheviks somehow overplayed their hand or started purging each other too soon (as the Far Left is all too prone to doing once it's firmly in power).

Sure, they had some unsavory characters and might've also had to terrorize White factions of a more "dissident" bent into submission, due to irreconcilable divisions between liberals, monarchists, socialists of a more "mild" brand, and so on. But at the same time, it's very hard to be as bad as what we actually got IOTL, considering the body count left behind by Stalin — as well as the long-term, quite possibly irreparable structural damage inflicted by communism in general, really.

 

[WolfBear]

I was thinking reactions to how big computers became, the breakup of the USSR, and that we had a black and orange president back to back. You know, things that’d be hard for a general audience to miss within an hour or two of browsing.

This might make Soviet hardliners more determined to overthrow Gorbachev earlier, though whether they'd actually succeed is an open question. And al-Qaeda would be taken much, much more seriously once it will emerge. And the US might decide to prop up Najibullah's government in Afghanistan to the hilt after 1989.

 

[Zyobot]

This might make Soviet hardliners more determined to overthrow Gorbachev earlier, though whether they'd actually succeed is an open question. And al-Qaeda would be taken much, much more seriously once it will emerge. And the US might decide to prop up Najibullah's government in Afghanistan to the hilt after 1989.

Well, right now, it's Brezhnev who's in charge, so I don't think they'll have to worry about their leader turning traitor any time soon. Not that I'd expect young Gorbachev's fate to be pleasant at all, but, you know...

In any case, what do you say I actually start a thread on this? I can't speak to how much traffic it'll generate, exactly, but it has potential that I'd rather not waste before I even try it.

 

[WolfBear]

Well, right now, it's Brezhnev who's in charge, so I don't think they'll have to worry about their leader turning traitor any time soon. Not that I'd expect young Gorbachev's fate to be pleasant at all, but, you know...

In any case, what do you say I actually start a thread on this? I can't speak to how much traffic it'll generate, exactly, but it has potential that I'd rather not waste before I even try it.

Yeah, please do start such a thread. I'll respond to it, at least!

 

[ATP]

Britain has to act, albeit with very little simply because:
a) the Dutch government in exile, who's main base is the DEI is an ally. It would undermine our entire stance in terms of fighting to defend small nations to abandon an ally and also undermine the will of other allies to continue the fight.
b) Given that there are important other allies [i.e. ANZ] and many important colonial possessions Malaya, Burma, India etc that would be extremely vulnerable to further Japanese expansion once they have the DEI and imperial Japan has already shown itself as an extremely vicious and expansionist racist regime only an utter idiot would not expect that Japan would attack British interests as soon as their ready.
c) Even in the unlikely event of Japan occupying the DEI and stopping there even the threat of it would tie up a lot of allied resources. Think Australia would be willing to send virtually its entire professional army to the ME region with Japan on its doorstep? Or that India wouldn't have to deploy its own forces eastwards?

Because your talking about a situation where two of the most brutal and murderous regimes in the 20thC are even more successful and destructive. In worse case scenario Britain is defeated and the Nazis and Imperial Japan dominate virtually all of Eurasia for several decades at least. Death toll would be ~100M+ at least before they finally collapse. N America might survive as an island of civilization but then your could see too many fools thinking they need to go the dictator route as well to 'defend themselves'. Of course in such a scenario 'race enemies' such as the Slavs and alternative power centres, such as the churches are going to be among those who get hammered.

Slightly less bad would be Britain forced to make peace with Germany and able after a long fight to defeat Japan but even in the east the death toll is going to be appalling there and still going to be even worse in Europe. You might still get communism in China in this case as an exhausted Britain isn't going to be either able or willing to try and maintain some sort of order there.

Best case is that the US realise they have to get directly involved in which case Britain is already weakened and neither US or Japan are really ready for this war. Japan is more prepared but the US have much, much greater resources although in this scenario their will to fight could be markedly less. Coupled with the fact that a US dow on Japan would mean the loss of the Philippines along with Wake and Guam and possibly a bigger naval disaster than Pearl Harbour its likely that they could insist on only really fighting the Japanese or making the Germans a lesser target. Even if they do get serious about Hitler the power most likely to be helped by this would be your beloved Soviet Union as Hitler might not have time and an excuse to attack it.

1.British tried sell their more important allies,Poland,to soviets from 1940.And they betrayed dutch after 1945,so why not in 1940?
2.vicious and expansionist regime? HAH! soviets were worst,and british still made deal with them.Why Japan should be worst?
Especially,that they were old british ally,and usually keep their promises.Which soviet ALWAYS break.
Better made deal with vicious dude who keep promise,then with one who would certainly backstab you.
3.Probably not - which mean Italy fighting year longer.

