Alternate History Thread III

[Symphony D.]

That's kind of my point though: why deal with puppets at all when you can just rule directly? The actual population of Russians in the Far East is miniscule and easily swamped by Chinese "settlers" once hostilities are concluded, and any hardline Communist state will still likely protest Chinese annexation of long-term historic Russian land (there is no reason for China not to just march to the Arctic Circle). So why create and have to placate a puppet state (which sometimes get ideas of their own, like North Korea) by giving it concessions (however minor) when you can just go it alone and make no concessions at all?

Plus it's not like they need support from the Communists; with some large fraction of the country's weapons abroad (Ukraine, Belarus, Kazakhstan) and the military thrown into chaos by a multipolar war, combined with a relative lack of Russian forces in the Far East (and, if the Trans-Siberian is cut, near impossibility of resupply of them) it's not like anybody could stop them.

What I think is interesting about this scenario is that, should the Reformists (advocates of "democracy" anyway) win a civil war while the PRC takes, oh, half of everything past the Urals, you wind up with the strange possibility of a revanchist Russia teaming up with a hegemonic America against an expansionist China and reassertive Europe...

 

[Azale]

That sounds right up your alley Symphony...

 

[das]

That's kind of my point though: why deal with puppets at all when you can just rule directly? The actual population of Russians in the Far East is miniscule and easily swamped by Chinese "settlers" once hostilities are concluded, and any hardline Communist state will still likely protest Chinese annexation of long-term historic Russian land

But that will take some time (plus the whole Chinese settlers point seems a bit dubious with the situation in Inner Mongolia taken into consideration); until then, it is only wise to work through local collaborators.

What I think is interesting about this scenario is that, should the Reformists (advocates of "democracy" anyway) win a civil war while the PRC takes, oh, half of everything past the Urals, you wind up with the strange possibility of a revanchist Russia teaming up with a hegemonic America against an expansionist China and reassertive Europe...

That's the idea, really...

Btw, on a somewhat different point, I'd imagine that the refugee/immigration situation in Europe will be much worse than in OTL, with all the reprecussions. The EU may well break up amidst the various crises, or perhaps lose a few states (like Britain, obviously), with the Franco-German core pulling closer together (to better handle the various crises and form an united economic and political front against the increasingly hegemonic USA). The Fourth (Franco-German) Reich, basically, with regions like the Benelux coerced into joining.

 

[Symphony D.]

(plus the whole Chinese settlers point seems a bit dubious with the situation in Inner Mongolia taken into consideration)

Then again, Inner Mongolia is mostly resource-poor steppe and desert instead of resource-rich (coal, oil, gold, timber) coniferous forest and taiga (not insiginificant portions are cultivated too). There is something of a difference in land quality and population support, and Han China is getting over-crowded; you might not be able to send them west, but you can send them north...

Btw, on a somewhat different point, I'd imagine that the refugee/immigration situation in Europe will be much worse than in OTL, with all the reprecussions. The EU may well break up amidst the various crises, or perhaps lose a few states (like Britain, obviously), with the Franco-German core pulling closer together (to better handle the various crises and form an united economic and political front against the increasingly hegemonic USA). The Fourth (Franco-German) Reich, basically, with regions like the Benelux coerced into joining.

The second situation sounds more interesting. An intriguing point to ponder in light of situation I think is the British Commonwealth perhaps tightening back up in cohesion towards Empire again (probably not that far, of course) in response to the continental situation and realigning more quickly and strongly back toward America.

 

[das]

How about some sort of a pan-English commonwealth, headed (informally?) by USA? In any case, UK realigning towards USA is definitely a possibility.

 

[Thlayli]

You'd probably also see an increasingly strong alliance between Japan, the Philippines, Australia, and the US, somewhat similar to what's going on in OTL but at an accelerated rate; the remilitarization of the Japanese armed forces will probably continue as well.

 

[silver 2039]

(there is no reason for China not to just march to the Arctic Circle)

Haven't you ever read The Bear and the Dragon? Its not easy to go that far, they would encounter major supply problems first of all, and if the Russians managed to get a force together they could cut the Chinese force off in their territory. And whats to say the US or India might not get involved alarmed at Chinese expansionisim? India in particular could seize the oppurtunity to incite reveloution in Tibet, with the Special Fronteir Forces.

India would proably be incitied to move away from Russia and go with US and Japan to contain China.

@Thalyi stop posting here, its Sunday and I don't see an update....ARRR!! RAR!!

 

[Symphony D.]

Haven't you ever read The Bear and the Dragon? Its not easy to go that far, they would encounter major supply problems first of all, and if the Russians managed to get a force together they could cut the Chinese force off in their territory. And whats to say the US or India might not get involved alarmed at Chinese expansionisim?

Tom Clancy, despite having some interesting ideas, isn't really my thing; he strays towards the ridiculous far too often. For example, the idea of the entire world boycotting China over a single late-term abortion (the set-up for the events in that book) when it only banned weapon sales over Tiananmen Square is hilarious.

