Alternate History Thread III

Given the fact successful politicians essentially require a sense of jaded realism (usually...) and paranoia, I would imagine that even the staunchest of idealists (say, someone like Bush, or Wallace) would realize the enormous security risks involved, or at least some of their advisors would. The sheer idiocy required to believe in something like that map is (and I never thought I'd say this) beyond at least 99% of the human race. It would take some mighty big reality wrangling to get somebody fitting into that 1% (or less) into a position to make it come to be.

And that's before factoring in the other problems. Eg: why would China give up Manchuria to the USSR? Why would the CCP magically back down against the KMT to begin with? Why would either of them let the USA establish a presence in Taiwan or Hainan? Why would the UK give up India (which for some reason gets Burma and Afghanistan?) while keeping some other pieces of its empire and why would anyone with half a brain let the USSR take Persia? How is Socialist France going to team up with Fascist Spain to create a single state? Why would France then play second fiddle by surrendering Indochina to the Chinese when the UK gets to keep its colonies? Why would either France or the UK give up holdings in Africa (historically the last to go...)? Finland somehow voluntarily surrenders itself under international pressure?

There are just so many incredibly stupid things wrong with that map that no possible assemblage of parties would agree to it, and even if they did (against all odds) then the geopolitical situation would collapse. Immediately. If the world wound up looking like that in 1946 - 1947, WWIII would occur by 1950. Guaranteed.

Plus, there's honestly too few nations to play, unless one wants to force half the players to be rebels.
 
I do agree that its very implausible, but you overstate some things, like mankind's intelligence.

why would China give up Manchuria to the USSR?

Actually, that part isn't all that unlikely; NORTHERN Manchuria is a traditional Russian/Soviet sphere of influence, and the railroad that defines its southern border was (partially) recognized as Soviet by first China and then Japan. If anything, its surprising the Soviet Union didn't gobble up more of China in this world.

Why would the CCP magically back down against the KMT to begin with?

Presumably, it will be somehow defeated; possibly as a result of a Soviet betrayal (I'm thinking that perhaps Mao and some other leaders might be assassinated, and the others coerced by the Soviets to ally with Chaing Kai-shek in exchange for China aligning with the USSR; Stalin was always more than willing to get rid of Mao, but didn't get a good opportunity).

Why would either of them let the USA establish a presence in Taiwan or Hainan?

Well frankly if the Americans want to do that, there doesn't seem to be much China could do against it...

Why would the UK give up India (which for some reason gets Burma and Afghanistan?) while keeping some other pieces of its empire and why would anyone with half a brain let the USSR take Persia?

a) Britain giving up India was historical and based on very real British promises.
b) Burma's value to Britain is limited after withdrawing from India, so it might as well go to the Indians. As for Afghanistan, that IS weird.
c) Again, who is going to stop them? The British have other problems, the Americans are also busy elsewhere.

How is Socialist France going to team up with Fascist Spain to create a single state?

Socialist France? Fascist Spain? Neither seems to be particularily true in OTL (okay, that's just me being pedantic). And anyway, the American leadership in this world, being maximalistic, will probably overthrow Spanish and Portuguese governments as well and then hand them to De Gaulle on a silver plate.

Why would France then play second fiddle by surrendering Indochina to the Chinese when the UK gets to keep its colonies?

I agree that THAT is definitely weird. But presumably the French decided to concentrate on Europe and thus disengaged from the colonies with maximum speed to avoid fighting a war they had no intentions of winning (but gave Indochina to the Chinese just to spite the Vietnamese rebels).

Why would either France or the UK give up holdings in Africa (historically the last to go...)?

That, too, is one of the least likely things here, but presumably combined Soviet-American pressure causes people to do things like that.

Finland somehow voluntarily surrenders itself under international pressure?

No, it is thrown to the wolves, and eventually crushed. The Red Army of 1945 is somewhat better than the one of 1939, don't you think?

I do agree that there are many problems, but some of them are solveable, if we presume that this plan isn't imposed in a single go but is a result of a different war timeline that somehow allows this sort of stuff to occur.

Plus, there's honestly too few nations to play, unless one wants to force half the players to be rebels.

I counted fifteen. NES2 VIb had eighteen at the start. We could also split up South America, with the USSA as a more superficial modern EU-like organization; and Africa is very liable to fall apart quickly.

Disagree about the inevitability of WWIII, though it is far more likely in this world; there definitely will be some pretty violent lesser conflicts, though. USE has particularily high trouble-making possibilities.
 
I do agree that its very implausible, but you overstate some things, like mankind's intelligence.
No, I do indeed believe in Einstein's theory of man's infinite stupidity. This scenario somehow transcends infinite stupidity, however. :p I don't claim to understand how it does this, but its incredible distortion of spacetime somehow is just offensive on all levels. As a comparison, I see Orwell's 1984 world as comparatively infinitely more plausible than this scenario.

Actually, that part isn't all that unlikely; NORTHERN Manchuria is a traditional Russian/Soviet sphere of influence, and the railroad that defines its southern border was (partially) recognized as Soviet by first China and then Japan. If anything, its surprising the Soviet Union didn't gobble up more of China in this world.
That doesn't make sense in the context of presuming the KMT wins and somehow goes over to the Soviets (which doesn't make sense by itself; see below). "We'll help you, despite having previously backed your enemy, presuming you give us huge strips of land and become our puppet."

Why would they take that offer instead of soliciting interventionist USA's help (see Spain; since they're so willing to go around knocking off other countries)? The Soviets have no method of stopping that except continuing to support the CCP (which destroys this scenario) or just standing on the sidelines.

