Alternate History Thread III

Despite being somewhat inebriated, I can very easily identify that map, and I can't say as I much approve as it was always something of a pie-in-the-sky concept to begin with. Also: using French blue for the United States is some kind of crime.

Azale said:
@symphony, what DO you suggest?
Something that doesn't suck? This isn't very hard given the quantity of internet output on this issue. :p
 
Agh, but I kinda wanted to start one from about 1960-2007 era, so that I could determine how realistic a technology someone wanted to invent would be

Here's a potentially interesting althist (no comments on plausibility here). Modernish setting, plus lots of potential for violence. Needs some fleshing-out and maps, though; am eager to help, actually:
http://www.angelfire.com/ak2/newmanbyrne/timeline.html

And I know that some of it sounds rather implausible. Complain to the authors if you want.

I really should write the article I've been intending to for awhile now, but I will state it briefly: technology is a force multiplier. Technology as of that time is of such an extreme that with slight modifications it becomes an overwhelming force multiplier. Things are nowhere near as balanced as the geopolitical situation would seem ti imply once this is factored in.

Not really. What you say is true, but technology gaps almost never survive proper military encounters, as was demonstrated by the early 20th century. And if what you say is true, world leaders will realise it, will all commit a reasonable percentage of what resources they have to this problem and so it will again be down to good old geopolitics. Military technology has never provided more than a (admittedly huge) tactical, short-term advantage; it is, ofcourse, true that such advantage can be translated into major strategic gains as well, but that is rather beside the point.

The Strategos, interesting althist; definitely more original. The Pharisean "renaissance" is a bit awkward, though, seeing their OTL anti-templar stances. Still, they were also the most flexible, and their subsequent actions in the althist also make sense. Nonetheless, the fate of the Sadducees may require addressing; without the Temple's fall they will probably still be around, as opposition. On the other hand, with no Christians and with dead Zealots, the Pharisaic supremacy seems indeed assured, baring a Sadducee return.

Jerusalem started to rival Athens and Alexandria as cities of learning.

I'd imagine that this means it will also receive some more Greeks. Jews and Greeks generally resulted in trouble in the Roman days, if Egypt teaches us anything.

Anyway, to sum up, we have the West overran as normal, the East in the charge of Mithraist martial emperors (=poorer diplomacy and reforms, but better warmongering?) and a Romano-Britannian state, plus a more Judean Judea, which may soon be due for another rebellion (after all, zealots are zealots - kill them all and new ones sprout up anyway a few generations later when the country recovers). Quite interesting - please continue.
 
Here's a potentially interesting althist (no comments on plausibility here). Modernish setting, plus lots of potential for violence. Needs some fleshing-out and maps, though; am eager to help, actually:
http://www.angelfire.com/ak2/newmanbyrne/timeline.html

And I know that some of it sounds rather implausible. Complain to the authors if you want.

I just read the whole thing and I love it, implausible or not :D

Ross Perot as President was a bit scary, but luckily that ended quickly.

Would you be willing to *cough* do the map *cough* and help me with the stats? I would think the USA's stats would be close to RL?

Also, they don't really tell you much about the increasing Japanese imperialism, they just briefly mention it and then leave it. There is literally no mention of Africa so I don't even know if Rommel succeeded there or if they eventually became satellite states...

This timeline looks like a keeper though.
 
Yes, I am aware of the flaws. There indeed is a notable lack of detail on many issues, but we can always make some stuff up as long as it doesn't contradict the timeline itself. I have some ideas already; I'll work on the map later today if I find a good template. As for the stats, I really doubt that I would be able to do them any better than you anyway, except for offering some constructive criticism. :p

Oh, and about Africa, you said "literally" too soon:
The US also sponsors national liberation movements in various African countries, annoying the European colonial powers.

Evidently they were divided between Germany and some of its allies and satellites.

Thousands of dissidents are rounded up and end up in labour camps in Germany or working in copper or uranium mines in Africa.

Proof of Germany being there too, probably having grabbed some land from France.

