A Plethora of Princes - into the twentieth century

[Grey Wolf]

An extrapolation of trends...

Russia, in its empire stretches from White Russia, Karelia and the Ukraine, to Persia, Siberia, and Alaska and the Yukon. Tsar Nicholas II, eldest son of Tsar Aleksandr II comes to the throne in the mid 1890s and by 1910 is aged sixty-seven. Married to Princess Dagmar of Denmark, he has several sons and the succession is assured in his line.

Since the acquisition of the Yukon, Russia has been fortifying its borders, expanding its internal expeditions and settlements, and boosting settlement along the coast.

Since the acquisition of Persia, Russia has been subduing the autonomous states in the East of that country, as well as trying to subvert the Khanate of Kalat, as well as the other border states. In a strange tug of war with Britain, Russia has been pulling the border nations this way and that, trying to dominate them, as one of the three forces in action.

Russia in Dzungaria, Kuldja etc is also a force in the independent state of Kashgaria.

Russia in Mongolia, and on the Amur, is a force to be reckoned with in Imperial China. Despite China's resurgance, its great Northern rival reaches across the North, whilst independent states like Tibet, Kashagaria, and Taiping China ring it from other directions.

Russia maintains three strong (in their areas) fleets - a Baltic Fleet which is the equal of Sweden, or pre-1892 Prussia as was. - a Mediterranean Fleet which is the equal of any force which can be safely mustered against it, and - a Pacific Fleet which is based at Petropavlosk and Kodiak Island, which is minor in a fleet sense and not able to take on the US Navy but in a localised sense could prove a match for Japan, or Imperial China or Taiping China.

Grey Wolf

 

[Grey Wolf]

The Russian Conundrum

I am finding it difficult to get a handle on the debate about the various economic power of the major nations as they enter the twentieth century. Partly its because I am not leaving work till 6pm, then am spending another 3 hours on planning at home. Partly, its because these things confuse the heck out of me anyway!

Russia is a major conundrum. It is well capable of raising the armies and fighting the wars needed to subdue Central Asian states, such as what I have it do with the petty Dzungarian states, and also to wage a war against a Persian Army that is not going to be equipped in any better way. Russia, also will gain from having free access for trade to and from the Black Sea, and with the Ottoman Empire. The acquisition of a Persian Gulf shore should also be a boost to trade, though I am not sure how much this is going to be so in the immediate term. Then there is Alaska-Yukon, the fifty percent participation in the Klondike gold rush etc. But how much this is offset by the lack of any port more viable than Petropavlosk or Ayan on the Sea of Okhotsk ? No Vladivostock or the province that it stands on. This means no direct access to Korea, and the economy of that vassal kingdom.

Russia in the West has lost Poland and Finland, and any direct influence it had in the Rumanian principalities. What this means both for trade and industrialisation I am not sure.

Consider the navy for instance. OTL by the time of the Crimean War, the Russian Navy in the Black Sea remained largely a SAILING navy, not a steam-driven ship-of-the-line one. It was efficient in what it was, but greatly outdated and outclassed by the Anglo-French force which it could not hope to meet in battle. This has definite relevance in this timeline, as it could well indicate that altough Russia made the advance to iron warships after the defeat in the 1860s it has failed to modernise and keep up with other great powers, mainly because it does not feel the need to.

In OTL Russia made several great attempts to catch up, not least around the turn of the century with purchases of foreign-built warships (from France, the USA, and rather curiously Denmark) and with adopting or buying in foreign technology.

I am also finding strategic considerations confusing. For example one can point to areas of clashing interests with most major powers - with Britain over the arc of independent states surrounding British India, with France and Austria on strategic European issues, and with the USA over Alaska and the Yukon. But some of these are going to be more important than others. For example, Russo-American relations could well be quite cordial most of the time. There will be areas of rivalry (perhaps Hawaii), but the issue of the demarcated border would have been settled by negotiated treaties since the crisis of the mid 1870s. Thus, there is no logical reason why Russia and the USA should be rivals rather than partners in many things. The Anglo-American War can be expected to have shown Russia the dangers of under-estimating Britain on the one hand, and the potential strength of the USA on the other. Thus, if one is looking for an ATL power to replace France as a benefactor to Russia in terms of loans, technology etc, then why does the USA not meet this requirement ?