Besides, that isn't accounting for the circumstances. Russia would in such an instance be busy with a Civil War and America would be busy with Iraq and the Middle East. That leaves India, which, although it might be able to do special forces operations, would have some trouble launching any major military operations across... the Himalayas; it'd be an annoyance at best, especially since the Tibetans historically aren't very good at armed revolt. Plus there's a pretty good chance they'll be playing nuclear patty-cake with Pakistan and be too busy as well. There's no one to stop China from acting in such a scenario.

Oh, yeah, I fully expect this scenario would result in the rapid collapse of our favorite paper-tiger buddy the UN.

 

[das]

India would proably be incitied to move away from Russia and go with US and Japan to contain China.

Definitely, in the aftermath. Hmm... I wonder if the Chinese could try and engineer yet another Indo-Pakistani war (as per previous discussions)?

I do agree that occupying territory far to the north would be difficult, but the trully important parts are in the south and are easily captured and controlled. Now, in the northeastern parts of the Russian Far East some sort of a Sino-Japanese territory race is likely to ensue, the Americans possibly involving themselves as well. Japanese in Sakhalin and the Kurils, Chinese in Magadan and Americans in Kamchatka?

As for the rest, the Chinese will only need to secure the Lena River with some specially-trained troops. Really, I don't think it will be difficult to do so. And the Russians will face the same logistical problems as the Chinese if they were to try a counterattack (in any case, I doubt that we will see lots of troops clashing in Yakutia; the only proper battlefield would be around the Baikal).

And abas l'ONU!

 

[North King]

I'm not quite sure what time period we're talking about, but India might have the capability to launch a trans-Himalayan operation from about 2000 onwards; it would just be a very difficult operation. On the other hand, Tibetans have been more or less replaced by Chinese settlers (At least, I'm pretty sure Chinese settlers are now a majority in Tibet), so there would be active resistance against any kind of invasion or rebellion.

 

[Symphony D.]

I'm not quite sure what time period we're talking about, but India might have the capability to launch a trans-Himalayan operation from about 2000 onwards; it would just be a very difficult operation.

Late 1990 - 1991.

On another note, you and Thlayli of all people having the same things in your signatures definitely is a Conspiracy. With a capital C, even.

 

[North King]

Late 1990 - 1991.

Ah... What I said more or less still stands, then.

On another note, you and Thlayli of all people having the same things in your signatures definitely is a Conspiracy. With a capital C, even.

I have no idea what you're talking about. Must be a coincidence, or you're seeing things.

 

[Swissempire]

Odd PoD: what if the Pig War had gone hot (fried)?

That is interesting. What I think WOULD be very interesting about that is if it had gone very hot, spread not only from the west but to a large scale war with Britain and America. If this were to happen it would delay the civil war, because the Congress would be united by war, instead of being divided by the secretarian strife and legislative stand still it was in 1960. I can see the war exploding, and moves being made by Britain like in the War of 1812. Both sides would attempt to incite revolts in the South and in Quebec respectively. I think instead of Lincoln and a divided democratic party, we would see John Adams Dix and a united Democrats. Lincoln would be seen as unpopular for his anti-war sentiments in the Mexican-American War. Slavery would be pushed to the backround as the Union came together and mobilized, with a Civil War-like conflict except between Britain(and British Canada) and America. America would I think win such a conflict, though at heavy costs. The Mexican Civil War and Reform war would go on longer, because of America and British interests interfering with its resolution, and foreign intervention would be pushed back by that. Timeline wise, I think that the Civil War would break out in the later 1880’s and it becoming a preview of WWI, with trenches, machine guns, and mass causulites. With the trenchs, the South might actually hold out which would divide America and let Spain survive much longer.

In short, VERY interesting indeed.

 

[North King]

That is interesting. What I think WOULD be very interesting about that is if it had gone very hot, spread not only from the west but to a large scale war with Britain and America.

Yes, that would be quite interesting, but I imagine that other powers would eventually be drawn into the war.

If this were to happen it would delay the civil war, because the Congress would be united by war, instead of being divided by the secretarian strife and legislative stand still it was in 1960. I can see the war exploding, and moves being made by Britain like in the War of 1812. Both sides would attempt to incite revolts in the South and in Quebec respectively. I think instead of Lincoln and a divided democratic party, we would see John Adams Dix and a united Democrats. Lincoln would be seen as unpopular for his anti-war sentiments in the Mexican-American War. Slavery would be pushed to the backround as the Union came together and mobilized, with a Civil War-like conflict except between Britain(and British Canada) and America.

I do agree that America would be united, but...

America would I think win such a conflict, though at heavy costs.

...This is doubtful. America would not be able to fight the British navy, not even on vaguely equal terms. The British would vastly outnumber the Americans, and they would have better ships. We could clearly see the power of the British navy against land targets in the Crimean War, when they shelled Russian ports with very little opposition; the British had better ironclads than the Americans ever did. In short, I think we'd see New York, Boston, Charleston, etc., shelled to pieces, and public opinion would turn vastly against the war. Even Washington DC would not be safe--the American government would have to flee out of reach of the sea.