Presumably, it will be somehow defeated; possibly as a result of a Soviet betrayal (I'm thinking that perhaps Mao and some other leaders might be assassinated, and the others coerced by the Soviets to ally with Chaing Kai-shek in exchange for China aligning with the USSR; Stalin was always more than willing to get rid of Mao, but didn't get a good opportunity).
Easier said than done. Same problems as with the US somehow overthrowing Spain: WWII left the Soviet Union about as exhausted (or at least tired of war - probably much more so) as the United States. For them to just turn around and go beating down the CCP is ludicrous. Furthermore the KMT had a larger force that was better supplied, OTL, and they still lost. Even with direct intervention it would be no means easy, and it would be extremely bad form for the Soviets to knock out a fellow Communist revolution. Plus, why on Earth would Chang Kai-shek align with the Soviets when his biggest backers are American? And when they're taking vast swathes of his country just like the Japanese did? Makes no sense.

Well frankly if the Americans want to do that, there doesn't seem to be much China could do against it...
Other than the fact they serve no strategic value since China is not an enemy (if anything, it would be flung into American hands by the Soviet threat, which is much closer, ideological differences, etc.), given that the United States also controls the Philippines? A similar problem is presented by those random US bases in West Africa which it has absolutely no use for. Again, senseless.

a) Britain giving up India was historical and based on very real British promises.
b) Burma's value to Britain is limited after withdrawing from India, so it might as well go to the Indians. As for Afghanistan, that IS weird.
c) Again, who is going to stop them? The British have other problems, the Americans are also busy elsewhere.
A has never stopped anyone before, but fine. The fact India is a singular unit despite the almost inevitable Hindu / Muslim split is also bizarre. B... because they're not Indian? That's like making a bomb and then strapping some nails to it just for extra fun. And C... hrm, the British? As one might notice, the layout of their bases and colonies is designed to make the Indian Ocean their lake. They, at least, certainly wouldn't let the Soviets get port access to it. The Crimean War was fought for much less.

Socialist France? Fascist Spain? Neither seems to be particularily true in OTL (okay, that's just me being pedantic). And anyway, the American leadership in this world, being maximalistic, will probably overthrow Spanish and Portuguese governments as well and then hand them to De Gaulle on a silver plate.
You know precisely what I mean. That also seems awfully nice of the American public, to go around supporting the engagement of further conflict after having been exhausted by WWII and desiring a return to isolationism, and not even for American interests! Particularly for those ungrateful French who wanted nothing to do with America after the war! It's more likely a giant asteroid would simply smack the planet and end all life than that this would somehow happen.

Disagree about the inevitability of WWIII, though it is far more likely in this world; there definitely will be some pretty violent lesser conflicts, though. USE has particularily high trouble-making possibilities.
(Bigger and More Powerful USSR + Exporting the Communist Revolution) x (Bigger and More Powerful USA + Increasing Capitalist Markets + Stronger European Nations) x (Half a Dozen Poorly Built Supernations Full of Pissed Minorities) = World War III. The situation is so much more exceptionally unstable and the players are so much more vastly powerful and bold that it would be a virtual inevitability. The Soviet Union already owns half the European continent, it just needs to push a little more to grab it all.

It's just ridiculous. For this scenario to come to pass doesn't need a PoD. It doesn't need PoDs. It needs a complete warping of reality. It would make more sense for Mexico to agree to the Zimmerman Note and declare war on the United States in WWI, amongst a million other things, than for any of these exceptionally bizarre happenings to occur.
 
That doesn't make sense in the context of presuming the KMT wins and somehow goes over to the Soviets (which doesn't make sense by itself; see below). "We'll help you, despite having previously backed your enemy, presuming you give us huge strips of land and become our puppet."

Technically its a prodigal son scenario - Chiang Kai-Shek was a Soviet ally at first, before he purged the communists in his government (and even then, some cooperation continued).

Why would they take that offer instead of soliciting interventionist USA's help (see Spain; since they're so willing to go around knocking off other countries)? The Soviets have no method of stopping that except continuing to support the CCP (which destroys this scenario) or just standing on the sidelines.

Because the Americans stole Taiwan and Hainan. :p

And when they're taking vast swathes of his country just like the Japanese did?

North Manchuria is such a vast swath of China...

Other than the fact they serve no strategic value since China is not an enemy

Going by the previous Soviet-Chinese reconciliation scenario, it does make sense; problem is, its hard to establish just what was the cause and what - the effect. I'm beginning to think that maybe Chiang Kai-shek was overthrown by some anti-American faction instead...

The fact India is a singular unit despite the almost inevitable Hindu / Muslim split is also bizarre.

The inevitability of that is overstated, the Muslims and the Hindus did cooperate for much of the early 20th century, to one extent or another; the problem is that India will be very unstable indeed, even worse than the more balanced Austria-Hungary (then again, that might be a good thing - the Hindus being more numerous, they just MIGHT overpower the Muslims).

The Crimean War was fought for much less.

No, it was fought for much more, it was fought to preserve a great power vital to the European balance of power. In any case, back then Britain was at the very least on par with Russia, most probably it was stronger; in 1945, however, the balance is changed...

---

I do not agree with your assesment of inevitable Soviet-American conflict, though. It depends on just how foolhardy are the leaders on both sides; even then, in OTL they were VERY fulhardy, the more peaceful and complacent people like Beria and Wallace remaining out of power, and yet no war came, only a few crises of dubious ignitability. IMHO in OTL, both the USSR and the USA had way too much to lose from a war; in this world, both have even more to lose. Now, Truman and Stalin might lead to WWIII; but even slightly less aggressive leaders might as well decide to leave things as is.