Thus it could well come down to the question of whether Russia sees the need to continue to develop and wants to, or whether a certain self-satisfied stagnation sets in ?

Grey Wolf

 

[Grey Wolf]

A different type of Imperialism

I think one major difference that is perhaps under-stated is the approach to imperialism in this timeline. Britain for example can be said to have followed the following policy :-

- consolidate existing holdings
- establish protectorates as points of power-projection
- establish alliances with key regional powers

In addition, there is the guarantor role, with Britain being a guarantor of Texas since the 1840s, and also of Miskitia since it ceased to be a protectorate. I imagine a similar role with regard to the the two independent Canadian states.

Differences with OTL include the fact that protectorates do not become colonies, because there is no drive to develop new colonies. Thus, for example, the Maori Kingdom of New Zealand remains a protectorate (and is analogous to how Madagascar was in OTL before France decided to annex it).

The war with Venezuela over the Orinoco border can be considered to be consolidation of existing holdings, the establishment of a definite border for British Guyana where the British want it to be, and not seeing it pushed back by Venezuelan encroachment.

Thus, the entanglements with South America can be reviewed in this light. The support for Paraguay is not arbitrary, its on the back of a decision to back Paraguay as their major ally in South America. These things kind of grow, too - initially the decision made sense because in the first instance it gave access to Paraguayan markets and it was a buffer against an embittered Argentina. The establishment of protectorates over the Republic of Uruguay (more or less since its birth) and the Kingdom of Araucania and Patagonia also fit into this patterm. It is an ATL analogy of colonial annexation - involvement in a theatre brings with it a need to consolidate and deepen that involvement. Thus the support for the territorial annexation by allies, and direct military support where necessary.

With regard to the ring of independent states around British India, this is again a deliberate policy. The nature of the 'Game' from Britain's perspective is not to annex but to influence. As Nicholas I once said in OTL about the Ottoman Empire, so it can be applied here - better a neighbour that can be dominated, than a direct border with a rival power which cannot. The British administration in India most definitely does not want to find itself with a several thousand miles long border with imperial Russia. Much better to deal with the Khan of Kalat, the Emir of Afghanistan, the Sikh rulers, the Central Asian rulers etc.

Grey Wolf

 

[Othniel]

I think one major difference that is perhaps under-stated is the approach to imperialism in this timeline. Britain for example can be said to have followed the following policy :-

- consolidate existing holdings
- establish protectorates as points of power-projection
- establish alliances with key regional powers

In addition, there is the guarantor role, with Britain being a guarantor of Texas since the 1840s, and also of Miskitia since it ceased to be a protectorate. I imagine a similar role with regard to the the two independent Canadian states.

Differences with OTL include the fact that protectorates do not become colonies, because there is no drive to develop new colonies. Thus, for example, the Maori Kingdom of New Zealand remains a protectorate (and is analogous to how Madagascar was in OTL before France decided to annex it).

The war with Venezuela over the Orinoco border can be considered to be consolidation of existing holdings, the establishment of a definite border for British Guyana where the British want it to be, and not seeing it pushed back by Venezuelan encroachment.

Thus, the entanglements with South America can be reviewed in this light. The support for Paraguay is not arbitrary, its on the back of a decision to back Paraguay as their major ally in South America. These things kind of grow, too - initially the decision made sense because in the first instance it gave access to Paraguayan markets and it was a buffer against an embittered Argentina. The establishment of protectorates over the Republic of Uruguay (more or less since its birth) and the Kingdom of Araucania and Patagonia also fit into this patterm. It is an ATL analogy of colonial annexation - involvement in a theatre brings with it a need to consolidate and deepen that involvement. Thus the support for the territorial annexation by allies, and direct military support where necessary.

