Alternate History Ideas and Discussion

[History Learner]

Speaking of US colonies, what if the Philippines were made into a US state prior to World War II? This would completely change the dynamic of the Japanese invasion of the Islands. With the Philippines being a full part of the US rather than a colony, there would be a much greater need to defend it and take it back if lost.

It was always a big priority, the issue was just that the Philippines is a lot closer to Japan than the United States, with Japanese control of the islands (sans Guam and Wake) in between it and Hawaii. That made it logistically hard to project power that far, and that's before Guam fell.

 

[WolfBear]

It was always a big priority, the issue was just that the Philippines is a lot closer to Japan than the United States, with Japanese control of the islands (sans Guam and Wake) in between it and Hawaii. That made it logistically hard to project power that far, and that's before Guam fell.

There was also the fact that the US didn't spend much on its military before World War II due to Americans' traditional fear of big government and government tyranny, no?

 

[Zyobot]

'Economy and Industrial Capacity of a Surviving Tsarist Russia'.

Somehow, I've a hunch it'll be a colossal mining and manufacturing power. Resources or not, though, I hope it liberalizes to become more capitalistic and entrepreneurial along the way.

 

[WolfBear]

'Economy and Industrial Capacity of a Surviving Tsarist Russia'.

Somehow, I've a hunch it'll be a colossal mining and manufacturing power. Resources or not, though, I hope it liberalizes to become more capitalistic and entrepreneurial along the way.

Its GDP PPP per capita right now would probably be in the $40,000-$50,000 range and the total size of its economy would probably be slightly/somewhat larger than that of the US. A surviving Tsarist Russia would likely have around 400 million Slavs, if Poland is excluded but eastern Galicia is included. Without both Poland and Galicia, it might have something like 375-380 million Slavs. But it would also have around 100 million Central Asians and also some Caucasians, Balts, and perhaps Finns as well.

It would have huge amounts of natural resources--oil, natural gas, coal, et cetera. It would also have huge amounts of human capital once it has universal education and universal literacy. It would help if it retained a large Jewish population, of course. Jews have significantly benefitted the US economically, scientifically, and technologically, after all.

It's worth noting that in the pre-WWI era, Russian industries were not noticeably worse than Anglo-French industries; there were simply much fewer of them on a per capita basis:

Russian Manufacturing Productivity on Par with France\'s. (In 1908).

Lychakov, N. I., Saprykin, D. L., & Vanteeva, N. (2020). Not Backward: Comparative Labour Productivity In British And Russian Manufacturing, Circa 1908 (WP BRP 199/HUM/2020). National Research University Higher School of Economics. (h/t @devarbol) This recent paper says that the Russian Empire...

www.unz.com

But this should significantly change over time.

 

[WolfBear]

"AHC: An Austro-Hungarian Annexation of Both Russian Poland and Romania in a No World Wars Scenario"

 

[Zyobot]

Thanks, @WolfBear. I'll look at the link in depth later, though I'm aware of Russia industrializing well before the Bolshevik takeover.

Wondered if a Tsarist Russia that liberalized had colossal potential that was missed IOTL, and am curious as to how that'd bode for a reverse Cold War scenario, for example? It's too forced to make it a realistic scenario (even by the authors' admissions), but I'm interested in how powerful Back in the USSA's Russia must've been. Especially with the British Empire as the leading light of the capitalist world ITTL, though maybe that's more attributable to "incumbency" than actual power disparity. (The USSA, correspondingly, was probably less wealthy and had lower per-capita GDP than IOTL.)

 

[WolfBear]

Thanks, @WolfBear. I'll look at the link in depth later, though I'm aware of Russia industrializing well before the Bolshevik takeover.

Wondered if a Tsarist Russia that liberalized had colossal potential that was missed IOTL, and am curious as to how that'd bode for a reverse Cold War scenario, for example? It's too forced to make it a realistic scenario (even by the authors' admissions), but I'm interested in how powerful Back in the USSA's Russia must've been. Especially with the British Empire as the leading light of capitalism, though maybe that's more attributable to "incumbency" than actual power disparity. (The USSA, correspondingly, was probably less wealthy and had lower per-capita GDP than IOTL.)

Back in the USSA sounds like a Russia-wank and an Ameri-screw!

As for the power of a Russia with 400 million Slavs, imagine Spain but with ten times as many people (of roughly the same demographics) and with much more territory and natural resources. That should give you some idea for this.

 

[Zyobot]

Back in the USSA sounds like a Russia-wank and an Ameri-screw!

As for the power of a Russia with 400 million Slavs, imagine Spain but with ten times as many people (of roughly the same demographics) and with much more territory and natural resources. That should give you some idea for this.

Pretty sure making America communist is a screw as is, though.