July: the Nazi regime itself falls when Harnack flees to South Africa.

Presumably South Africa is an independent national-socialist country; we could also hypothise that it has been expanding...

There are wars in the Far East, Africa and Eastern Europe, with long-simmering resentments boiling over into near-genocidal internecine conflicts.

I dare suggest that the colonial empires, after a long time of crisis and counter-insurgency efforts, are crumbling in the messiest ways possible, whilst warlords and factions carve out short-lived empires, and the aforementioned South Africans are doing the Draka. Anyway, lots of non-South Africa may be considered anarchic, apart from coastal areas that are more likely to be European-held (just barely); Ethiopia strikes me as a likely more organised rebel force, as does Egypt, if it isn't already independent (which it well may be; I suppose in that case it would also have Sudan, though keeping it is the difficult thing).
 
Whatever you think, that sounds right.

About how many men are in a division, roughly? I always forget.
 
The Strategos, interesting althist; definitely more original. The Pharisean "renaissance" is a bit awkward, though, seeing their OTL anti-templar stances. Still, they were also the most flexible, and their subsequent actions in the althist also make sense. Nonetheless, the fate of the Sadducees may require addressing; without the Temple's fall they will probably still be around, as opposition. On the other hand, with no Christians and with dead Zealots, the Pharisaic supremacy seems indeed assured, baring a Sadducee return.

I am planning on the next installment to be somewhat of a "recap episode" primarily addressing religious issues. As for the Pharisees being "anti-templar" in OTL it isn't so much as them being anti-templar (that would be the Essenes) as promoting the notion that the sacred could and should be lived outside of the Temple.



I'd imagine that this means it will also receive some more Greeks. Jews and Greeks generally resulted in trouble in the Roman days, if Egypt teaches us anything.

Well, the natural propensity of non-Jews to do inflammatory things (such as trying to set up statues of emperors in synagogues/temples) was curtailed by a nervous Roman government who didn't want to see another expensive revolt while on the Jewish side, lets just say Philo is more influential.

Anyway, to sum up, we have the West overran as normal, the East in the charge of Mithraist martial emperors (=poorer diplomacy and reforms, but better warmongering?) and a Romano-Britannian state, plus a more Judean Judea, which may soon be due for another rebellion (after all, zealots are zealots - kill them all and new ones sprout up anyway a few generations later when the country recovers). Quite interesting - please continue.

1) West is overrun quicker (375 CE) but will most likely stagger along for quite a while just like it did in OTL

2) The East is run by more Martial Emperors (most of whom are Mithraists) who are function more like supreme military commanders than rulers. Because their capital Caesaropolis was designed by a military mind for use by a military mind, much of the civilian bureaucracy never quite transferred to the new capital. As a result, the East could be seen somewhat like a decentralized Persia, with local rulers having much higher local independence, but being completely dependant upon the Emperor for military protection.

3) As I said earlier, I am planning a religious recap installment, but basically while ethnically it is more a Judean Judea, religiously it bears a few marked differences from our concept of Judaism. As for rebellions, because of the more decentralized nature of the East, Judea is practically ruled by a Pharisaic Sanhedrin and so there is less conflict between Jews and Gentiles, though there have been several very minor civil wars between various Jewish sects.
 
About how many men are in a division, roughly? I always forget.

It is usually taken to be 10,000 or 12,000, but often varied, especially in the past. An average Imperial Russian division in 1914 was 20,000, for instance.

I am planning on the next installment to be somewhat of a "recap episode" primarily addressing religious issues. As for the Pharisees being "anti-templar" in OTL it isn't so much as them being anti-templar (that would be the Essenes) as promoting the notion that the sacred could and should be lived outside of the Temple.

Note the SHOULD. I'm not saying they wanted to burn it or something, but they were quite anti-centralisation and pro-regionalism. I suspect the stance will change somewhat as they are "corrupted by power"(tm), however.