Another matter entirely is the world's lesser powers; as I had already said, USE has high trouble-making potential, as does China if it gets its act together. And that only decreases the chances of a general Soviet-American war. Just what will they fight over, anyway? The Soviet Union isn't at all guaranteed to try and march on to La Manche; if we put Beria in power, it will probably just sit where it is, consolidate gains and reconstruct.

Also, I repeat - WWII, and thus the immediate post-WWII world, should be radically different in this world; many of your objections make much more sense if someone had tried to impose this in OTL 1945, as opposed to this being the outcome of an alternate WWII. Spain and Finland, for instance, may well have been knocked out IN THE PROCESS, for one reason or another.

I still think you overstate the implausibility of this situation.
 
I do not agree with your assesment of inevitable Soviet-American conflict, though. It depends on just how foolhardy are the leaders on both sides
Given what's required to set up this scenario, I would have to imagine they'd be vastly more foolhardy than their real-life counterparts. :p It works, I suppose, if one presumes the entire world went insane for, give or take, five to ten years. I've had my fill of Internet quote-a-thons in my life, so I will just agree to disagree on the specifics to save both time and space.

Honestly though, even if were to somehow happen, it wouldn't make for a terribly good game, I think. the USSR and USA will completely dominate the game (more so than your average Cold War clash), with maybe China, UK, and the European Union/Community forming a second tier. Africa, the Middle East, South America, and India, all look to implode shortly out of the opening gate. In the realm of implausibility, at the very least ICNES had the benefit of having a far less predictable and multipolar scenario than what this presents.
 
Indeed. Often, I myself was not sure with whom I was allied in ICNES I.

das said:
Dachspmg has PMed me, saying that he is working on his medieval althist (the one with the, surprise-surprise, stronger Byzantium) again, and expanding it chronologically into the 12th century and geographically into India.
Whenever did you get the impression that the Eastern Empire would be stronger? ;) Seriously, I think I've pretty well fixed that problem of the last three installments. It's not quite done enough to post yet, but it ought be finished this weekend or early next week.
 
It still was stronger than in OTL, despite that Italian fiasco.
 
Basically anything would be stronger than in OTL Eastern Empire. ;)

It won't be particularly well off or badly off this coming installment.
 
Here's the Cold War of Insanity Map, as promised. The eco center distributions are truely bizzare, with only five for the US, and around twenty for the USSR, but that's because I used the original NES 2: VI map as a base. Eco centers can be changed easily by whoever mods this.

EDIT: Upload not working, strangely. I'll try again later.
 
In the 1790s, a new great European war had started, though its beginnings were slightly humble. It was a war like none before, as the combination of the agricultural revolution and the bureaucratic consolidation allowed both sides involved to conscript vast armies, and unleash them on each other. It was a destructive war which radically changed the balance of power and rewrote history.

Yet as it had started in the year 1800, it makes little sense for us discuss it before mentioning the various other events that preceded it, whether relevant or not (many events were indirectly and unobviously relevant, due to the world being intertied as it is). Though today the 1790s often seem to be a time of frightful anticipation and preparation for the final clash, though this was certainly present there was far more than this to it.

For instance, the great colonial-commercial-naval boom and the colonial-commercial-naval race continued all over the world; Britain, France, Denmark-Norway, Sweden, Spain, Portugal, Russia, Prussia, Belgium, Austria and several lesser German and Italian states continued to build up their trade and war fleets. Despite a certain upsurge in Prussian, Spanish and Neapolitan sea power, Britain and France remained the two primary sea powers, by now probably equal in strenght. Likewise, both countries remained in the forefront of the competition in most of the non-European markets, and possessed great influence all over the world, sometimes transformed into outright conquest and colonization. Still, the others also had something to show for their efforts, the Spanish colonizing the Mississippi and the Ohio valleys frantically and the Prussians, the Danes and the Swedes establishing new several trade outposts in West Africa.

In North America, the sparsely-populated northwestern "half" of the continent was undergoing continued colonization, and by the end of the decade was largely divided between Britain (whose fur traders and explorers had reached Rupertsland's western boundary on the Rezanov River (OTL Mackenzie River)), Russia (which established a greater presence in Alaska, complete with penal colonies, and expanded from there to the Rezanov River in the east and the Quadra Island (OTL Vancouver Island) in the south) and ofcourse Spain (which continued colonizing and fortifying its gains on the Mississippi, the Ohio and in between, and now also increased its efforts in California, even sending a third expedition to Quadra Island, establishing a trade outpost and warding off a Russian attack there; and it too had imitated the Portuguese efforts in Angola, establishing several penal colonies in Louisiana). The Quadra Island was an area of particular conflict, due to its good strategic position and commercial potential; the Russians established several trade outposts and later a fort, in the north; to the south, Villa Quadra (named, like the island itself, for the Spanish explorer who had navigated the coastlines of northwestern America and himself led two expeditions to the island) was built by the Spanish; and in the west, the aging British war hero and explorer James Cook (in the final part of his fourth great expedition through the Pacific) established an additional British presence, at Fort Burke on Nootka Sound.