4.100M+ victims - the same like commies,then.And worst in moral sense - commies made everything to change survivors into shit,which germans and japaneese never cared.
And,GERMANS NOT NAZIS would lost anyway - becouse FDR would provoke war with them,and Adolf would lost war thanks to his "genius"

5.germans would lost,maybe yerar-two later.And why England should fight their old ally Japan,which do not attacked them?
Aside from fact,tat alone they would lost.

6.Soviets planned backstab their german allies from the start - so,if germans do not attack,they would do so.
In this scenario,we would have soviet Europe.
Unlikely - germans attacked,becouse they knew,that soviets plan to attack them.
But,if miracle happen and soviets take Europe - they would still lost to economy,and,after their fall,powerfull germans and France would not trample over middle Europe - becouse they would be in the same shit as we.

 

[CastilloVerde]

Anyway: 'Mercantile Rome, Militant Carthage'.

That is, Rome is founded as a merchant republic mainly concerned with profitable trade and commerce, while Carthage is highly militaristic and conquest-driven when it comes to dealing with foreign powers — thereby swapping the OTL "niches" of the two great rivals of the Med.

I think you have to change the early histories of the two republics in order to fundamentally change the attitudes of the two.

Carthage: We know that the Greeks and Carthaginians fought numerous wars in OTL primarily on Sicily from the mid-6th century and continuing until Pyrrhos. OTL conflicts seemed to go back-and-forth between the two factions with treaties (e.g. one in 405 BC between Dionysius of Syracuse and the Carthaginian Himilco) occasionally signed. We can conclude that the Greeks and Carthaginians were evenly matched.

I think in order to make Carthage much more "militaristic" than OTL, the Carthaginians must experience an equivalent to the Gallic sack of Rome. That is, a national tragedy that allows an opportunity to re-organize the city and allows the national consciousness to be more predisposed to conflict, particularly if a military leader plays a major role in the re-organization of Carthage not unlike what M. Furius Camillus did in Rome following the Gallic sack.

Imagine, then, Dionysius of Syracuse gets extremely lucky and not only defeats Carthaginians in Sicily but brings the fight to Africa and successfully besieges Carthage herself. Vae victis. The Greeks burn the city and leave after the Carthaginian senate pays the Greeks off. A Carthaginian commander (Himilco perhaps?) vows to rebuild the city and reform the military and thus lays a new path for Carthage - a path that has the Carthaginians forever bitter about the Greek defeat.

One day, perhaps a Carthaginian commander stands victorious on the ruins of Syracuse, fulfilling Himilco's old vow.

Rome: This is harder to determine, but I imagine instead of expanding through conquest, the romans develop as a hegemon among the Latin and later Etruscan cities in Italy in a similar manner as Carthage becoming the hegemon of the punic cities. The conquest of Veii most likely needs to be avoided, and perhaps also the Sack of Rome by the Gauls (only a few years after the capture of Veii!). Veii probably must become like an early "junior" partner to Rome like Utica for Carthage.

Assuming this occurs without too much problem, Carthage gradually establishes military colonies in Sicily and indeed the entire western Mediterranean. Meanwhile, Rome is content as a major mercantile republic in central Italy, dominating the trade routes between the Celts of the north and the Greeks to the south and east.

Eventually in this ATL, Carthage begins to draw closer to affairs among the Greeks in Magna Graecia who have been, up to this time, loyal trade partners of Rome.

Carthage's senate, just as they have done before, decides to call for war against yet another power...

 

[WolfBear]

I think you have to change the early histories of the two republics in order to fundamentally change the attitudes of the two.

Carthage: We know that the Greeks and Carthaginians fought numerous wars in OTL primarily on Sicily from the mid-6th century and continuing until Pyrrhos. OTL conflicts seemed to go back-and-forth between the two factions with treaties (e.g. one in 405 BC between Dionysius of Syracuse and the Carthaginian Himilco) occasionally signed. We can conclude that the Greeks and Carthaginians were evenly matched.

I think in order to make Carthage much more "militaristic" than OTL, the Carthaginians must experience an equivalent to the Gallic sack of Rome. That is, a national tragedy that allows an opportunity to re-organize the city and allows the national consciousness to be more predisposed to conflict, particularly if a military leader plays a major role in the re-organization of Carthage not unlike what M. Furius Camillus did in Rome following the Gallic sack.

Imagine, then, Dionysius of Syracuse gets extremely lucky and not only defeats Carthaginians in Sicily but brings the fight to Africa and successfully besieges Carthage herself. Vae victis. The Greeks burn the city and leave after the Carthaginian senate pays the Greeks off. A Carthaginian commander (Himilco perhaps?) vows to rebuild the city and reform the military and thus lays a new path for Carthage - a path that has the Carthaginians forever bitter about the Greek defeat.

One day, perhaps a Carthaginian commander stands victorious on the ruins of Syracuse, fulfilling Himilco's old vow.