1) West is overrun quicker (375 CE) but will most likely stagger along for quite a while just like it did in OTL

I wonder how will that change the eventual barbarian states. Well, they probably will have more time to set up properly in this world, and ofcourse the religious issues will be quite different (I can imagine that Mithraism will have great appeal for the highly-militant tribes, but then again it isn't quite as integrationalist a religion as Christianity, so its hard to say how things will turn out; I suspect that the invaders might actually adapt traditional Roman pantheons eventually, especially those of them who settle down in Italy). But the specifics (which tribe captures what? and what tribes actually survive the early period of "natural selection") will probably be very different as well.

2) The East is run by more Martial Emperors (most of whom are Mithraists) who are function more like supreme military commanders than rulers. Because their capital Caesaropolis was designed by a military mind for use by a military mind, much of the civilian bureaucracy never quite transferred to the new capital. As a result, the East could be seen somewhat like a decentralized Persia, with local rulers having much higher local independence, but being completely dependant upon the Emperor for military protection.

HRE potential here, I think, especially if the Emperor manages to ensure external peace.

3) As I said earlier, I am planning a religious recap installment, but basically while ethnically it is more a Judean Judea, religiously it bears a few marked differences from our concept of Judaism. As for rebellions, because of the more decentralized nature of the East, Judea is practically ruled by a Pharisaic Sanhedrin and so there is less conflict between Jews and Gentiles, though there have been several very minor civil wars between various Jewish sects.

Sounds interesting. I suspect that an analogical solution has been reached in Armenia. Anyway, can't wait for the religious recap - there's a lot you could do with Judaism in this world.

Btw, the Cult of Mithras is probably influential in Britannia as well, correct?
 
Also: using French blue for the United States is some kind of crime.

The (forgive me, but I can't think of another term) dasian nation coloring scheme was always a bit off, in my opinion, so I couldn't care less, though I usually would have the USA as lighter.
 
Okay, here's the first attempt at the map; not very accurate, and with a bit of creative license. Any suggestions?
 

Attachments

  • MoB World Map 2000.GIF
    MoB World Map 2000.GIF
    129.2 KB · Views: 141
das said:
And if what you say is true, world leaders will realise it, will all commit a reasonable percentage of what resources they have to this problem and so it will again be down to good old geopolitics.
Completely untrue. The American military currently is the only major user of GPS guided bombs. Very shortly it will have lasers, railguns, orbital bombardment systems, and powered armor. Nobody else even approaches these capabilities. In fact, the only way to beat the American military at present (and for the past six decades) was to adopt a denial-strategy. This is why the Soviet Union had a mostly submarine-based fleet. To deny American carrier power; because it couldn't compete directly.

Why? Because America spends 51.8% of all defense spending for every nation on the planet. Tech is powerful, and tech is expensive. As time progresses only the most powerful countries can afford to develop the most powerful technologies.

The atomic bomb is the first major example of this. Other "war winning" weapons are also easily cited.

Military technology has never provided more than a (admittedly huge) tactical, short-term advantage; it is, ofcourse, true that such advantage can be translated into major strategic gains as well, but that is rather beside the point.
Again, false. See the atomic bomb. America in 1945 could have easily gone and conquered the whole of the rest of the world, had it set its mind to it, by simple fact of having a monopoly on nuclear weapons for 4 years. ICBMs, intercontinental bombers, ballistic missile submarines, and cruise missiles all presented similar strategic advantages. As time progresses, the possibility and lethality of other strategic systems (intercontinental railgun bombardment, orbital delivery systems, radiation-minimized nuclear weapons, conventional warhead ICBMs, SDI / missile shields, on and on) only increases.

Furthermore those tactical advantages stack up very quickly, and their expenses are exponential, not linear, putting them out of the hands of all but the richest countries, and ensuring that those richest countries will dominate any engagement. If my tank has a railgun that can rip the turret off yours from 20km away, and yours only has a conventional gun good out to 3km that can barely dent my armor, it's not hard to imagine who will win 99% of the time. You will not be seeing France, for example, making similar claims to having a flying laser anytime soon.