In the more developed eastern areas, trouble and tensions brewed as well after the death of King George I (formerly III) in 1793. George II rose to power, but he was inexperienced and only slightly more popular in Greater Georgia; thus, he failed to prevent a major revolt that soon took place in Virginia, although timely reforms (establishing and conceding some powers to a parliament) saved his rule elsewhere (despite his suicidal decision to refuse French assistance). After the breakdown of initial negotiations of Virginia and the proclamation of the "Jacobin Republic" (so called for River James), the Georgian forces invaded the rebellious province but were defeated by the foremost rebel general, Henry Lee - this defeat was quite demoralizing, caused the Greater Georgian parliament to demand further concessions from the king and allowed several disconnected Jacobin, Amerind and slave revolts in Greater Georgia. Soon things got bad enough for George II to invite French intervention; the rebels in the three southern provinces were defeated, although the reforms were not rescinded. In Virginia, however, things were more difficult than this; Henry Lee defeated a Franco-Georgian punitive force at Emporia. The reasons of his surprising military victories were the extremelly good use of cavalry, later replaced by an efficient combined-arms force reinforced by British volunteers, the French underestimation of his forces, the skillful use of internal communication, supply and redeployment lines (assisted by the development of the telegraph), and, perhaps even more importantly, the willingness of the Jacobins to forego the usual laws of warfare (and take the lessons of the Five Years War into consideration, most notably the British partisan war experience). When another, stronger Franco-Hispanno-Georgian force attacked in 1796, it was not given battle but instead harrased by partisans, haunted by snipers and, despite winning some skirmishes, eventually had to retreat without achieving any of its goals in order to survive.

At first the British were jubilant, but the Moderate government was increasingly suspicious of the Jacobin radicalism and Thomas Jefferson's provisional government's increasingly-independent line in world politics; things got even worse when in 1797 Pennsylvania, after some more crises, finally seceded and immediately was recognized by the Jacobin Republic; the two soon signed an alliance and as by then the warfare in Virginian territory had died down numerous Virginian units participated in resisting the British attack at Allentown; eventually the Pennsylvanians had repulsed or contained all British advances, and established closer ties with Virginia; eventually it was decided by both governments to create the united Republic of Washington (so called for the 1770s Virginian national hero, who was also quite popular in Pennsylvania); the integration was gradual and incomplete, but a greater amount of cooperation was achieved. As European volunteers begun to arrive and the famous Pennsylvanian manufacturies produced brand new weapons, the Washingtonians repulsed several new invasions in 1799 and struck back to occupy Maryland, Delaware, Philadelphia (held by the British forces since the beginning of the Pennsylvanian revolt) and even New Jersey, with the help of local sympathisers; here, certainly, the surprise effect was important; the British never expected this kind of daring, and their garrisons were insufficient to hold ground here. In 1800, New Jersey was recaptured by an expedition supported by local Moderates, but further advance was defeated, and soon, bad news came; Greater Georgia and France gave up and signed a cease-fire with the Washingtonians, though still not giving them a formal recognition; both sides managed to overcome their mutual hatred for realpolitik concerns - the Washingtonians wanted to close the southern theatre, and were willing to sacrifice their western and southern opportunities for now; as for the French, they killed two birds with one arrow - their hands were untied, while the British were tied down by this insurgency. The French crown really, really needed free hands now...

To sum up, as of 1800 the Washington Republic, presently a loosely-knit federation of the Jacobin Republic, Pennsylvania and some rebel organizations in the captured territories, was united by the War Council (where the various governments sent their representatives for coordination's sake), based in the city of Wilkes-Barre. Initial political and social reforms were already enacted, an efficient modern fighting force was created and professionalized. Virginia, Pennsylvania, Maryland and Delaware were in rebel hands, and an unlikely truce with France was achieved; but the war with Britain was far from won, a larger British force was assembling in New Jersey, and internal divisions within the Republic were growing alarmingly.

In Latin America, little of note took place; this was a quiet, peaceful time of development, prosperity - and quietly simmering social and political tensions. Ideas of Enlightenment and republicanism had only increased the present problems; already, the first secret societies formed. But superficially, all was well.

After the death of Edmund Burke in 1795 and the previous retirement of his archenemy Charles James Fox, the British Commonwealth endured something of a power vacuum, but other great leaders soon rose to prominence - the Radicals were headed by John Cartwright, while the Moderates were led by William Pitt the Younger (although Charles Cornwallis was also prominent, and became the British foreign minister when Pitt's Moderates came to power in 1798). Some constitutional reforms for greater suffrage took place, the laws were codified, the government - rationalized. Britain continued to undergo rapid industrialization, while Ireland was increasingly assimilated through a well-planned cultural and economic policy there. By now the British fleet had recovered its strenght, but the government in London didn't think that the time was ripe yet to go to war with France; further preparations were needed, not to mention a casus belli. Still, things were moving towards a clash between the two sea powers...

The other sea power was again in turmoil; just when the Third Estate finally became content and attained supremacy after a parliamentary crisis granted both the Parlement and the bourgoise greater power, the "Fourth Estate" - as the French proletariate was called by many - begun to rise up as well. Despite some Physiocratic opposition, France did participate in the Industrial Revolution; it soon became one of Europe's greatest industrial powers, somewhat behind Britain but ahead of Belgium and Prussia, but as far as the workers were concerned that wasn't really all that good - the working (and living) conditions were simply terrible, and the radical politicians, dismayed at their rapid loss of popularity with the bourgoise (now that it was in power), soon found an excellent soil amongst the poors of Paris and Lyon. In 1792, riots in those key manufacturing centers degenerated into armed fighting; a radical coup was thwarted in 1794; Premier Anthoine Barnave was assassinated later in the same year; anti-industrialist machine-smashing rebellions occured in the Vendee and in the southeast, though these never did become very important. The new Premier, Joseph Fouche, had managed to restore order in 1797; instead of simply massacring rioters with cavalry charges as was done before, he used the national police, the marechaussee, which he had personally overhauled and expanded; this police apparatus was probably the most perfect in the world, with a wide network of agents, assassins and informants. Several conspiracies were crushed, the radical leaders were bribed, blackmailed, compromised, arrested or assassinated. At the same time, the carrot of curbed excesses and token social reforms was added. Order in France was restored.

