It would want to do so but a lot would depend on the degree of collapse of the Japanese empire - from exhaustion and internal unrest rather than direct foreign intervention, the relative demographics inside Manchuria [ in terms of how many Japanese settled there, how many Han Chinese killed or expelled and possibly the survival of other groups] and the status of the USSR & China when the Japanese collapse occurs.
Alternate History Ideas and Discussion
- Thread starter AndrewJTalon
- Start date
It would want to do so but a lot would depend on the degree of collapse of the Japanese empire - from exhaustion and internal unrest rather than direct foreign intervention, the relative demographics inside Manchuria [ in terms of how many Japanese settled there, how many Han Chinese killed or expelled and possibly the survival of other groups] and the status of the USSR & China when the Japanese collapse occurs.
Interesting idea but the key question is whether the conflict of OTL could be avoided by his sons. The borders give more to the younger sons than the initial treaty which left them only relatively small areas so they might accept this. However would Lothair still insist on being his brother's overlord or be any more successful in defeating them? Otherwise it still all goes to pieces.
It could also depend on just how much of a Greater Japanese national consciousness the Chinese in Manchuria will have by that point in time. In 1871, Alsatians were ethnic Germans but politically French, and in 1921 some ethnic Poles in Silesia were politically German. Ditto for almost all of the Masurian ethnic Poles in 1920.
Bassoe
Well-known member
The Sino-Soviet split goes a lot worse/the US doesn't intervene and the USSR actually launches nuclear preemptive strikes on the PRC, either before they can build nuclear weapons of their own or in the certain knowledge that the PRC arsenal is growing so the sooner they attack, the fewer USSR cities will be destroyed in the retaliation. Anyway, the USSR is damaged at best, the PRC is collapsed and the USSR attempts to occupy the radioactive wreckage of China with all the crimes against humanity that implies. Then when the USSR falls from its own economic inefficiency and can't pay for a continuing occupation, either:
- Taiwanese retake the mainland with heavy American 'assistance', becoming essentially a Germany 2.0-style American puppet regime.
- New Chinese dynasty-descended-from-foreign-conquerors.
Zyobot
Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
Uh… I was thinking something that didn’t feature so much death, destruction, and nuclear fallout all-around. You seem to have a predisposition towards those, judging by several of your previous posts. Frankly, it’s a bit gratuitous, and honestly comes across as shoehorning contrived mass-death scenarios into these discussions instead of honestly engaging with them.
Anyway, don’t have time to elaborate right now, but I once read a POD where Tsarist Russia avoids World War I, giving it time to continues industrializing and building up its strength before going on a conquering spree throughout northern China. In which case, I assume they’d have lots of foreign subjects to absorb, who — while obviously suborned — would be more than numerous enough to have certain “influence” on the resulting cultural exchange as several generations pass.
Yep, they would be ethnically Chinese but very possibly Russian in terms of cultural and political orientation. Similar to how the Masurians were ethnic Poles who were Germans in terms of cultural (Protestant) and political orientation.
@sillygoose What would Germany's military strategy during WWI in 1917 be if Russia avoided descending into revolution that year? Still the same one? USW and an attempt to knock Italy out of the war with Caporetto? Nothing else?
On the 2nd point, if Russia can maintain a decent level of defence so that the Germans and Austrian have to seriously fight to make any gains then the CPs are between a rock and a hard place. Even if the revolution occurs but the Provisional government avoids offensives and sticks solely to defencive actions to 'defend the motherland' which would help in morale terms and also undermine the Bolsheviks. The CPs can't remove many units from the east so they might be able to do something like the Caporetto attack but the 1918 spring offensive is likely to be clearly beyond them. Another factor here is that if Russia keeps fighting the Romanians will which is a further drain on CP resources.
This does have one up side for the CP. The offensives in 1918 will be by the EPs and against the powerful Hindenburg Line rather than the exhausted forces holding over extended positions with the land they devastated in 1916-17 behind them. Britain, as it showed OTL has the doctrine and equipment by then to break such defences, as do the French although their morale may be fragile but its going to be more costly - albeit still less than the OTL 1918 western front with the large number of captured men as the EP lines broke for a while. The US would probably take the worst butcher's bill with large forces of raw recruits with no real experience of the western front and their army massively expanded from a very small core. This could have some interesting impacts if say US losses are 2-4 times larger than OTL. Does the US become even more isolationist post war or determined to make Germany pay/prevent such a disastrous conflict happening again? Probably incentives both ways but which would win out?