As time progresses, technology becomes more and more unstoppable. For example, in approximately 25 years, insurgent forces, for all their automatic weapons and RPGs, will present a minimum threat to American infantry due to advances in body armor / powered armor technology. This gives an inherent and lasting edge to all countries with developed research corps because they will have the lead and be able to maintain it.

Essentially, technology is, in the course of warfare, an exponential or even a geometric factor. What you say is true enough for, say, WWI. It is increasingly untrue as you move forward however, and that is demonstratable even today. In the future, this disparity will only become even larger, and it is for that reason that technologically advanced nations in an early-mid 21st century setting will dominate.

North King said:
The (forgive me, but I can't think of another term) dasian nation coloring scheme was always a bit off, in my opinion, so I couldn't care less, though I usually would have the USA as lighter.
I despise that color as well, but that doesn't make French blue any better for the job. If any color was appropriate it'd be "Old Glory Blue".
 
I despise that color as well, but that doesn't make French blue any better for the job. If any color was appropriate it'd be "Old Glory Blue".

Bah. You hate anything YOU didn't do. :p Good points on the technology, however. You are correct, it is increasingly unviable for nations to compete with regards to technology when a nation such as the USA gets as far ahead as they have got, and continue to get further and further ahead.

das, I like that map. Or I did, until I noticed that Germany had Israel. I didn't read the alt-hist, so when I saw that, my jaw dropped. It was one of those "Oh sweet Jesus, no!" moments.
 
@das, not too bad...are those Chinese states (especially Xianghua [sp?]) vassals to Japan or completely independent?

Also, what would prevent Pakistan from going as it did in RL?

And...does it really have to be THAT world map projection? Beggars can't be choosers I suppose :mischief:
 
fantasmo said:
Bah. You hate anything YOU didn't do. :p
That's a bold-faced lie, sir. :p I generally hate things that don't make sense. America being aqua in Civ III made no sense and I didn't like it, so when it was carried over to NESing (and has persisted) it follows I wouldn't like it here either.
 
I don't like an aqua-blue. I like a medium Blue for America. Red is for England; Yellow Spain, Royal Blue France, Gray Austria Hungary, Brownish Turkey, Golden China, Purplish-Blue India, etc.
 
Das, that map is almost identical to the one I posted earliner, which alt-history are you doing this for?
 
On May 10th 1940 German armored units begin a push into the Netherlands, ending the phony war. They quickly cut off and surround the French and British troops that have advanced into Belgium, and fierce fighting begins. Having surrounded the French and British troops from the south a group of German panzer divisions reached the coast and begun to push forward. On May 24th they engaged the allied troops in the area, and having met little resistance pushed forward. In a decisive battle that lasted from May 25th to May 27th the German panzer divisions secured the coast and completed the encirclement of allied troops.

After the defeat on May 27th Lord Gort decided on a last ditch effort to reach the coast and to begin an evacuation of the British and French forces. The allied attack was planned for May 29th, but by that time almost all of Army Group B had caught up with the leading panzer divisions. When in the morning of the 29th the allies attempted to break out of the encirclement they were faced with an overwhelming German force attacking from them from all sides with heavy Luftwaffe support. The operation was planned as a persice surgical strike that would allow the bulk of the allied forces to escape, but it turned into a general confrontation with the German forces in the area, and by the end of the day it became clear that none of the allied plans succeeded. Only a small group of British soldiers managed to reach the beach, and the British destroyers waited anxiously off the coast for the troops that would not make it. The bulk of the allied forces surrendered on May 30th after Lord Gort commtted suicide early in the morning. Of the aproximatley 400,000 allied troops that were encircled at Dunkirk only 3,500 made it to the safety of the British ships that were waiting for them in the Channel.

Operation Fall Rot begun on June 5th as German forces penetrated deeper into France. Practically unopposed German troops outflanked the Maginot line and attacked France proper. Paris fell to the advancing troops on June 14th, and on June 22nd the French Second Army Group, which represented the last organized French resistance to the German invasion, surrendered. The French government surrendered three days later.