Industries aside, France entered a minor economic stagnation now as the initial impetus granted by the reforms wore out; still, the flourishing middle class flourished further, and French commerce reached out all over the world, penetrating further and further. The French colonial empire also expanded considerably, but more on that a bit later. In Europe, France maintained neutraltiy even as war brewed in East Europe; yet clearly, the French and their allies were preparing for something. Major military reforms and reorganizations took place, a young generation of military officers, many of them commoners and provincials (hell, there even were a few Corsicans!), emerged. France, apparently, did not really plan ahead for the interesting times about to dawn upon Europe; it, however, intended to win as much as possible from whatever was about to happen.

After the death of Carlos III, Spain, alas, had stagnated; while Carlos III was a strong, independent-minded king that consistantly supported and promoted meritous reformers, his son Carlos IV was the opposite - he was dominated by his wife Maria Luisa and she, in turn, trusted her lover Manuel de Godoy most of the affairs of state. De Godoy suppressed the reformer Jose Mocino y Redondo, conde de Floridablanca, exiling him to Louisiana, and defeated a conspiracy by the French-inspired liberal officerdom; although he wasn't all that reactionary, he had failed to introduce any reforms neither, and likewise proved unable to fight the incrasing corruption and inflation; the tariff wars with Britain in the last few years of the decade had contributed to Spain's economic decline and the increase of the social tensions in Spain itself and in Latin America; a French-style compromise was attempted, but the Cortes soon became the breeding ground of even more conspiracies, and so had to be purged, remaining impotent. As in France, the momentum of the renaissance had ran out, and though Spain did survive as a great power, it now turned into "the Sick Man of Europe" (as the famous French man of letters, Charles-Maurice de Talleyrand, put it a few years later). This decay was however partially masked, with French assistance, by the events in the Mediterranean Sea...

Portugal was little better, in fact it was probably even worse, but things were more quiet there as the country languished and Maria got completely out of touch with reality. The country and the queen alike were senile, ailing and quietly dying, while neighbours still traded with her some, pretended that she was just fine to avoid angering her needlessly in her last days and nevertheless already begun stealing the silverware (the British had all but usurped Macao by now, while the Spanish had claimed some minor Brazilian borderlands while nobody else was looking).

United Provinces of Holland got worse and worse with the years until a pro-French government briefly overthrew the stadholder in 1792. It had failed to hold on to power, and all authority soon collapsed, with yet another Anglo-Prussian intervention restoring some semblance of order; after that, some reforms were finally undertaken, the Kingdom of Holland was proclaimed and a Prussian-style centralized bureaucratic absolutism was imposed (the weak-willed, ailing, insane Willem V had by now become nearly irrelevant; the true ruler was his Prussian queen, Wilhelmina, and it showed); corruption and liberalism were purged; a powerful police apparatus was created. These reforms did, at the price of many deaths, rejuvinate Holland; but for the Dutch colonial empire it was already too late, Sudafrika had declared independence and VOC was crippled by bankrupcy and native revolts, to eventually be disbanded in 1797. By then the Dutch East Indies were lost, probably irreversably so as all sorts of foreign merchants took up the Dutch niche there; consequentially, the Hollanders had now concentrated on building up a colonial empire in Africa, especially West and Central Africas, with mixed results.

No major domestic changes took place in Denmark-Norway; as for the overseas empire, it developed without many major incidents. To the east, in Sweden, absolutism was being consolidated; finally frustrated by the parliamentarists and inspired by his Prussian allies, Gustav III introduced clearly Prussian-based administrative, military and social reforms, although his attempts to Prussianize the Swedish army and society resulted in major dissent and an attempted liberal officer coup d'etat in 1795. Nevertheless, the reforms went on, and the Swedish military was turend into a fairly efficient war machine; the fleet, meanwhile, was also modernized with British assistance. While in Sweden the opposition to Gustav III's rule was really quite mild, especially after 1795, in Finland he became hated - a violent crackdown on the separatist and Russophile societies took place, several Finnish cultural leaders were repressed, mass Swedish settlement was encouraged all over Finland, a nationalist rebellion in 1798 was put down in blood, and since then Finland had been placed under military administration to combat the partisan movement in the inlands. Voluntary civil Swedish colonies in Finland were now joined by military settlements and the lands granted to the new Swedish miltiary elite. To many of the Finns, St. Petersburg, for all of its problems, suddenly begun to seem not all that bad at all...

The death of Friedrich the Great in 1791 had immediately-noticeable effect on Prussia; the great king had personally led Prussia to greatness, he personally was reponsible for the transformation of Prussia into a great power, and his heirs were not worthy of comparison with him. Friedrich Wilhelm II had ruled for four years (1791-1794) during which he failed to do anything at all apart from patronizing art and encouraging religious tolerance; fortunately, both he and his son Friedrich Wilhelm III had able ministers and an impeccable bureaucratic apparatus. Particularily notable out of the Prussian ministers of the time was Reichsfreiherr Karl Heinrich Friedrich vom und zum Stein, the father of the peculiar ideology of "Prussian liberalism", which was actually conservative and militaristic; nevertheless, vom und zum Stein had continued Friedrich the Great's social reforms, organized the creation of a mostly-powerless Prussian Diet, encouraged trade with Britain and the growth of Prussian enterprise. But his most notable role was the one that he played in the Josefian Reorganization.