Of course, the UK has still kept its empire and remains in the driver's seat, which sounds like a decent Britwank to me. In which case, I assume that averting decolonization and keeping Russia from overshadowing it gives it some ridiculous plot armor that it didn't get in OTL twentieth century.

 

[WolfBear]

Pretty sure making America communist is a screw as is, though.

Of course, the UK has still kept its empire and remains in the driver's seat, which sounds like a decent Britwank to me. In which case, I assume that averting decolonization and keeping Russia from overshadowing it gives it some ridiculous plot armor that it didn't get in OTL twentieth century.

Yep.

Glory Brittanica! Maybe Britain and Russia could eventually have the war over British India that people have been speculating about for ages :

https://www.the-sietch.com/index.php?threads/how-would-a-mid-20th-century-war-between-a-non-communist-russia-and-britain-in-order-to-liberate-british-india-look-like.6912/

 

[Zyobot]

Yep.

Glory Brittanica! Maybe Britain and Russia could eventually have the war over British India that people have been speculating about for ages :

https://www.the-sietch.com/index.php?threads/how-would-a-mid-20th-century-war-between-a-non-communist-russia-and-britain-in-order-to-liberate-british-india-look-like.6912/

Could be a move by the USSA to ferment division between the capitalist giants, though. Which is in Britain and Russia's interest to avoid falling for...

 

[WolfBear]

Could be a move by the USSA to ferment division between the capitalist giants, though. Which is in Britain and Russia's interest to avoid falling for...

Similar to what Stalin was hoping to achieve by having the Anglo-French and Nazis fight each other in a long war in 1939-1940? Clever Americans!

 

[Zyobot]

'Vermin Supreme Becomes POTUS'.

Doesn't mean he has to be his satirical, boot-bedecked OTL self. Just having the same guy turn out rather "normal", start a serious political career, and successfully run for office is enough. (I'd say you get bonus points for the former, but then that'd require our good friend Rob's help to make possible, so...)

 

[WolfBear]

'Vermin Supreme Becomes POTUS'.

Doesn't mean he has to be his satirical, boot-bedecked OTL self. Just having the same guy turn out rather "normal", start a serious political career, and successfully run for office is enough. (I'd say you get bonus points for the former, but then that'd require ASB help to make possible, so...)

What about Donald Trump wins in 2024 and officially changes his name to Vermin Supreme?

 

[Zyobot]

What about Donald Trump wins in 2024 and officially changes his name to Vermin Supreme?

I don't see why he'd do that at all, though. But, then again, the same can be said of having Vermin Supreme win the presidency.

Anyway, didn't mean to make this into a frivolous what-if thread. So, to bring us back on-track: 'Ronald Reagan Resigns In His Second Term'. Yes, I know that Iran-Contra happened, but I'm curious as to what the effects would be if, say, his Alzheimer's got to him faster and he was talked into resigning for that reason. In which case, I suppose that's a "happier" send-off that gives Bush Sr. an incumbency advantage, should he still run in 1988.

 

[WolfBear]

I don't see why he'd do that at all, though. But, then again, the same can be said of having Vermin Supreme win the presidency.

Anyway, didn't mean to make this into a frivolous what-if thread. So, to bring us back on-track: 'Ronald Reagan Resigns In His Second Term'. Yes, I know that Iran-Contra happened, but I'm curious as to what the effects would be if, say, his Alzheimer's got to him faster and he was talked into resigning for that reason. In which case, I suppose that's a "happier" send-off that gives Bush Sr. an incumbency advantage, should he still run in 1988.

For shits and giggles, of course! And due to him getting Alzheimer's or nothing! And he'd also want to be a Trollmeister Extraordinaire in order to piss off the shitlibs!

Bush Sr. might not have to make his "no new taxes" pledge in 1988 in this scenario, which could mean that his 1992 loss is narrower.

Also, does Bush Sr. still choose Anthony Kennedy to replace Lewis Powell?

 

[WolfBear]

"AHC: Have more successful settler colonialism during the 20th century. The Recovered Territories in Poland and the success of Zionism in Palestine are two of the 20th century biggest settler colonialist achievements. And no Nazis, please. I certainly don't want them in my AHC here unless they are being decisively defeated, crushed, and destroyed."

 

[stevep]

Pretty sure making America communist is a screw as is, though.

Of course, the UK has still kept its empire and remains in the driver's seat, which sounds like a decent Britwank to me. In which case, I assume that averting decolonization and keeping Russia from overshadowing it gives it some ridiculous plot armor that it didn't get in OTL twentieth century.

It sounds like an excessive one to me and I'm a Brit. Can't see the empire lasting until ~2000 in any large extend without massive and probably catastrophic changes to the world, probably for the worse. You would really have to freeze European culture into something pre-enlightenment values to prevent those ideas not only influencing Europe and then spreading to the colonies. Which of course means a much less developed world.