Hoping to prevent an invasion of the British isles the United Kingdom attacked the French fleet stationed in North Africa. Most of the fleet was destroyed early in July, but in reality Britain was no more secure. On July 10th the Luftwaffe begun its first attack against the RAF, trying to draw the RAF fighters into a direct confrontation. By August the Luftwaffe had won air superiority over the Channel, and had begun bombing runs against air fields in southern England.

Using numerical superiority the Luftwaffe used heavily escorted bombers to draw the RAF fighters out into confrontation. The RAF suffered incredible loses over these weeks, and German attacks on the airfields took a heavy toll on the British. By early September the RAF had barely any operational airfields left in southern England.

The first weeks of September proved to be decisive to the war. Italy launched an offensive against the British forces in Egypt and the Luftwaffe attacks against the RAF intensified. By mid-September the RAF was forced to withdraw their squadrons from southern England, leaving it exposed to the German attacks and acknowledging Luftwaffe air superiority.

Winston Churchill had lost the much support in the cabinet and in Parliament after the loss of the British Expeditionary Force in France. With the RAF retreating, the British cities exposed to German bombers, and with a German invasion appearing imminent his no negotiation policy lost all support. On September 28th Winston Churchill was replaced by Lord Halifax as the British Prime Minister, and peace negotiations with Germany begin.

By October 25th a peace treaty was secured, under which Britain retained its independance, but loses most of its colonies and accepts limitations on its military. Some colonial garrisons continue to resist the peace treaty, but without any outside support they fall quickly. Only a few days later Italy invades Greece with an offensive from Albania.

In April of 1941 Axis troops invade Yugoslavia and quickly overwhelmed the defenders of the country. Partisan attacks would continue in Yugoslavia longer than in most parts of Europe, but they would never grow to present a serious threat to the German Reich. The German army is now able to aid the Italians in Greece and by May Greece had fallen, leaving practically all of Europe under Germany's rule.

The relative peace in Europe was short-lived as on June 22nd the Axis powers invaded their last remaining enemy - the Soviet Union. Spearheaded by panzer divisions the Germans, under the command of Rommel, overwhelmed the initial defenses that the Soviets were able to put up. Using absolutley overwhelming air superiority and incredible mobility of their armored units the Germans advanced swiftly, denying the Soviets a chance to regroup. By July all of Poland and most of the Baltic Countries were under German control, and in the Baltic Countries the advancing Germans were greeted as liberators.

The offensive had to pause briefly to allow for German infantry to catch up, but the Soviets failed to organize any meaningful resistance in the time. By August the offensive resumed in full, supported once again by the Luftwaffe, which eliminated most of the Soviet armored units. In late August a huge pocket of Soviet troops was encircled near Smolensk, and over 700 Soviet tanks were destroyed in the process. In the south the German tanks rolled over Ukraine practically unopposed as the Soviet resistance crumbled.

In early September the Germans scored the biggest victory of the war yet, when the mobile panzer divisions were able to encircle the Soviet troops near Kiev. After a fierce battle over 600,000 Soviet troops were captures and Soviet resistance in the South was practically eliminated. In the North the offensive continued under the command of Field Marshal Rommel.

Hitler briefly ordered panzer divisions from Army Group Center to be redirected to the North and South, but after vehement opposition to the plan from Field Marshal Rommel Hitler reconsidered. Rommel was confident that with the force of all of the Army Group Center he could capture Moscow before the end of the year. On October 2nd Rommel begun his push towards the Soviet capital.

The weather deterioarated but with the support from the Luftwaffe Rommel was able to push forward, coming within a few miles of the capital on October 31st. He was forced to hault briefly to regroup, but when intelligence indicated that a major group of reinforcements was coming from Siberia to relieve the Soviets at Moscow Rommel ordered the attack to continue.