Kaiser Josef II got only more radical with age; his querrel with the Papacy worsened, and so in 1792 the secularization of Austria was brought to a logical conclusion, the church being completely separated from the state (although the Roman Empire remained Holy, ofcourse). Likewise, Josef II was increasingly annoyed by the rebellious Hungarians, and thus started a Germanization program, establishing ethnic German colonies, enforcing German language and culture (even moreso than previously) and fostering the ideas of German nationalism. Secularism and nationalism were combined in the matters of the greater Empire; seeking to bring it closer together, Josef II and other key German rulers (or at least their representatives - such as the aforementioned vom und zum Stein) met in Frankfurt am Main, to discuss the affairs of the Empire. The eventual decision created a permanent Reichskongress in Frankfurt am Main, with representatives from all German nations (to discuss the Imperial affairs and coordinate the policies); a drastic reduction of tariffs within the Holy Roman Empire; agreements for cooperation in diplomatic and military spheres; an exchange of territories; and, ofcourse, secularization reforms, many of which had been adapted to one extent or another previously. Only, it also included the partition of the Church lands in Germany between the secular states there. Vatican was outraged, and placed an interdict on the signatories, but its influence was quite limited by now, especially amongst the Protestant princes. Some Catholic revolts in the Habsburg Italian territories took place, but these rebels were soon defeated. France protested somewhat, some outbursts of genuine Catholic fanaticism took place (the scepticism predominant previously was immediately forgotten), but the French parlementaries were inwardly content - the alliance with the Papal States was assured, and the loyal servants of the Rex Christianissimus were granted an excellent opportunity to champion Catholicism in his name, increasing France's prestige.

In the aftermath of the Josefian Reorganization, the map of Germany was redrawn. Belgium received Liege, Cologne and Trier, Brunswick-Hannover annexed Hildesheim, Prussia captured Paderborn and Munster, Austria took Salzburg, Trent, Passau, Regensburg, Augsburg, Eichstadt and others. Many other church states were annexed by one state or another, most notably Saxony had expanded to the southwest considerably in compensation for losing rights to Trier and Augsburg and resigning all rights to Poland - it had received Ansbach and Bayreuth from the Prussians in exchange for some minor border revisions in Saxony itself, and the secularized states of Wurzburg and Bamberg, becoming one of the second-rate German powers (alongside with Belgium and Brunswick-Hannover). Baden and Wurttemburg had some noticeable growth too. Several minor enclaves were traded.

Josef II died in 1796, and was succeeded by his nephew Franz II, who built up the Austrian army in preparation for something.

Generally, aside from the revolts and the Austro-Papal clash, all was quiet in Italy; nevertheless, as time went on, some changes took place - most notably, Venice's ties with Russia grew even closer, with an official alliance concluded in 1797 (worsening the Austro-Russian relations) and Naples again switched sides, reconciling with the Pope, condemning the Reorganization and officiall joining the Bourbon Family Compact; this reconciliation was preconditioned as much by the Catholic pressure as by the renewal of the Barbary Wars (termed the "Barbary Crusade" by the Catholic-themed propaganda of the Bourbons).

Potocki's regency in Poland continued... but not quietly. The 1790s saw four consecutive major rebellions of the various Polish patriotic organizations, united into confederacies and usually commanded by Polish exiles in Paris who were willing to fight the Russians and their cronies to the last patriotic Pole that didn't follow their example of fleeing to a comfortable French salon yet. However, with time leadership at least partially shifted from the Paris emigres to the Warsaw underground - tragically, however, this resulted in a schism of the Patriot movements, and Tadeusz Koshciuszko's "undergrounders" found themselves fighting the allies of the "emigres" in 1799, after the most succesful rebellion yet. The emigres, who wanted to restore a monarchy, were defeated and a Polish Republic was declared, Potocki hiding behind the Russian bayonets in Wilna - but soon enough, the main Russian forces, fresh from Persia, were thrown into the fray and the Poles once more were defeated despite a desperate levee en masse. Still, Koshciuszko and his most die-hard supporters had avoided capture, retreating westwards and fleeing from Tsar Pavel's fury...

Konstantinos X took over the Byzantine Empire, the Regent having already dropped his plans for hijacking the empire after the failure of his Egyptian adventure. Konstantinos' liberalism was combined with an unique Byzantine nationalism and contempt for the "barbaric Turks" ; major Hellenization efforts occured, and the numerous ethnic rebellions thus provoked were crushed, often with Russian assistance (however, the Byzantine army had grown quite strong by now and was able to fight for itself). At the same time, censorship was eased, and a general cultural revival occured in Constantinople and Salonika; trade ties with Venice were fostered; a representative (but powerless) Senate was assembled in Constantinople.

Things continued as they were in Russia, apart from the beginning of industrialization; Pavel I was particularily interested in railroads to transport troops and supplies all over the empire. His grant railroad-building project was too ambitious, but with the help of European and homegrown engineers several major railways were built, greatly assisting the transportation of the Russian armies. The appearence of a young guard officer corps, fanatically loyal to Pavel I to whom they owed their ascendance (admittedly, many of those new officers were quite competent - some even brilliant), had also furthered Pavel's plans. His pride in his military grew; the Pavelian army, by now no longer the indisciplinned rabble it once was but rather an efficient (if hard to supply) fighting force, stood guard on the borders, crushed rebels all over the empire and also participated in the Tsar's great enterprise of the decade - the Southern Expedition. More on that under Middle East.
 
Meanwhile, in North Africa, the Barbary Wars had resumed. No longer content with simply eliminating piracy, the Bourbon Powers now set their eyes on the Barbary Coast itself; a secret agreement was reached to partition it, and in 1796, using a resurgence of piracy and the dynastic strife in Morocco as pretexts, launched a naval campaign. French, Spanish, Neapolitan and Genoese fleets easily sunk the petty, unrecovered fleets of the North Africans, and overland invasions commenced. Susah, Tunis, Al Jaza'ir, Oran, Oujda, Rabat, Fez, Agadir and multiple other cities - some coastal, some inland - were captured after the initial resistance was broken; Sultan Mawlay Sulayman, the last ruler of Morocco, soon gave up and acknowledged the Spanish protectorate in exchange for keeping his titles and some privileges, and the Algerian and Tunisian rulers soon followed his example (only surrendering to France and to Naples respectively), having been captured. However, in truth this was only the beginning of the war for Barbary Coast; for the rest of the decade, various local tribes, clans, religious movements and pretenders would assail the Europeans from every mountain and oasis, and though the coastal and northern inland territories were more-or-less secured by 1800, elsewhere the Bourbon control remained uncertain.