The Mexican Civil War and Reform war would go on longer, because of America and British interests interfering with its resolution, and foreign intervention would be pushed back by that.

I think the British would be likely to support that French puppet--Maximilian, was it? Unless, of course, the French supported America.

Timeline wise, I think that the Civil War would break out in the later 1880’s and it becoming a preview of WWI, with trenches, machine guns, and mass causulites. With the trenchs, the South might actually hold out which would divide America and let Spain survive much longer.

A Civil war in the 1880s would be even more biased towards the North, with the industrialization of war becoming more important, but then again, the delaying of the violence could lead to a more bitter feeling, so the South might resort to guerrilla war. In any case, as seen at Petersburg, trench warfare was already existent in the 1860s.

 

[Kal'thzar]

An intriguing point to ponder in light of situation I think is the British Commonwealth perhaps tightening back up in cohesion towards Empire again (probably not that far, of course) in response to the continental situation and realigning more quickly and strongly back toward America.

its not a perhaps. It WOULD happen, no two ways about it. esp aligning with America, well unless the commonwealth was sufficiently powerfull, but thats not going to happen. The Commonwealth might actually have a push to Federalise after a certain point. (although it would initially revert back to the economical benefits etc)

 

[Swissempire]

I know that trench warfar existed, i;m just saying it would be on a more massive scale, almost WWI-ish, because of recent advances in technology.

On the Mexican Civil War thing, Maximillian isn't installed yet, there is still an actual war going on between Liberal and Convervatives(not what they called themselves I'm sure)

As for tha naval thing, i think it would be very much like in the OTL Civil War where the Union controlled the sea's, but Confederate brilliance would take the land(to a point). With Lee and Sherman and Grant and Jackson and the laundry list of genius's on the union side, I think that major Canadian territory would be taken. The Union would of course lose the Atlantic, but they could re focus on the Great Lakes and build up a ironclad fleet there. They also have the rivers, which the Britsh wouldn't be able to control. It would much like a far more successful War of 1812, with America seizing much of Canada as a bargaining chip, a revolutinary Quebec, but with Boston, New York, DC and Charleston taking heavy damage from the British Royal Navy.

 

[North King]

No, I don't think that the American economy could keep going if we lost the coast to bombardment, which would certainly happen. British detachments could devastate every major city in the United States of the time.

 

[Disenfrancised]

I know that trench warfar existed, i;m just saying it would be on a more massive scale, almost WWI-ish, because of recent advances in technology.

On the Mexican Civil War thing, Maximillian isn't installed yet, there is still an actual war going on between Liberal and Convervatives(not what they called themselves I'm sure)

As for tha naval thing, i think it would be very much like in the OTL Civil War where the Union controlled the sea's, but Confederate brilliance would take the land(to a point). With Lee and Sherman and Grant and Jackson and the laundry list of genius's on the union side, I think that major Canadian territory would be taken. The Union would of course lose the Atlantic, but they could re focus on the Great Lakes and build up a ironclad fleet there. They also have the rivers, which the Britsh wouldn't be able to control. It would much like a far more successful War of 1812, with America seizing much of Canada as a bargaining chip, a revolutinary Quebec, but with Boston, New York, DC and Charleston taking heavy damage from the British Royal Navy.

Why can't the British take the great lakes as well? If they can secure the seaway at the start of the war...Britain at the time had some 50%+ of the world's shipbuilding capacity and would be able to knock out twice as many ironclads (and better ones, see HMS Warrior).

Secondly, I pretty sure this would escalate slowly rather than quickly as both sides would seek diplomatic means first, giving the Canadians time to prepare.

 

[Swissempire]

No, I don't think that the American economy could keep going if we lost the coast to bombardment, which would certainly happen. British detachments could devastate every major city in the United States of the time.

But we're not talking about the entire might of the British Navy and Army here. At the same time as this conflict, they're fighting the second opium war, helping to unite Italy, setting up colonies and bases in Lagos, and trying to put down an organized revolution in New Zealand.

I think there would be a great deal of damage and industrial stunting because of that, but that said, I think we would still survive, and have a possibly pyrricly victorious war. A lot of Industrial capacity would simply move inland. In the long run, we might even see a decrease in Eastern Seaboard influence and a upsurge of Midwestern(by that i mean Ohio, Michigan, Illinois, Missouri) influence.

 

[Swissempire]

Why can't the British take the great lakes as well? If they can secure the seaway at the start of the war...Britain at the time had some 50%+ of the world's shipbuilding capacity and would be able to knock out twice as many ironclads (and better ones, see HMS Warrior).

Secondly, I pretty sure this would escalate slowly rather than quickly as both sides would seek diplomatic means first, giving the Canadians time to prepare.

I don't think that the British would be able to take an hold the Great Lakes because of our on site shipbuilding, and troubles in Quebec. And the HMS Warrior comes out 1-2 years into this conflict.

It would escalate slowly, but by the end of 1859, it would have spread throughout the west. Some hawks just have to capitalize on it. Its like to run up to the Civil War, with San Juan Island being Sumter.