On November 2nd the 3rd and 4th Panzer Armies pushed to the north east, with the hope of surrounding Moscow. The 2nd Panzer Army pushed towards Tula at the same time, and routed the Soviet Army stationed there before the reinforcements from Siberia arrived. On November 12th the 4th Panzer Army crossed the Moscow canal and came within 15 miles of the Kremlin. General Zhukov advised Stalin to dig in and wait for the reinforcements from Siberia, but Stalin was in a panic and ordered an immediate counter-offensive. Over the next four days Rommel's troops encircled and decisivley defeated the Soviet armies at Moscow, taking control of the city by November 17th. When the Siberian troops arrived on November 22nd they could do little but watch.

Stalin died during the German assault on Moscow. History is not kind enough to tell us whether he committed suicide, was killed by one of his leutenants, or simply died as a result of the fighting, but in the aftermath of the assault Lavrenty Beria emerged as the Soviet leader. He escaped the city prior to the German assault and now entered into negotiations with the Germans. On December 5th a cease fire was signed, and by December 19th Beria agreed to a peace treaty.

Beria gave up Karelia, the Baltic States, and Ukraine, and agreed to limit the Soviet Union's military. There was talk of freeing the Central Asian republics, but Beria was able to keep them. He also made it clear that no German troops would be stationed in the Soviet Union the way they have been in the United Kingdom, and that the Soviet Union would retain its independance. After assessing the situation Rommel and Goring urged Hitler to sign peace, fearing that they would not be able to repeat the success of the initial campaign. Reluctantly, Hitler agreed.

But the World was not at peace, since less than a month ago, on December 7th, Japan launched a surprise attack against the United States and the remaining loyal European garrisons in the Pacific. While Germany chose not to participate in the war directly, all European governments were instructed to give full support to the Japanese war effort. The single most significant European contribution to the Pacific war was United Kingdom's agreement to hand over parts of its fleet to Japan, after Germany threatened to topple the fragile British government.

Japan continued to advance against European garrisons in former colonies and against United States forces in the theater. In effect, only the United States, Australia, and New Zealand remained active opponents of the Japanese. On February 28th, the joint Japanese-British navy engaged the allied navy and all but destroyed it, allowing for an invasion of New Guinea to take place. The attack was repelled by the American and Australian navies in the Battle of the Coral Sea, but the Japanese inflicted far heavier loses on the Americans, and afterwards the United States navy in the Pacific was practically destroyed.

By April the Japanese had secured all former European colonies, as well as the Philippines. The only allied presense in the Pacific was now the American naval base at Pearl Harbor, including the American Pacific Fleet's three remaining aircraft carriers. The Japanese fleet moved decisivley towards Hawaii, and on June 5th it was sighted by American forces near Midway Island.

Together the Japanese and British fleets held more than a 4:1 advantage over the Americans, and in the ensuing battle all three American carriers were sunk at the cost of five Japanese carriers. While the Japanese suffered heavier loses in the battle, the American Pacific Fleet ceased to exist as the outcome, and all of the Pacific now laid before the Japanese. California could easily be the next target.

There are unsubstantiated allegations that the German navy took part in the Battle of Midway. Some American survivors claim that at least one German destroyer was present, and that some of the American ships were attacked by, presumably German, submarines. The United States navy never confirmned the allegations, and they remain in the sphere of consipracy theories.

The Germans did chose to interfere in the conflict, however. Possibly knowing that in the long-run the Japanese victories were unsustainable, or possibly wishing to maintain their influence over Japan, the Germans made it clear that it was time for a peace agreement. Hitler personally visited Japan during the negotiations, and eventually both sides came to an agreement.

The United States recognized Japanese gains in the Pacific and agreed to cede the Philippines. In return the Japanese accepted United States control over parts of the Pacific and agreed to not persue any further territorial gains from Austrialia, New Zealand, or the United States. The peace was unpopular in the United States, but the thought of a Japanese attack on California was even more so, and no President wanted to be in office when that took place.

By early August of 1942 the World was once againt at peace, for the first time since 1938.