With regard to the ring of independent states around British India, this is again a deliberate policy. The nature of the 'Game' from Britain's perspective is not to annex but to influence. As Nicholas I once said in OTL about the Ottoman Empire, so it can be applied here - better a neighbour that can be dominated, than a direct border with a rival power which cannot. The British administration in India most definitely does not want to find itself with a several thousand miles long border with imperial Russia. Much better to deal with the Khan of Kalat, the Emir of Afghanistan, the Sikh rulers, the Central Asian rulers etc.

Grey Wolf

So Basically they are playing the Trade-in-Arms game. They get the prefertial status, arm the locals, and protect them. (The protectorate game the US played with Central America.) In times of war they get the protectorates that are strong enough to back them up right?

 

[fhaessig]

Thus, if one is looking for an ATL power to replace France as a benefactor to Russia in terms of loans, technology etc, then why does the USA not meet this requirement ?

Grey Wolf

Is not USA still a net importer or loan? I mean in the sense that they need the Capital to still develop industry and railroads at home? I think OTL, they were the beneficiary of british capital until WWI.

 

[Grey Wolf]

So Basically they are playing the Trade-in-Arms game. They get the prefertial status, arm the locals, and protect them. (The protectorate game the US played with Central America.) In times of war they get the protectorates that are strong enough to back them up right?

They also get the markets - that cannot be under-stated. Economics, trade, power, all go together.

Interestingly, the Anglo-American War was perhaps started by American challenges to the British system, rather than relying on the British system to help defend Britain. Thus, Britain stepped in to protect Paraguay, and Araucania/Patagonia, in order to protect its position in South America and the vast amounts of trade that it had with that area.

The logic of protectorates is that they are not able to defend themselves adequately against potential rapacious neighbours. Thus the Maori Kingdom of New Zealand, the Kingdom of Araucania and Patagonia, these are states where Britain protects its own interests by protecting the native regimes. These regimes don't provide all that much in wartime, but in peacetime they act as strategic buffers, markets, etc.

The allies, such as Paraguay, would more fit your question. But even so, with the USA backing Argentina, Britain had no option but to back Paraguay. How much did Paraguay itself add to the mix ? Obviously it had a large army, with leaders and equipment of British training and origin. But without the existence of Paraguay there would have been no position to defend, no war etc.

Grey Wolf

 

[Grey Wolf]

Is not USA still a net importer or loan? I mean in the sense that they need the Capital to still develop industry and railroads at home? I think OTL, they were the beneficiary of british capital until WWI.

They were, but in this ATL there is no way that Britain has this role in the USA. Neither would France. Its possible that some other economic power house (Belgium ?) might provide this. But it seems more likely that the USA has gone off in a completely different direction economically than OTL

Grey Wolf

 

[Othniel]

What abou Uraguay?

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

The US and Russia are unlikely to engage in rivalry over Hawaii. Unless the US ends up with possessions in the far east, there will not be the impetus for control over Hawaii, which even in OTL was extremely controversial.

 

[fhaessig]

They were, but in this ATL there is no way that Britain has this role in the USA. Neither would France. Its possible that some other economic power house (Belgium ?) might provide this. But it seems more likely that the USA has gone off in a completely different direction economically than OTL

Grey Wolf

Yes, obviously britain Cannot provide Capital to the USa in this TL. However, my point was that, if USA was getting Capital from britain in OTL, it was still developping industrially at a tremendous rate. That been the case, and more so given the lack of british money, I think US money will get invested at home and not in Russia. OTL, France had a lot of Money and was not deveopping at a huge rate, so there was a surplus of Money to export.

I was pointing out that I doubt the USA will have this surplus available at the turn of the 20th century.

