Two Centuries of Chaos- Feedback for TL

[EasternRomanEmpire]

They won’t join pointlessly, though- especially Bulgaria would likely remain neutral.

They will have their own gains, Bulgaria will probably send some volunteers to help Russia if they don't join.

I wouldn’t say they have more industry than OTL, just a more diverse one. The soviets already heavily exploited their resources.

The Russians would exploit their resources much better since they have a market economy, the agriculture and industrial sector will need less people and produce the same quantity of goods meaning that you are exploiting your human resources better and these persons can do other useful things.

Why not?

Because in the long run Russia will catch up with Germany in terms of industry and they still have a massive population and a lot of resources, outcompeting Russia is impossible in the long run.

The US is in a downwards spiral and is in nowhere the state it was OTL, and Russia was already hated by much of Europe- Germany is a much more palatable option to, say, Scandinavia or Britain.

The US is doing fine, they don't have their southern part but the richest, more industrialized zone is still under their control, they aren't as strong as OTL but they are still very powerful. Russia isn't hated, they were worried about it due to population but now that they have become one of, if not the most, the powerful states in Europe, people are much less willing to join when they are likely to suffer and lose; Germany is isolated due to the terrible diplomacy of Wilhelm II and it doesn't have much to offer to most states in Europe:
France is thinking of joining Russia.
GB will remain neutral since they don't see a point in maintaining the balance of power which costed them so dearly.
Spain and Portugal will probably remain neutral.
Sweden and Norway aren't capable of fighting the Russians so they won't join.
Italy and Greece are your only potential allies in Europe but they won't join if the war is going badly for you.

If they are so afraid of Russia, then accommodating them to keep their empire safe isn’t off the table.

The Germans tend to try to destroy their enemies not accommodate them.

I didn’t mean them to be on the level of others- but they’d be among the top 5 in Europe, I’d say.

After GB, France, Germany and Russia but again they are something in between a GP and a normal country just as OTL.

Money buys anything until the Germans pay them more to keep raiding- and trains are certainly not foolproof if they’re going through bickering warlords, I can definitely imagine at least one warlord attacking a Russian convoy and blaming it on his rival.

Germans would have difficulties paying these warlords and they would need this money for the war in Europe. Ever heard of armored trains? Anyways warlords hardly can blame it on their neighbour since the Russians would know in disappeared in their Clique.

Sea mines can only do so much, especially if they’re basically your only defense- if you have a crippled fleet, the enemy can run demining operations basically unmolested.

Not really since they would have to come near the coast where your guns can hit them.

Yugoslavia and Romania would never accept that- they’d sooner turn their armies on Bulgaria.

No, they would get more from Hungary than what Bulgaria takes from them which is basically nothing and they wouldn't turn their armies around in the middle of a war to declare war on Bulgaria and try to invade it.

Germany had been played about the worst cards it could’ve gotten in WW1, without that, and in winning a war that sees them take over Britain as the economic giant of Europe, Germany would be a massive world economy.

But Russia would also be a massive economy, Germany cannot compete with them in industrial output in the long run.

Starvation isn’t the only factor; while I agree Belarus and Ukraine wouldn’t be the most rebellious in the empire, it’s happened before, while they were experiencing normal harvests- when Poland revolted sometime I think in the 1860s(?) parts of Ukraine and Lithuania also revolted.

Everybody revolted against the Tsar at some point in the Russian Empire, it's not like ethnical Russians never revolted against him but a less idiotic leadership would help that.

The Decembrists are reformers, not saints- this is still the Russian EMPIRE, and empires don’t tend to be too keen on allowing rebellious groups to remain unassimilated. Ethnic equality, if it does come, would happen sometime in the 50’s-60’s.

They would be less pressing with that considered they have other priorities.

the average soldier isn’t going to know whether what Germany promised is true or not- there would be many that see through Germany’s tricks, but there would be more still that take the chance to cast off Russian oppression. (And even those who recognize what Germany’s doing could try to seize the opportunity and deal with Germany later.)

Not really, everybody in Poland will know how Germany treats the Poles and they wouldn't want to die just to be a part of Germany.

The chance is definitely there, though.

It won't massively rebel unless the Russian Empire starts to collapse or they really do a massive mistake.

Rebellions don’t tend to “give up” just by force, they just wait for the next moment of weakness unless there is actual systemic change.

Exactly, they would see that this is not their opportunity and wait for the next one, obviously there are those who will rebel anyways but those are a minority.

Belgium is only really necessary for Germany in checking British power and having an easy place to shell London from- if relations with Britain have cooled and Russia is the most pressing matter, then I can see them coming to a settlement with the French.

I'm talking about North-Eastern France which was annexed after WW1, you cannot reach a settlement with them since they hate you and no matter what you offer they will still not listen to you, in the best case for Germany they just start a lot of strikes.

How are you going to teach the people without schools? How are you going to build schools across Eurasia without a good infrastructural system?

Most of your people aren't across Eurasia, they are in Europe which isn't too difficult to do, it would take a little bit of time but in 90 years you won't see much difference between a Russian and a German on terms of education.

The British navy could handily wipe the floor with everyone but the German navy, though.

But the British are nearing overextension, other than the Germans they have to fight Italy and Russia, since Germany is having unrestricted submarine warfare the Brits will focus on the German one to not starve.

The US has a lot less influence ITTL and far less able to pursue the Monroe doctrine- also, the larger states of LatAm would be significantly stronger than the sum of their parts OTL, they could well be of use to Germany.

Most of these states will still be extremely weak, one may be able to industrialize properly but most will have an economy based on selling raw materials; enough for the US to influence them, it won't be to the level of the Monroe doctrine but still very influential and even if there were many who are able to help Germany they still would see no point in joining a war in Europe.

They were destroyed by WW1 OTL, too- I agree it’d be a tough sell, but if Russia is particularly aggressive leading up to or during the war Britain could be sufficiently afraid to join.

IOTL they had Appeasement and tried to avoid at all costs a war with Germany, here they went bankrupt because there is no US to help them and they lost the war, they won't join also Russia would have no reason to anger GB they will let them in peace meaning they aren't a threat to TTL's British goal: preserving their empire.

Influence in Asia and LatAm, I presume- also, I again would not say the USSR is “inferior” to this Russia in terms of war- they both have shitty commands (though for different reasons) and they both have issues of ethnic discontent, but the USSR had an extremely strong heavy industry base that could be even larger than Russias ITTL, and a hypercentralized command of the entire economy that allowed them to more efficiently transport industry and food to the east out of the German advance. This Russia is more rich and more present in world affairs prewar, though.

LatAm is mostly in the US sphere and the ones who are more friendly to Germany won't really be helpful in the event of war.
Asia has not much battlegrounds, Siam is a Franco-British puppet, Iran is divided between Russia and GB, the British control all of the Raj and Malaysia, Afghanistan is a Russian puppet, Indonesia is Dutch. Again your alliances in Europe reflect your alliances in the world since the world is colonized.
The Russian high command is much better since they have officers unlike the USSR, their industries are much more efficient than the Soviet ones, they have more population, they are richer, their leadership isn't as hated as Stalin and they have allies unlike OTL. Yes they aren't as centralized as the USSR but during wartime they will manage everything from the top.

 

[Krasno]

They will have their own gains, Bulgaria will probably send some volunteers to help Russia if they don't join.

Volunteers are likely, I agree.

The Russians would exploit their resources much better since they have a market economy, the agriculture and industrial sector will need less people and produce the same quantity of goods meaning that you are exploiting your human resources better and these persons can do other useful things.

Market economies means the government gets a lot less say in what areas of the economy are developed, which means the economic development blitz the soviets went through during the 5 year plan is gone, and in addition is worse at ensuring everyone is employed- that means there’s still a lot of poor, angry, starving people that are prone to political extremism.

Because in the long run Russia will catch up with Germany in terms of industry and they still have a massive population and a lot of resources, outcompeting Russia is impossible in the long run.

Russia OTL only became as industrialized as it was due to the soviets essentially forcing an economic blitz to happen in a very short period of time- even though the Russian Empire was the fastest growing economy in Europe, that was because it started from nothing. The RE here has a head start, but it would still take a while for it to fully industrialize, even if it wanted to- though it’ll be a healthier economy in the long run than the USSR, it’ll take more time to get there, so Germany definitely has time to outmanoeuvre Russia.

The US is doing fine, they don't have their southern part but the richest, more industrialized zone is still under their control, they aren't as strong as OTL but they are still very powerful.

I meant more politically than economically- the Democrats and Republicans begin to lose their monopoly on power due to the civil war (Democrats for being the party of secession and Republicans for signing the peace treaty) and the precedent for secession from the Union means a lot of bad for the US in the long run, especially since there’s no longer a sense of “fortress America”

Russia isn't hated, they were worried about it due to population but now that they have become one of, if not the most, the powerful states in Europe, people are much less willing to join when they are likely to suffer and lose;

The main worries of much of Europe concerning Russia wasn’t their population; it was the imperial ambitions they had in Europe and the ruthlessness of their rule. If it came down to Russia and Germany facing off then you can bet that many of the smaller states in Europe would prefer Germany, which is much more adept historically at soft power.

Germany is isolated due to the terrible diplomacy of Wilhelm II and it doesn't have much to offer to most states in Europe:

Germany certainly has much to offer- they’re the economic capital of Europe, and have a massive resource base thanks to their colonial empire. They’re also one of the most developed countries in the world with pioneering science, art, and literature- Russia has cultural capital, but Germany for all intents and purposes is the heart of Europe.

France is thinking of joining Russia.

True.

GB will remain neutral since they don't see a point in maintaining the balance of power which costed them so dearly.

This isn’t about the balance of power so much as it is that Britain has direct conflicts with Russia in the ME which it does not have with Germany.

Spain and Portugal will probably remain neutral.

I was thinking of having them be in the Italian sphere. (Also, Portugal would become a Spanish puppet after WW1- Portugal was allied with the British.)

Sweden and Norway aren't capable of fighting the Russians so they won't join.

Sweden-Norway will have a lot more to worry about with Russia on their border. OTL Sweden and Norway supported Finland in the winter war because Finland was a good buffer between them and Russia, which they don’t have ITTL.

Italy and Greece are your only potential allies in Europe but they won't join if the war is going badly for you.

The war won’t start tilting either which way until much later.

The Germans tend to try to destroy their enemies not accommodate them.

Are you forgetting the entire legacy of Bismarck? Most diplomats of Germany would try to emulate him.

After GB, France, Germany and Russia but again they are something in between a GP and a normal country just as OTL.

They’re still a rather significant power.

Germans would have difficulties paying these warlords and they would need this money for the war in Europe.

Germany isn’t exactly lacking funds, and you wouldn’t need to pay them that much, anyway.

Ever heard of armored trains? Anyways warlords hardly can blame it on their neighbour since the Russians would know in disappeared in their Clique.

“A raiding party from X general attacked you and tried to pin it on us! We request your support to end our enemy!”

Or

“X Politician ordered this to turn Russia against our government! Don’t worry Russia, we’ll take care of him for you.”

Not really since they would have to come near the coast where your guns can hit them.

Assuming naval guns aren’t the first things hit by naval shelling.

No, they would get more from Hungary than what Bulgaria takes from them which is basically nothing and they wouldn't turn their armies around in the middle of a war to declare war on Bulgaria and try to invade it.

They still would absolutely never accept to just give up lands to bring Bulgaria into the war, especially not on Russia’s command- the only way it could happen is if Yugoslavia and Romania entered talks with Bulgaria and promised to give it up themselves, which isn’t going to happen.

But Russia would also be a massive economy, Germany cannot compete with them in industrial output in the long run.

It’ll take quite a long time before Russia can catch up to Germany, this is the long, LONG run.

Everybody revolted against the Tsar at some point in the Russian Empire, it's not like ethnical Russians never revolted against him but a less idiotic leadership would help that.

At best you could soothe the Belarusians and Ukrainians, but Poles, Balts, Caucasians and more will never be content with Russian rule as it is.

They would be less pressing with that considered they have other priorities.

That would be seen as a pressing need- it wasn’t just cruelty for the sake of cruelty OTL, they believed it would fix their issues with rebels.

Not really, everybody in Poland will know how Germany treats the Poles and they wouldn't want to die just to be a part of Germany.

Poles in Germany aren’t mistreated in the ways those in Russia are- at this point, they really just revolt for the sake of casting off the Russians, the Germans aren’t on their mind.

It won't massively rebel unless the Russian Empire starts to collapse or they really do a massive mistake.

They don’t need to massively rebel- a riot or strike in Baku stopping oil production is significant to the war effort.

Exactly, they would see that this is not their opportunity and wait for the next one, obviously there are those who will rebel anyways but those are a minority.

This is assuming Russia can decisively cut off the head of a rebellion during wartime, when they can retreat into and be supported by the enemy- there would be guerilla resistance even if they put down the main revolt.

I'm talking about North-Eastern France which was annexed after WW1, you cannot reach a settlement with them since they hate you and no matter what you offer they will still not listen to you, in the best case for Germany they just start a lot of strikes.

That thin strip of land was unlikely to make it to the final peace deal, anyway, and even if it did I’m pretty sure their plan was to “Germanize” it. Even in the worst case they’d likely be let go, though.

Most of your people aren't across Eurasia, they are in Europe which isn't too difficult to do, it would take a little bit of time but in 90 years you won't see much difference between a Russian and a German on terms of education.

European Russia itself is vast, larger than the entirety of Germany- and not even all of Germany is industrialized attp. Only building up Europe has negative effects on Russia, too- the lack of industrialization and development in the east means less settler, which means more unruly minorities and a less efficient extraction of resources.

But the British are nearing overextension, other than the Germans they have to fight Italy and Russia, since Germany is having unrestricted submarine warfare the Brits will focus on the German one to not starve.

The German navy is all they really have to worry about, though- they’d be able to go through the Med. pretty easily.

Most of these states will still be extremely weak, one may be able to industrialize properly but most will have an economy based on selling raw materials; enough for the US to influence them, it won't be to the level of the Monroe doctrine but still very influential and even if there were many who are able to help Germany they still would see no point in joining a war in Europe.

The US won’t be ensuring freedom from European interference, though- and joining Germany would likely entail either German support in a future/current LatAm war or the handing over of a German colony.

IOTL they had Appeasement and tried to avoid at all costs a war with Germany, here they went bankrupt because there is no US to help them and they lost the war, they won't join also Russia would have no reason to anger GB they will let them in peace meaning they aren't a threat to TTL's British goal: preserving their empire.

Russia wants a quick end to the war and that means strangling Germanys oil supply- obviously they wouldn’t try directly invading Britain outright but they’d be trying to exert diplomatic pressure on Britain at the very least- which can certainly be interpreted negatively by Britain.

LatAm is mostly in the US sphere and the ones who are more friendly to Germany won't really be helpful in the event of war.

Gran Colombian oil would be precious to Germany, and the extra manpower doesn’t hurt.

Asia has not much battlegrounds, Siam is a Franco-British puppet, Iran is divided between Russia and GB, the British control all of the Raj and Malaysia,

This depends on how well Britain preserves their empire postwar.

Afghanistan is a Russian puppet, Indonesia is Dutch. Again your alliances in Europe reflect your alliances in the world since the world is colonized.

Germany is more poised to ally with those allies in Europe- the Dutch, for example.

The Russian high command is much better since they have officers unlike the USSR,

They have *too many* officers, without the USSR the army remains a prestige role and has a legacy of nobility. They would have plenty of old guard and incompetents in high positions, and then they’ll have to find the talent.

their industries are much more efficient than the Soviet ones, they have more population, they are richer, their leadership isn't as hated as Stalin and they have allies unlike OTL. Yes they aren't as centralized as the USSR but during wartime they will manage everything from the top.

During wartime being centralized is a lot more efficient- it allows you to make decisions quicker, and you can’t centralize overnight.

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

Market economies means the government gets a lot less say in what areas of the economy are developed, which means the economic development blitz the soviets went through during the 5 year plan is gone, and in addition is worse at ensuring everyone is employed- that means there’s still a lot of poor, angry, starving people that are prone to political extremism.

It's not like the Russian government won't have any social policies, and while the unemployment rate was of 0% in the Soviet Union it was because industries weren't allowed to fire anyone. Also while having a market economy the government can help economic development.

Russia OTL only became as industrialized as it was due to the soviets essentially forcing an economic blitz to happen in a very short period of time- even though the Russian Empire was the fastest growing economy in Europe, that was because it started from nothing. The RE here has a head start, but it would still take a while for it to fully industrialize, even if it wanted to- though it’ll be a healthier economy in the long run than the USSR, it’ll take more time to get there, so Germany definitely has time to outmanoeuvre Russia.

It may be still quite agrarian but they still outcompete Germany due to population and having more resources.

I meant more politically than economically- the Democrats and Republicans begin to lose their monopoly on power due to the civil war (Democrats for being the party of secession and Republicans for signing the peace treaty) and the precedent for secession from the Union means a lot of bad for the US in the long run, especially since there’s no longer a sense of “fortress America

If the CS managed to survive then the US certainly will, the precedent for secession is only trough a Civil War which means that if one state wants to secede it will fail to do so- it was half of the states that rebelled in the ACW.
If there are no Republicans a third party will take over the monopoly politics.

The main worries of much of Europe concerning Russia wasn’t their population; it was the imperial ambitions they had in Europe and the ruthlessness of their rule. If it came down to Russia and Germany facing off then you can bet that many of the smaller states in Europe would prefer Germany, which is much more adept historically at soft power.

Smaller states of Europe are as afraid of Russia as they are of Germany, both of them have imperial ambitions but the Russians have ambitions on Constantinople and the Balkans whereas the Germans have much more interests in dominating the small nations that are in the area meaning that the small nations of Europe actually prefer Russia over Germany, Germany would be a threat to countries like the Netherlands or Denmark but Russia wouldn't have much control over them.

Germany certainly has much to offer- they’re the economic capital of Europe, and have a massive resource base thanks to their colonial empire. They’re also one of the most developed countries in the world with pioneering science, art, and literature- Russia has cultural capital, but Germany for all intents and purposes is the heart of Europe.

It doesn't have anything to offer to most countries in Europe to join them in a war, Germany isn't an absolute ruler in the economy, it has a big economy but investments wouldn't be done only in Berlin and there are many who have a big economy other than Germany.

This isn’t about the balance of power so much as it is that Britain has direct conflicts with Russia in the ME which it does not have with Germany.

GB's hegemony over the Med is over, Malta, Gibraltar and Cyprus all went to the CP meaning that they have "only" Egypt and Suez, they would be more worried about Italy who could block shipments across the Med at any point than Russia who has Anatolia and the Levant, meaning that they aren't threatening the Brits and they do have conflicts with Germany since it has shown its intention to have a superior navy to GB, their navy is probably limited to X ships in the peace deal.

I was thinking of having them be in the Italian sphere. (Also, Portugal would become a Spanish puppet after WW1- Portugal was allied with the British.)

But Portugal would pull out of the war if Spain was on the point of joining, their involvement in WW1 was minor anyways, AFAIK they were a puppet of Britain due to economical factors which Spain can't really replace.
The Italians could have a close relationship with Iberia but they wouldn't be their puppet and wouldn't join until they have something to gain.

Sweden-Norway will have a lot more to worry about with Russia on their border. OTL Sweden and Norway supported Finland in the winter war because Finland was a good buffer between them and Russia, which they don’t have ITTL.

Sweden-Norway collapsed in 1905.
In the Winter War they feared the expansion of Communism, Imperial Russia doesn't have plans to conquer anything in Scandinavia, it doesn't give them anything useful and the resources used for that are much better used elsewhere.

Are you forgetting the entire legacy of Bismarck? Most diplomats of Germany would try to emulate him.

Legacy of Bismarck doesn't exist with Wilhelm II, diplomacy was catastrophic during his reign.

Germany isn’t exactly lacking funds, and you wouldn’t need to pay them that much, anyway.

“A raiding party from X general attacked you and tried to pin it on us! We request your support to end our enemy!”

Or

“X Politician ordered this to turn Russia against our government! Don’t worry Russia, we’ll take care of him for you.”

The Russians will support the Clique that is opposing you and you will soon get crushed (because outdated equipment in Europe is perfectly fine for warlord era in China), what a great idea I will obviously imitate the warlords who got destroyed recently because they threatened Russian supplies, anyways until Japan joins Port Arthur will be where rubber goes.

Assuming naval guns aren’t the first things hit by naval shelling.

Both would have losses but fortresses are much more resistant and hard to hit.

It’ll take quite a long time before Russia can catch up to Germany, this is the long, LONG run.

Not that much, the Russians aren't that far away from Germany in terms of industries and economic power is more important in Germany but having a kind of Wall Street in Berlin isn't going to help you during wartime.

At best you could soothe the Belarusians and Ukrainians, but Poles, Balts, Caucasians and more will never be content with Russian rule as it is.

They won't prefer German rule.

That would be seen as a pressing need- it wasn’t just cruelty for the sake of cruelty OTL, they believed it would fix their issues with rebels.

Not quite you are busy politicizing your way to power and improving the Russian economy, Russification isn't a pressing issue and anybody would understand that some policies of Nicky II were extremely stupid.

Poles in Germany aren’t mistreated in the ways those in Russia are- at this point, they really just revolt for the sake of casting off the Russians, the Germans aren’t on their mind.

Those in Germany are Germanized and those in Russia are Russified, it wouldn't change anything so you might as well not die for nothing.

They don’t need to massively rebel- a riot or strike in Baku stopping oil production is significant to the war effort.

During wartime people don't strike unless they are starving since the government would shoot at them if they blocked the war effort, anyways the oilfields are in the Caspian sea not in Baku, a strike wouldn't stop the transport of oil if not made specifically by those who work in the oilfields.

This is assuming Russia can decisively cut off the head of a rebellion during wartime, when they can retreat into and be supported by the enemy- there would be guerilla resistance even if they put down the main revolt.