To be continued later
 
Stormbringer said:
The peace was unpopular in the United States, but the thought of a Japanese attack on California was even more so, and no President wanted to be in office when that took place.
I don't think that'd weigh heavy on the minds of anybody who actually knew what was going on (ie: the government). The very notion is beyond impossible to sustain logistically and the territory isn't capable of being held; were it ever to somehow occur it would meet in absolute defeat. Plus they'd have to take Hawaii and most other American islands, and with peace in Europe the United States can just rebase its Atlantic Fleet via the Panama Canal and rebuild on the East Coast, free from Japanese attack. 5 Carriers is a huge fraction of the Japanese Fleet, and they can't go on to knock out Panama in the meantime after suffering such losses.
 
America in 1945 could have easily gone and conquered the whole of the rest of the world, had it set its mind to it, by simple fact of having a monopoly on nuclear weapons for 4 years.

That's quite my point, it only lasted for four years. Don't really have it in me to keep arguing on this point, but I still doubt that the technologic gap is that unbridgeable. In the end it still is all down to the resources that are available for the development and application for

And one more thing, I wouldn't call the atomic bomb a "war-winning weapon"; it was only used in WWII, and not in any decisive fashion. It merely sped up what was by then inevitable; I'm not even sure that Operation Olympic would have really been necessary. Other examples of "war-winning weapons" - at least those that immediately come to mind - also have never actually been "war-winning", merely helpful, as the winners were always assisted by many other far more significant factors.

not too bad...are those Chinese states (especially Xianghua [sp?]) vassals to Japan or completely independent?

Independent. The idea was that America, with greater involvement in Asia (due to far less early post-war European commitments and eagerness to prevent a growth of German influence), would strive to set up a system of middling, vaguely pro-American states; so a more lasting (at least in theory) agreement between the Communist and Nationalist Chinas has been enforced, and a pro-American government set up in Indochina (as France was a German ally now, and so not really trusted).

Also, what would prevent Pakistan from going as it did in RL?

Well, its in the timeline - "Fearing that Britain will be forced by its German masters to hand part, or all of India to Germany's Japanese allies, a coalition of European administrators, soldiers and the Congress Party declare Indian independence. A constitution guarantees the rights and property of Europeans, while most main government posts are taken by Indians, including Jawaharlal Nehru (President), Muhammad Ali Jinnah (Prime Minister) and Subhas Chandra Bose (Defence Minister)." That implies Ali Jinnah's (Ali Jinnah being ofcourse the OTL founder of Pakistan) reconciliation with the Hindu Indian nationalists, presumably out of fear of imperial encroachment. Presumably most of his supporters would've agreed with this stance. Consequently the entirety of British India has become an independent, united nation, which is likely to advance greatly in the coming century (presumably it already does have considerable influence in Southeast Asia).

Beggars can't be choosers I suppose

Amen.

Splotchy areas look to be areas of (active) rebellion,

But note that its also a comparatively sporadic rebellion, not unlike late Chechnya for instance. Speaking of which, a major contrast is to be seen in Caucasus, which is in complete anarchy, with tribes, organisations, warlords and ethno-religious groups fighting each other for control and the Soviet government present in name only.

Das, that map is almost identical to the one I posted earliner, which alt-history are you doing this for?

The Matter of Britain; I had posted the link previously, but basically the Germans won in Europe, partook in a milder Cold War with the USA and are now in the process of crumbling, with the Russian gains already lost to the resurgent Soviet Union and various puppet states breaking away as well. I wouldn't say its all that similar to what you posted, only we had used the same base map I think.

The very notion is beyond impossible to sustain logistically and the territory isn't capable of being held; were it ever to somehow occur it would meet in absolute defeat.

I'd agree, but the same could be said for a Russian invasion of British India, and yet that notion seems to have weighed on the minds of British political leaders and military commanders considerably.

EDIT:

fantasmo said:
Or I did, until I noticed that Germany had Israel.

Well, it IS in the althist. The Germans took over the old British mandate during the Cold War; basically it was indeed the good old Great Game logic - the Americans were actively propping up their allies in Iran and Iraq, so the Germans decided they wanted some sort of a Middle Eastern base as well, to prevent American hegemony there.
 
Back
Top Bottom