 

[Faeelin]

They were, but in this ATL there is no way that Britain has this role in the USA. Neither would France. Its possible that some other economic power house (Belgium ?) might provide this. But it seems more likely that the USA has gone off in a completely different direction economically than OTL

Grey Wolf

Umm. Britain invested in 19th century Argentina, which wasn't exactly the paragon of stability. They invested in Germany as well.

Why not the USA?

 

[Grey Wolf]

A lot of good points from people, which I will address in one post if I may, seeing as my life is full of planning and paperwork at the moment !

Britain won't be investing much in the USA for the simple reason that investing a country you have been at war with and may go to war with again is not a safe investment. Capital tends to get confiscated, loans annulled that kind of thing. In addition, risk is a big thing in international finance.

I expect that during the period of Radical rapprochement from the later 1860s to the end of the 1870s there would have been some investment, but from the start of the Sherman administration onwards none, and from after the Anglo-American War no-one is going to risk investing in the USA.

Regarding the US economy, I would expect it to develop in a different way. I am no economist, I can't say foir sure what. I would expect that enough other capital-rich nations and companies would invest in the USA in this ATL. Maybe this means Belgium and Switzerland. Maybe its more obvious, and I just don't see it.

But overall, I see the USA as not lacking in necessary investment. To my mind even a weaker US economy should be able to invest outwardly - it will depend on the rules governing federal doobries. A non-bankrupt USA almost defaulted on loans under Grover Cleveland. The key is whether in this ATL the laws are changed, freeing the US economy from the shackles of OTL

As for Russia finding Britain as a partner, they did work together in the mid 1880s, but sizeable differences remain. In the later 1890s Britain and the USA have a certain rapprochement. I doubt this leads to much.

My fucking VCR player is not working on old VHS tapes anymore, I'm fucking pissed off

Grey Wolf

 

[Grey Wolf]

Gold in the Witwatersrand

Gold in the Witwatersrand

Due to the Boers spreading out over a greater area, with Boer states in Bechuanaland and Matebeleland as well as the Orange River valley, the Transvaal and Natal, the discovery of gold in the Witwatersrand is delayed until 1905.

The situation of the Boer states is also different from OTL. They have never come under British domination - there was no war in the 1870s, no treaty which gave Britain suzerain powers, or which denied them the right to handle their own foreign affairs.

Nevertheless, once gold is discovered the workforce is still going to involve a large number of Uitlanders, from the British Cape Province and from Britain itself. One wonders if they will come from elsewhere in this ATL ? Argentine occurred to me, due to its less than happy position, but I doubt it has the population to export.

None of the strategic considerations are the same - with Natal a Boer state there is no reliance on Cape province ports. There is also no reason for complaint if railways are built into Portuguese Mozambique.

The British approach to imperialism is also different - they aren't looking to conquer or colonise, but primarily to influence.

I am also wondering whether after 1892 there might not be Prussian and Dutch settlement in Namibia, the formation of an independent state on the borders of the Boers.

Grey Wolf

 

[Grey Wolf]

The US and Russia are unlikely to engage in rivalry over Hawaii. Unless the US ends up with possessions in the far east, there will not be the impetus for control over Hawaii, which even in OTL was extremely controversial.

But turn it around. The potential for Russian domination of the Kingdom of Hawaii would surely spur a response from the USA ???

Grey Wolf

 

[Grey Wolf]

The Pacific and Strategic Considerations

The opening of the Trans-Oceanic Canal is going to provide a major boost to US trade and the US economy. I date this to 1897. The canal crosses from Nicaragua (in the US-dominated UPCA) to Miskitia, which is independent. Thus, it cannot be an all-American affair closed to other nations. Thus, again, it would carry trade from countries other than the USA and the UPCA. As well as Miskitia, the obvious contenders are Texas, Mexico, and the Republic of the Yucatan, as well as the European powers. I think they do need to be split into two groups as the local countries could well come to rely on a transit which is in American hands - Mexico especially, for example, could get used to ships traversing from one ocean to the other and being able to, but if the USA were to close the canal to them then it would be a massive economic weapon.