This probably relies on someone sitting on/shooting Ludendorff and possibly some of the other members of the German higher command with their attack fetish. On the other hand they know they will be on borrowed time with EP military continuing to expand in size and strength and the US by 1918 starting to appear in numbers.
In terms of USW then by early of 1917 that boat has sailed. The German leadership has committed to it and bypassed civilian concerns and by this time its use and other actions have pretty much committed the US to joining the conflict, which removes the last real reason for ending USW. The process was very effective in sinking merchant shipping even once convoy systems were introduced as coastal shipping and fishing boats were still very badly hit so a lot of sailors will still be killed and shipping sunk.
Agreed and the Russian Provisional Government should also try its hardest to ensure that military discipline does not collapse. Promise soldiers land reform but after the end of the war. Tell them that making peace now without the support of the Western Allies could mean a German victory in the war and the subsequent end of the Russian Revolution if Germany invades afterwards.
And cracking down on defeatist Bolshevik agitation on the front lines is a must! Really, the Bolshevik leadership deserves to get executed, unfortunately, because as tragic as this would be, this would also likely subsequently save tens of millions of Russian and other lives.
If Russia avoids going Bolshevik then it doesn't really matter anywhere near as much what the US does after the end of WWI just so long as the US is willing to support the Allies if there is eventually another war in Europe since in this TL the Anglo-French will likely have the Russians to support them in any future rematch with Germany.
Who exactly would shoot Ludendorff?
Makes sense and reasonable analysis.
Last edited:
All very true. It really needed Germany deciding they didn't need to send that train to Russia.
Which came back to bite everybody as far as we can tell. Lenin's lust for power was a disaster for Russia and for many others.Very true. They will still be important because of their economic and fiscal wealth and their likelihood to seek to exert financial pressure as OTL on the European power but you don't need a US alliance to restrain a revanchist Germany if there is a liberal Russia in the east - especially if Germany is being led by a racial nut case like Hitler.
Well it was rather tongue in cheek but the mentality of the German leadership seems to have been that the only solution to any problem was having overwhelming military power and to win the resulting wars by offensive actions. As such not sure how practical it would have been to have Germany fully on the defensive on both western and eastern fronts in 1917 and 1918. I.e. a de-facto agreement to avoid major conflict in the east and also realising that a major offensive in early 1918 - especially since it would have less men available with no definite peace in the east - would be a huge gamble.
Eparkhos
Well-known member
Well, I just spent the last two hours doing a painstaking analysis of a 'back-from-the-brink' Federalist win in 1824 to discover it's basically a retread of the Quincy Adams presidency with slightly different names. *Sigh*
In short, Crawford doesn't have his stroke and goes on to win a unified Democrat-Republican nomination. At this point, the Federalists are at death's door (they disbanded in 1825 IOTL), but due to a long and complicated intra-Delaware fight I won't go into, Delaware Senator Thomas Clayton, facing the end of his career in the Senate, decides to run for president to get attention and hopefully revive his career. He drafts Rufus King--at this point almost as dead as the party--for VP and spends the first half of the campaign season bouncing around the Mid-Atlantic.
Then, sometime in early spring 1824, Crawford's campaign implodes in a power struggle between Crawford's 'states' rights brigade', the Jacksonians, the ex-Federalists around Adams and Clay's supporters, with Supreme Court Justice Smith Thompson also jumping in to advance his personal beliefs. Clayton's position changes from 'voice in the wilderness' to one of six men with serious shots at the presidency, and he throws himself into campaigning, using the moribund King for all that he's worth. As the Democratic-Republican candidates embark on the mother of all smear campaigns, accusing each other of war crimes, high treason, corruption and sodomy, Clayton's dignified manner and oratory skills gain something of a following. Going into election night, things are much closer than they ought to be....
The problem is the most I can realistically see Clayton winning is 86 EVs (New England + Delaware +parts of IL, LA, NY and DE). Absolute best I can see is 111, if the stars align and he wins all of the above. This kicks things into the House, where it's Clayton>Jackson>Crawford. Given that 'parties' were very vague things at this point, I can see Clay and Clayton--similar in both name and ideology--making common cause, resulting in another 'Corrupt Bargain' by which Clay and his allies swing the presidency to Clayton. The vice-presidency is decided by the Senate--probably Calhoun.
I might've exaggerated with the lead-in, but it's certainly remarkably similar to Adams' presidency. More to follow.