Rome: This is harder to determine, but I imagine instead of expanding through conquest, the romans develop as a hegemon among the Latin and later Etruscan cities in Italy in a similar manner as Carthage becoming the hegemon of the punic cities. The conquest of Veii most likely needs to be avoided, and perhaps also the Sack of Rome by the Gauls (only a few years after the capture of Veii!). Veii probably must become like an early "junior" partner to Rome like Utica for Carthage.

Assuming this occurs without too much problem, Carthage gradually establishes military colonies in Sicily and indeed the entire western Mediterranean. Meanwhile, Rome is content as a major mercantile republic in central Italy, dominating the trade routes between the Celts of the north and the Greeks to the south and east.

Eventually in this ATL, Carthage begins to draw closer to affairs among the Greeks in Magna Graecia who have been, up to this time, loyal trade partners of Rome.

Carthage's senate, just as they have done before, decides to call for war against yet another power...

Radical proposition, but can Carthage become much more militaristic if the Sahara never desertifies and thus Carthage is able to engage in a lot of southward expansion?

 

[Zyobot]

‘Russo-Sino Hybrid Culture’.

Would probably come about via one conquering the other and absorbing lots of new subjects, who — barring some extreme cultural or ethnic genocide, which may very well fuel even more dogged resistance by the defenders — would then make various additions to the conqueror’s culture that become more evident and thoroughly “embedded” as a few generations pass.

 

[WolfBear]

‘Russo-Sino Hybrid Culture’.

Would probably come about via one conquering the other and absorbing lots of new subjects, who — barring some extreme cultural or ethnic genocide, which may very well fuel even more dogged resistance by the defenders — would then make various additions to the conqueror’s culture that become more evident and thoroughly “embedded” as a few generations pass.

Have Russia annex Inner Manchuria in or around 1900 as a part of a deal with Japan where Japan gets Korea. There would be no Russo-Japanese War that way. The rest of China will remain independent but the Chinese in Inner Manchuria will develop their own Chinese-Russian hybrid culture in this TL.

 

[WolfBear]

Its however, without external intervention changing things, to see an exhausted Japan retreat into its core territories, which would probably include at least Korea and Taiwan, leaving behind a shattered wilderness where China and SE Asia used to be.

Japan would also aim to permanently keep Manchuria in this scenario. Perhaps Mongolia as well if Japan will ever acquire it, though that one is more iffy than Manchuria due to logistics.

 

[WolfBear]

@stevep 'AHC/WI: The invention and adoption of tanks by the Allies (or at least the Western Allies) on a mass scale during WWI as early as possible'

 

[CastilloVerde]

Radical proposition, but can Carthage become much more militaristic if the Sahara never desertifies and thus Carthage is able to engage in a lot of southward expansion?

I'll disregard the fact that a Green Sahara POD would be so early that Carthage's existence would be butterflied.

Assuming that the Sahara never became a desert and Carthage develops much the same institutions and history:

Carthaginian politics by the time of the Second Punic War appears to have been tending towards the expression of two rival political factions. The aristocratic faction represented by the Carthaginian aristocrats in the senate and a "mercantile" faction represented most famously by the Barcids.

The Barcids were more in favour of overseas expansion in Spain and were the loudest voices calling for war with Rome. They would be supported by the merchant classes.

This is in contrast to the aristocrats of Carthage who supported consolidating and expanding Carthaginian holdings in Africa. They were supported by wealthy landowners. Indeed most of the senate was composed of such men. These aristocrats are the ones who objected to furthering conflict with Rome, and indeed, the Carthaginian senate notably frustrated Hannibal's attempts for further support in his struggle with Rome - to Carthage's detriment.

My view is that a Green Sahara provides more opportunities for expansion in Africa, improving the support for the policies of the aristocratic faction. I can see large estates similar to roman latifundia being subsequently established in Carthage's new colonies to the south. This would contribute to increasing social tension - but that's another subject.

Anyway, Carthage would be expanding into the lands of the Numidians and Berbers, which could occasion military reforms to deal with the southern peoples.

What can we make of all this? I feel like Carthage would essentially be much the same as her OTL self. It's just that the routes for military expansion would be more likely focused in a southern rather than northern direction.

 

[History Learner]

Charlemagne initially had a different inheritance planned for his successors. These borders, besides being more aesthetically pleasing in my opinion, are more natural, being anchored on both natural and culturally lines more than what historically occurred. You can also see the future borders of Vichy France, Italy Pre-WWI, the GDR and modern Czechia if you look at it close enough.

 

[WolfBear]

'AHC: Have the US pursue an aggressively interventionist foreign policy without WWII'

 

[ATP]

@stevep 'AHC/WI: The invention and adoption of tanks by the Allies (or at least the Western Allies) on a mass scale during WWI as early as possible'

After discovering tractors in 1901,anybody could built tanks.So yes,possible.Some austrian even proposed tank with turret in 1912.They would be slow machines,good only for breaching trenches - but,it would change war.
Becouse,this time offensives would work for both sides.More mobile WW1.