 

[Zyobot]

It sounds like an excessive one to me and I'm a Brit. Can't see the empire lasting until ~2000 in any large extend without massive and probably catastrophic changes to the world, probably for the worse. You would really have to freeze European culture into something pre-enlightenment values to prevent those ideas not only influencing Europe and then spreading to the colonies. Which of course means a much less developed world.

Like I said, Back in the USSA forces far too many parallels. (Even the authors admitted it’s not serious AH!)

Since the UK kept its empire, I’m guessing that it liberalized by becoming something of an imperial federation. Possibly as a compromise to prevent both their empire dissolving and the USSA making inroads, especially since they could play the whole “Hey, we threw off the British monarchy, too!” card more easily. The authors also seem to underestimate Tsarist Russia’s ability to rival the USSA on its own, which is probably why they kept the British Empire in the picture.

 

[Atarlost]

"AHC: Have more successful settler colonialism during the 20th century. The Recovered Territories in Poland and the success of Zionism in Palestine are two of the 20th century biggest settler colonialist achievements. And no Nazis, please. I certainly don't want them in my AHC here unless they are being decisively defeated, crushed, and destroyed."

Draw in WWI. I've read -- on this very forum -- that the entente was running out of foreign currency when Wilson blundered in, but the UK owned Persia and if they'd demobilized their army and pulled back they could have convincingly threatened to blockade the Germans pretty much indefinitely to keep them from taking large territorial concessions in western Europe. France may lose some colonies, but there are no reparations other than perhaps some mostly symbolic reparations from Germany to Belgium for using their territory to invade France.

Some guy comes along talking about lebensraum and gets quite a bit of political traction, possibly even winding up a compromise chancellor if there have been reforms in the direction of constitutional monarchy. Sorry, but I'm not sure we can avoid it. If it makes you feel better he doesn't get emergency powers with the Kaiser still in the picture and the Kaiser isn't genocidal. He's also not going to invade Poland. The Kaiser just finished carving Poland out or Russia as a client state and is not interested in letting him screw up one of his prouder achievements. With other parts of the government not burned down he winds up a footnote in history, but he's a footnote to an actually important movement to put German settlers in German Africa.

Why this route? Settler colonialism requires underutilized land or ethnic cleansing. The poorer parts of the Ottoman Empire are underutilized and large swathes of Africa are underutilized, but not much else is underutilized enough for settler colonialism except parts of Russia and Canada and you didn't count Russia's slow push to populate Siberia. A lot of the underutilized land in Africa coincides with former German and French colonies. And Germany expressed an interest in settling. No one else who ever had colonies to settle did.

Zionism may still be realized. Just because the Kaiser isn't willing to see genocide enacted against his subjects doesn't mean he wouldn't be happy to be rid of the Jews. I could see him claiming Palestine when the Ottomans break up or even buying it if they don't quite break up but are strapped enough for cash to sell it cheap and encouraging Zionism in order to get them out of sight out of mind and get good PR and a well placed colony out of the deal.

 

[WolfBear]

Draw in WWI. I've read -- on this very forum -- that the entente was running out of foreign currency when Wilson blundered in, but the UK owned Persia and if they'd demobilized their army and pulled back they could have convincingly threatened to blockade the Germans pretty much indefinitely to keep them from taking large territorial concessions in western Europe. France may lose some colonies, but there are no reparations other than perhaps some mostly symbolic reparations from Germany to Belgium for using their territory to invade France.

Some guy comes along talking about lebensraum and gets quite a bit of political traction, possibly even winding up a compromise chancellor if there have been reforms in the direction of constitutional monarchy. Sorry, but I'm not sure we can avoid it. If it makes you feel better he doesn't get emergency powers with the Kaiser still in the picture and the Kaiser isn't genocidal. He's also not going to invade Poland. The Kaiser just finished carving Poland out or Russia as a client state and is not interested in letting him screw up one of his prouder achievements. With other parts of the government not burned down he winds up a footnote in history, but he's a footnote to an actually important movement to put German settlers in German Africa.

Why this route? Settler colonialism requires underutilized land or ethnic cleansing. The poorer parts of the Ottoman Empire are underutilized and large swathes of Africa are underutilized, but not much else is underutilized enough for settler colonialism except parts of Russia and Canada and you didn't count Russia's slow push to populate Siberia. A lot of the underutilized land in Africa coincides with former German and French colonies. And Germany expressed an interest in settling. No one else who ever had colonies to settle did.

Zionism may still be realized. Just because the Kaiser isn't willing to see genocide enacted against his subjects doesn't mean he wouldn't be happy to be rid of the Jews. I could see him claiming Palestine when the Ottomans break up or even buying it if they don't quite break up but are strapped enough for cash to sell it cheap and encouraging Zionism in order to get them out of sight out of mind and get good PR and a well placed colony out of the deal.

What about German settler colonialism in the Baltic countries, with Germany using Russian Germans for this purpose if necessary?