But you don't have to worry about guerilla fighters, you only have to prevent massive revolts which probably wouldn't happen since the Russians would leave the Muslim community doing what they want like in CA, in most of the ME there wouldn't be colonization by Russians so there wouldn't be that much tensions except for the Holy Land.

That thin strip of land was unlikely to make it to the final peace deal, anyway, and even if it did I’m pretty sure their plan was to “Germanize” it. Even in the worst case they’d likely be let go, though.

They would want to get it to have most of the French industries under their control, any attempt at Germanization will miserably fail, the French aren't willing to be Germanized and you can see how it went in Alsace, despite an already existing German community and German colonists arriving they "only" had around half of the population German, now the lands that they are annexing are 100% French.
The Germans wouldn't be willing to let it go, it would be a show of weakness to France who will have the idea of attacking Germany and it simbolizes their victory over France in WW1, it would be a bad idea to give up on it, it would've been better not to take it if you are just going to give up on it later on.

European Russia itself is vast, larger than the entirety of Germany- and not even all of Germany is industrialized attp. Only building up Europe has negative effects on Russia, too- the lack of industrialization and development in the east means less settler, which means more unruly minorities and a less efficient extraction of resources.

They don't need to develop things in the Middle of nowhere in Siberia, they would make efforts in Manchuria but everything outside Western Siberia isn't important to them.

The German navy is all they really have to worry about, though- they’d be able to go through the Med. pretty easily.

They need as much ships as possible against the German ones, the Germans are having unrestricted submarine warfare.

The US won’t be ensuring freedom from European interference, though- and joining Germany would likely entail either German support in a future/current LatAm war or the handing over of a German colony.

They still would have a anti-European colonialism stand, it's because they want to dominate the Americas themselves and allying with Germany is counter-productive, the Germans don't have anything in the Americas it would be much easier to take over the British puppets themselves instead of allowing the Germans to so and the Germans cannot give anything useful to the US, it is Germany who needs US help but there wouldn't be any reason to give it.

Russia wants a quick end to the war and that means strangling Germanys oil supply- obviously they wouldn’t try directly invading Britain outright but they’d be trying to exert diplomatic pressure on Britain at the very least- which can certainly be interpreted negatively by Britain.

Russia doesn't necessarily want a quick end to the war, sure they do want to finish ASAP but the more the war prolongs itself the more Germany is exhausted due to the fact that they lack food and raw materials which are imported but at some point their economy cannot support the costs of the war and importing all of this.

Gran Colombian oil would be precious to Germany, and the extra manpower doesn’t hurt.

The US wants Gran Colombian oil since Alaska isn't enough to satisfy their demands, the LatAm states who will be more friendly to Germany won't really join since they have nothing to gain, they would just sell resources at a less high price than the other states but still making a lot of profit.

This depends on how well Britain preserves their empire postwar.

They certainly will have troubles (though IMO not enough to lose something) but supporting or allying yourself with the revolutionaries would mean angering GB.

Germany is more poised to ally with those allies in Europe- the Dutch, for example.

The Dutch had pro-Entente sympathies OTL so I doubt they would be very willing to join Germany, after what happened to Belgium Germany would probably be considered a threat or at least not trustworthy. Even if they were to tend into the German camp they wouldn't really have a reason to join since they wouldn't gain anything, it would make much more sense to continue to sell rubber produced in Indonesia to Russia.
And that also applies to most other countries in Europe, they don't have a reason to join Germany since they gain nothing from it and would suffer a lot not to talk about the fact that Germany could very well become an enemy if they were to win while the Russians wouldn't really care about them.

They have *too many* officers, without the USSR the army remains a prestige role and has a legacy of nobility. They would have plenty of old guard and incompetents in high positions, and then they’ll have to find the talent.

But the Russians had almost no competent officers at all IOTL WW2 since they were all purged and you can see that they found their way out of that, imagine all of the potential Zhukov or Tukhachevsky who died in Stalin's purges.

During wartime being centralized is a lot more efficient- it allows you to make decisions quicker, and you can’t centralize overnight.

Not overnight but you have the time to order martial law and that all assets on Russian territory are temporarily under control of the government and apply this.

 

[Krasno]

It's not like the Russian government won't have any social policies, and while the unemployment rate was of 0% in the Soviet Union it was because industries weren't allowed to fire anyone. Also while having a market economy the government can help economic development.

The government can’t PRECISELY develop certain areas of the economy, though/ the most they can do is try and push companies to do it, and that lack of employment means that there a political extremists have a power base to build off of.

It may be still quite agrarian but they still outcompete Germany due to population and having more resources.

It will outcompete Germany in food production and raw resources (more in question due to Germany controlling large swathes of Africa) but it won’t be taking over Germany in industrial production until, like, the 60’s, and that’s assuming there’s no major setbacks for Russia or boosts for Germany.

If the CS managed to survive then the US certainly will, the precedent for secession is only trough a Civil War which means that if one state wants to secede it will fail to do so- it was half of the states that rebelled in the ACW.

I’m thinking of having the civil war go a lot worse for the US- think the pacific coast states rebelling and a Mormon insurrection, since there’s apparently some historical precedent for those.

If there are no Republicans a third party will take over the monopoly politics.

The Republicans and Democrats will still stay in politics- theres just a lot more parties able to take the spotlight after the ACW.

Smaller states of Europe are as afraid of Russia as they are of Germany, both of them have imperial ambitions but the Russians have ambitions on Constantinople and the Balkans whereas the Germans have much more interests in dominating the small nations that are in the area meaning that the small nations of Europe actually prefer Russia over Germany, Germany would be a threat to countries like the Netherlands or Denmark but Russia wouldn't have much control over them.

Germany doesn’t actually have that many territorial ambitions in Europe- they’d rely more on soft power and economic hegemony, something the Russians can’t offer as effectively.

It doesn't have anything to offer to most countries in Europe to join them in a war, Germany isn't an absolute ruler in the economy, it has a big economy but investments wouldn't be done only in Berlin and there are many who have a big economy other than Germany.

But Germany would be the centre of most major transactions- they have the infrastructure and influence across Europe to be the heart of Europe financially. And I didn’t mean exactly that all of them join the war- just that they stay on Germany’s side.

GB's hegemony over the Med is over, Malta, Gibraltar and Cyprus all went to the CP meaning that they have "only" Egypt and Suez, they would be more worried about Italy who could block shipments across the Med at any point than Russia who has Anatolia and the Levant, meaning that they aren't threatening the Brits and they do have conflicts with Germany since it has shown its intention to have a superior navy to GB, their navy is probably limited to X ships in the peace deal.

ME = Middle East.

But Portugal would pull out of the war if Spain was on the point of joining, their involvement in WW1 was minor anyways, AFAIK they were a puppet of Britain due to economical factors which Spain can't really replace.

Spain would join late, anyway- their main front would be with Portugal. Portugal can’t pull out of being invaded.

The Italians could have a close relationship with Iberia but they wouldn't be their puppet and wouldn't join until they have something to gain.

You don’t need to be a puppet to be strategic allies.

Sweden-Norway collapsed in 1905.

But they may not have to here 😏

In the Winter War they feared the expansion of Communism, Imperial Russia doesn't have plans to conquer anything in Scandinavia, it doesn't give them anything useful and the resources used for that are much better used elsewhere.

The Russian Empire is scary, too- and they may well try to dominate the Scandinavians for more sea ports.

Legacy of Bismarck doesn't exist with Wilhelm II, diplomacy was catastrophic during his reign.

Wilhelm won’t be fit to rule so long after WW1, and even he wouldn’t be stupid enough to directly attack Russia so soon. He may make stupid diplomatic moves, but he’s not a total idiot.

The Russians will support the Clique that is opposing you and you will soon get crushed (because outdated equipment in Europe is perfectly fine for warlord era in China), what a great idea I will obviously imitate the warlords who got destroyed recently because they threatened Russian supplies, anyways until Japan joins Port Arthur will be where rubber goes.

You’re not getting what I’m saying: warlords would try to pin the blame on other warlords/internal political enemies and profit off Russian goods.

Both would have losses but fortresses are much more resistant and hard to hit.

And boats have the entire Baltic to retreat into.

Not that much, the Russians aren't that far away from Germany in terms of industries and economic power is more important in Germany but having a kind of Wall Street in Berlin isn't going to help you during wartime.

Russia is still primarily agrarian, and having a robust world economy is certainly useful in wartime.

They won't prefer German rule.

The line of thinking is “we’re free from Russia” rather than “we’re fighting for Germany”, like, the minorities of the USSR in WW2, they weren’t fighting for a life of German domination, even if that’s the end result.

Not quite you are busy politicizing your way to power and improving the Russian economy, Russification isn't a pressing issue and anybody would understand that some policies of Nicky II were extremely stupid.

Without Russification you have a lot of large ethnic minorities which are the majority population in a lot of your most strategic areas- that’s an extremely pressing issue.

Those in Germany are Germanized and those in Russia are Russified, it wouldn't change anything so you might as well not die for nothing.

Again, they’re not fighting *for* Germany, nobody’s thinking that- they’re fighting for their independence and Germany is a convenient ally- there would be plenty of collaborators who believe that they can assure independence after the war is over.

During wartime people don't strike unless they are starving since the government would shoot at them if they blocked the war effort, anyways the oilfields are in the Caspian sea not in Baku, a strike wouldn't stop the transport of oil if not made specifically by those who work in the oilfields.

Baku is a city on the Caspian sea, and the ones striking would be the oil rig workers- and people DO strike during wartime, because the government may be forced to comply to their demands in a time of emergency.

But you don't have to worry about guerilla fighters, you only have to prevent massive revolts which probably wouldn't happen since the Russians would leave the Muslim community doing what they want like in CA, in most of the ME there wouldn't be colonization by Russians so there wouldn't be that much tensions except for the Holy Land.

Guerilla fighters are about one of the worst things that can happen during wartime- they hassle supplies and logistics are vital for a war effort.

They would want to get it to have most of the French industries under their control, any attempt at Germanization will miserably fail, the French aren't willing to be Germanized and you can see how it went in Alsace, despite an already existing German community and German colonists arriving they "only" had around half of the population German, now the lands that they are annexing are 100% French.
The Germans wouldn't be willing to let it go, it would be a show of weakness to France who will have the idea of attacking Germany and it simbolizes their victory over France in WW1, it would be a bad idea to give up on it, it would've been better not to take it if you are just going to give up on it later on.

Germanizing or Russifiying or the like usually entails flooding a place with your ethnic settlers and then forcefully assimilating the remaining populace- that usually takes a while, though, so there would still be rebellious groups, but if Germany survives it could become majority German speaking by say 1970

They don't need to develop things in the Middle of nowhere in Siberia, they would make efforts in Manchuria but everything outside Western Siberia isn't important to them.

If they want the resources in Siberia, then yeah, development IS important.

They need as much ships as possible against the German ones, the Germans are having unrestricted submarine warfare.

Britain has the largest navy in the world- they’ll have enough ships spare to run operations in the med.

They still would have a anti-European colonialism stand, it's because they want to dominate the Americas themselves and allying with Germany is counter-productive, the Germans don't have anything in the Americas

AFAIK there were some plans to purchase carribean islands that could well happen ITTL

it would be much easier to take over the British puppets themselves instead of allowing the Germans to so and the Germans cannot give anything useful to the US, it is Germany who needs US help but there wouldn't be any reason to give it.

I meant the LatAm states would be gaining German support, not the US.

Russia doesn't necessarily want a quick end to the war, sure they do want to finish ASAP but the more the war prolongs itself the more Germany is exhausted due to the fact that they lack food and raw materials which are imported but at some point their economy cannot support the costs of the war and importing all of this.

Germany is a rich country, they can stay afloat for a very long time, and you’re ignoring their domestic production. The main thing they lack is oil, and unless Russia strikes at it, their supply keeps flowing.

The US wants Gran Colombian oil since Alaska isn't enough to satisfy their demands, the LatAm states who will be more friendly to Germany won't really join since they have nothing to gain, they would just sell resources at a less high price than the other states but still making a lot of profit.

German companies would have a lot of economic influence in the Gran Colombian economy, though- it’s essentially their only reliable source of oil.

They certainly will have troubles (though IMO not enough to lose something) but supporting or allying yourself with the revolutionaries would mean angering GB.

I feel they’d lose some of the further flung colonies like Malaya, and suffer a lot of revolts in places like India and Quebec (I’m planning for British North America to never confederate into Canada) which force either greater autonomy or independence from the empire.

The Dutch had pro-Entente sympathies OTL so I doubt they would be very willing to join Germany, after what happened to Belgium Germany would probably be considered a threat or at least not trustworthy. Even if they were to tend into the German camp they wouldn't really have a reason to join since they wouldn't gain anything, it would make much more sense to continue to sell rubber produced in Indonesia to Russia.
And that also applies to most other countries in Europe, they don't have a reason to join Germany since they gain nothing from it and would suffer a lot not to talk about the fact that Germany could very well become an enemy if they were to win while the Russians wouldn't really care about them.

They wouldn’t join, but good relations with the Dutch ensures their markets remain open and they continue buying from you, thereby further financing your war effort.

But the Russians had almost no competent officers at all IOTL WW2 since they were all purged and you can see that they found their way out of that, imagine all of the potential Zhukov or Tukhachevsky who died in Stalin's purges.

They had plenty of competent officers- Zhukov, Konev, Rokossovsky- but their issue was that they killed a lot more. Here their issue would be that, even though the talent is there, it’s not allowed to shine through or receive higher ranking roles earlier in the war due to all the nepotism and corruption in the army.

Not overnight but you have the time to order martial law and that all assets on Russian territory are temporarily under control of the government and apply this.

that’s going to take a long time to fully implement, and your command will suffer in the meantime.

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

The government can’t PRECISELY develop certain areas of the economy, though/ the most they can do is try and push companies to do it, and that lack of employment means that there a political extremists have a power base to build off of.

There is no lack of employment, if there are no jobs in the cities they will remain farmers, and if there was a situation like Britain during the industrial revolution then the government will have social policies to put them to work and this problem will largely be solved by the time we're talking about. The government isn't useless you know.

I’m thinking of having the civil war go a lot worse for the US- think the pacific coast states rebelling and a Mormon insurrection, since there’s apparently some historical precedent for those.

I don't see that happening unless something terrible happens, AFAIK during the Great Depression of OTL there weren't any insurrections against the government and here there is no Great Depression.

It will outcompete Germany in food production and raw resources (more in question due to Germany controlling large swathes of Africa) but it won’t be taking over Germany in industrial production until, like, the 60’s, and that’s assuming there’s no major setbacks for Russia or boosts for Germany.

Why would there be boosts for Germany? They would arrive to maximum potential soon after WW1 if they don't annex any other territory since any technological improvement will be implemented also by Russia. I doubt it would take that long to outcompete Germany in industrial output, they have much more population meaning more industries, I would say that it would take that much time creating a bigger economy than Germany.

The Republicans and Democrats will still stay in politics- there's just a lot more parties able to take the spotlight after the ACW.

The Republicans will be dead if the ACW is lost because 600k people died for nothing and people love having scapegoats.

Germany doesn’t actually have that many territorial ambitions in Europe- they’d rely more on soft power and economic hegemony, something the Russians can’t offer as effectively.

The Russians don't want to go to war, the Germans are coming at them since they fear being overtaken. And Russia would still have soft power and economic might just slightly inferior to Germany's

But Germany would be the centre of most major transactions- they have the infrastructure and influence across Europe to be the heart of Europe financially. And I didn’t mean exactly that all of them join the war- just that they stay on Germany’s side.

Berlin wouldn't be the only center, London, New York and St.Petersburg will have their share of the market, especially for all of the countries that would prefer not having business with Germany.
They have influence in other countries but this influence is no way soft power, the places where they have influence today is the places that they invaded and forced under their control thanks to military might, not exactly reassuring.
They wouldn't be on Germany's side, they would make as much profit from the war as they can by selling resources Russia and especially Germany need.

ME = Middle East.

GB wouldn't really care about Russia dominating the ME, sure they could invade Suez but that is as threatening as Italy or Spain closing the Med and Germany's naval build-up is more threatening than that since that won't force you to pass around Africa, that will prevent you from shipping anything at all. Both Russia and Germany are threatening to your interests but I would say that Russia is less since they are less present in the areas of the world you care about.

Spain would join late, anyway- their main front would be with Portugal. Portugal can’t pull out of being invaded.

It takes time to mobilize, if you mobilize before the war Portugal is out immediately and if you declare war and then mobilize Portugal still has time to exit the war. And Portugal would see the tide of the war changing, it's not like they are extremely invested in the war and cannot pull out now.

You don’t need to be a puppet to be strategic allies.

But until France joins they won't be of much use as allies and once France joins Germany is probably already collapsing.

The Russian Empire is scary, too- and they may well try to dominate the Scandinavians for more sea ports.

That isn't really one of their goals, IOTL they had no ambitions in Scandinavia and the land would be more trouble than it's worth.

Wilhelm won’t be fit to rule so long after WW1, and even he wouldn’t be stupid enough to directly attack Russia so soon. He may make stupid diplomatic moves, but he’s not a total idiot.

Wilhelm would probably continue to rule for a while, even IOTL had Germany won he probably wouldn't have been deposed and here the Germans never starved since they had Russia supplying them grain. And OTL German command (civilian and military) was obsessed with OTL Russia, I cannot imagine how they will react to this Russia.
After he dies or abdicates the damage will be done and it takes a long time to restore relations especially with GB who will be very unhappy.

You’re not getting what I’m saying: warlords would try to pin the blame on other warlords/internal political enemies and profit off Russian goods.

You do know there are cliques of warlords right? The Russians will know where the cargo disappeared and they will know which clique did it and they will retaliate.

Without Russification you have a lot of large ethnic minorities which are the majority population in a lot of your most strategic areas- that’s an extremely pressing issue.

Majority of your population? Baltics, Poland, Caucasus, Finland, CA and ME. The latter one is probably not going to revolt. Finland is happy with its autonomy.
That leaves the Baltics, Poland and the Caucasus who didn't rebel IOTL and wouldn't think they have a better chance ITTL.

Baku is a city on the Caspian sea, and the ones striking would be the oil rig workers- and people DO strike during wartime, because the government may be forced to comply to their demands in a time of emergency.

They don't do that because the government has tendency to be very harsh in those moments, if they are in time of emergency that will mean brutal repression. Revolts only work when soldiers are unhappy because they then join those who revolt and then you are in trouble but here no one is starving so everything is fine.

Guerilla fighters are about one of the worst things that can happen during wartime- they hassle supplies and logistics are vital for a war effort.

Not in the middle of the desert, AFAIK the area is quite urbanized and it's not like Russia has a vital front in CA or the ME.

Germanizing or Russifiying or the like usually entails flooding a place with your ethnic settlers and then forcefully assimilating the remaining populace- that usually takes a while, though, so there would still be rebellious groups, but if Germany survives it could become majority German speaking by say 1970

Demographics in Alsace-Moselle contradict you, despite the land already having German influence and being under German rule for 45 years it was around 50-50 Germans and French, now try to do that with areas that are purely French.

If they want the resources in Siberia, then yeah, development IS important.

Siberia isn't particularly important for the moment, other parts of the Russian Empire have necessary resources and the development of Siberia will wait for the Trans-Siberian railway but then most urban centers are located along it not in the middle of nowhere.

Britain has the largest navy in the world- they’ll have enough ships spare to run operations in the med.

I would doubt they have that much ships to spare, the Germans have the second largest navy in the world.

AFAIK there were some plans to purchase carribean islands that could well happen ITTL

That would threaten US interests, who would probably take anything that could be realistically sold (which spoiler is basically Jamaica). There are not much things to buy in the Caribbean, Cuba and Puerto Rico won't be sold by Spain, Dominica and Haiti won't sell themselves; this leaves you with small islands worth basically nothing or Jamaica but the US would probably try to remove British control over it.

I meant the LatAm states would be gaining German support, not the US.

Not really, Germany would be busy rebuilding while the US barely participated meaning that they would take over control of LatAm, sure there might be a few states who are in the British sphere but they wouldn't join Germany.

German companies would have a lot of economic influence in the Gran Colombian economy, though- it’s essentially their only reliable source of oil.

They would be in competition with the US and I have no doubts on who will get more shares and Gran Colombia alone probably isn't enough to satisfy the German demand.

I feel they’d lose some of the further flung colonies like Malaya, and suffer a lot of revolts in places like India and Quebec (I’m planning for British North America to never confederate into Canada) which force either greater autonomy or independence from the empire.

I don't think Germany would see much point in taking Malaya, any territory taken from GB could be decisive in making them prefer the Russian camp.
India would have revolts but it will be very similar to what happened IOTL: brutal repression. Quebec would be unhappy but I don't see them managing more than extra rights for French speakers (basically avoiding any tentative of Anglicization) and not uniting with English speaking parts of Canada.

They wouldn’t join, but good relations with the Dutch ensures their markets remain open and they continue buying from you, thereby further financing your war effort.

The Dutch wouldn't buy anything from Germany and they certainly wouldn't finance your war effort; profit from Indonesia won't directly go to the Berlin bourse, they would be spent in the Netherlands or in Indonesia, some will but not the majority. And I doubt the Dutch would be that friendly to Germany.

They had plenty of competent officers- Zhukov, Konev, Rokossovsky- but their issue was that they killed a lot more. Here their issue would be that, even though the talent is there, it’s not allowed to shine through or receive higher ranking roles earlier in the war due to all the nepotism and corruption in the army.

Once the war starts, the less competent generals will be dismissed since they are failing and the more competent ones will rise, it won't be an immediate process but WW1 already did a part of the job in significantly reducing this and WW2 will basically end it for anyone who doesn't have any talents.

that’s going to take a long time to fully implement, and your command will suffer in the meantime.

A long time, 3 months at worst and your command won't really suffer, I would like to remember you the taxis used by the French to transport their soldiers to the Battle of the Somme, were they centralized like the USSR or did they spent significant time? No. Doing this everywhere in the nation will take a little bit of time but not some colossal amount.