In short, Crawford doesn't have his stroke and goes on to win a unified Democrat-Republican nomination. At this point, the Federalists are at death's door (they disbanded in 1825 IOTL), but due to a long and complicated intra-Delaware fight I won't go into, Delaware Senator Thomas Clayton, facing the end of his career in the Senate, decides to run for president to get attention and hopefully revive his career. He drafts Rufus King--at this point almost as dead as the party--for VP and spends the first half of the campaign season bouncing around the Mid-Atlantic.
Then, sometime in early spring 1824, Crawford's campaign implodes in a power struggle between Crawford's 'states' rights brigade', the Jacksonians, the ex-Federalists around Adams and Clay's supporters, with Supreme Court Justice Smith Thompson also jumping in to advance his personal beliefs. Clayton's position changes from 'voice in the wilderness' to one of six men with serious shots at the presidency, and he throws himself into campaigning, using the moribund King for all that he's worth. As the Democratic-Republican candidates embark on the mother of all smear campaigns, accusing each other of war crimes, high treason, corruption and sodomy, Clayton's dignified manner and oratory skills gain something of a following. Going into election night, things are much closer than they ought to be....
The problem is the most I can realistically see Clayton winning is 86 EVs (New England + Delaware +parts of IL, LA, NY and DE). Absolute best I can see is 111, if the stars align and he wins all of the above. This kicks things into the House, where it's Clayton>Jackson>Crawford. Given that 'parties' were very vague things at this point, I can see Clay and Clayton--similar in both name and ideology--making common cause, resulting in another 'Corrupt Bargain' by which Clay and his allies swing the presidency to Clayton. The vice-presidency is decided by the Senate--probably Calhoun.
I might've exaggerated with the lead-in, but it's certainly remarkably similar to Adams' presidency. More to follow.
Eparkhos
Well-known member
Continuing:
I'll turn this into a thread if there's interest.
- In March 1824, the situation is such that Thomas Clayton is president and John C. Calhoun is vice president. Given the personalities involved the two men would absolutely despise each other, the rivalry quickly becoming public thanks to Calhoun's fire-breathing. What's interesting is that since the role of the vice-president is very vaguely defined in the constitution, Calhoun is free to try and carve out a power-base for himself in the Senate; in this timeline, the office of Vice-President is significantly more influential in the Senate (but I'm not sure how much)
- Re: Corrupt Bargain - I'm not sure that Clay becomes Secretary of State ITTL, as that seems to have been part of Adams' attempt to reconcile with his enemies. However, he definitely has allies in the Cabinet and wields immense influence, as he and his bloc are the only support that Clayton has in an overwhelmingly hostile Congress. I'd imagine Clay and Clayton would get along fairly well as they have a roughly similar ideology and I don't see any personality conflict
- Re: Domestic policy - Clayton is immensely unpopular throughout the South, seen as a creature of New England aristocrats. Also troubling is his ex-running mate, Rufus King, who was an ardent abolitionist; the South thus sees Clayton as a crypto-abolitionist come to create a dictatorship and thus is highly suspicious, worsened by Calhoun's antics. Many of the American System projects still go through, having been proposed under Monroe and backed by Clay; the National Road is pushed over the Appalachians and many of the 'minor' Mid-Atlantic canals are still built. The New Orleans Turnpike, a proposal for a federal road from Washington to New Orleans, however, turns into a partisan flashpoint and dies in the Senate. The completion of the Erie Canal in 1825 and the subsequent economic boom is lauded as proof of the merits of Federalist policy. There's also some minor things--the Naval Academy is built a decade early, in Philadelphia AIOTL, and federally regulated weights-and-measures system is tucked underneath the Postmaster General, which is also moved to the cabinet.
In terms of tariffs, the Tariff of Abominations likely doesn't come to pass, just because the unique circumstances that led to it aren't present. There's probably some tariff passed, it's likely to be a half-baked mess that pleases nobody and angers everybody. Impact - on the one hand, there's no rallying cry for opposition, but on the other hand the Northerners are pissed because they're not getting what they want.
Re: Foreign Policy - In short, expanding American influence and trading ties overseas, especially at British expense. Increased support for the American Colonization Society at Clay's behest. The Amphyctonic Congress turns into a pissing match between Clayton and Calhoun over whether or not to send an expedition, ending in Clayton unilaterally sending a delegation to Panama over the Senate's head. This sparks massive anger and overshadows the diplomatic and economic gains of the Congress itself.