I see the later 1890s as a period of US-British warming of relations. It will never be close like in the 1870s, but the hostility that preceded and followed the mid 1880s war has died down. A new generation has come to power, with different visions.

With the opening of the canal, I see the USA begin to focus increasingly on trans-Pacific trade. Across the ocean lie the independent states of Imperial China, Taiping China, Japan and Vietnam (de facto), whilst Korea remains more of a vassal to the Chi'ing.

One can imagine the peace in the region constantly marred by small skirmishes and border wars, often unofficial. Vietnam no longer has a border with the Chinese Empire but with smaller successor states in the interior, and with French Kwangchow province. Whilst French influence in Vietnam will remain high it doesn't mean it will remain popular, or consistent. There will be emperors or Chief Ministers who oppose it, who fear it and who court other nations - the USA would be seen as a safe bet due to the distance and lack of nearby colonies (unlike Britain, Spain or the Netherlands).

The same could be said for Japan where the Bakufu has modernised under French auspices, fought off rebellions etc and maintained the power of the Shogunate. The daimyo have been subordinated to central authority and the trends visible in OTL 1860s continued under the Tokugawa.

Absent Germany from the international scene, and Prussia since 1892, any nations looking to militarise or reform would be looking to different powers - Britain, France, the USA, and quite likely Russia and Austria.

The Russian model might be good for cash-strapped Far Eastern countries, but may at the same time be too alien, and too dangerous given how close Russia is and how immense.

Austria would certainly be interesting, an extension of its power into areas it really didn't get much of in OTL. Victorious against Prussia, and against Piedmont, Austrian arms under Emperor Rudolph are going to look a good bet, and a validated way forward.

Maybe Belgium could also gain from this ?

Grey Wolf

 

[Othniel]

What about Japan? ORT both they and Germany were intrested in investing in a Canal.

 

[Grey Wolf]

What about Japan? ORT both they and Germany were intrested in investing in a Canal.

I doubt the Americans are going to let anyone else invest in their canal. It was always a strategic consideration in OTL that the canal should be under US control.

Japan is not as independently strong in this ATL and I doubt its power projection ambitions go beyond its immediate neighbours.

Grey Wolf

 

[Othniel]

I doubt the Americans are going to let anyone else invest in their canal. It was always a strategic consideration in OTL that the canal should be under US control.

Japan is not as independently strong in this ATL and I doubt its power projection ambitions go beyond its immediate neighbours.

Grey Wolf

Ah, but thry still might wish to invest in anything that would increase their own status, ad coffers. I know without the Russo-Japaness war they won't be reconized as a superpower. Anouther thing should be noted. They drew a large amount of govermental influence from the United Germany. You may in fact have it as too strong.

 

[Grey Wolf]

Ah, but thry still might wish to invest in anything that would increase their own status, ad coffers. I know without the Russo-Japaness war they won't be reconized as a superpower. Anouther thing should be noted. They drew a large amount of govermental influence from the United Germany. You may in fact have it as too strong.

Japan ? The government is still that of the reformed Shogunate and its mentor is France. This is as per OTL, in the 1860s when France was helping the Tokugawa open up the country, modernise and suppress the daimyo's independence. Its a little known fact that the Shogunate created a national navy (it had a steam warship) and did not just rely on the ships of the individual nobles. I've simply continued this trend and strengthened it.

Grey Wolf

 

[Othniel]

Japan ? The government is still that of the reformed Shogunate and its mentor is France. This is as per OTL, in the 1860s when France was helping the Tokugawa open up the country, modernise and suppress the daimyo's independence. Its a little known fact that the Shogunate created a national navy (it had a steam warship) and did not just rely on the ships of the individual nobles. I've simply continued this trend and strengthened it.

Grey Wolf

But can it effectively keep this up? Revolution is always round the bin if next said Shogun should turn out to be a bad one.