 

[Krasno]

There is no lack of employment, if there are no jobs in the cities they will remain farmers, and if there was a situation like Britain during the industrial revolution then the government will have social policies to put them to work and this problem will largely be solved by the time we're talking about. The government isn't useless you know.

If mere government support fixed unemployment, then we wouldn't have unemployment today. No matter how many policies they enact, Russia is still too vast and disconnected to effectively make a fully employed populace.

I don't see that happening unless something terrible happens, AFAIK during the Great Depression of OTL there weren't any insurrections against the government and here there is no Great Depression.

California came close to seceding apparently, and there was an independence movement in Oregon (which would later evolve into the Cascadian movement) that could bear some fruit if the Organic laws of Oregon are changed a smidge and this guy wins the gubernatorial elections. The Mormons are self-explanatory if the rest of the American frontier falls into chaos- and though they are all weaker than the CS, they are far past undeveloped lands that'll be difficult for American logistics to cross.

Why would there be boosts for Germany? They would arrive to maximum potential soon after WW1 if they don't annex any other territory since any technological improvement will be implemented also by Russia. I doubt it would take that long to outcompete Germany in industrial output, they have much more population meaning more industries, I would say that it would take that much time creating a bigger economy than Germany.

what do you mean the "limit"? this is the time of unrestricted capitalism, a system based off an assumption of infinite growth. What "limit" would Germany be hitting?

The Republicans will be dead if the ACW is lost because 600k people died for nothing and people love having scapegoats.

if anyone's a scapegoat, it's the Democrats who seceded- and the way that party politics works in America makes people very tied to their party, which ensures some support base for both parties surviving.

The Russians don't want to go to war, the Germans are coming at them since they fear being overtaken. And Russia would still have soft power and economic might just slightly inferior to Germany's

Germany isn't going to be blindly throwing themselves at Russia- theres going to be diplomatic shenanigans for decades before a final confrontation. This is not an ideological war, its a continuation of Great Power politics.

Berlin wouldn't be the only center, London, New York and St.Petersburg will have their share of the market, especially for all of the countries that would prefer not having business with Germany.
They have influence in other countries but this influence is no way soft power, the places where they have influence today is the places that they invaded and forced under their control thanks to military might, not exactly reassuring.

Berlin will coalesce as the strongest postwar financial centre; London may compete but St Petersburg doesn't have the infrastructure or history and New York hasn't had the advantage of dominating the Americas for nearly a century.

They wouldn't be on Germany's side, they would make as much profit from the war as they can by selling resources Russia and especially Germany need.

they'd also be a continued target for German exporters.

GB wouldn't really care about Russia dominating the ME, sure they could invade Suez but that is as threatening as Italy or Spain closing the Med and Germany's naval build-up is more threatening than that since that won't force you to pass around Africa, that will prevent you from shipping anything at all. Both Russia and Germany are threatening to your interests but I would say that Russia is less since they are less present in the areas of the world you care about.

??? they are present in ALL the places that Britain cares about. they threaten North America, the Raj, Persia, and all the other wealthy chunks of the empire. Germany only really threatens Africa, if that.

It takes time to mobilize, if you mobilize before the war Portugal is out immediately and if you declare war and then mobilize Portugal still has time to exit the war. And Portugal would see the tide of the war changing, it's not like they are extremely invested in the war and cannot pull out now.

Portugal can't "leave" a Spanish invasion if it's already started.

But until France joins they won't be of much use as allies and once France joins Germany is probably already collapsing.

Spain would seize Gibraltar post-WW1- they're immensely important strategically, if nothing else.

That isn't really one of their goals, IOTL they had no ambitions in Scandinavia and the land would be more trouble than it's worth.

Russia's growing empire would be enough into scaring them that it is, though, and with German pushing that fear would only grow.

Wilhelm would probably continue to rule for a while, even IOTL had Germany won he probably wouldn't have been deposed and here the Germans never starved since they had Russia supplying them grain. And OTL German command (civilian and military) was obsessed with OTL Russia, I cannot imagine how they will react to this Russia.
After he dies or abdicates the damage will be done and it takes a long time to restore relations especially with GB who will be very unhappy.

You can't just assume that the opinion of the High Command will be the exact same, especially since they'd have decades of cooperation with Russia and including Russia into their strategic plans. There would be some that fear Russia but there would be a significant camp who believe Germany can only prosper WITH Russia.

You do know there are cliques of warlords right? The Russians will know where the cargo disappeared and they will know which clique did it and they will retaliate.

Exact borders dont mean much when raiding parties and especially bandits are common within the region- and again, they could just blame it on an internal political rival.

Majority of your population? Baltics, Poland, Caucasus, Finland, CA and ME. The latter one is probably not going to revolt. Finland is happy with its autonomy.
That leaves the Baltics, Poland and the Caucasus who didn't rebel IOTL and wouldn't think they have a better chance ITTL.

with a consolidated national and ethnic identity you can bet revolts would be a lot more common.

They don't do that because the government has tendency to be very harsh in those moments, if they are in time of emergency that will mean brutal repression. Revolts only work when soldiers are unhappy because they then join those who revolt and then you are in trouble but here no one is starving so everything is fine.

you don't need to revolt to strike- and people are often willing to strike for more than just starvation. The largest strike in Dutch history was during Nazi occupation, and they weren't particularly starving then AFAIK.

Not in the middle of the desert, AFAIK the area is quite urbanized and it's not like Russia has a vital front in CA or the ME.

in Poland, where the front is, guerillas would be lethal.

Demographics in Alsace-Moselle contradict you, despite the land already having German influence and being under German rule for 45 years it was around 50-50 Germans and French, now try to do that with areas that are purely French.

Alsace Lorraine was also predominantly pro-German AFAIK, because even the French there were protestant. Get a good few thousand Germans there and in a few decades even the remaining French will be less troublesome.

Siberia isn't particularly important for the moment, other parts of the Russian Empire have necessary resources and the development of Siberia will wait for the Trans-Siberian railway but then most urban centers are located along it not in the middle of nowhere.

Siberia is the resource-well of Russia. If Russia underdevelops it, then any increased demand for resources will have to come externally.

I would doubt they have that much ships to spare, the Germans have the second largest navy in the world.

The Germans knew they couldnt match the British 1-1, especially not accompanied by the French Navy. Britain doesn't need to send all their ships to Germany- they'll have blockaded them soon enough.

That would threaten US interests, who would probably take anything that could be realistically sold (which spoiler is basically Jamaica). There are not much things to buy in the Caribbean, Cuba and Puerto Rico won't be sold by Spain, Dominica and Haiti won't sell themselves; this leaves you with small islands worth basically nothing or Jamaica but the US would probably try to remove British control over it.

The US has very little remaining influence over the Carribean- the CS would be the one by Jamaica, most likely. and Germany would probably buy Curacao.

Not really, Germany would be busy rebuilding while the US barely participated meaning that they would take over control of LatAm, sure there might be a few states who are in the British sphere but they wouldn't join Germany.

the US also has less naval access to them, though.

They would be in competition with the US and I have no doubts on who will get more shares and Gran Colombia alone probably isn't enough to satisfy the German demand.

Germany is significantly richer ITTL- it could go either way in a bidding war.

I don't think Germany would see much point in taking Malaya, any territory taken from GB could be decisive in making them prefer the Russian camp.

I meant losing Malaya to colonial revolt.

India would have revolts but it will be very similar to what happened IOTL: brutal repression. Quebec would be unhappy but I don't see them managing more than extra rights for French speakers (basically avoiding any tentative of Anglicization) and not uniting with English speaking parts of Canada.

A large part of why Quebec was as loyal as it was OTL is that they thought without the British crown supporting their rights, they'd be assimilated by the rest of the Confederation. If Quebec is more independent, it's more rowdy.

The Dutch wouldn't buy anything from Germany and they certainly wouldn't finance your war effort; profit from Indonesia won't directly go to the Berlin bourse, they would be spent in the Netherlands or in Indonesia, some will but not the majority. And I doubt the Dutch would be that friendly to Germany.

the Dutch would prefer a close relationship with a strong neighbour to ensure neutrality- with Britain isolating, that's Germany. And why woyuldn't they buy from Germany? that's essentially economic suicide.

Once the war starts, the less competent generals will be dismissed since they are failing and the more competent ones will rise, it won't be an immediate process but WW1 already did a part of the job in significantly reducing this and WW2 will basically end it for anyone who doesn't have any talents.

Removing generals will be a lengthy process, since the nepo baby generals still have their benefactors influencing government, and OTL France shows you how well WW1 "talented" officers fare in a more modern war. Russia isn't so meritocratic as to be able to immediately and effectively promote talent- Germany is a lot better in that regard. The talent in Russia like Zhukov and Tukh also wouldn't be as used to higher commands without the Russian Civil War and various interwar Soviet conflicts.

A long time, 3 months at worst and your command won't really suffer, I would like to remember you the taxis used by the French to transport their soldiers to the Battle of the Somme, were they centralized like the USSR or did they spent significant time? No. Doing this everywhere in the nation will take a little bit of time but not some colossal amount.

France and Russia are much different nations- for one, France WAS rather centralized, they were essentially the first example of such a thing- and just by the nature of Russia being so vast and dispersed a good degree of centralization is necessary for combat effectiveness.

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

If mere government support fixed unemployment, then we wouldn't have unemployment today. No matter how many policies they enact, Russia is still too vast and disconnected to effectively make a fully employed populace.

Russians are working as farmers, there is no unemployment for the moment, if after some reform there is a rural exode then they will go into the cities and you can definitely find a job for them there.

California came close to seceding apparently, and there was an independence movement in Oregon (which would later evolve into the Cascadian movement) that could bear some fruit if the Organic laws of Oregon are changed a smidge and this guy wins the gubernatorial elections. The Mormons are self-explanatory if the rest of the American frontier falls into chaos- and though they are all weaker than the CS, they are far past undeveloped lands that'll be difficult for American logistics to cross.

The US won't allow them to, they need a morale boost after the ACW and defeating these isn't difficult precisely because they are underdeveloped, you don't need that much troops to subjugate the revolt.

what do you mean the "limit"? this is the time of unrestricted capitalism, a system based off an assumption of infinite growth. What "limit" would Germany be hitting?

You cannot exploit more resources then you have, especially human ones; any way to produce more efficiently will also be used by the Russians and technologically you do not have a crushing advantage.

if anyone's a scapegoat, it's the Democrats who seceded- and the way that party politics works in America makes people very tied to their party, which ensures some support base for both parties surviving.

Wasn't Lincoln the first republican to become president?
The Democrats could say that they were the ones who were trying to prevent the South from seceding and that it was Lincoln who caused the ACW and they wouldn't be completely wrong, their electoral base wouldn't be there but they wouldn't be scapegoats.

Germany isn't going to be blindly throwing themselves at Russia- theres going to be diplomatic shenanigans for decades before a final confrontation. This is not an ideological war, its a continuation of Great Power politics.

Germany still is the one pushing for war due to fear of being overtaken and in GP politics you search the GP who doesn't threaten what is important for you, in this case Russia since they won't be able to influence you.
The German command thought OTL Russia would be unstoppable by 1919 and if it is even remotely close to what it was OTL (and realistically it will be similar) they will throw themselves blindly into the fight because if they don't, they'll think that they would be overtaken by Russia soon.

Berlin will coalesce as the strongest postwar financial centre; London may compete but St Petersburg doesn't have the infrastructure or history and New York hasn't had the advantage of dominating the Americas for nearly a century.

St.Petersburg's bourse won't be the most important one but it still wouldn't be nothing, London's would be only slightly inferior to Germany since they were the financial center before that and they still control 20% of the world. Wall Street won't dominate the Americas but it would still dominate half of them and the US still has a very big economy and they will take their own share of the market.

they'd also be a continued target for German exporters.

Exporters of what? It's not like only Russia and Germany have industries, they'll continue to buy from where they were buying before.

??? they are present in ALL the places that Britain cares about. they threaten North America, the Raj, Persia, and all the other wealthy chunks of the empire. Germany only really threatens Africa, if that.

Russia has little to no control over Alaska, it's basically an US colony and the only thing that they get is a little taxes.
Afghanistan is in the Russian sphere but it doesn't mean they will invade the Raj.
They may fear that the Russians would threaten them but the Russians won't really do that, they don't have a reason to antagonize GB and the Germans are as dangerous as Russia with their naval build-up since if the Brits don't have their navy anymore all of their colonies will be lost and Wilhelm II would want to overtake GB.

Portugal can't "leave" a Spanish invasion if it's already started.

Even then Spain wouldn't necessarily want to fight Portugal, it would mean a two front war and I'm pretty sure that the Spanish army wasn't the best in the world.

Russia's growing empire would be enough into scaring them that it is, though, and with German pushing that fear would only grow.

If they never show any intention to conquer them, there is no reason to fear them

Exact borders dont mean much when raiding parties and especially bandits are common within the region- and again, they could just blame it on an internal political rival.

The cargos don't pass in the middle of the mountains, they pass by railroad which is fairly easy to defend if you just put a few soldiers to guard the train and local warlords have no reason to let bandits do this since everybody will know where the train stopped and you will face Russia's wrath.

with a consolidated national and ethnic identity you can bet revolts would be a lot more common.

How is it consolidated?

you don't need to revolt to strike- and people are often willing to strike for more than just starvation. The largest strike in Dutch history was during Nazi occupation, and they weren't particularly starving then AFAIK.

They were receiving less food than it is normal to receive, ex. a German usually ate 2000 calories while a Frenchman ate 1500. And that was at the beginning of the war.
Strikes aren't very common during wartime, they're more common in peace time.

in Poland, where the front is, guerillas would be lethal.

There wouldn't be much guerillas, Poland is well connected and it doesn't have that much territory that is ideal for guerilla fights and the Poles wouldn't be very keen on preventing the Russians from fighting the Germans since that would be fighting for Germany.

Alsace Lorraine was also predominantly pro-German AFAIK, because even the French there were protestant. Get a good few thousand Germans there and in a few decades even the remaining French will be less troublesome.

The French will become ten times more troublesome if you try to colonize them, it won't work.

Siberia is the resource-well of Russia. If Russia underdevelops it, then any increased demand for resources will have to come externally.

Siberia cannot be developed with the technology of the 1850's, they need to finish the Trans-Siberian railway to develop anything and the rest of the Russian Empire has all of the resources it may need Siberia isn't the only resource rich part of Russia.

The Germans knew they couldnt match the British 1-1, especially not accompanied by the French Navy. Britain doesn't need to send all their ships to Germany- they'll have blockaded them soon enough.

They tried to, Wilhelm II wanted to have a navy to defeat GB. You do not need ships to counter German submarines and protect cargos from them, if you don't Britain will starve.

The US has very little remaining influence over the Carribean- the CS would be the one by Jamaica, most likely. and Germany would probably buy Curacao.

The US will probably force GB to sell Jamaica and Belize in the peace deal after WW1 and the CS isn't able to buy anything if they are an economic colony of GB and then have a civil war.
They may buy Curacao but it doesn't fundamentally change their power projection.

the US also has less naval access to them, though.

They still have a very big economy which would be able to dominate the Americas.

Germany is significantly richer ITTL- it could go either way in a bidding war.

While Germany is busy rebuilding after WW1, the US will already have taken over most of the shares from GB and they would be much more invested in the early stages meaning that they have more than the German investors.

I meant losing Malaya to colonial revolt.

If they're going to lose a colony due to revolts it's India.

A large part of why Quebec was as loyal as it was OTL is that they thought without the British crown supporting their rights, they'd be assimilated by the rest of the Confederation. If Quebec is more independent, it's more rowdy.

That is if Quebec succeeds in its revolts.

the Dutch would prefer a close relationship with a strong neighbour to ensure neutrality- with Britain isolating, that's Germany. And why woyuldn't they buy from Germany? that's essentially economic suicide.

They don't need buy from Germany, France and GB still sell the things you were buying from them before and the Dutch didn't have a strong relationship with GB to ensure neutrality, they were against Germany because it was too agressive for their taste, that's still the case here.

Removing generals will be a lengthy process, since the nepo baby generals still have their benefactors influencing government, and OTL France shows you how well WW1 "talented" officers fare in a more modern war. Russia isn't so meritocratic as to be able to immediately and effectively promote talent- Germany is a lot better in that regard. The talent in Russia like Zhukov and Tukh also wouldn't be as used to higher commands without the Russian Civil War and various interwar Soviet conflicts.

Germany's high command is also not the best, outside of Hindenburg and maybe Ludendorff it was quite incompetent and Tukhachevsky was a member of the small nobility and military aristocracy, just as most generals will be, you still need some talent to become general, the problem of the French army is that it didn't accept change from WW1 style of warfare not that competent ones weren't allowed to rise.

France and Russia are much different nations- for one, France WAS rather centralized, they were essentially the first example of such a thing- and just by the nature of Russia being so vast and dispersed a good degree of centralization is necessary for combat effectiveness.

It will be much better centralized if there is a good infrastructure, at least in the important parts of Russia.

 

[Krasno]

Russians are working as farmers, there is no unemployment for the moment, if after some reform there is a rural exode then they will go into the cities and you can definitely find a job for them there.

Not everyone’s a farmer- and the cities don’t always provide jobs. It’s very difficult to keep everyone employed when there are thousands of tiny villages disconnected from everything except by dirt road.

The US won't allow them to, they need a morale boost after the ACW and defeating these isn't difficult precisely because they are underdeveloped, you don't need that much troops to subjugate the revolt.

It would in all likeliness happen during the civil war- and the issue is GETTING their troops there, not really quelling the rebellion itself- not to mention the food, ammunition, and more that their soldiers would need.

You cannot exploit more resources then you have, especially human ones; any way to produce more efficiently will also be used by the Russians and technologically you do not have a crushing advantage.

Foreign migration would be common if Germany really had a labour shortage (which wouldn’t really be the case) and they have a vast colonial empire- they’re ok for resources.

Wasn't Lincoln the first republican to become president?
The Democrats could say that they were the ones who were trying to prevent the South from seceding and that it was Lincoln who caused the ACW and they wouldn't be completely wrong, their electoral base wouldn't be there but they wouldn't be scapegoats.

Sure, and they’d be somewhat successful- but the common person will always be able to remember “hey, but YOU GUYS revolted.” Even if Lincoln and the Republicans are taken down a peg, the Democrats’ reputation is irreparable.

Germany still is the one pushing for war due to fear of being overtaken and in GP politics you search the GP who doesn't threaten what is important for you, in this case Russia since they won't be able to influence you.
The German command thought OTL Russia would be unstoppable by 1919 and if it is even remotely close to what it was OTL (and realistically it will be similar) they will throw themselves blindly into the fight because if they don't, they'll think that they would be overtaken by Russia soon.

The high command didn’t place combat with Russia before any strategic and diplomatic reason. It is acknowledged that Russia is a PROBLEM, but they’re not going to just kill their empire for the sake of it- which is what they’d be doing by fighting Russia.

St.Petersburg's bourse won't be the most important one but it still wouldn't be nothing, London's would be only slightly inferior to Germany since they were the financial center before that and they still control 20% of the world. Wall Street won't dominate the Americas but it would still dominate half of them and the US still has a very big economy and they will take their own share of the market.

The difference is that Germany has become the WORLD’s financial centre, as opposed to their regions.

Exporters of what? It's not like only Russia and Germany have industries, they'll continue to buy from where they were buying before.

Do you think Germany only produces war goods? They’d have a massive amount of exportable goods, from luxury items to raw material.

Russia has little to no control over Alaska, it's basically an US colony and the only thing that they get is a little taxes.

As Alaska gets developed and more Russian settlers come in, Russia will gain a greater foothold over Alaska- and thus a strategic position against British colonies.

Afghanistan is in the Russian sphere but it doesn't mean they will invade the Raj.

They don’t need to have plans of invasion to be a threat- Britain doesn’t like that they CAN, not that they WILL.

They may fear that the Russians would threaten them but the Russians won't really do that, they don't have a reason to antagonize GB and the Germans are as dangerous as Russia with their naval build-up since if the Brits don't have their navy anymore all of their colonies will be lost and Wilhelm II would want to overtake GB.

The German navy being prominent is already basically a fait accomplit after the war- what’s more pressing for Britain is that one of their biggest enemies now has a direct way to influence and incite rebellion in her colonies. It doesn’t matter whether they will- the point is that they can.

Even then Spain wouldn't necessarily want to fight Portugal, it would mean a two front war and I'm pretty sure that the Spanish army wasn't the best in the world.

They’d pretty much only join once France us almost collapsing.

If they never show any intention to conquer them, there is no reason to fear them

Conquering isn’t the only thing for a nation to be afraid of.

The cargos don't pass in the middle of the mountains, they pass by railroad which is fairly easy to defend if you just put a few soldiers to guard the train and local warlords have no reason to let bandits do this since everybody will know where the train stopped and you will face Russia's wrath.

You can’t feasibly put a coherent force on every train, and the warlords wouldn’t be “allowing” anything- bandits act on their own, and they’re annoying to warlords, too.

How is it consolidated?

By not being repressed and assimilated?

They were receiving less food than it is normal to receive, ex. a German usually ate 2000 calories while a Frenchman ate 1500. And that was at the beginning of the war.
Strikes aren't very common during wartime, they're more common in peace time.

There were plenty of strikes during WW2 OTL, not to mention the Vietnam war- it’s quite common in industrial societies, actually.

There wouldn't be much guerillas, Poland is well connected and it doesn't have that much territory that is ideal for guerilla fights and the Poles wouldn't be very keen on preventing the Russians from fighting the Germans since that would be fighting for Germany.

The Russians are their oppressors- Germans would be malevolent benefactors, if nothing else.

The French will become ten times more troublesome if you try to colonize them, it won't work.

How are they going to stop German migration? If they ever sort to violence, Germany will use it as an excuse to do the same.

Siberia cannot be developed with the technology of the 1850's, they need to finish the Trans-Siberian railway to develop anything and the rest of the Russian Empire has all of the resources it may need Siberia isn't the only resource rich part of Russia.

It’s not the only one, but it’s about the most resource rich part of Russia.