(I'm getting a bit too verbose)
- Re: Political parties - After 1824, Jackson is pissed, Crawford is pissed, Calhoun is pissed, everybody except Clayton and Clay are pissed. The election pushes Calhoun closer to states' rights as it did IOTL, but Van Buren isn't alienated by Crawford and so remains his left-hand man in New York. After the spectacle of 1824, I doubt that Crawford would be remotely popular and so would slink off back to Georgia more or less as he did IOTL, leaving the two poles of opposition as Calhoun-Van Buren and Jackson. They eventually reconcile to each other (Jackson's feelings on Calhoun were indifferent at this point) to present a united front. I assume they would still be the Democrats, campaigning on a platform of populism, limited government and low tariffs. The 1826 midterms sees this newly-forged alliance make significant gains, dominating the Senate but not the House. The ticket in 1828 is most likely Jackson-Calhoun, as they are the two most outspoken (and popular) leaders.
In opposition, the Clay-Clayton block also consolidates into a proper party (but in reaction--Van Buren seems to have been the driving force behind the creation of parties, so the Democrats formed before the F-Rs), the Federal Republicans or Neo-Federalists. The Neo-Fed platform is one of infrastructure, strong government, high tariffs and carefully dodging questions about expanding the franchise.
- Re: Election of 1828
Closer than it should be. The Democrats have the South and West (except Louisiana) while the Neo-Federalists have New England and the Mid-Atlantic. The swing vote is NY, PA, OH and IN, who have large bases supporting both parties--the Democrats on principle and the Neo-Federalists out of support for infrastructure and the federal money it brings. PA is less Democratic than IOTL because of no Tariff of Abominations, effectively becoming a swing state. Ultimately, PA and OH go for the Neo-Federalists but Jackson still wins a clear, if close, popular and electoral victory.
- Re: Corrupt Bargain - I'm not sure that Clay becomes Secretary of State ITTL, as that seems to have been part of Adams' attempt to reconcile with his enemies. However, he definitely has allies in the Cabinet and wields immense influence, as he and his bloc are the only support that Clayton has in an overwhelmingly hostile Congress. I'd imagine Clay and Clayton would get along fairly well as they have a roughly similar ideology and I don't see any personality conflict
- Re: Domestic policy - Clayton is immensely unpopular throughout the South, seen as a creature of New England aristocrats. Also troubling is his ex-running mate, Rufus King, who was an ardent abolitionist; the South thus sees Clayton as a crypto-abolitionist come to create a dictatorship and thus is highly suspicious, worsened by Calhoun's antics. Many of the American System projects still go through, having been proposed under Monroe and backed by Clay; the National Road is pushed over the Appalachians and many of the 'minor' Mid-Atlantic canals are still built. The New Orleans Turnpike, a proposal for a federal road from Washington to New Orleans, however, turns into a partisan flashpoint and dies in the Senate. The completion of the Erie Canal in 1825 and the subsequent economic boom is lauded as proof of the merits of Federalist policy. There's also some minor things--the Naval Academy is built a decade early, in Philadelphia AIOTL, and federally regulated weights-and-measures system is tucked underneath the Postmaster General, which is also moved to the cabinet.
In terms of tariffs, the Tariff of Abominations likely doesn't come to pass, just because the unique circumstances that led to it aren't present. There's probably some tariff passed, it's likely to be a half-baked mess that pleases nobody and angers everybody. Impact - on the one hand, there's no rallying cry for opposition, but on the other hand the Northerners are pissed because they're not getting what they want.
Re: Foreign Policy - In short, expanding American influence and trading ties overseas, especially at British expense. Increased support for the American Colonization Society at Clay's behest. The Amphyctonic Congress turns into a pissing match between Clayton and Calhoun over whether or not to send an expedition, ending in Clayton unilaterally sending a delegation to Panama over the Senate's head. This sparks massive anger and overshadows the diplomatic and economic gains of the Congress itself.
(I'm getting a bit too verbose)
- Re: Political parties - After 1824, Jackson is pissed, Crawford is pissed, Calhoun is pissed, everybody except Clayton and Clay are pissed. The election pushes Calhoun closer to states' rights as it did IOTL, but Van Buren isn't alienated by Crawford and so remains his left-hand man in New York. After the spectacle of 1824, I doubt that Crawford would be remotely popular and so would slink off back to Georgia more or less as he did IOTL, leaving the two poles of opposition as Calhoun-Van Buren and Jackson. They eventually reconcile to each other (Jackson's feelings on Calhoun were indifferent at this point) to present a united front. I assume they would still be the Democrats, campaigning on a platform of populism, limited government and low tariffs. The 1826 midterms sees this newly-forged alliance make significant gains, dominating the Senate but not the House. The ticket in 1828 is most likely Jackson-Calhoun, as they are the two most outspoken (and popular) leaders.