Further east, the Venetians had captured Tripolitania and endured similar troubles there; they were also repulsed in Cyreneica, which had immediately pledged allegience to the Egyptians. Murad Bey's long reign continued; yet another Byzantine attack was beaten back, and his son Ibrahim was defeated and tortured to death when he tried to get his throne faster than Allah had intended it. Social reforms and commerce fostered the creation of a middle class in the Nile Delta and separately in Lebanon. France remained Egypt's good ally, providing Murad with engineers for his ambitious public works in exchange for being allowed on a little project of their own. By 1800, the Suez Canal was more than half-finished - after it would be complete, Joseph Fouche mused, the age of French global hegemony will dawn no matter how the other plans might go...

In West Africa, British, French, Swedish and Prussian colonies and outposts were expanded and developed, and some Dutch and Danish ones were set up as well; the Hollanders had more success in Central Africa, in their new colony of Cameroon, a Dutch Angola. The Portuguese had established and expanded a Kongo colony. The French had fortified their hold on Madagascar and begun actively meddling in East African policies, where rich merchants, local nobles and Omani officialdom struggled and intrigued against each other. Lastly, in South Africa, after van der Graaf's death in 1791, a Sudafrikan Republik was proclaimed; the noted explorer and kommando Hendrik Jacob Wikar soon became the stadholder, but was ofcourse a pawn in the hands of the Kaapstad merchants in the Diet, who, eager to save themselves, signed several treaties with Sweden, Britain and France, granting them trade and docking rights and receiving guarantees of Sudafrika's independence and neutrality in exchange; meanwhile, the Sudafrikaans begun a northwards push, fighting and defeating border Xhosas but running into a greater threat poised by the Mtetwa.

With the death of Lotf 'Ali Khan Zand in 1792, Persia again collapsed into anarchy and civil war, and this time the Zands didn't have any competent leaders able to save them; sadly, the other factions weren't much better in that regard, and so the civil war soon destroyed Persia as an united state. That and the strenghthening of the Russian army was the vital precondition of the Southern Expedition (1793-1800), during which four Russian and one Byzantine army had overran Central Asia, Persia and Iraq. As in North Africa, the key cities - at least in Iraq, Aizerbadjan, Central Asia and North Persia - were secured within the first two years, thanks in part to the good use of Bashkir and Kazakh cavalry by the Russians and the skillful Byzantine diplomacy that won them the support of the Baghdad Georgian Mamlukes (Russian diplomats also had some victories, persuading the Central Asian khanates to bow to the Russians in exchange for retaining autonomy and getting assistance against Turkmen rebels). Feldmarschall Suvorov had scored a great victory over the Qajars, then the prevalent Persian faction, in the Battle at Eslamshahr just outside of Tehran; the Qajar clan was crippled, many of its best leaders died and the Russians were free to capture central Persia. But after that, things got more difficult; things were even worse than in North Africa, as the Russians had to control far more territory. The rebellions were ceaseless, while to the south, around Shiraz and Basrah, the Zands regroupped with British help. Many Russian courtiers had suggested that Persia Proper be abandoned, but Pavel I remained unswayed, ordered to press on and sent reinforcements. The Zands were crushed by 1797, but even then Russians could, at best, control the key cities and roads in Persia; many valleys remained rebellious, and often submitted only while the Russian troops were near. Still, gradually control was imposed, especially after it was properly fortified in Central Asia and Aizerbadjan with the defeat of local rebels. An invasion of Afghanistan was also quite succesful due to the dynastic chaos there. But here, as they say, the scythe found the stone. The Russian corps sent on an insane mission of the conquest of India was exhausted, harassed, defeated by Ranjit Singh at Peshawar and slaughtered to a man by the Afghan tribesmen at Jalalabad, in the valley of the river Kabul. By then other concerns had arisen, and so the Russians had withdrawn from the untenable Afghanistan in 1799; troops remained in Persia, however, playing "whack-the-rebel". Byzantines had ran into their own trouble, unable to either decisively defeat the Iraqi rebels or to put an end to the bold Wahhabite raids from Arabia (where the Wahhabite Saudis were definitely on the ascendance, conquering Al Hasa and raiding succesfully in all directions).

In India, the primary native states - Khalistan, Mughalistan and Mysore - continued to expand and grow in strenght. Gujarat had declined somewhat due to dynastic strife; a militarily-strong, but highly-unstable Rajput Empire was forged in Rajputana by Maharaja Sawai Pratap Singh; further south, never-ending wars between Maratha warlords and tribes continued. The European infiltration of the coastal areas had sort of stalled, except in Ceylon which was captured by the Swedes in its entirety after a three-year campaign. Belgians set up some factories in Gujarat and the Konkan.

In Indochina, momentous developments occured. Bodawpaya, displeased with his previous defeats and, to say the least, irritated by the endless British efforts to strenghthen Siam and destabilize Myanmar, decided to crush Siam for good and then attack Bengal. A vast new army was conscripted, and Siam came under attack in 1792; the Siamese were overwhelmed by superior numbers at Chiang Mai and Rhatchaburi. Phraphutthayotfa Chulalok, despairing, also ordered a conscription, proclaimed a war to save Siam... and was all too glad to accept the British assistance soon offered. Long story cut short, with British weapons, advisors and troops, the Siamese had turned the tide in the 1793 Battle of Bangkok, decimating the Burmese with superior weaponry. Before Bodawpaya could regroup, his realm came under attack; the Arakanese, previously conquered, now rose up, and British troops captured Rangoon, Myanmar's key southern port. Arrogantly refusing French assistance, Bodawpaya personally led a vast new army to battle at Pegu; several British regiments were literally overran, but the others fought on, the death toll mounted and with Bodawpaya's death it was all over - the Burmese army, and the Burmese state, had fallen into disarray. They weren't allowed to recover - British troops secured Pegu, the Irrawaddy Delta and Arakan, the far north (Kachin) came under Qing Chinese rule, Shan, Tenasserim and Karen were annexed by Siam directly and the rest of Myanmar became the Siamese vassal kingdom of Amarapura. Continuing his cooperation with the British, his reforms and his conquests, Phraphutthayotfa Chulalok had transformed Siam into the unchallenged hegemon of Indochina. But the French in Vietnam remained an unremovable threat.

The VOC collapsed, both due to its bankruptcy and due to the Javanese revolt that overwhelmed it and ended with the massacre at Batavia. Sultan Hamengkubuwono II of Yokyakarta, the key Javanese state previously under Dutch rule, had then campaigned extensively to impose his authority on all of Java; in this he eventually succeeded, but for Bantam which became a Swedish client state. The rest of the Dutch East Indies also either fell to local rulers new or old, or was simply captured by Europeans - notably, the British secured most of Sumatra except for the Swedish east coast, the Portuguese united Timor, the Spanish infiltrated Borneo and Celebes, and the Sunda Islands and the Moluccas were soon captured by either of the three aforementioned colonists, or by Sweden, or even by France whose influence and presence in the Indian Ocean was on the rise.

Yet certainly so was Britain's; not only were Sumatra and Pegu secured, but also more Malay lands were grabbed, and outposts in western Australia were established. In the Pacific, Admiral Cook's great expeditions had discovered many new island chains ripe for the taking, and in 1800 the first colony on the other, better side of Australia was set up as well...

In China, Emperor Qianlong, who ruled on even beyond his 1796 abdication, had grown increasingly senile; China was plagued by the White Lotus rebellion and the rise of corruption, spearheaded by Qianlong's favourite Heshen, and the relations with European nations somewhat detiriorated, although the Swedes were allowed to establish a trade port (a Swedish Macao) on a small island near Zhoushan. Still, it was probably good that Qianlong proved not immortal and finally died in late 1800, allowing his sucessor Jiaqing to gloat over Heshen's sudden fall. As for Japan, Matsudaira Sadanobu continued his reforms, yet was even more preoccupied with a perhaps-justified paranoia, as Japan was endlessly assailed by hordes of merchants and diplomats, chiefly Russian or British but also from other European nations. They were all executed brutally whenever caught, and extensive coastal fortifications were built. Other defensive measures were undertaken as well. Japan became more isolated than ever before, a veritable fortress island (chiefly saved, however, by its remoteness - not by the forts).

---

In 1800, just like Kaunitz had predicted, war started over Poland. As Koshciuszko's rebellion begun to crumble, the Russians invaded in full force; promising Regent Stanislaw Potocki and the Polish nobles the retention of their priveleges and powers and protection against the rabble and the Germans that would rather take all that away, Pavel I secured his coronation as King of Poland; but the lavish (and unique - usually Polish kings were Catholics, but Pavel I couldn't really convert - though he wasn't devout at all, the Russian Emperors were usually Orthodox, and that tradition kinda won out) ceremony was interrupted by a bearer of bad news, who reported that even as the Russian forces cornered down the last rebels in the area of Poznan, they clashed with a large force of black-uniformed troops. About 120,000 Austrian, Prussian and other German troops had crossed Poland's western borders while the Russians were chasing after Tadeusz Koshciuszko's partisans, and even now they were marching towards the key cities of Poland. The Great Eastern War (a.k.a. Tsar Pavel's War) had begun.
 
Finally figured out what the problem was; the map was saved as a type of file that the CivFanatic's server couldn't upload. Here it is. You may now scream at me over eco centers.
 

Attachments

  • New BWMap.GIF
    New BWMap.GIF
    92.7 KB · Views: 107
Current Eco Center Totals-

USA- 7
USSA- 6
Ireland- 0
The Commonwealth- 6
USE- 13
USS- 4
Albania- 0
Greece-1
Turkey- 0
Hebrewland- 0
UAR (Africa)- 3
AFR (Arabia)- 4
USSR- 20
Japan- 2
India- 6
China- 11

USSR's total should be lowered, most likely, and the USA's total should be multiplied, and the Commonwealth should at least get one eco center in Australia. But aside from that, the distribution seems to work. I'll revise the map once I get your opinions.
 
I know, but Chicago is the most important one not shown. We have economic importance almost on par with New York and superior to LA as well as the third largest population and, in a geographically restricted area, the second largest (LA gets an enormous area concidered in its metro area, much larger than Chicago or even New York).
 
Hebrewland would be Transjordan or Mandate of Palestine. Israel and Jordan did not exist in 1942, when the map was made. Also, Tel Aviv-Yafo or Eilat should be made eco centres, because of their strategic coastal locations. Preferably Tel-Aviv, as it is bigger, and on the Medditerannean. Also consider Amman as a possible eco centre. In Ireland, Dublin and Belfast could both be eco centres, and in Japan, Tokyo, Kyoto, Hiroshima (this was before the bomb), Kobe, and Nagoya are all options. Rio or Sao Paolo would be better capitals of USSA than Buenos Aires, but that is fine too.
 
Back
Top Bottom