They tried to, Wilhelm II wanted to have a navy to defeat GB. You do not need ships to counter German submarines and protect cargos from them, if you don't Britain will starve.

Convoy escorts do a decent job, anyway- and they didn’t take up the entire British navy OTL.

The US will probably force GB to sell Jamaica and Belize in the peace deal after WW1 and the CS isn't able to buy anything if they are an economic colony of GB and then have a civil war.

Why would Britain be forced to sell? They’d sooner give it to the CS to ensure they keep their Caribbean ports.

They may buy Curacao but it doesn't fundamentally change their power projection.

Gives them a base in the Americas, if nothing else.

They still have a very big economy which would be able to dominate the Americas.

The US has its own issues to deal with- they won’t be outwardly investing all their wealth when there are enemies on every border. They’d still be influential, but they wouldn’t dominate.

While Germany is busy rebuilding after WW1, the US will already have taken over most of the shares from GB and they would be much more invested in the early stages meaning that they have more than the German investors.

Germany would invest a lot into Venezuela though- especially once the lack of Russian oil becomes clear. That investment could outmatch the US one if they’re not diligent.

If they're going to lose a colony due to revolts it's India.

Colonial revolts have a tendency to snowball- if they’re busy dealing with a large scale Indian revolt, a Malayan revolt is more difficult to pin down.

That is if Quebec succeeds in its revolts.

Even if they don’t, they’ll remain an angry and bitter part of the empire.

They don't need buy from Germany, France and GB still sell the things you were buying from them before and the Dutch didn't have a strong relationship with GB to ensure neutrality, they were against Germany because it was too agressive for their taste, that's still the case here.

France and Britain would be devastated economically- Germany would provide a much more stable trade partner. They wouldn’t be thrilled about Belgium, but German economic dominance is unavoidable.

Germany's high command is also not the best, outside of Hindenburg and maybe Ludendorff it was quite incompetent and Tukhachevsky was a member of the small nobility and military aristocracy, just as most generals will be, you still need some talent to become general, the problem of the French army is that it didn't accept change from WW1 style of warfare not that competent ones weren't allowed to rise.

The talent honed in WW1 remained influential in France- and they became the old guard. A similar thing happens if you rely on WW1 to make distinguished Russian officers. Tukhachevsky was an exception- peasants like Zhukov and Konev would have a much more difficult time rising to high command. Even if you’re talented in your youth, the aging high command would stick to the WW1 tactics they know best.

It will be much better centralized if there is a good infrastructure, at least in the important parts of Russia.

You can’t “half-centralize” and leave your frontier to rot- it’s going to be impossible to fully exploit or defend in that case.

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

Not everyone’s a farmer- and the cities don’t always provide jobs. It’s very difficult to keep everyone employed when there are thousands of tiny villages disconnected from everything except by dirt road.

If they are in that village they have a job, it's when they don't have a job (which is unlikely to happen on the scale of Russia) they'll go to the cities and it's possible to give them a job, sure it might take a little bit but by the time we're talking there are no unemployed of this kind in Russia and even this happening is unlikely.

It would in all likeliness happen during the civil war- and the issue is GETTING their troops there, not really quelling the rebellion itself- not to mention the food, ammunition, and more that their soldiers would need.

You don't need that much troops, it'll likely not be very important and the ACW wasn't a civil war it was a war between two functioning states instead of being a few randomers trying to ambush US troops or massive strikes and fighting in the streets like most revolt would.

Foreign migration would be common if Germany really had a labour shortage (which wouldn’t really be the case) and they have a vast colonial empire- they’re ok for resources.

I'm not saying that it will have a labour shortage, I'm saying that Russia absolutely outpopulates you meaning that even if their industries make half the goods yours do they will have a bigger industrial output, the important part is producing things who are worth more but luxury goods don't help you during wartime and their colonial empire lacks oil which is crucial for modern warfare.

Sure, and they’d be somewhat successful- but the common person will always be able to remember “hey, but YOU GUYS revolted.” Even if Lincoln and the Republicans are taken down a peg, the Democrats’ reputation is irreparable.

I would be more worried about the fact that your voter base is in another country now.

The high command didn’t place combat with Russia before any strategic and diplomatic reason. It is acknowledged that Russia is a PROBLEM, but they’re not going to just kill their empire for the sake of it- which is what they’d be doing by fighting Russia.

LOL.
Context: we are during the Balkan Wars, AH has mobilized 6 army corps and in response Russia has partially mobilized. The Kaiser has called his war cabinet to talk about what the German response should be:
Von Moltke: We should have total mobilization and go to war immediately, otherwise Russia will be unstoppable.

Now remember this is OTL Russia, which was completely defeated and had a revolution, imagine the Germans ITTL.

The difference is that Germany has become the WORLD’s financial centre, as opposed to their regions.

London still is very important since you see, everyone who isn't a fan of Germany prefers to invest elsewhere meaning that French, British and Russian investors prefer being there instead of Berlin. Wall Street is still extremely important and St.Petersburg is working on it.

Do you think Germany only produces war goods? They’d have a massive amount of exportable goods, from luxury items to raw material.

But those same goods are also produced in France and GB or at home, Germany isn't their only option and it would be the Dutch who sell raw materials to Germany since it badly needs oil.

As Alaska gets developed and more Russian settlers come in, Russia will gain a greater foothold over Alaska- and thus a strategic position against British colonies.

The whole point of inviting American settlers there was to not have to develop it yourself while still getting some profits thanks to taxes and the US is not unlikely to get British Columbia and other parts of Canada in the WW1 peace deal.

They don’t need to have plans of invasion to be a threat- Britain doesn’t like that they CAN, not that they WILL.

Just as the Germans can overtake your navy and threaten all of your colonies since you cannot defend them anymore.

The German navy being prominent is already basically a fait accomplit after the war- what’s more pressing for Britain is that one of their biggest enemies now has a direct way to influence and incite rebellion in her colonies. It doesn’t matter whether they will- the point is that they can.

There are two enemies who can do that: Germany and Russia.

They’d pretty much only join once France us almost collapsing.

Which doesn't happen since France will join only when it is sure that it is a good opportunity, meaning when things start to go south for Germany.

Conquering isn’t the only thing for a nation to be afraid of.

Russia doesn't have interests in Scandinavia, they got Constantinople and will focus on that.

You can’t feasibly put a coherent force on every train, and the warlords wouldn’t be “allowing” anything- bandits act on their own, and they’re annoying to warlords, too.

A random bandit cannot rally some incredible force, 25 soldiers are largely enough and the bandits cannot hide theselves for long: Russia will make it clear what will happen if they aren't found soon.

By not being repressed and assimilated?

Not being repressed and assimilated diminishes your national identity, it's by living in troubled times together that a national identity arises if everything's fine then you don't have a problem with the existing system.

There were plenty of strikes during WW2 OTL, not to mention the Vietnam war- it’s quite common in industrial societies, actually.

Vietnam war is completely different, that was a guerilla war in a country nobody heard about before where US troops were dying for nothing not a total world war.
There were strikes in WW2 but not in Germany, the same places where there were strikes there were resistance movements who tried to kick out the Germans.

The Russians are their oppressors- Germans would be malevolent benefactors, if nothing else.

There may be some who will but most won't fight for that since everybody knows what happens to Poles in Germany, they aren't stupid you know.

How are they going to stop German migration? If they ever sort to violence, Germany will use it as an excuse to do the same.

Combine the most agitated people of all of Europe with their most hated foe and you will get an explosive cocktail. If the Germans resort to violence, the French will retaliate.

It’s not the only one, but it’s about the most resource rich part of Russia.

Not really, it's the most vast part of Russia, simply due to its size it has that much resources but it is taiga and tundra and other unexploitable territories for the most part.

Why would Britain be forced to sell? They’d sooner give it to the CS to ensure they keep their Caribbean ports.

Because you're broke? It's a very good deal to get rid of some useless Caribbean island for money you badly need and the CS isn't capable of buying it if they're going to have a civil war due to Entente investors pulling out.

Gives them a base in the Americas, if nothing else.

It isn't important to them, it would annoy the US and you aren't very preoccupied about naval supremacy over the Caribbean - the Spanish and CS will be willing to open their ports if you need them.

The US has its own issues to deal with- they won’t be outwardly investing all their wealth when there are enemies on every border. They’d still be influential, but they wouldn’t dominate.

On every border? GB is isolationist, the CS is in the middle of a civil war and once it exits it won't be in a position to threaten you and Mexico isn't unlikely to have a revolt which deposes the emperor.

Germany would invest a lot into Venezuela though- especially once the lack of Russian oil becomes clear. That investment could outmatch the US one if they’re not diligent.

Germany has Indonesia as an oil supply, they don't need to antagonize the US for control over the US.

Colonial revolts have a tendency to snowball- if they’re busy dealing with a large scale Indian revolt, a Malayan revolt is more difficult to pin down.

If they're busy with a serious Indian revolt they won't hold it for long.

Even if they don’t, they’ll remain an angry and bitter part of the empire.

Most of the Empire is angry and bitter, Quebec is the last of your issues.

France and Britain would be devastated economically- Germany would provide a much more stable trade partner. They wouldn’t be thrilled about Belgium, but German economic dominance is unavoidable.

Germany also is devastated, not as much as France but GB's industries are largely untouched and France will also end up recovering, the Dutch will buy a little bit from everywhere.

The talent honed in WW1 remained influential in France- and they became the old guard. A similar thing happens if you rely on WW1 to make distinguished Russian officers. Tukhachevsky was an exception- peasants like Zhukov and Konev would have a much more difficult time rising to high command. Even if you’re talented in your youth, the aging high command would stick to the WW1 tactics they know best.

They don't have to follow the path of France and I'm not so sure there were big talents in the French army.

You can’t “half-centralize” and leave your frontier to rot- it’s going to be impossible to fully exploit or defend in that case.

It's not half-centralize, developing some random tundra is useless for the moment, you centralize the urban centers and agricultural land, not even Stalin had control in what happened in the middle of nowhere where there are no people. And Russia will centralize, it doesn't have nobility and it still has a Tsar, who was put in place by the military but this can change.

 

[Krasno]

If they are in that village they have a job, it's when they don't have a job (which is unlikely to happen on the scale of Russia) they'll go to the cities and it's possible to give them a job, sure it might take a little bit but by the time we're talking there are no unemployed of this kind in Russia and even this happening is unlikely.

Unemployment has been a factor since the late 1800's- and only grew. Russia has no reason to be exempt from this.

You don't need that much troops, it'll likely not be very important and the ACW wasn't a civil war it was a war between two functioning states instead of being a few randomers trying to ambush US troops or massive strikes and fighting in the streets like most revolt would.

do you think a civil war entails disorganizaed revolt? its the American *civil war* thats what its called. And again, the issue isn't lacking troops, it's getting them there- and if the federal forces in California revolt (as they well could've) then that makes your job much harder.

I'm not saying that it will have a labour shortage, I'm saying that Russia absolutely outpopulates you meaning that even if their industries make half the goods yours do they will have a bigger industrial output, the important part is producing things who are worth more but luxury goods don't help you during wartime and their colonial empire lacks oil which is crucial for modern warfare.

What you're missing is that the vast majority of Russia's huge population is Agrarian- meaning, the vast majority of their population would only be producing food, not industrial goods. Even if you consider further Urbanization, Russia will have to invest in facilities for production continuously, and stimulate further urbanization to try and keep up with Germany- meanwhile Germany will be furthering their efficiency and production quality.

I would be more worried about the fact that your voter base is in another country now.

The Democrats had voters in the north- they were split between Northern Democrats and Dixiecrats. That won't stop the Democratic party as a whole from being tarnished, though.

LOL.
Context: we are during the Balkan Wars, AH has mobilized 6 army corps and in response Russia has partially mobilized. The Kaiser has called his war cabinet to talk about what the German response should be:
Von Moltke: We should have total mobilization and go to war immediately, otherwise Russia will be unstoppable.

That is after decades of tension and a Russian declaration of war against your ally, it was by no means Germany senselessly throwing themselves into a war- this was a deliberate expected action after a long game of geopolitics. Germany just saying "hurr durr we fight Russia now" after a destructive war without prior preparation and planning is just nonsense. This is a timeline where Russia has long been a German ally and played a part in German strategic aims- the situation is fundamentally different and so too is the reaction of the high command.

Now remember this is OTL Russia, which was completely defeated and had a revolution, imagine the Germans ITTL.

OTL Russia was a clear German enemy for decades beforehand; TTL Russia has just won a war together with Germany.

London still is very important since you see, everyone who isn't a fan of Germany prefers to invest elsewhere meaning that French, British and Russian investors prefer being there instead of Berlin. Wall Street is still extremely important and St.Petersburg is working on it.

Not many outside of those who fought in the war are going to have a strong enough opinion on Germany to choose Britain over them. Britain and Russia aren't exactly paragons of nonaggression, you know- it would just be changing the old for the new.

But those same goods are also produced in France and GB or at home, Germany isn't their only option and it would be the Dutch who sell raw materials to Germany since it badly needs oil.

Oil from where? Indonesian oil hadn't really been tapped until 1945. France, Britain and Germany don't all produce the same things.

The whole point of inviting American settlers there was to not have to develop it yourself while still getting some profits thanks to taxes and the US is not unlikely to get British Columbia and other parts of Canada in the WW1 peace deal.

American settlers would boost your population and settlement, but after the discovery of oil in Alaska there'd be a lot more Russian settlers, too. and the Russians would develop and garrison it once resources are found, no matter who settles it. Also, just before you were talking about how Britain would never give up the Suez- similarly, they'd never give up BC, it's far too important for pacific shipping.

Just as the Germans can overtake your navy and threaten all of your colonies since you cannot defend them anymore.

Britain can be somewhat assured of a victory or at least draw against the German navy- the same can't be said for defending their possessions from Russian land forces.

There are two enemies who can do that: Germany and Russia.

Russia threatens British oil and the Raj, the crown jewel of the Empire.

Which doesn't happen since France will join only when it is sure that it is a good opportunity, meaning when things start to go south for Germany.

this happens in WW1

Russia doesn't have interests in Scandinavia, they got Constantinople and will focus on that.

Constantinople only gives them a larger lake to be trapped in- obviously Scandinavian ports aren't their main priority, but they're large, powerful, and Scandinavia is largely in the German economic sphere, anyway.

A random bandit cannot rally some incredible force, 25 soldiers are largely enough and the bandits cannot hide theselves for long: Russia will make it clear what will happen if they aren't found soon.

Much of the armies of the warlords were just hired bandits who returned to banditry once campaigns were over- that is to say, China is RIFE with bandits. Russia can't directly intervene in every warlord clique where their supplies get lost in- especially not while at war with Germany. This would never happen anyway because what kind of idiot transports important resources through a chaotic warzone?

Not being repressed and assimilated diminishes your national identity, it's by living in troubled times together that a national identity arises if everything's fine then you don't have a problem with the existing system.

Russification has already been ongoing since long ago- there's already a developed national identity disloyal to you. Russia can either keep russifiying until theyre drowned out by settlers and assimilated or ease up only partially (because full reformation this early in the Russian empire is ASB) and allow said national identity to consolidate and threaten your rule. Russia will have to reform eventually, but that's not until after WW2 and there'll be angry ethnic minorities until then.

Vietnam war is completely different, that was a guerilla war in a country nobody heard about before where US troops were dying for nothing not a total world war.
There were strikes in WW2 but not in Germany, the same places where there were strikes there were resistance movements who tried to kick out the Germans.

This isn't an ideological war, as said before- people will be extremely discontent with continuing the war, especially with the rising deathtoll.

There may be some who will but most won't fight for that since everybody knows what happens to Poles in Germany, they aren't stupid you know.

no one cares about Germany- they care about getting rid of the Russians. No one in Poland is fighting for Germany, they're fighting because Germany gave them an opportunity to. Was the Warsaw uprising out of loyalty to the Soviets? No! And the Soviets openly split up their nation with the Nazis a few years back- it would be obvious to them that the Soviets would try to subjugate them, too- but the Soviets gave them an opportunity to revolt as the Germans were retreating and they did so.

Combine the most agitated people of all of Europe with their most hated foe and you will get an explosive cocktail. If the Germans resort to violence, the French will retaliate.

What's France going to do?

Not really, it's the most vast part of Russia, simply due to its size it has that much resources but it is taiga and tundra and other unexploitable territories for the most part.

Russian timber is a massive raw material export, for one- and secondly, many of the minerals and metals needed for war are located in Siberian mines.

Because you're broke? It's a very good deal to get rid of some useless Caribbean island for money you badly need and the CS isn't capable of buying it if they're going to have a civil war due to Entente investors pulling out.

That's only if the Island becomes unprofitable.

It isn't important to them, it would annoy the US and you aren't very preoccupied about naval supremacy over the Caribbean - the Spanish and CS will be willing to open their ports if you need them.

Gran Colombia has that sweet oil- an island in the Caribbean to store your oil at before you ship it to the mainland is useful.

On every border? GB is isolationist, the CS is in the middle of a civil war and once it exits it won't be in a position to threaten you and Mexico isn't unlikely to have a revolt which deposes the emperor.

I didn't say immediate threat- I said enemy.

Germany has Indonesia as an oil supply, they don't need to antagonize the US for control over the US.

What oil in Indonesia? significant production didn't occur until after WW2 OTL.

If they're busy with a serious Indian revolt they won't hold it for long.

agree.

Most of the Empire is angry and bitter, Quebec is the last of your issues.

You kidding? Quebec owns the St. Lawrence, which is a major shipping route and your connection to the great lakes. (And more importantly, your English speaking colonies in Canada.)

Germany also is devastated, not as much as France but GB's industries are largely untouched and France will also end up recovering, the Dutch will buy a little bit from everywhere.

Germany won't be nearly as devastated- there would be next to no fighting on German soil.

They don't have to follow the path of France and I'm not so sure there were big talents in the French army.

What you're saying fixes their command issues IS the path of France, though.

It's not half-centralize, developing some random tundra is useless for the moment, you centralize the urban centers and agricultural land, not even Stalin had control in what happened in the middle of nowhere where there are no people. And Russia will centralize, it doesn't have nobility and it still has a Tsar, who was put in place by the military but this can change.

The lack of autocracy means a less centralized Russia- better for the nation longterm, but they will need to take time to fully adjust to the war.

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

Unemployment has been a factor since the late 1800's- and only grew. Russia has no reason to be exempt from this.

Not enough to be the majority nor anything significant and what do you mean by it grew since the late 1800's?

do you think a civil war entails disorganizaed revolt? its the American *civil war* thats what its called. And again, the issue isn't lacking troops, it's getting them there- and if the federal forces in California revolt (as they well could've) then that makes your job much harder.

The Mormons who will revolt won't be very organized and I doubt all of the Federal troops would be willing to revolt, maybe that's the reason why the general refused to revolt because he knew he wouldn't rally his subordinates' support.

What you're missing is that the vast majority of Russia's huge population is Agrarian- and even with Urbanization, Russia will have to invest in facilities for Production continuously to try and keep up with Germany.

In 90 years and the Interwar period, it won't be majority agrarian; urbanisation will come and again they don't need to develop some tundra, they need to develop lands on which things are produced, not that difficult.

The Democrats had voters in the north- they were split between Northern Democrats and Dixiecrats. That won't stop the Democratic party as a whole from being tarnished, though.

Well there were much more voters in the South than the North and once racist/slavery=south they will lose votes, though I doubt it would arrive immediately.

That is after decades of tension and a Russian declaration of war against your ally, it was by no means Germany senselessly throwing themselves into a war- this was a deliberate expected action after a long game of geopolitics. Germany just saying "hurr durr we fight Russia now" after a destructive war without prior preparation and planning is just nonsense. This is a timeline where Russia has long been a German ally and played a part in German strategic aims- the situation is fundamentally different and so too is the reaction of the high command.

Russia didn't declare war on anyone at that point, it was Germany who was deliberately trying to cause a war, IOTL Wilhelm II was against war probably because he had a close relationship with Nicky II, here it doesn't happen so there is basically no one opposing war.
They wanted to fight Russia because they thought it was a threat and that's why they didn't ally OTL, here they would be worried both because of OTL reason and because they have clearly saw the potential of Russia and how close they are to surpass Germany, the Germans are similar to what they were OTL and they would be extremely worried.
The Germans consider allying with Russia a necessity, they did not consider it a trusted ally.
They will at least consider seriously going to war with Russia soon.

OTL Russia was a clear German enemy for decades beforehand; TTL Russia has just won a war together with Germany.

The Germans people probably wouldn't hate them but the German leadership will be extremely distrustful, the USSR and the US won a war together and it didn't prevent them to risk war a few years later and threaten to nuclear oblivion a few times.

Not many outside of those who fought in the war are going to have a strong enough opinion on Germany to choose Britain over them. Britain and Russia aren't exactly paragons of nonaggression, you know- it would just be changing the old for the new.

Russia and Germany have no interests in antagonizing Britain and the Brits want to be left in peace, they won't join a second destructive war.

Oil from where? Indonesian oil hadn't really been tapped until 1945. France, Britain and Germany don't all produce the same things.

It was found in 1883, why do you think the Japanese would try to conquer it if there was no oil? It would be much more than the oil found in Gran Colombia or Kuwait since the oilfields are more developed.
It's precisely because they produce different things that they won't be dominated by Germany, they will buy what they need from one of the three not necessarily from Germany.

American settlers would boost your population and settlement, but after the discovery of oil in Alaska there'd be a lot more Russian settlers, too. and the Russians would develop and garrison it once resources are found, no matter who settles it. Also, just before you were talking about how Britain would never give up the Suez- similarly, they'd never give up BC, it's far too important for pacific shipping.

The whole point of inviting the US was to have less troubles in colonizing, there would be Russian settlers but these are divided between Manchuria, CA and Alaska, They wouldn't be attracted by the discovery of oil, they would come after the discovery of gold.
British Columbia isn't important, GB has its Pacific ports in Japan or Australia.

Britain can be somewhat assured of a victory or at least draw against the German navy- the same can't be said for defending their possessions from Russian land forces.