In opposition, the Clay-Clayton block also consolidates into a proper party (but in reaction--Van Buren seems to have been the driving force behind the creation of parties, so the Democrats formed before the F-Rs), the Federal Republicans or Neo-Federalists. The Neo-Fed platform is one of infrastructure, strong government, high tariffs and carefully dodging questions about expanding the franchise.
- Re: Election of 1828
Closer than it should be. The Democrats have the South and West (except Louisiana) while the Neo-Federalists have New England and the Mid-Atlantic. The swing vote is NY, PA, OH and IN, who have large bases supporting both parties--the Democrats on principle and the Neo-Federalists out of support for infrastructure and the federal money it brings. PA is less Democratic than IOTL because of no Tariff of Abominations, effectively becoming a swing state. Ultimately, PA and OH go for the Neo-Federalists but Jackson still wins a clear, if close, popular and electoral victory.
I'll turn this into a thread if there's interest.
Zyobot
Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
'Italian Hanseatic League'.
That is, the Italian maritime republics form their own "mercantile confederation" to provide common defense and facilitate free-trade networks in the Med. Might even come to rival the actual Hanseatic League some day, depending on how much fruit the effort bears.
That is, the Italian maritime republics form their own "mercantile confederation" to provide common defense and facilitate free-trade networks in the Med. Might even come to rival the actual Hanseatic League some day, depending on how much fruit the effort bears.
Zyobot
Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
‘Carthage with the Size and Trade Networks of the British Empire’.
ROB hand-waves transoceanic sailing and other logistical concerns, as well as allowing people to suggest somewhat different “configurations” of territory than what the actual British Empire controlled — so long as it's multi-continental and adds up to a quarter of the world, of course.
ROB hand-waves transoceanic sailing and other logistical concerns, as well as allowing people to suggest somewhat different “configurations” of territory than what the actual British Empire controlled — so long as it's multi-continental and adds up to a quarter of the world, of course.
Maybe have an even stronger Ottoman Empire up to the point that its army and navy can seriously threaten Italy? That could compel various Italian city-states to unite more closely together for protection?
Zyobot
Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
Not sure if it merits its own thread, but as an “inversion” of this AH.com one: ‘Uncommon AH Tropes and Story Ideas’.
Have posited a few further up-thread already, but would like to see what others have to share here.
Have posited a few further up-thread already, but would like to see what others have to share here.
A very obscure idea, but how about a surviving Garfield Administration attempts to militarily intervene in the War of the Pacific in an attempt to get Chile to give up its territorial gains from that war? Garfield's SecState Blaine actually was pro-Peru and anti-Chile and tried to mediate an end to this war that would not involve any territorial losses for Peru. His plans were cut short by Garfield's assassination. Direct US military intervention was unlikely but not 100% impossible.
Zyobot
Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
Hmm; quite obscure, indeed!
By the way, I probably wasn't the clearest when I said "Uncommon AH Tropes and Story Ideas", seeing as I wasn't really after exotic PODs as much this time. Rather, I was thinking unique world-building and authorial decision-making writers might integrate into their TLs — regardless of what the base idea is.
For instance, maybe some AH colanging, in which authors literally create languages that either never emerged or developed quite differently IOTL, such as fleshing out how a more "Germanic" English — or, I suppose, "Anglish" — might look, in a world where the Normans never invaded England. Or, perhaps, writing the TL from the perspective of people literally living in that world, such as "False Documents" TLs that compile lots of in-universe memoirs, history books, and other documents without relying on omniscient, third-person narration. Those sorts of things was what I was getting at, so apologies if I was unclear earlier.
Batrix2070
RON/PLC was a wonderful country.
This reminds me of my playing with the English language and writing it down with the Polish alphabet and phonetics.
For example, the title Assasins Creed Brotherhood written in Polish phonetics looks like this "Asasyns Crid Broterhód".
I've done this out of curiosity, sometimes converting character names from books, films etc (the more foreign the better) into Polish versions. For example, Ron Weasley in Polish becomes Radek Łizlej.
Or, for example, your statement, if English used the Polish notation would look like this:
For istanc, mejb som AH kolandźyng, in łicz autors literly criejdź landźdżes tat ejter newer emerdź or dewelep kłaj difiri IOTL, sać az fleśyn ałt hał a mor "Dżermanik" Englisz — or, I supoz, "Anglisz" — migt lók, i e łorld łer we Normans newer inwejdź Yngland.
It's funny how English looks after being treated like that, isn't it?
Of course, this amusement of mine came from the fact that it has an English spelling inconsistency, as opposed to Polish, where as one writes so one reads, hence I started to write it down in Polish from time to time.
Last edited: