Here is the problem with doing TLs in installments, people don't necessarily know where you are going with something. The witch hunts, further down the line, are (probably) going to prove key to the religious schisms, in particular in the British Isles. Also, the reason I include this particular date is that these particular witch hunts are considered by academics in the area to be the starting point of the much wider European witch hunts that terrorised the continent and even spread as far as the famous Salem Witch Hunts.
I sincerely doubt the significance of those witch hunts to any religious schisms. The best they could do is stir up controversy, and maybe hamper scientific progress a bit.
I was thinking along those lines myself. I am not sure that the Metropolitan would relocate to Vilinus, as it is a Lithuanian city, but it is a very keen possibility. As you say Novgorod is a little too democratic for the Metropolitan's taste, but that could be ammended. I am also considering if the creation of a whole new city for the Metropolitan around OTL St. Petersburg (after it has fallen to the Novgorodian-Lithuanians, as it will) would be possible, or if he may end up relocating to a completely seperate city in the Commonwealth. And, of course, Kyiv is always a possibility.
Kiev or Polotsk (the latter being a Russian city of great importance for the Grand Dukes of Lithuania in OTL, something of an alternate political centre) seem likely. I really disagree about building a city at OTL St. Petersburg; it is a good place for a fortress, maybe even a fortress-monastery, but not for a Metropolitian's see. A new city itself might work, though technically the idea of building a "New Jerusalem" only appeared later in the 15th century (also I am not sure if there are any good spots).
This also brings us to the question of where would Lithuania-Novgorod's political capital would end up. If the unification of Russia proceeds as planned, Kiev, again, would be work very well from the propaganda viewpoint, but Polotsk would probably be the most convenient in administration due to its central location. Novgorod and Vilnius themselves seem a bit unlikely, though.
and to strengthen his army incredibly.
How exactly? By hiring mercenaries?
EDIT:
Ever heard of Rosa Luxemburg and the Spartacist League?
And of Thalmann, for that reason? He had all of Hitler's charisma, opportunism and ambition.
Anyhow:
After WW1, the Communists promised a new Germany, a prospering one, much like the Nazis. The Nazis never rise. Communists begin a revolution in Germany.
That much is mostly OTL.
Meanwhile, Japan doesn't invade China, but does invade Southeast Asia. Their reasoning: There is too much land and population, attrition from China will win. (Taken from Sun Tzu's Art of War)
a) What alex994 said;
b) They invaded
to get all that much land and population in OTL;
c) By attacking Southeast Asia they would bring all the European colonial powers against them;
d) That would soon enough bring China, the USSR and the USA in against Japan as well, because this would be for many reasons an opportunity of a lifetime to eliminate a major opponent/destabilising factor and secure a stronger presence in Asia as a whole - basically the Japanese will have exposed themselves so much that no power could risk
not attacking them.
Civil War is much worse, since no Japanese occupation. The communists also win here, but at a later date.
How would it be worse? Without the Sian Incident, the Nationalists would overrun the Communists with sheer numbers in due time, so at best the Communists would be able to retreat further and/or retreat to the underground.
Revolutions are in Africa, but less 'explosive' than OTL.
That's a... very odd statement. I am really not sure what are you trying to say here.
The US navy sticks to old ideals, since there isn't WW2 and Pearl Harbor.
See above, though I
am guessing that you are talking about tactics.
Canada and Australia split, while New Zealand Being extremely loyal) doesn't.
Um, what?
India has massive uprisings, but less so than OTL. They gain independence later, since no WW2.
a) In OTL it didn't have anything that could be termed "massive uprisings" in this time period;
b) It is arguable that India might have gotten independence as a Dominion earlier if not for that annoying little distraction;
c) Err, why no WWII? There are so many things in Europe alone that may cause a new general conflict; even more than in OTL, and the same goes for Asia (which I had already discussed).