The British navy is probably limited after WW1, Germany wants to dominate the seas and that is a direct threat for GB, if they helped Germany that would mean losing their hegemony over the seas while Russia can theoretically try to conquer the Raj in the future that is as threatening as Germany potentially overtaking GB on the seas: without their navy they won't be able to supply their colonies neither against an invasion nor in case of a rebellion meaning that they would risk the loss of the Raj and almost all of their empire.

Russia threatens British oil and the Raj, the crown jewel of the Empire.

Just as German dominance over the seas.

this happens in WW1

Which is why they won't do it now, the leaders of France would want to avoid the suffering of WW1, though it is possible that they join but they wouldn't immediately do so.

Constantinople only gives them a larger lake to be trapped in- obviously Scandinavian ports aren't their main priority, but they're large, powerful, and Scandinavia is largely in the German economic sphere, anyway.

I would say that Scandinavia is neutral, it makes much more sense to buy raw materials from Russia and Russia also has industries so they could sell things to them.

Much of the armies of the warlords were just hired bandits who returned to banditry once campaigns were over- that is to say, China is RIFE with bandits. Russia can't directly intervene in every warlord clique where their supplies get lost in- especially not while at war with Germany. This would never happen anyway because what kind of idiot transports important resources through a chaotic warzone?

Chaotic warzone, where the trains passes there is no banditry, it passes trough urban centers not in the middle of nowhere where they could do this and this is assuming Japan joins and is able to last enough to threaten this and if we really want to there is the Polar route and Iran.

Russification has already been ongoing since long ago- there's already a developed national identity disloyal to you. Russia can either keep russifiying until theyre drowned out by settlers and assimilated or ease up only partially (because full reformation this early in the Russian empire is ASB) and allow said national identity to consolidate and threaten your rule. Russia will have to reform eventually, but that's not until after WW2 and there'll be angry ethnic minorities until then.

Not really, if you don't do anything crazy for a while, they will be less angry; Russia obviously would do some Russification but the worse of it doesn't happen.

This isn't an ideological war, as said before- people will be extremely discontent with continuing the war, especially with the rising deathtoll.

Remember me how many strikes there were in Germany before 1918? Russia may have some troubles but by that time Germany is nearing economic collapse since their finances are are going very badly, GB was the economic center of the world and they didn't have to import food and raw materials from somewhere but without the US it was going to collapse in 1918.

no one cares about Germany- they care about getting rid of the Russians. No one in Poland is fighting for Germany, they're fighting because Germany gave them an opportunity to. Was the Warsaw uprising out of loyalty to the Soviets? No! And the Soviets openly split up their nation with the Nazis a few years back- it would be obvious to them that the Soviets would try to subjugate them, too- but the Soviets gave them an opportunity to revolt as the Germans were retreating and they did so.

We're talking about a revolt against Nazi Germany, the situation is very different with a country that doesn't have the intention of genociding them.

What's France going to do?

Support the rebels obviously, will they succeed? Probably not, but it is a headache for the rest of your existence.

Russian timber is a massive raw material export, for one- and secondly, many of the minerals and metals needed for war are located in Siberian mines.

I'm saying that isn't the priority of Russia in the 1850's, Siberia WILL get developed but there aren't some massives costs because you have to pay for education of a random inhabitant of the steppe in Siberia.

That's only if the Island becomes unprofitable.

The whole British empire was unprofitable and a drain for the metropole.

Gran Colombia has that sweet oil- an island in the Caribbean to store your oil at before you ship it to the mainland is useful.

Cuba can do the job, the Spanish are very willing to allow shipping.

I didn't say immediate threat- I said enemy.

GB doesn't care, it isn't an enemy.

What oil in Indonesia? significant production didn't occur until after WW2 OTL.

I could argue the same exact thing with Venezuela, Kuwait and Iraq.

You kidding? Quebec owns the St. Lawrence, which is a major shipping route and your connection to the great lakes. (And more importantly, your English speaking colonies in Canada.)

The Jewel of the Crown is worth more than that, Quebec will only do a few strikes at worst.

Germany won't be nearly as devastated- there would be next to no fighting on German soil.

It still isn't easy to return to peacetime economy and GB also didn't have any fighting on its soil.

What you're saying fixes their command issues IS the path of France, though.

It helps to fix it, it won't be perfect but it will be fine and Germany will take the same path if you assume that anything similar to France will become like France.

The lack of autocracy means a less centralized Russia- better for the nation longterm, but they will need to take time to fully adjust to the war.

Take time doesn't mean that much, OTL Russia controlled things fine during wartime, it's just that due to mismanagement it ended vey badly for them.

 

[Krasno]

Not enough to be the majority nor anything significant and what do you mean by it grew since the late 1800's?

It doesn’t need to be a majority- but you can’t have an industrializing nation with increasing urbanization and fully avoid unemployment. Those disadvantaged, poor, and hungry workers would form the power base of extremist ideologies.

The Mormons who will revolt won't be very organized and I doubt all of the Federal troops would be willing to revolt, maybe that's the reason why the general refused to revolt because he knew he wouldn't rally his subordinates' support.

The Mormons largely administered themselves- they had the advantage of being so far disconnected and isolated that it gave them a degree of autonomy- the Church also provides a convenient organizational structure that’s well established and already exists.

As for California, I was thinking of having governor Weller secede with the help of that commander- which proceeds into a Californian civil war between loyalists and rebels, largely disconnected from the wider conflict in the east due to the lack of infrastructure connecting them.

In 90 years and the Interwar period, it won't be majority agrarian; urbanisation will come and again they don't need to develop some tundra, they need to develop lands on which things are produced, not that difficult.

Building up a new industrial centre takes time- and if they want to match Germany, they’re going to need many of them across Russia, which is a very long process.

Well there were much more voters in the South than the North and once racist/slavery=south they will lose votes, though I doubt it would arrive immediately.

Yeah. I was thinking of having the two major parties still be around, but with much less influence OTL- which allows other parties to flourish.

Russia didn't declare war on anyone at that point, it was Germany who was deliberately trying to cause a war, IOTL Wilhelm II was against war probably because he had a close relationship with Nicky II, here it doesn't happen so there is basically no one opposing war.
They wanted to fight Russia because they thought it was a threat and that's why they didn't ally OTL, here they would be worried both because of OTL reason and because they have clearly saw the potential of Russia and how close they are to surpass Germany, the Germans are similar to what they were OTL and they would be extremely worried.
The Germans consider allying with Russia a necessity, they did not consider it a trusted ally.
They will at least consider seriously going to war with Russia soon.

Attacking Russia so soon after WW1 would be like operation unthinkable after WW2- the high command viewed their allies as a threat and some (Churchill) wanted to go to war, but the public backlash and war exhaustion would still be too great to actually go through with it. Obviously without nukes it would happen eventually, but I’m still betting on a late start date.

The Germans people probably wouldn't hate them but the German leadership will be extremely distrustful, the USSR and the US won a war together and it didn't prevent them to risk war a few years later and threaten to nuclear oblivion a few times.

and yet, operation unthinkable remained a fantasy, even when the Soviets didn’t have nukes until a good decade after the war.

Russia and Germany have no interests in antagonizing Britain and the Brits want to be left in peace, they won't join a second destructive war.

They have interest in bringing them to their side or at least blocking them from aiding their partner, though; once Britain becomes a vital supply port for both powers they become a strategic part of the war, whether they like it or not.

It was found in 1883, why do you think the Japanese would try to conquer it if there was no oil? It would be much more than the oil found in Gran Colombia or Kuwait since the oilfields are more developed.
It's precisely because they produce different things that they won't be dominated by Germany, they will buy what they need from one of the three not necessarily from Germany.

It was found in 1883, but significant domestic production didn’t start until 1945- the Japanese don’t have other options, so they were forced to try and develop Indonesia’s, Germany can easily trade with Gran Colombia and their well established oil fields. Also, Venezuela (part of Gran Colombia ITTL) has 18% of the worlds oil, so they’re a bit more useful than Indonesia there.

The whole point of inviting the US was to have less troubles in colonizing, there would be Russian settlers but these are divided between Manchuria, CA and Alaska, They wouldn't be attracted by the discovery of oil, they would come after the discovery of gold.
British Columbia isn't important, GB has its Pacific ports in Japan or Australia.

Convenient as the Americans are, that doesn’t mean Russia loses control over Alaska- they’d still have a significant Russian migrant population, and Russian troops would be there guarding against Britain. Also, BC is an important pit stop for Britain on the North Pacific- Japan ISNT their colony, for one, and Australia is way down south. It’s also a lot more convenient to ship British-American products

The British navy is probably limited after WW1, Germany wants to dominate the seas and that is a direct threat for GB, if they helped Germany that would mean losing their hegemony over the seas while Russia can theoretically try to conquer the Raj in the future that is as threatening as Germany potentially overtaking GB on the seas: without their navy they won't be able to supply their colonies neither against an invasion nor in case of a rebellion meaning that they would risk the loss of the Raj and almost all of their empire.

How would the CP force Britain to limit their navy? Britain remains Navalny dominant till the end of the conflict- and the navy is hugely important not just for British strategic reasons but also for British pride. Britain would not accept a peace deal that guts its navy.

Just as German dominance over the seas.

Would not happen.

Which is why they won't do it now, the leaders of France would want to avoid the suffering of WW1, though it is possible that they join but they wouldn't immediately do so.

??? I’m talking about Spain invading Portugal in WW1

I would say that Scandinavia is neutral, it makes much more sense to buy raw materials from Russia and Russia also has industries so they could sell things to them.

Scandinavia doesn’t really have need for Russian materials like timber (since they already have that) and Scandinavia already enjoyed strong economic ties to Germany- there would be trade, of course, but I don’t see Russia replacing Germany in Scandinavia.

Chaotic warzone, where the trains passes there is no banditry, it passes trough urban centers not in the middle of nowhere where they could do this and this is assuming Japan joins and is able to last enough to threaten this and if we really want to there is the Polar route and Iran.

What’s in between the urban centres? Or is it teleporting from city to city?

Not really, if you don't do anything crazy for a while, they will be less angry; Russia obviously would do some Russification but the worse of it doesn't happen.

“Some” Russification is already pretty awful in the eyes of the average minority. The depressions may not have been quite as brutal, but there would still be oppression- and assimilation into Russian identity remains a priority for Russia.

Remember me how many strikes there were in Germany before 1918? Russia may have some troubles but by that time Germany is nearing economic collapse since their finances are are going very badly, GB was the economic center of the world and they didn't have to import food and raw materials from somewhere but without the US it was going to collapse in 1918.

Russia is going to be suffering similar economic struggles- they have vast resources, but if they’re fighting a total war then that’s going to be taking its effect on the average person. Also, there were at least two quite influential strikes in Germany during ww1- one of had nearly a million people participating at its peak.

We're talking about a revolt against Nazi Germany, the situation is very different with a country that doesn't have the intention of genociding them.

The Poles already despise Russian rule- it doesn’t take a genocide to make people revolt.

Support the rebels obviously, will they succeed? Probably not, but it is a headache for the rest of your existence.

Wouldn’t Germany just not want that territory, then? Even the French after WW1 began to moderate their demands to just the Saar- wouldn’t Germany, who doesn’t have the same burning passion for the French, look for some other concession?

I'm saying that isn't the priority of Russia in the 1850's, Siberia WILL get developed but there aren't some massives costs because you have to pay for education of a random inhabitant of the steppe in Siberia.

Siberia needs an intellectual and organizational elite- that is to say, they need at least a partially educated populace. OTL that was the Decembrists who were sent east- without them, though, Siberia doesn’t get its intellectual core- and is thus more difficult to administer.

The whole British empire was unprofitable and a drain for the metropole.

That’s a stretch. Britain industrialized BECAUSE it had an empire- those raw resources are still important.

Cuba can do the job, the Spanish are very willing to allow shipping.

The exact problem is that it’s Spanish, though- get the Spanish to be your enemy and now you’re locked out of the Carribean.

GB doesn't care, it isn't an enemy.

There would be 5 decades of animosity between the two- that doesn’t disappear overnight.

I could argue the same exact thing with Venezuela, Kuwait and Iraq.

Venezuela ramped up production of their oil in the 20’s OTL, which would come sooner if Gran Colombia controls it- Iraq and Kuwait began significant production in the 20’s OTL under the Turkish (now Iraqi) oil company- which also would’ve come sooner with more significant investments from Britain and France. Nothing changes in Indonesia significantly to make them start producing before WW2.

The Jewel of the Crown is worth more than that, Quebec will only do a few strikes at worst.

It’s important for Britain not to lose Quebec, though.

It still isn't easy to return to peacetime economy and GB also didn't have any fighting on its soil.

Germany won the war, though- they’d extract war reparations from France (who’d be the most devastated of the great powers).

It helps to fix it, it won't be perfect but it will be fine and Germany will take the same path if you assume that anything similar to France will become like France.

Germany has a history of Prussian Meritocracy- their command issues don’t suffer the same legacy of nepotism. Russia and France do.

Take time doesn't mean that much, OTL Russia controlled things fine during wartime, it's just that due to mismanagement it ended vey badly for them.

??? Did they control things fine or were they mismanaged?

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

It doesn’t need to be a majority- but you can’t have an industrializing nation with increasing urbanization and fully avoid unemployment. Those disadvantaged, poor, and hungry workers would form the power base of extremist ideologies.

Believe me in 90 years there are almost no unemployed left.
Though it would be interesting to see how socialism develops in Russia(I do not mean communism).

The Mormons largely administered themselves- they had the advantage of being so far disconnected and isolated that it gave them a degree of autonomy- the Church also provides a convenient organizational structure that’s well established and already exists.

Yes, but that means that they don't see much point in rebelling since they already administer themselves.

As for California, I was thinking of having governor Weller secede with the help of that commander- which proceeds into a Californian civil war between loyalists and rebels, largely disconnected from the wider conflict in the east due to the lack of infrastructure connecting them.

I still don't see California winning, the US had very well could've transported soldiers there as shown in the Mexican-American war.
Also to have the CS succeed you need the war to be as short as possible since the longer it lasts the more the North's advantage becomes evident and the less GB and France are enthusiast about joining.

Building up a new industrial centre takes time- and if they want to match Germany, they’re going to need many of them across Russia, which is a very long process.

Russia has started industrializing very close to the time other GP did, infrastructure will take time but they will manage it.

Yeah. I was thinking of having the two major parties still be around, but with much less influence OTL- which allows other parties to flourish.

They probably aren't completely dead but the US system doesn't allow them to gain any electoral votes.

Attacking Russia so soon after WW1 would be like operation unthinkable after WW2- the high command viewed their allies as a threat and some (Churchill) wanted to go to war, but the public backlash and war exhaustion would still be too great to actually go through with it. Obviously without nukes it would happen eventually, but I’m still betting on a late start date.

This isn't going to war immediately, this is going to war in a decade after the war, WW3 could've started in 1949 if it wasn't for the atomic bomb.

and yet, operation unthinkable remained a fantasy, even when the Soviets didn’t have nukes until a good decade after the war.

They had the first test in 1949 and it was largely due to the fact that the Soviets didn't want to go to war because they didn't have nukes and the US didn't want to go to war because the Soviets had the largest and best army in the world, here the German army can compete with the Russian one, the only question is for how long will they be supplied enough to manage to do so.

They have interest in bringing them to their side or at least blocking them from aiding their partner, though; once Britain becomes a vital supply port for both powers they become a strategic part of the war, whether they like it or not.

Russia can avoid being reliant on GB, they can buy rubber from Indonesia and Southern Iran is in the British sphere but that doesn't mean they can stop themselves rubber from passing (since they would have to force the Shah but money can buy everything) nor do they want to.
Germany would be reliant on GB but it would also trade with other countries and the Brits will just do profit out of it not really try to influence it.

It was found in 1883, but significant domestic production didn’t start until 1945- the Japanese don’t have other options, so they were forced to try and develop Indonesia’s, Germany can easily trade with Gran Colombia and their well established oil fields. Also, Venezuela (part of Gran Colombia ITTL) has 18% of the worlds oil, so they’re a bit more useful than Indonesia there.

Gran Colombian oilfields aren't very developed either, they just found oil a in 1910's just as Southern Mesopotamia. 18% is today, at the time most of the oil wasn't found yet.

Convenient as the Americans are, that doesn’t mean Russia loses control over Alaska- they’d still have a significant Russian migrant population, and Russian troops would be there guarding against Britain. Also, BC is an important pit stop for Britain on the North Pacific- Japan ISNT their colony, for one, and Australia is way down south. It’s also a lot more convenient to ship British-American products

Alaska would have much more US population than it will ever have Russians and those will want to be a part of the US just as Texas did, in the long run it isn't unlikely to be bought by the US since Russia wouldn't want to have trouble with the US and also potentially after WW1 to help your recovery.
Japan is a puppet of the British, not a direct colony but still in its sphere, BC isn't that important to the British since they don't have much in the North Pacific that they care about and since we can change anything maybe Hawaii is British ITTL.

How would the CP force Britain to limit their navy? Britain remains Navalny dominant till the end of the conflict- and the navy is hugely important not just for British strategic reasons but also for British pride. Britain would not accept a peace deal that guts its navy.

GB would be forced to, they are bankrupt and continuing the war will mean losing much more of your empire. Germany wants to limit the British navy since they want to dominate the seas and you have to nerf Britain somehow, they wouldn't be able to demand less ships for GB than for Germany but they would prevent them from having too much of them.

Would not happen.

Just as for the Raj, the simple threat is enough to scare Britain, the Germans don't have a better navy than you for now, but once they've won and have all of the resources they could ever need what's stopping them from trying to overtake you? It's as likely as Russia invading the Raj.

??? I’m talking about Spain invading Portugal in WW1

The Germans would probably try to Schlieffen France at some point but such offensives in the middle of the war are much less likely to succeed. Outright collapse is unlikely, unless it's at the very end of the war but that would mean that Spain doesn't have the time to conquer much.

Scandinavia doesn’t really have need for Russian materials like timber (since they already have that) and Scandinavia already enjoyed strong economic ties to Germany- there would be trade, of course, but I don’t see Russia replacing Germany in Scandinavia.

Raw materials like oil, there would be trade with both and none of the two would be able to control Scandinavia thanks to that.

What’s in between the urban centres? Or is it teleporting from city to city?

Rivers and railroads, even OTL Russia had railroads between its major cities.

“Some” Russification is already pretty awful in the eyes of the average minority. The depressions may not have been quite as brutal, but there would still be oppression- and assimilation into Russian identity remains a priority for Russia.

The worst of the policies aren't there, it still is minority you cannot expect them to do nothing but it wouldn't be enough to be more than unhappy, they didn't revolt OTL, they won't do it here.

Russia is going to be suffering similar economic struggles- they have vast resources, but if they’re fighting a total war then that’s going to be taking its effect on the average person. Also, there were at least two quite influential strikes in Germany during ww1- one of had nearly a million people participating at its peak.

The one in January 1918 and? At that point people were starting to starve, Russia will be in a much better shape than Germany when a similar thing happens in WW2, they will have problems but not to Germany's extent.

The Poles already despise Russian rule- it doesn’t take a genocide to make people revolt.

They didn't try OTL, it's not like Russian troops weren't having problems; there are problems but they are much, MUCH worse when people starve.

Siberia needs an intellectual and organizational elite- that is to say, they need at least a partially educated populace. OTL that was the Decembrists who were sent east- without them, though, Siberia doesn’t get its intellectual core- and is thus more difficult to administer.

The Decembrists weren't the only reason it had one, there were very few Decembrists sent there, most went to fight in the Caucasus and it's not like they will do nothing, what I'm saying is that not everywhere needs to be developed to the extent Europe is, you have one railroad which passes Siberia but would you say that the USSR needed another one?

That’s a stretch. Britain industrialized BECAUSE it had an empire- those raw resources are still important.

Not really, the industrial revolution happened because of technological advancements and early on all resource needed for it were in Britain.
The Empire was a drain for their resources, they needed to garrison a lot of colonies which were unprofitable because there simply were too much and the ones who were profiting from this were companies which extracted raw materials and therefore didn't went in imperial coffers, that's why neo-colonialism is much more profitable.

The exact problem is that it’s Spanish, though- get the Spanish to be your enemy and now you’re locked out of the Carribean.

Why would Germany and Spain have conflicts?

There would be 5 decades of animosity between the two- that doesn’t disappear overnight.

The US got its victory, once you've won you aren't very enthusiast to go to war again, and Britain certainly doesn't want to get involved in a silly war with the US. There would be tensions but not much would happen.

Venezuela ramped up production of their oil in the 20’s OTL, which would come sooner if Gran Colombia controls it- Iraq and Kuwait began significant production in the 20’s OTL under the Turkish (now Iraqi) oil company- which also would’ve come sooner with more significant investments from Britain and France. Nothing changes in Indonesia significantly to make them start producing before WW2.

Not sure about that, they had oil production sure but they weren't particularly important on the global level.

It’s important for Britain not to lose Quebec, though.

Apart from a few Anglicization policies they don't have major problems, they don't have a reason to risk their lives to get independence, yet.

Germany won the war, though- they’d extract war reparations from France (who’d be the most devastated of the great powers).

If you exclude the fact that AH and OE literally stopped existing yes. France would be very weakened after the war but they still would produce things.

Germany has a history of Prussian Meritocracy- their command issues don’t suffer the same legacy of nepotism. Russia and France do.

Apart from Hindenburg and Ludendorff they are also incompetent.

??? Did they control things fine or were they mismanaged?

They controlled things, it's just that they mobilized too many peasants and sent most of the food in the Imperial court, you know how well that went.

 

[Krasno]

Believe me in 90 years there are almost no unemployed left.
Though it would be interesting to see how socialism develops in Russia(I do not mean communism).

I don’t see that happening without some very farsighted reforms that wouldn’t have been realistic for anybody in the early 20th century.

This is the time of unrestricted capitalism with almost no labour rights- bosses can fire employees at will, hire strikebreakers and any other sort of nefarious activity.

Yes, but that means that they don't see much point in rebelling since they already administer themselves.

It was clear their isolation wouldn’t last forever- it could’ve been a last ditch effort secure true independence.

I still don't see California winning, the US had very well could've transported soldiers there as shown in the Mexican-American war.

They didn’t have a massive civil war going on during the Mexican-American war- the soldiers they are able to send will arrive quite late, in enough time that the breakaway states will have been able to consolidate themselves and be ready for a federal response.

Also to have the CS succeed you need the war to be as short as possible since the longer it lasts the more the North's advantage becomes evident and the less GB and France are enthusiast about joining.

If things continually go downhill in the US (Draft riots of NYC turn into a secessionist revolt for “tri-insula”, Copperheads in the Ohio river valley revolt) then a longer war may be in the CSA’s favour- since the US will be busy putting down revolts all around, forcing them to come to terms with the CSA to consolidate themselves.

Russia has started industrializing very close to the time other GP did, infrastructure will take time but they will manage it.

Infrastructure will take MASSIVELY more time, though- even if you’re only industrializing European Russia, that’s larger than multiple other great powers combined. And unless Russia only industrialized Moscow and Petersburg to keep it small (which brings its own problems) they’re going to be taking a lot longer to fully industrialize than Germany.

They probably aren't completely dead but the US system doesn't allow them to gain any electoral votes.

I can see them still winning the presidency immediately following and a few years after the civil war- but after that they have to compete with several other parties.

This isn't going to war immediately, this is going to war in a decade after the war, WW3 could've started in 1949 if it wasn't for the atomic bomb.

The countries aren’t going to economically recover in a decade. Also, no- attacking the Soviets in 1949 OTL would vindicate them in the eyes of many western civilians- “here we have the communists, who have been our allies in taking down the Nazi menace, and now we’re attacking them? Are we the imperialistic baddies?”

They had the first test in 1949 and it was largely due to the fact that the Soviets didn't want to go to war because they didn't have nukes and the US didn't want to go to war because the Soviets had the largest and best army in the world, here the German army can compete with the Russian one, the only question is for how long will they be supplied enough to manage to do so.

The soviets could’ve been handily beaten following WW2 IMO- the main thing stopping them is that it would’ve been political suicide to fight your former ally so soon after everyone remembers fighting with them, as well as war exhaustion. Propaganda takes more than 5 years, or even a decade, to really shift public opinion- especially in that time without the internet or mass communication.

Russia can avoid being reliant on GB, they can buy rubber from Indonesia and Southern Iran is in the British sphere but that doesn't mean they can stop themselves rubber from passing (since they would have to force the Shah but money can buy everything) nor do they want to.

Russia is reliant on Britain to not stop their rubber shipping- Germany will want to win over Britain precisely because Britain can chokehold Russia’s Rubber supply.

Germany would be reliant on GB but it would also trade with other countries and the Brits will just do profit out of it not really try to influence it.

It’s not really the Brit’s choice- they present a strategic way to end the war, the Powers would have a vested interest in them.

Gran Colombian oilfields aren't very developed either, they just found oil a in 1910's just as Southern Mesopotamia. 18% is today, at the time most of the oil wasn't found yet.

They started significant production in the 1920’s, which would come earlier if Gran Colombia is a more major power.

Alaska would have much more US population than it will ever have Russians and those will want to be a part of the US just as Texas did, in the long run it isn't unlikely to be bought by the US since Russia wouldn't want to have trouble with the US and also potentially after WW1 to help your recovery.

This is why I wanted America to lose its pacific holdings- it makes buying Alaska unrealistic, and a Balkanized North America is far more interesting. And I wouldn’t say there’d be so overwhelmingly many Americans- there’d be more than Russians at some points, yeah, but it’s still a frozen tundra, and continued Russian rule means continued Russian migration (even if it’s slow)

Japan is a puppet of the British, not a direct colony but still in its sphere, BC isn't that important to the British since they don't have much in the North Pacific that they care about and since we can change anything maybe Hawaii is British ITTL.

It’s vital in the sense of Britains North American possessions- if you’re extracting resources from Manitoba, it’s far more convenient to set sail from BC than it is to go around the Panama Canal. The US loses its western fringes ITTL, anyway.

GB would be forced to, they are bankrupt and continuing the war will mean losing much more of your empire. Germany wants to limit the British navy since they want to dominate the seas and you have to nerf Britain somehow, they wouldn't be able to demand less ships for GB than for Germany but they would prevent them from having too much of them.

Britain isn’t a defeated power like France or AH- they haven’t been subjugated, and they can still continue the war- this is a peace deal to end the war with Britain because it is in all senses a stalemate. Britain would never allow a limit on its Navy unless its already losing on the sea, which wouldn’t happen.

Just as for the Raj, the simple threat is enough to scare Britain, the Germans don't have a better navy than you for now, but once they've won and have all of the resources they could ever need what's stopping them from trying to overtake you? It's as likely as Russia invading the Raj.

I wouldn’t say so- the Kriegsmarine would’ve been decisively beaten in the war, while the RN escapes with a black eye. It’ll take a while before Germany rebuilds its navy to its former heights, much less be able to challenge Britain- and in that time, Germany may find Britain too important against Russia to risk threatening their navy.

The Germans would probably try to Schlieffen France at some point but such offensives in the middle of the war are much less likely to succeed. Outright collapse is unlikely, unless it's at the very end of the war but that would mean that Spain doesn't have the time to conquer much.

The war likely won’t end until France fully collapsed- can you imagine France surrendering prematurely in WW1?

Raw materials like oil, there would be trade with both and none of the two would be able to control Scandinavia thanks to that.

German firms and companies already have a strong presence in Scandinavia- Russia would be relegated to some raw resources. Germany certainly holds more sway.

Rivers and railroads, even OTL Russia had railroads between its major cities.

This is warlord China we’re talking about- and those railroads don’t go through nowhere, they’re passing through unprotected countryside and frontier where bandits are prone to roaming.

The worst of the policies aren't there, it still is minority you cannot expect them to do nothing but it wouldn't be enough to be more than unhappy, they didn't revolt OTL, they won't do it here.

It would basically be the same thing with less armed suppression- they’d still be forced to learn Russian, be flooded with Russian migrants, and in some cases be banned from speaking their native language in public.

The one in January 1918 and? At that point people were starting to starve, Russia will be in a much better shape than Germany when a similar thing happens in WW2, they will have problems but not to Germany's extent.

The Berlin strike of 1916- but those are just the major ones, there were hundreds of strikes throughout Germany during WW1. People strike even when they’re not hungry, and when their leaders decide not to- even though major trade unions agreed not to strike during the war, workers gathered around “revolutionary stewards” and organized strikes nonetheless.

They didn't try OTL, it's not like Russian troops weren't having problems; there are problems but they are much, MUCH worse when people starve.

They did, multiple times- reading more about it now, Poles did start to have more pro-Russian sympathies after the liberalization of 1905- so they may not revolt- but that still leaves all the troublesome minorities who would still struggle under Russian rule (namely, the muslims)

The Decembrists weren't the only reason it had one, there were very few Decembrists sent there, most went to fight in the Caucasus and it's not like they will do nothing, what I'm saying is that not everywhere needs to be developed to the extent Europe is, you have one railroad which passes Siberia but would you say that the USSR needed another one?

Much of the early infrastructure (including schools) in Siberia was built by the Decembrists sent east- it is what made them easier to administer. I’m not even talking so much about railroads as I am about schools and hospitals.

Not really, the industrial revolution happened because of technological advancements and early on all resource needed for it were in Britain.

The raw materials that came from the colonies was a vast part of Britains produced goods- without timber, cotton, and gold (none of which were in massive amounts in Britain) industrialization would’ve been much slower. There were some unsuccesful colonies, but on the whole the empire enriched Britain through exploitation.

The Empire was a drain for their resources, they needed to garrison a lot of colonies which were unprofitable because there simply were too much and the ones who were profiting from this were companies which extracted raw materials and therefore didn't went in imperial coffers, that's why neo-colonialism is much more profitable.

Neocolonialism is more profitable now, where nationalism has grown to become commonplace and the idea of the nationstate is part of the national consciousness- but at that time, to say that the Empire wasn’t vastly profitable for Britain as a whole is wrong- even if it drained some Human Resources in times of revolt, it payed it back tenfold in the copper, tin, flax, and numerous other products growing the British economy.

Why would Germany and Spain have conflicts?

Spain would be more inclined to Italy as a Mediterranean partner, and the continued alliance of Germany and Italy wouldn’t be assured after the Russo-German split- Germany would have bought this island prior to WW1, anyways.

The US got its victory, once you've won you aren't enthusiast to go to war again, and Britain certainly doesn't want to get involved in a silly war with the US. There would be tensions but not much would happen.

(Note: this pretty much what would happen between Russia and Germany, no?) and I’m not talking about the likeliness of another war- they’d remain politically enemies. Britain supported what was essentially the collapse of the US, relations would remain unfriendly.

Not sure about that, they had oil production sure but they weren't particularly important on the global level.

They were developed far earlier to Indonesia- if Germany gets its hands on one of them, then they’d be prioritizing that, and thus increasing their oil production.

Apart from a few Anglicization policies they don't have major problems, they don't have a reason to risk their lives to get independence, yet.

Conscription was vastly unpopular OTL- it’s not assured that Britain keeps the Quebecois as colonial garrisons like OTL, so if they’re forced to go to war with Britain in WW1, it could spell revolt.

If you exclude the fact that AH and OE literally stopped existing yes. France would be very weakened after the war but they still would produce things.

While AB and the OE are dissolved, they don’t see the same level of prolonged fighting as France, thanks to their quicker, more mobile defeats- France would’ve gone through a year or two of gruelling warfare in the northeast, causing massive destruction, before total collapse.

Apart from Hindenburg and Ludendorff they are also incompetent.

Germany had a lot more competent officers than Russia did historically.

They controlled things, it's just that they mobilized too many peasants and sent most of the food in the Imperial court, you know how well that went.

Who are they going to send OTHER than peasants? That’s still the majority of the Russian population.

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

I don’t see that happening without some very farsighted reforms that wouldn’t have been realistic for anybody in the early 20th century.

This is the time of unrestricted capitalism with almost no labour rights- bosses can fire employees at will, hire strikebreakers and any other sort of nefarious activity.

Germany, France and GB had no problems after a few years, same thing will happen in Russia.

It was clear their isolation wouldn’t last forever- it could’ve been a last ditch effort secure true independence.

If they are rebelling in the middle of nowhere then nobody cares and this civil war would last less since the CS has to score a fast victory and demoralize the North to have any chance to become independent.

They didn’t have a massive civil war going on during the Mexican-American war- the soldiers they are able to send will arrive quite late, in enough time that the breakaway states will have been able to consolidate themselves and be ready for a federal response.

I doubt the states wanted and would be able to do this, there were very few people who were on the West Coast at that point and when a good part of them live disconnected from any rebellion or do not support the rebellion, it is doomed to fail.

If things continually go downhill in the US (Draft riots of NYC turn into a secessionist revolt for “tri-insula”, Copperheads in the Ohio river valley revolt) then a longer war may be in the CSA’s favour- since the US will be busy putting down revolts all around, forcing them to come to terms with the CSA to consolidate themselves.

These were ideas made by one person who have no realistic chance of being put in place, just because one person thinks the other think like him doesn't mean they will, the Pacific, NYC and Ohio rebelling won't happen unless you change something drastically before the war.

Infrastructure will take MASSIVELY more time, though- even if you’re only industrializing European Russia, that’s larger than multiple other great powers combined. And unless Russia only industrialized Moscow and Petersburg to keep it small (which brings its own problems) they’re going to be taking a lot longer to fully industrialize than Germany.

Industries are created near the places where there are natural resources, there are a lot of them in European Russia and everything develops from that point on, sure they won't have a railroad network as good as Germany's but if they managed that many troops OTL with only what they had OTL they will not have much problems from that point on.

I can see them still winning the presidency immediately following and a few years after the civil war- but after that they have to compete with several other parties.

The Republicans? It's not impossible but then you also have problems since you are the one who started the ACW.

The countries aren’t going to economically recover in a decade. Also, no- attacking the Soviets in 1949 OTL would vindicate them in the eyes of many western civilians- “here we have the communists, who have been our allies in taking down the Nazi menace, and now we’re attacking them? Are we the imperialistic baddies?”

During the Berlin Blockade the only reason it didn't escalate was because the US had the atomic bombs and the USSR had the best army in the world, if there is no atomic bomb the Soviets just take over all of Europe. I totally disagree with your statement that the people saw the Soviet as brothers, they were very easily convinced that the Soviets were a dangerous evil who would overtake them all, did the Britons love the French just because they fought together in the Crimean war? Did the Austrians love the Russians just because they fought Napoleon together? I could give many more examples.

The soviets could’ve been handily beaten following WW2 IMO- the main thing stopping them is that it would’ve been political suicide to fight your former ally so soon after everyone remembers fighting with them, as well as war exhaustion. Propaganda takes more than 5 years, or even a decade, to really shift public opinion- especially in that time without the internet or mass communication.

No, it takes not much time, had you asked someone random (who isn't a communist) he wouldn't say that the Soviets were their brother in arms, he may not see them as the worst evil of the world for the moment but he doesn't love them.
The Soviets had a much better army than the US at the time, they even had superior airplanes (when air superiority was the main doctrine of the US) to them, the US would've been destroyed without the wild card called atomic bomb which has the risk of rasing to the ground all of your cities, IMO they wouldn't be able to do much with it but the simple threat is enough.

Russia is reliant on Britain to not stop their rubber shipping- Germany will want to win over Britain precisely because Britain can chokehold Russia’s Rubber supply.

Not until Japan joins and that is assuming Japan isn't beaten by the Russians easily, which IMO would happen in less than a year. Germany is reliant on GB to not stop food, oil and other raw materials from coming to them, who do you think is more reliant? And the Russians also would try to win over the Brits but the Brits would ignore both since they don't want to get involved in another costly war on the continent and Russia can offer much more important things then the Germans can if needed.

They started significant production in the 1920’s, which would come earlier if Gran Colombia is a more major power.

Not necessarily, it would still be an agrarian society who is dominated by the plant owner elite who wouldn't be more keen on developing it than Venezuela does.

This is why I wanted America to lose its pacific holdings- it makes buying Alaska unrealistic, and a Balkanized North America is far more interesting. And I wouldn’t say there’d be so overwhelmingly many Americans- there’d be more than Russians at some points, yeah, but it’s still a frozen tundra, and continued Russian rule means continued Russian migration (even if it’s slow)

The Balkanized US wouldn't survive, the Pacific Coast would be re-conquered either by migration or by force since it has almost no one living there (it would be already a miracle if they manage to secede) and GB wouldn't see a point in trying to save a lost cause. The other territories in the US wouldn't really secede since they don't have a reason to. In the end the only one who would remain is the CS which also takes quite a bit of plot armor to make succeed and they were half of the US's states not some random person in the desert who says that this is Deseret.

It’s vital in the sense of Britains North American possessions- if you’re extracting resources from Manitoba, it’s far more convenient to set sail from BC than it is to go around the Panama Canal. The US loses its western fringes ITTL, anyway.

It's not like the US couldn't demand the territories north of BC, without the territories in the South who are decently populated you cannot exploit those north and you don't have the infrastructure to transport things somewhere else, the US could also offer money which GB needs to convince them if necessary.

Britain isn’t a defeated power like France or AH- they haven’t been subjugated, and they can still continue the war- this is a peace deal to end the war with Britain because it is in all senses a stalemate. Britain would never allow a limit on its Navy unless its already losing on the sea, which wouldn’t happen.

They are subjugated, they've had an economic collapse without US money and the war is clearly lost, you don't want the war to continue since that would mean lose even more then you will already, it isn't a stalemate in any way and if you were to continue to fight forever at some point the Germans will overtake your navy since they don't waste resources anywhere else. If you continue fighting it will only get worse. Limits on RN would be there to make sure Britain is somewhat nerfed, they wouldn't be great but they will exist.

The Berlin strike of 1916- but those are just the major ones, there were hundreds of strikes throughout Germany during WW1. People strike even when they’re not hungry, and when their leaders decide not to- even though major trade unions agreed not to strike during the war, workers gathered around “revolutionary stewards” and organized strikes nonetheless.

There were food shortages who caused that. And minor strikes don't cause problems to your war effort.

They did, multiple times- reading more about it now, Poles did start to have more pro-Russian sympathies after the liberalization of 1905- so they may not revolt- but that still leaves all the troublesome minorities who would still struggle under Russian rule (namely, the muslims)

The Muslim community was largely left alone by the Russians, they didn't want to get involved in their affairs, in parts of CA there were problems due to the colonization of Russians but this wouldn't happen in most places where Muslims live, they won't love the Russians of course but for the moment they don't have a reason to revolt.

Much of the early infrastructure (including schools) in Siberia was built by the Decembrists sent east- it is what made them easier to administer. I’m not even talking so much about railroads as I am about schools and hospitals.

Because you think Russia isn't able to build schools and hospitals if it needed them? And there probably will be persons sent to Siberia since you plan to have a civil war between conservatives and the Decembrists, it's the best way to get rid of those who participated but not enough to be executed and have connections who would be angered by their execution.

The raw materials that came from the colonies was a vast part of Britains produced goods- without timber, cotton, and gold (none of which were in massive amounts in Britain) industrialization would’ve been much slower. There were some unsuccesful colonies, but on the whole the empire enriched Britain through exploitation.

Raw materials were extracted by private companies, these materials were useful for industrialization but they were a waste of money for the colonizer, had the empire been profitable they wouldn't have given up on it. Most of the colonies were unsuccessful, Britain had taken more territory than it was reasonable meaning that their resources were overstretched and the colonies couldn't be properly developed especially in Africa.

Neocolonialism is more profitable now, where nationalism has grown to become commonplace and the idea of the nationstate is part of the national consciousness- but at that time, to say that the Empire wasn’t vastly profitable for Britain as a whole is wrong- even if it drained some Human Resources in times of revolt, it paid it back tenfold in the copper, tin, flax, and numerous other products growing the British economy.

What do you mean in the bolded part?
Neo-colonialism is much more profitable because you get all of the advantages of having a colony (raw materials) without having to worry about controlling the territory.
Taxes were used to control the territory and raw materials profited to private companies, you can get raw materials without colonizing even at the time as shown by the unequal treaties.

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

Spain would be more inclined to Italy as a Mediterranean partner, and the continued alliance of Germany and Italy wouldn’t be assured after the Russo-German split- Germany would have bought this island prior to WW1, anyways.

They wouldn't cause problems to Germany.

(Note: this pretty much what would happen between Russia and Germany, no?)

No since they never went to war with each other and the reactions would be very different, if Germany wins then Russia effectively has only the modern Russian Federation with some territories in the Caucasus and in CA, if Germany loses then they are angry but would be effectively surrounded and outnumbered.

and I’m not talking about the likeliness of another war- they’d remain politically enemies. Britain supported what was essentially the collapse of the US, relations would remain unfriendly.

The collapse of the US wouldn't happen, the Pacific isn't able to secede and the Union doesn't want to, the CS already needs a plot armor to win, the Pacific state doesn't stand a chance.

They were developed far earlier to Indonesia- if Germany gets its hands on one of them, then they’d be prioritizing that, and thus increasing their oil production.

That isn't that easy and it still would need other oil suppliers.

Conscription was vastly unpopular OTL- it’s not assured that Britain keeps the Quebecois as colonial garrisons like OTL, so if they’re forced to go to war with Britain in WW1, it could spell revolt.

Maybe but Quebec isn't your main problem.

While AB and the OE are dissolved, they don’t see the same level of prolonged fighting as France, thanks to their quicker, more mobile defeats- France would’ve gone through a year or two of gruelling warfare in the northeast, causing massive destruction, before total collapse.

If you look at how much power they lost AH and OE lost 100% of it while France lost the status of GP and is basically a slightly better version of Italy.

Germany had a lot more competent officers than Russia did historically.

Doesn't have to happen here, with the aristocracy dying they would be in a better shape.

Who are they going to send OTHER than peasants? That’s still the majority of the Russian population.

You need to dose the quantity, OTL they conscripted too many peasants meaning that there weren't enough farming (recruiting more soldiers is largely useless since you aren't able to supply them, if a third of your army doesn't have guns then a third of your army is useless, more soldiers weren't necessary and they would've been more useful producing food) while diverting most of the food to the Imperial court, the combination of these two caused famine, though it is true that most countries suffered food problems but they could and should have done better.

 

[Krasno]

Germany, France and GB had no problems after a few years, same thing will happen in Russia.

They improved- but to say they had no problems is overexaggerating. Workers rights are still abysmal and unemployment only really lowered significantly immediately after WW2.

If they are rebelling in the middle of nowhere then nobody cares and this civil war would last less since the CS has to score a fast victory and demoralize the North to have any chance to become independent.

The war would still last until at least 1963, though- and that gives ample time for all these states to revolt.

I doubt the states wanted and would be able to do this, there were very few people who were on the West Coast at that point and when a good part of them live disconnected from any rebellion or do not support the rebellion, it is doomed to fail.

California had around 300k people at this point- certainly, many will oppose secession- but I wouldn’t say enough people are outwardly loyal enough to the central government to put up a big fight against secession- one of the largest voices against secession OTL in California was a guy (I forget his first name) called Starr- have him removed from power or sidelined in some way and secession isn’t impossible. The Mormons have an organizational structure that most in Utah won’t really disobey in the case of Secession, and Oregon is small and self-sufficient enough that if one of their leaders goes rogue nothing changes enough for the people that they really care.

These were ideas made by one person who have no realistic chance of being put in place, just because one person thinks the other think like him doesn't mean they will, the Pacific, NYC and Ohio rebelling won't happen unless you change something drastically before the war.

The pacific had the before stated reasons for being able to secede.

The NYC draft riots OTL were in large part instigated by Irish immigrants who were mad at the higher wages and exemption from conscription freed slaves recieved- the man who proposed “Tri-Insula” OTL- Fernando Wood- was a copperhead who sought to continue cotton trade with the CS and remain neutral. It doesn’t take much to have these two together- if Wood takes advantage of the riots, creates an organized resistance, and an idea to rally around- full on revolt isn’t impossible.

OTL, copperhead sentiments were strongest in the Ohio river valley- it can happen anywhere, but there were plans for organized copperhead resistance to the civil war- if the USA suffers worse and bloodier defeats early in the war, and the Copperheads get more public support- some insurgencies are certainly possible.

That being said, the NYC and Ohio revolts would have no chance of succeeding- but just the fact of their secession would be lethal for the US- especially NYC ATTP represented a large chunk of federal revenue through their tariffs, so even just a few months of rebellion is deadly to the US war effort.

Industries are created near the places where there are natural resources, there are a lot of them in European Russia and everything develops from that point on, sure they won't have a railroad network as good as Germany's but if they managed that many troops OTL with only what they had OTL they will not have much problems from that point on.

I wouldn’t say it’s just infrastructure- the products produced would be of lower quality to Germany’s, and the overall production would likely be lower.

The Republicans? It's not impossible but then you also have problems since you are the one who started the ACW.

The Democrats would have far more problems- but yeah, Republicans would start losing their popularity.

During the Berlin Blockade the only reason it didn't escalate was because the US had the atomic bombs and the USSR had the best army in the world, if there is no atomic bomb the Soviets just take over all of Europe. I totally disagree with your statement that the people saw the Soviet as brothers, they were very easily convinced that the Soviets were a dangerous evil who would overtake them all, did the Britons love the French just because they fought together in the Crimean war? Did the Austrians love the Russians just because they fought Napoleon together? I could give many more examples.

The elites and certain members of the high command certainly saw it that way, but the average soldier and civilian had just been consuming propaganda about how the Soviets were their ally in the fight against Germany since the war began- they’d also know the simple fact that the soviets were their allies during the war. Also, in both the examples you mentioned, fighting together in those wars led to a closer relationship between those two countries- Austria’s and Russia’s didn’t last, but relations were certainly amicable following the napoleonic wars, and didn’t really become staunch enemies until like, 20 years or so before WW1.

No, it takes not much time, had you asked someone random (who isn't a communist) he wouldn't say that the Soviets were their brother in arms, he may not see them as the worst evil of the world for the moment but he doesn't love them.

Had you asked the average person in 1944-1945 what they thought of the Soviet Union it wouldn’t exactly be negative- the Soviets right after the war were seen as having shouldered the largest burden in the war against nazism- outside of the staunchest anticommunists, most reactions would be neutral to positive- and they certainly wouldn’t support a war against the soviets.

The Soviets had a much better army than the US at the time, they even had superior airplanes (when air superiority was the main doctrine of the US) to them, the US would've been destroyed without the wild card called atomic bomb which has the risk of rasing to the ground all of your cities, IMO they wouldn't be able to do much with it but the simple threat is enough.

I wouldn’t say the soviets were so superior that they could’ve easily steamrolled Western Europe; in a purely conventional war, they’d win eventually, but I don’t think they would’ve considered it either way- their goal is to rebuild from the great patriotic war right now, not exhaust their nation further.

Not until Japan joins and that is assuming Japan isn't beaten by the Russians easily, which IMO would happen in less than a year.

There’s not much land left to fight over, and I agree, Russia would win there- but Russia’s main problem is Japan blocking trade from the Pacific, essentially fully blockading Russia. Their navies would be at the most equally matched, but I doubt Russia would invest so much in their pacific fleet as to overtake Japan- their priorities are the Baltic and Black Sea, the pacific is an afterthought.

Germany is reliant on GB to not stop food, oil and other raw materials from coming to them, who do you think is more reliant? And the Russians also would try to win over the Brits but the Brits would ignore both since they don't want to get involved in another costly war on the continent and Russia can offer much more important things then the Germans can if needed.

Germany being over reliant on Britain is exactly why Britain would be forced into the war- Germany knows Russia will try to win Britain over, and that’s not a risk they can take, which means THEY’LL try to win Britain over to cripple Russian rubber imports- Britain can try to stay neutral as long as they like, but Germany and Russia will keep escalating their attempts until Britain is made to join.

Not necessarily, it would still be an agrarian society who is dominated by the plant owner elite who wouldn't be more keen on developing it than Venezuela does.

Venezuela WAS keen on developing it, though- there was a significant effort made in the 20’s to develop the industry. With the survival of Gran Colombia, the planter elite of Venezuela would gradually lose power, (not that they wouldn’t be influential) and new pioneers would come in looking to be oil barons.

The Balkanized US wouldn't survive, the Pacific Coast would be re-conquered either by migration or by force since it has almost no one living there (it would be already a miracle if they manage to secede) and GB wouldn't see a point in trying to save a lost cause. The other territories in the US wouldn't really secede since they don't have a reason to. In the end the only one who would remain is the CS which also takes quite a bit of plot armor to make succeed and they were half of the US's states not some random person in the desert who says that this is Deseret.

Transporting troops to the west will be limited and tiresome- if the frontier states have consolidated enough and rebuke a few US attempts at reconquering, the resistance at home could grow too much to bear (especially fresh out of a civil war) its difficult, but it’s not impossible to make happen. The US could survive with just the northeast- far less wealthy and more politically volatile, but still a regional power superior to the CSA, at least. And the point isn’t fully to have these states survive- it’s that multiple rebellions across the US make them more likely to concede to the CS to avoid total dissolution.

It's not like the US couldn't demand the territories north of BC, without the territories in the South who are decently populated you cannot exploit those north and you don't have the infrastructure to transport things somewhere else, the US could also offer money which GB needs to convince them if necessary.

The US wouldn’t be in the best place economically, either- and BC is of limited usefulness to the US if they already control Oregon, which I’m not sure about.

They are subjugated, they've had an economic collapse without US money and the war is clearly lost, you don't want the war to continue since that would mean lose even more then you will already, it isn't a stalemate in any way and if you were to continue to fight forever at some point the Germans will overtake your navy since they don't waste resources anywhere else. If you continue fighting it will only get worse. Limits on RN would be there to make sure Britain is somewhat nerfed, they wouldn't be great but they will exist.

Germany doesn’t want to continue the war, either; Britain is in deep debt but it’s got the war material to last several more years on their island, and an invasion of the British isles is ASB- they’re not subjugated in the way France is, where Germany can freely dictate terms- Britain is a compromise peace with negotiations, and a naval limit is not something British peacemakers will agree on. They’d sooner lose the Suez.

There were food shortages who caused that. And minor strikes don't cause problems to your war effort.

The 1916 strike was caused by the arrest of Karl Liebknecht, and the hundreds of strikes before and after weren’t caused by hunger, especially not right at the start- and minor strikes certainly are problematic if they hit a major industry.

The Muslim community was largely left alone by the Russians, they didn't want to get involved in their affairs, in parts of CA there were problems due to the colonization of Russians but this wouldn't happen in most places where Muslims live, they won't love the Russians of course but for the moment they don't have a reason to revolt.

There wasn’t necessarily too much trouble OTL, but if there’s less repression of Muslims by Decembrists ITTL as you say and they’re allowed more autonomous organizations, the 1914 Ottoman call for Jihad could have more robust consequences.

Because you think Russia isn't able to build schools and hospitals if it needed them? And there probably will be persons sent to Siberia since you plan to have a civil war between conservatives and the Decembrists, it's the best way to get rid of those who participated but not enough to be executed and have connections who would be angered by their execution.

There won’t be a focused drive to build schools in Siberia for a while, no; and the “civil war” (which would be more of a short lasting conspiracy) would be primarily organized and led by nobles- they may also benefit the east, but I’m not sure they’d have the same effect as the Decembrists.

Raw materials were extracted by private companies, these materials were useful for industrialization but they were a waste of money for the colonizer, had the empire been profitable they wouldn't have given up on it. Most of the colonies were unsuccessful, Britain had taken more territory than it was reasonable meaning that their resources were overstretched and the colonies couldn't be properly developed especially in Africa.

The Empire WAS profitable, and they didn’t want to give up on it; they largely began to give up on it because the US forced them to- even threatening to collapse the British economy during the Suez crisis if they didn’t back down. Britain only let go once it was so broke it could no longer afford to keep it. It was by all means what kept Britain a superpower; a status which ended with the loss of said Empire.

What do you mean in the bolded part?

Colonialism and direct conquest was easy because there was very little sense of nationalism or the nation state in the colonies- to the natives, their new rulers were strange, and brutal, but it was just another king. Numerous factors- the idea of a nation-state being brought from Europe, the solidification of a national identity through colonial troops in the world war, the increased autonomy given during the time of warfare, and the rise of communist, socialist and anti colonial movements both in the colonies and in the chime countries led to the formation of a national identity and anti colonial sentiment which made the people much more difficult to govern. Before they had been under their local ruler or chieftain, but now they were part of “Kenya” and “Nigeria”- it’s the reason countries like Ethiopia and Siam survived as long as they did, they had centralized regimes prior to the arrival of the colonial powers.

Neo-colonialism is much more profitable because you get all of the advantages of having a colony (raw materials) without having to worry about controlling the territory.

Controlling territory only became a problem later on- in the 1920’s, issues were beginning, but traditional colonialism still held strong.

Taxes were used to control the territory and raw materials profited to private companies, you can get raw materials without colonizing even at the time as shown by the unequal treaties.

The great European powers preferred to have their own domestic supply, though- buying foreign supplies fairly (the unequal treaties were just that- unequal, and I suppose an early form of neocolonialism) only became more profitable once the colonies developed a national consciousness

They wouldn't cause problems to Germany.

The issue is Germany can’t fully trust them.

No since they never went to war with each other and the reactions would be very different, if Germany wins then Russia effectively has only the modern Russian Federation with some territories in the Caucasus and in CA, if Germany loses then they are angry but would be effectively surrounded and outnumbered.

I mean they wouldn’t be enthusiastic to go to war again- they’ve already achieved massive gains.

The collapse of the US wouldn't happen, the Pacific isn't able to secede and the Union doesn't want to, the CS already needs a plot armor to win, the Pacific state doesn't stand a chance.

I wouldn’t say it’s plot armour- a bit of luck, maybe, but it’s not the same situation as the Germans in WW2- if Britain and France decisively support the CS, that gives them a legitimate shot at winning. The pacific states are more unrealistic but not extremely so, considering they already largely self governed and there were several plots to do so- and the fact that the US can only really deal with them after the civil gives them time to gain international recognition and build defensive lines.

That isn't that easy and it still would need other oil suppliers.

Indonesia is far too undeveloped at the time to be a major source- they’d see some use, but I don’t see them becoming a major producer early without a combined German-Dutch investment.

Maybe but Quebec isn't your main problem.

No, but it’s still important.

If you look at how much power they lost AH and OE lost 100% of it while France lost the status of GP and is basically a slightly better version of Italy.

Id say they’re more the level of Weimar Germany, and are on track to still being a great power.

Doesn't have to happen here, with the aristocracy dying they would be in a better shape.

The aristocracy made up many of the officers OTL- they’d have to have a command shift to focus (likely) more on the middle class and Cossacks, but they’re never going to fully get rid of noble influence in the army.

You need to dose the quantity, OTL they conscripted too many peasants meaning that there weren't enough farming (recruiting more soldiers is largely useless since you aren't able to supply them, if a third of your army doesn't have guns then a third of your army is useless, more soldiers weren't necessary and they would've been more useful producing food) while diverting most of the food to the Imperial court, the combination of these two caused famine, though it is true that most countries suffered food problems but they could and should have done better.

Russias main strength came from their large population and army size- the royal court can be amended, but you’d need a drastic shift in Russian military policy to change the conscription.

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

They improved- but to say they had no problems is overexaggerating. Workers rights are still abysmal and unemployment only really lowered significantly immediately after WW2.

The unemployment didn't affect anybody's war capabilities, neither it will in Russia.

I hope you wanted to say 1863, the other places didn't revolt OTL and even if they do, the Pacific revolt is doomed to failure, the Mormons won't be able to do anything that will seriously affect the US and at worst there are some strikes against the war in NYC and Ohio, the US wasn't a country on the verge of implosion at that time.

300k people who wouldn't really support secession, not to talk about the fact that you need persons who are enthusiast about seceding to be able to recruit them, the US hasn't done anything to them and a good part of them have come from other parts of the US meaning that they will remain loyal, the Pacific republic is doomed even more than the CS was.

The worst that can happen are some strikes, they won't start to secede; and the war isn't particularly bloodier, the CS still manages their early victories which ITTL convince GB to join and the US cannot continue the war for too long, once GB gets involved the CS remaining a part of your territory is impossible to get in the peace deal meaning that they will have peace fall 1862- mid 1863.
At the beginning sure but Germany wouldn't be able to be better then Russia in every field of production, it's not like they have half a century of advance like OTL.

The elites and certain members of the high command certainly saw it that way, but the average soldier and civilian had just been consuming propaganda about how the Soviets were their ally in the fight against Germany since the war began- they’d also know the simple fact that the soviets were their allies during the war. Also, in both the examples you mentioned, fighting together in those wars led to a closer relationship between those two countries- Austria’s and Russia’s didn’t last, but relations were certainly amicable following the napoleonic wars, and didn’t really become staunch enemies until like, 20 years or so before WW1.

The average soldier or civilian didn't see them as brother in arms, they were just an ally during WW2, they didn't have any problem with going to fight in the Korean war.
Austria and Russia weren't closer, they were on the verge of start a new conflict during the Congress of Vienna and they had a good relationship only in the minds of the Russians, Austria always tried to contain Russia.

Had you asked the average person in 1944-1945 what they thought of the Soviet Union it wouldn’t exactly be negative- the Soviets right after the war were seen as having shouldered the largest burden in the war against nazism- outside of the staunchest anticommunists, most reactions would be neutral to positive- and they certainly wouldn’t support a war against the soviets.

They had no problem going to war in the Korean war 5 years later, they were brother in arms only for communists.

I wouldn’t say the soviets were so superior that they could’ve easily steamrolled Western Europe; in a purely conventional war, they’d win eventually, but I don’t think they would’ve considered it either way- their goal is to rebuild from the great patriotic war right now, not exhaust their nation further.

But had they done this I consider that they would've won since the UK was even less able to go to war and the US is on the other side of the Atlantic and not able to counter everything except for the Soviet navy.

There’s not much land left to fight over, and I agree, Russia would win there- but Russia’s main problem is Japan blocking trade from the Pacific, essentially fully blockading Russia. Their navies would be at the most equally matched, but I doubt Russia would invest so much in their pacific fleet as to overtake Japan- their priorities are the Baltic and Black Sea, the pacific is an afterthought.

Yes but Japan also lost badly in WW1, there would be consequences on its military capabilities since the civilian government won't be overtaken by the military.

Germany being over reliant on Britain is exactly why Britain would be forced into the war- Germany knows Russia will try to win Britain over, and that’s not a risk they can take, which means THEY’LL try to win Britain over to cripple Russian rubber imports- Britain can try to stay neutral as long as they like, but Germany and Russia will keep escalating their attempts until Britain is made to join.

The fact that Germany is reliant on Britain means that it WON'T join, you cannot force Britain to join you and no matter what you offer they won't believe them and they would still be wary of Germany, if Germany tries to force Britain to join by influencing elections and supporting pro-war movements it will have the opposite effect of making Germany look dangerous and unreliable.
Britain has the same problems with Russia which is why they won't join since in either case their interests wouldn't be completely safe so joining the war is useless.

Venezuela WAS keen on developing it, though- there was a significant effort made in the 20’s to develop the industry. With the survival of Gran Colombia, the planter elite of Venezuela would gradually lose power, (not that they wouldn’t be influential) and new pioneers would come in looking to be oil barons.

It wouldn't be much more developed than OTL.

Transporting troops to the west will be limited and tiresome- if the frontier states have consolidated enough and rebuke a few US attempts at reconquering, the resistance at home could grow too much to bear (especially fresh out of a civil war) its difficult, but it’s not impossible to make happen. The US could survive with just the northeast- far less wealthy and more politically volatile, but still a regional power superior to the CSA, at least. And the point isn’t fully to have these states survive- it’s that multiple rebellions across the US make them more likely to concede to the CS to avoid total dissolution.

The Pacific states don't hold a chance, most of the population is pro-US and they won't have much trouble defeating the insurgents, and that is assuming they manage to nominally secede at all. The US needs a morale boost after the ACW.

The US wouldn’t be in the best place economically, either- and BC is of limited usefulness to the US if they already control Oregon, which I’m not sure about.

The US didn't participate in most of the war, they're mostly untouched by the war and the parts of the US that you haven't balkanized are the richest and most important ones, the Pacific republic surviving more than a decade is ASB.

Germany doesn’t want to continue the war, either; Britain is in deep debt but it’s got the war material to last several more years on their island, and an invasion of the British isles is ASB- they’re not subjugated in the way France is, where Germany can freely dictate terms- Britain is a compromise peace with negotiations, and a naval limit is not something British peacemakers will agree on. They’d sooner lose the Suez.

Germany and Russia can continue the war while Britain cannot, they're starving because of unrestricted submarine warfare, they're broke and they cannot achieve victory, GB will sue for peace since there is no way they can continue the war and the limits on the navy won't be great but they will be there to nerf GB, Germany doesn't want to be to the mercy of GB in the event of a war with Russia, it would mean it can effectively starve them and get any concession they might need.

The 1916 strike was caused by the arrest of Karl Liebknecht, and the hundreds of strikes before and after weren’t caused by hunger, especially not right at the start- and minor strikes certainly are problematic if they hit a major industry.

Germany started to have food problems since the beginning of the naval blockade and strikes in one industry aren't a problem since there are many more who produce the same things.

There wasn’t necessarily too much trouble OTL, but if there’s less repression of Muslims by Decembrists ITTL as you say and they’re allowed more autonomous organizations, the 1914 Ottoman call for Jihad could have more robust consequences.

The Muslim community was left to their own devices by the Russians, they weren't repressed OTL either, same thing will happen here and repressing less actually helps your cause since you aren't seen as a threat.

There won’t be a focused drive to build schools in Siberia for a while, no; and the “civil war” (which would be more of a short lasting conspiracy) would be primarily organized and led by nobles- they may also benefit the east, but I’m not sure they’d have the same effect as the Decembrists.

The Decembrists also were nobles, who do you think made up the officers and generals of the Russian army?

The Empire WAS profitable, and they didn’t want to give up on it; they largely began to give up on it because the US forced them to- even threatening to collapse the British economy during the Suez crisis if they didn’t back down. Britain only let go once it was so broke it could no longer afford to keep it. It was by all means what kept Britain a superpower; a status which ended with the loss of said Empire.

Colonialism is profitable to some extent but GB took way more territories than what they could digest meaning that you couldn't adequately develop and therefore was unprofitable, more territories isn't always good.

Colonialism and direct conquest was easy because there was very little sense of nationalism or the nation state in the colonies- to the natives, their new rulers were strange, and brutal, but it was just another king. Numerous factors- the idea of a nation-state being brought from Europe, the solidification of a national identity through colonial troops in the world war, the increased autonomy given during the time of warfare, and the rise of communist, socialist and anti colonial movements both in the colonies and in the chime countries led to the formation of a national identity and anti colonial sentiment which made the people much more difficult to govern. Before they had been under their local ruler or chieftain, but now they were part of “Kenya” and “Nigeria”- it’s the reason countries like Ethiopia and Siam survived as long as they did, they had centralized regimes prior to the arrival of the colonial powers.

You clearly don't know, the countries that today are on the map that are ex-colonies don't have one ethnicity, they are a mix of many ethnicity who often fight among themselves. The colonies always wanted to be independent it's just that they weren't allowed to up until after WW2.
It was easy to conquer them because of the technological advantage and since you used internal divisions to do this.
The reason Ethiopia survived was because the Italians were incompetent, its system was still very decentralized.
The reason Siam survived is because it was a convenient buffer between Britain and France.
The reason Liberia survived was because it was a US puppet.

Controlling territory only became a problem later on- in the 1920’s, issues were beginning, but traditional colonialism still held strong.

It remained but getting a railroad from Egypt to South Africa wasn't useful.

I mean they wouldn’t be enthusiastic to go to war again- they’ve already achieved massive gains.

Which? Germany wouldn't be enthusiast and Russia would be dead if they lose.

I wouldn’t say it’s plot armour- a bit of luck, maybe, but it’s not the same situation as the Germans in WW2- if Britain and France decisively support the CS, that gives them a legitimate shot at winning. The pacific states are more unrealistic but not extremely so, considering they already largely self governed and there were several plots to do so- and the fact that the US can only really deal with them after the civil gives them time to gain international recognition and build defensive lines.

A decent amount of luck for the UK to fight a war to preserve the CS when cotton can be brought from somewhere else and France is sort of busy invading Mexico.
The Pacific Republic won't survive, most of the population wouldn't support secession. Had they tried they would've been crushed after the US gives up on the CS and decides that well at least it doesn't lose everything. Even if the Pacific Republic survived, the US would want to take it back and the UK wouldn't see much point in defending a hopeless cause.

Indonesia is far too undeveloped at the time to be a major source- they’d see some use, but I don’t see them becoming a major producer early without a combined German-Dutch investment.

Why would the Germans invest in Gran Colombia and not try to do the same thing in Indonesia?

Id say they’re more the level of Weimar Germany, and are on track to still being a great power.

Weimar Germany wasn't a GP anymore, it was diplomatically isolated and had no say in basically anything, France would be slightly better than that, it would be a regional colonial power who isn't very important on the global stage.

The aristocracy made up many of the officers OTL- they’d have to have a command shift to focus (likely) more on the middle class and Cossacks, but they’re never going to fully get rid of noble influence in the army.

Some will remain but there would be much less.

Russias main strength came from their large population and army size- the royal court can be amended, but you’d need a drastic shift in Russian military policy to change the conscription.

It doesn't make sense to conscript someone if you can't properly give him what he needs to fight, that peasant was much better doing his job then being a gunless soldier.

 

[Krasno]

The unemployment didn't affect anybody's war capabilities, neither it will in Russia.

This It helped in making people more eager to fight for money; and I’m not talking about the war effort, I’m talking about the political ramifications.

I hope you wanted to say 1863,

🫢

the other places didn't revolt OTL

This is alternate history, though, and there were plans.

and even if they do, the Pacific revolt is doomed to failure,

They can survive at least until the end of the civil war with the CS- from there, it can go a number of ways.

the Mormons won't be able to do anything that will seriously affect the US

They don’t need to- they just need to secede.

and at worst there are some strikes against the war in NYC and Ohio,

With worse losses for the Union and more copperhead support these become the most likely to revolt; there were legitimate plans made by the copperheads to stage armed resistance- and the NY draft riots were a convenient excuse to stage such resistance, especially since the rioters were aligned with them.

the US wasn't a country on the verge of implosion at that time.

I mean, it already DID implode either the CS- the question is if they implode further.

300k people who wouldn't really support secession, not to talk about the fact that you need persons who are enthusiast about seceding to be able to recruit them, the US hasn't done anything to them and a good part of them have come from other parts of the US meaning that they will remain loyal, the Pacific republic is doomed even more than the CS was.

I mean, not mentioning that there were a significant amount of southern settlers in California- i do think there’d be a civil war of sorts if they were to secede, but their chances could be helped if the rebel general manages to rally the federal forces and governor Weller chooses to secede.

The worst that can happen are some strikes, they won't start to secede; and the war isn't particularly bloodier, the CS still manages their early victories which ITTL convince GB to join and the US cannot continue the war for too long, once GB gets involved the CS remaining a part of your territory is impossible to get in the peace deal meaning that they will have peace fall 1862- mid 1863.

GB won’t ever directly join- they wouldn’t have much impact even if they had, given they only had a token force in Canada at the time- Britain and Frances support comes in forcing the US to dispel the blockade and selling war material to the CS, maybe with a volunteer force from France. This would essentially become a proxy war, with Britain and France supplying the CS while Russia (and potentially Prussia) supply the US (though that would be on a much smaller scale, given they don’t really have anything the US needs). Without the blockade and cotton imports still going strong, the CS can certainly last longer in a protracted war.

At the beginning sure but Germany wouldn't be able to be better then Russia in every field of production, it's not like they have half a century of advance like

Germany will have the production advantage, though- Russia can’t immediately start industrializing, they need to sort out the situation with serfs, build up an industrial base, encourage migration to cities, etc before they can start large scale production- problems Germany either doesn’t have or will have less trouble fixing.

The average soldier or civilian didn't see them as brother in arms, they were just an ally during WW2, they didn't have any problem with going to fight in the Korean War

They had no problem going to war in the Korean war 5 years later, they were brother in arms only for communists.

For one, the soviets aren’t Koreans- connected as they may be, it was an “aggressive attack by the enemy into allied territory”- and public opinion didn’t really start to shift until the Soviets began being more aggressive in foreign policy and gave western propagandists something to work off of- you’d need a similar event for a Russia/Germany split.

Austria and Russia weren't closer, they were on the verge of start a new conflict during the Congress of Vienna and they had a good relationship only in the minds of the Russians, Austria always tried to contain Russia.

Austria was certainly amicable enough to sign into the league of three emperors- and it was Austria’s fears that eventually led to their split, which in spite of those would’ve been quite amicable.

But had they done this I consider that they would've won since the UK was even less able to go to war and the US is on the other side of the Atlantic and not able to counter everything except for the Soviet navy.

The US certainly has a superior production of motorized equipment- a production the Soviets can’t match. Even if the USSR takes over Western Europe, I don’t see them winning longterm unless the public in the US decides that they don’t want anymore war.

Yes but Japan also lost badly in WW1, there would be consequences on its military capabilities since the civilian government won't be overtaken by the military.

I mean, that’s not guaranteed- and they’d be heavily militarized even without a junta.

The fact that Germany is reliant on Britain means that it WON'T join, you cannot force Britain to join you and no matter what you offer they won't believe them and they would still be wary of Germany, if Germany tries to force Britain to join by influencing elections and supporting pro-war movements it will have the opposite effect of making Germany look dangerous and unreliable.
Britain has the same problems with Russia which is why they won't join since in either case their interests wouldn't be completely safe so joining the war is useless.

Russia isn’t going to stop trying to win over Britain- they present too easy a way to win over Germany for them not to. Even if Germany doesn’t want to antagonize Britain, Russia’s overtures, even if rumoured, would be frightening- and they’d try to win over Britain, too. Even if Britain doesn’t trust either, they’re a vital part of the war, and their economy swells thanks to their investment- they’ll eventually be forced to pick a side.

It wouldn't be much more developed than OTL.

Why not?

The Pacific states don't hold a chance, most of the population is pro-US and they won't have much trouble defeating the insurgents, and that is assuming they manage to nominally secede at all. The US needs a morale boost after the ACW.

The secession would happen during the civil war- and I wouldn’t say that the population is overtly pro-US, there were plenty of southern settlers and even the northerners, being so far disconnected, would be split on the issue.

The US didn't participate in most of the war, they're mostly untouched by the war and the parts of the US that you haven't balkanized are the richest and most important ones, the Pacific republic surviving more than a decade is ASB.

The Pacific Republic won't survive, most of the population wouldn't support secession. Had they tried they would've been crushed after the US gives up on the CS and decides that well at least it doesn't lose everything. Even if the Pacific Republic survived, the US would want to take it back and the UK wouldn't see much point in defending a hopeless cause.

I’m still not sure if I want the US to directly participate, or for Britain to agree to peace as soon as the US starts readying itself- as for the various Pacific states, I’m not sure what their future will be- as said before, their main purpose is to shake the US government with the various revolts happening around the country, causing them to sue for peace with the CS earlier- I’d like to do something with them, though, because just having them revolt and die is boring- at the very least, there’d be a much stronger secession movement if the US does conquer them, but I’m sure I can think of a few ways to make them survive. And if the British decide to protect the pacific states, there’s not much the US can do if they don’t want a protracted war.

Germany and Russia can continue the war while Britain cannot, they're starving because of unrestricted submarine warfare, they're broke and they cannot achieve victory, GB will sue for peace since there is no way they can continue the war and the limits on the navy won't be great but they will be there to nerf GB, Germany doesn't want to be to the mercy of GB in the event of a war with Russia, it would mean it can effectively starve them and get any concession they might need.

Limiting the navy, Britains greatest strength and assurance against foreign invasion, is ASB for Britain- they’d fight until ruin before they accept such a treaty, because their powerful navy is the last advantage they have. Getting rid of your ace in the hole is the stupidest thing you can do- Britain would give up any colony before they give up their navy. The Central powers wouldn’t be enthusiastic for a long war, either, because the British blockade would be doing numbers on them, too- this is a negotiated peace deal, Britain is part of the negotiation table too and the CP would have to be diplomatically insane (like, worse than Nazi foreign policy insane) to push such an issue while expecting a negotiated peace.

Germany started to have food problems since the beginning of the naval blockade and strikes in one industry aren't a problem since there are many more who produce the same things.

They had food shortages, but they weren’t experiencing actual crisis until the end of the war- and ATTP, many industries were concentrated around just a few major factories- if a strike breaks out in even one of those factories, production is DOWN.

The Muslim community was left to their own devices by the Russians, they weren't repressed OTL either, same thing will happen here and repressing less actually helps your cause since you aren't seen as a threat.

The Russians are conquerors, without significant reform they’re enemies from the start.

The Decembrists also were nobles, who do you think made up the officers and generals of the Russian army?

They certainly held some noble affiliations, but the main ideologies, like Pestel and Muravyov, were line officers and staffers, usually from educated- but not noble- families.

Colonialism is profitable to some extent but GB took way more territories than what they could digest meaning that you couldn't adequately develop and therefore was unprofitable, more territories isn't always good.

That only became a real problem after the world wars indebted Britain and made them rely on the US.

You clearly don't know, the countries that today are on the map that are ex-colonies don't have one ethnicity, they are a mix of many ethnicity who often fight among themselves. The colonies always wanted to be independent it's just that they weren't allowed to up until after WW2.

A nation state doesn’t necessarily have to have on ethnicity, and I am well aware of the ethnic diversity of Africa- but if you can rally around an independent “Kenya”, it’s a lot easier than disorganized fighting for your local tribe. That’s what I mean by the growth of nationalism.

It was easy to conquer them because of the technological advantage and since you used internal divisions to do this.

Internal divisions are a lot easier to exploit if you are still a feudal kingdom than if you’re a centralized state.

The reason Ethiopia survived was because the Italians were incompetent, its system was still very decentralized.

The Italians weren’t the only colonial power at play- the Ethiopians resisted colonization for so long because they had a centralized (relative to their neighbours) government structure and agricultural system.

The reason Siam survived is because it was a convenient buffer between Britain and France.

That helped them buy time, but the main thing on their agenda after that was “gogogo modernize the political system gogogo”.

Nation building is important.

The reason Liberia survived was because it was a US puppet.

I never mentioned Liberia- and call it what it is, a US colony.

It remained but getting a railroad from Egypt to South Africa wasn't useful.

I mean, it kinda shows you how longterm Britain’s presence was expected to be on the continent, that they undertook such an endeavour. And it would’ve been useful in what it was built for- transporting goods from the Mediterranean to South Africa.

Which? Germany wouldn't be enthusiast and Russia would be dead if they lose.

Both of them wouldn’t be enthusiastic for war.

A decent amount of luck for the UK to fight a war to preserve the CS when cotton can be brought from somewhere else and France is sort of busy invading Mexico.

The Cotton from Egypt and India at the time was still seen as lower quality- which would largely be the reason for French and British intervention. As for the French in Mexico- even better for them? They’ve got a whole army nearby they can use to support the CS once they’re done.

Why would the Germans invest in Gran Colombia and not try to do the same thing in Indonesia?

They may to a small extent, but the Gran Colombians wouldve already been investing in their oil production, making existing infrastructure- the Dutch didn’t really care about Indonesian oil.

Weimar Germany wasn't a GP anymore, it was diplomatically isolated and had no say in basically anything, France would be slightly better than that, it would be a regional colonial power who isn't very important on the global stage.

It was on TRACK to being one- Weimar Germany wouldn’t be despondent forever.

Some will remain but there would be much less.

Their influence remains pervasive, though.

It doesn't make sense to conscript someone if you can't properly give him what he needs to fight, that peasant was much better doing his job then being a gunless soldier.

that wasn’t the mind frame of Russian generals of the time, though.

Apologies for the weird format, I bugged out.

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

This It helped in making people more eager to fight for money; and I’m not talking about the war effort, I’m talking about the political ramifications.

Sure it has some effects but not more than IOTL in other countries.

This is alternate history, though, and there were plans.

The plans you mentioned were a few persons (usually governors) telling themselves "how great would it be if I was the leader of a country" I doubt they had that much support from the common people to do this.

They can survive at least until the end of the civil war with the CS- from there, it can go a number of ways.

Objectively they won't survive, neither the elites nor the common people have a reason to not join the US and since there would be even more US migrants coming there it's unlikely they will remain independent, they gained independence literally because two persons wanted them to, there is no reason for them to remain independent.

They don’t need to- they just need to secede.

It won't particularly affect the fighting capabilities of the Union.

With worse losses for the Union and more copperhead support these become the most likely to revolt; there were legitimate plans made by the copperheads to stage armed resistance- and the NY draft riots were a convenient excuse to stage such resistance, especially since the rioters were aligned with them.

The US would very quickly sue for peace in a Trent War scenario, they know that they don't stand a chance. Meaning this organized resistance doesn't have time to build itself.

I mean, it already DID implode either the CS- the question is if they implode further.

I meant the remaining territories of the Union weren't really on the verge of imploding and since the war is much shorter than OTL. And what do you want to achieve by Balkanizing the US? I don't like the US too much but I see it as unnecessary sadism.

I mean, not mentioning that there were a significant amount of southern settlers in California- i do think there’d be a civil war of sorts if they were to secede, but their chances could be helped if the rebel general manages to rally the federal forces and governor Weller chooses to secede.

That's a big if and I'm pretty sure there were more Northerners than Southerners in California.

GB won’t ever directly join- they wouldn’t have much impact even if they had, given they only had a token force in Canada at the time- Britain and Frances support comes in forcing the US to dispel the blockade and selling war material to the CS, maybe with a volunteer force from France. This would essentially become a proxy war, with Britain and France supplying the CS while Russia (and potentially Prussia) supply the US (though that would be on a much smaller scale, given they don’t really have anything the US needs). Without the blockade and cotton imports still going strong, the CS can certainly last longer in a protracted war.

The US won't just comply, if they do they stop the blockade meaning the South is much more powerful and accepting the demands would make them look weak, if GB doesn't have the guts to join the war for the CS then why would you comply? Also if you do comply you're basically letting GB fight a war with you without having to send soldiers since they are supplying the South.
In the end GB would have to join if it wants to support the CS and imagine having to explain to Parliament why you sent an ultimatum to the US completely unprovoked to defend slavery and that you have no idea how long the war lasts or how much resources you will have to use, GB didn't particularly want to go to war with the US.

Germany will have the production advantage, though- Russia can’t immediately start industrializing, they need to sort out the situation with serfs, build up an industrial base, encourage migration to cities, etc before they can start large scale production- problems Germany either doesn’t have or will have less trouble fixing.

They'll sort it out, sure Germany will have an advantage over Russia but it won't be a crushing one.

For one, the soviets aren’t Koreans- connected as they may be, it was an “aggressive attack by the enemy into allied territory”- and public opinion didn’t really start to shift until the Soviets began being more aggressive in foreign policy and gave western propagandists something to work off of- you’d need a similar event for a Russia/Germany split.

It was a fight against communism, but if you're fine invading one nation because they're communist then you'll be fine with all of them, the Koreans are an oppressed people by the Japanese and the Chinese are brother-in-arms who were crucial in WW2 for your win against Japan, but you don't have problems killing either. And they still very much tried to make the USSR look as bad as possible, for example Animal Farm was published in 1945.

Austria was certainly amicable enough to sign into the league of three emperors- and it was Austria’s fears that eventually led to their split, which in spite of those would’ve been quite amicable.

You mean when Austria threatened to join the war on the Ottoman-French-British side in the Crimean War were they amicable? The Austrians always tried to contain Russia they never were amicable.

The US certainly has a superior production of motorized equipment- a production the Soviets can’t match. Even if the USSR takes over Western Europe, I don’t see them winning longterm unless the public in the US decides that they don’t want anymore war.

What do you mean by "the US has a superior production of motorized equipment", yes the US has a superior production of consumer goods but the Soviets had better tanks, better airplanes and were outnumbering you, the only thing you have is a superior navy. The US was fighting a war of luxury in WW2 (compared to the other participants) they basically never fought on their soil and the US citizens continued with their lives as if nothing happened, they aren't ready for total mobilization and going to die in Europe in the same way the USSR can do so.
Even if the US wants to continue the war, how can you win the war? The Soviets will crush you on land and you don't have the atomic bomb and even if you had it doesn't mean that you will manage to nuke the Soviets, the first atomic bombs weren't very practical.

I mean, that’s not guaranteed- and they’d be heavily militarized even without a junta.

After the Great Depression Japan was obsessed with the military, the civilian government would have a military but it wouldn't be as big and the civilian government wouldn't be as enthusiast at going for round two.

Russia isn’t going to stop trying to win over Britain- they present too easy a way to win over Germany for them not to. Even if Germany doesn’t want to antagonize Britain, Russia’s overtures, even if rumoured, would be frightening- and they’d try to win over Britain, too. Even if Britain doesn’t trust either, they’re a vital part of the war, and their economy swells thanks to their investment- they’ll eventually be forced to pick a side.

Both sides will be as friendly as possible, but that doesn't mean that the UK has to pick a side, the UK isn't a vital part of the war as both Germany and Russia prefer not to buy things from GB, Germany has to keep the UK friendly because if it were to join the war it would starve it to death whereas Russia will also be friendly because if GB joins Germany it's significantly harder to win and if it were to join on its side they would win 100%. Germany would try to get all that it needs from other countries than GB, metals from Scandinavia and Africa, oil from Indonesia, Mesopotamia and Gran Colombia... though food would be a major problem for Germany since no country produces enough extra food to feed all of Germany.

Why not?

Because Gran Colombia still would need foreign investors, just as Venezuela did.

I’m still not sure if I want the US to directly participate, or for Britain to agree to peace as soon as the US starts readying itself- as for the various Pacific states, I’m not sure what their future will be- as said before, their main purpose is to shake the US government with the various revolts happening around the country, causing them to sue for peace with the CS earlier- I’d like to do something with them, though, because just having them revolt and die is boring- at the very least, there’d be a much stronger secession movement if the US does conquer them, but I’m sure I can think of a few ways to make them survive. And if the British decide to protect the pacific states, there’s not much the US can do if they don’t want a protracted war.

The US could still ask some territories to the CP in exchange for their help during the war.
There wouldn't be much of a secessionist movement in the Pacific, most immigrants will be Northerners meaning that the ones who wanted independence will be outpopulated very soon and that is assuming they were a majority at the beginning.
GB wouldn't see much point in trying to defend the Pacific, they will soon want to be a part of the Union and trying to defend them from the US is a waste of resources, though you could have guerilla warfare with the Mormons if you really want something to happen.

Limiting the navy, Britains greatest strength and assurance against foreign invasion, is ASB for Britain- they’d fight until ruin before they accept such a treaty, because their powerful navy is the last advantage they have. Getting rid of your ace in the hole is the stupidest thing you can do- Britain would give up any colony before they give up their navy. The Central powers wouldn’t be enthusiastic for a long war, either, because the British blockade would be doing numbers on them, too- this is a negotiated peace deal, Britain is part of the negotiation table too and the CP would have to be diplomatically insane (like, worse than Nazi foreign policy insane) to push such an issue while expecting a negotiated peace.

They wouldn't say you have x ships, they would say you cannot have more than 3 ships every 2 ships of Germany(IOTL the Brits themselves had a treaty like this where 5 ships for GB, 5 ships for the US, 3 ships for Japan...), the Germans need to be able to not be starved in the event of war with GB.
The CP can continue the war for much longer than Britain can, it's already exhausted by warfare and the US preparing for war is the final blow, if they decide to continue the fight they'll lose much more, GB could demand some concessions not to be made but they cannot prevent everything, Germany wants a guarantee that Britain won't be a threat anymore.

They had food shortages, but they weren’t experiencing actual crisis until the end of the war- and ATTP, many industries were concentrated around just a few major factories- if a strike breaks out in even one of those factories, production is DOWN.

The main reason for the strike of 1916 was that food rations were lowered.

The Russians are conquerors, without significant reform they’re enemies from the start.

The Russians are conquerors but they aren't enemies for now, sure they won't be loved but if they leave them alone the Muslims won't see a point in dying for a vague independence (CA didn't rebel against the Russians and apart from the areas where there were Russians colonists relations were OK) and the Arabs could see it as an improvement from the Ottomans since they can follow the "true" path.

They certainly held some noble affiliations, but the main ideologies, like Pestel and Muravyov, were line officers and staffers, usually from educated- but not noble- families.

They were nobles, not from important aristocrat families but still nobles.

That only became a real problem after the world wars indebted Britain and made them rely on the US.

They still would've fallen, just with more time, the main thing colonies gave was prestige.

A nation state doesn’t necessarily have to have on ethnicity, and I am well aware of the ethnic diversity of Africa- but if you can rally around an independent “Kenya”, it’s a lot easier than disorganized fighting for your local tribe. That’s what I mean by the growth of nationalism.

They never really fought for "Kenya", the Brits decided to give independence to "Kenya" and it was more "we don't want to be a colony" than "we want to fight for a nation whose borders created by some diplomat at Berlin".

Internal divisions are a lot easier to exploit if you are still a feudal kingdom than if you’re a centralized state.

Ethiopia still was quite feudal.

The Italians weren’t the only colonial power at play- the Ethiopians resisted colonization for so long because they had a centralized (relative to their neighbours) government structure and agricultural system.

The Zulu Kingdom was also quite centralized and modern, yet it didn't last long. Ethiopia was lucky that at Berlin the Italians got this territory meaning that other powers didn't want to colonize it because it would anger the Italians.

That helped them buy time, but the main thing on their agenda after that was “gogogo modernize the political system gogogo”.

Nation building is important.

Without that they would be colonized, they weren't able to counter French demands for Laos for example.

I mean, it kinda shows you how longterm Britain’s presence was expected to be on the continent, that they undertook such an endeavour. And it would’ve been useful in what it was built for- transporting goods from the Mediterranean to South Africa.

Ships are much more practical than trains to transport goods, the reason they did this was because of glory and prestige.

The Cotton from Egypt and India at the time was still seen as lower quality- which would largely be the reason for French and British intervention. As for the French in Mexico- even better for them? They’ve got a whole army nearby they can use to support the CS once they’re done.

The French failed to take Mexico for years while the US was busy fighting itself, they won't be able to arrive to the CS soon, it would be giving up on Mexico for the CS which I'm not sure Nap III would do. And sure cotton of the CS is useful but joining a war to protect a state that defends slavery and not knowing how much resources or time will be needed to make the US comply aren't the most appealing prospect for GB.

They may to a small extent, but the Gran Colombians wouldve already been investing in their oil production, making existing infrastructure- the Dutch didn’t really care about Indonesian oil.

They would still rely heavily on foreign investors, they wouldn't do much more than what Venezuela did, especially if there are internal divisions (and there will be).

It was on TRACK to being one- Weimar Germany wouldn’t be despondent forever.

It wouldn't become a GP anytime soon if it wasn't for the Nazis (not intended to be a compliment).

Their influence remains pervasive, though.

Much more influence would come from the non-aristocrat officers and generals since they will have connections which are more important than the nobility.

That wasn’t the mind frame of Russian generals of the time, though.

I'm no military expert but I'm pretty sure that a third of your soldiers who don't have a gun means that something went terribly wrong.

Apologies for the weird format, I bugged out.

...