Why do you think a united Russia is more plausible than a divided one, by the way? And yours even includes Central Asia... why that,
@KaiserEmu?
My view is that Russia in general is fairly culturally unified and it would be hard to split Russia. I can see heavy slicing off the edges, but I can't see two (and definitely not three) Russias being sustainable. Central Asia was because I was too lazy to map something that was half off the map. I don't actually propose that it be part of Russia, although I much prefer
Ella.is.crazy's proposal - it seems more organic and less reliant on Stalinist borders that simply would not exist ITTL.
Why do you want to unite everything, though? I don't believe in a united Russia, and neither do I think united Indonesia (or India, but I'll leave that to
@Hindustani Person) is a good idea. I really don't think your ideas to be that original. What is "original" about KMT China and (authoritarian) democracy everywhere?
My problem is that I don't see any way for the core Russian territory to be divided in the long term. The only examples of that we have in OTL are North and South Korea and East and West Germany, and they only last(ed) thanks to vast ideological differences and significant foreign support. While nothing has actually been confirmed about alt!WWII (which needs to be rectified, BTW), I don't see any vast ideological disparities among the Allies that could prevent Russia from being a mostly united country, albeit trimmed around the edges. I personally would think that Ukraine, most of the Caucasus, Central Asia and the Far East would be seen as enough to weaken Russia.
@KaiserEmu, I like your China, Tsingtao, and the Dolnivostok borders. However, I think that some variation on a Red Japan should stay, I am not sure about Australia, and I think that Dolnivostok should be Green Ukraine instead. But my biggest concern is the Russian Siberia. Siberia was split off from Russia at the end of ww1, then reincorporated by Rodzhaevsky. When Russia lost ww2, I doubt that the Allies would allow them to keep it. I do agree that the Neo-Czarist state is highly implausible.
Sorry, I missed the bit about Siberia. In the context of it having been independent before, no, they wouldn't let Russia keep it. I could see the independence of far eastern Siberia restored, with the country falling into the Chinese sphere as quite plausible in that case, although I think that would rule out an independent Green Ukraine. I agree on the neo-tsarist state, especially given that most of the royal familiy is dead by now anyway. What exactly are your concerns about Japan and Australia?
The idea I do like most is, to be honest, the Ulimaroa thing,
@KaiserEmu. I can also get used to KMT-led dominant-party China and a Sinosphere around it. That would indeed give us more room for puppet states etc.
That is not the big problem. Sorry if my post above seems like a rant.
My biggest issues with your plans are:
United Russia - just don't think that would be allowed ever again after World War II. That would be like if the Allies just restored the Kaiserreich after OTL World War II. Dalnivostok is a good idea, but should be expanded in my opinion and Russia divided in some form. I do have a new proposal for that.
No, although the Allies did effectively restore a more stable Weimar Republic. I don't think that a united Russia would be entirely taboo, especially if it's been curtailed as much as we are mostly suggesting. Given the above about Siberia, Russia is even more weakened, and I was thinking that Germany would attempt to bring a weakened Russia under its control.
During the Third Civil War. The Rodzaevsky regime was not only defeated militarily, but fell to revolutions and civil war.
Why and where? I didn't see anything about this, and this could quite significantly alter Russian post-war history. I don't see Russia returning to the discredited Soviet system anyway.
Also, the type of government I described (which I have called Trałkaism in our mapgame "The Eternal Conflict") is not Soviet at all. To the contrary, it is democratic and the economy is not a planned economy either, but a sociaist market economy.
Oh. Well. If it's not Soviet, why would the country be called Soviet?
Also, that isn't really a socialist government at all. That's just a democratic government with state-owned enterprises.
Why this and not a part of Germany directly?
I was tossing up between the two and eventually thought independence seemed more plausible, given that Germany has divested itself of all its other colonies and Tsingtau has developed a somewhat distinct identity. Happy to reconsider this though.
How democratic do you mean here? An authoritarian democracy like Russia?
I was thinking more along the lines of flawed democracy like OTL South Africa or Japan, where there is an active opposition, but one too fragmented and against a too strong governing party for it to ever really have a decent shot at power.
I would like to see such a red bloc, and until now, we thought of East Asia as the best place for one. Where would you see a good opportunity except for France?
I'm honestly not sure how a red bloc would be able to last to the present day. If France somehow remains socialist, then I could see it leading a red bloc in Europe and North Africa, but beyond that, and a few Marxist-inspired post-colonial governments, I don't see any clear option for an overtly, institutionally red bloc.
What should we go for if we want German influence in Asia to be the most? That was one of my ideas behind the Red Bloc, too.
I don't see why a Red Bloc equals German influence in Asia, but I could see heavy German influence in South Asia especially, and maybe Indochina and the Straits.
China under the KMT trends left-wing, Japan does so, too, and Germany wants to get rid of any vestiges of far-right nationalism and far-right orthodoxy.
Left-wing yes, far-left no. As far as I can tell, Germany seems to lean centre-to-centre-right, and they historically supported the far-right when it was a choice between them and the far-left. I can see a centre-left democratic nation arising, especially as part of the Sinosphere, but far-leftism is an inherently oppositional ideology and and I believe that most powers would see it as a threat to their own power.
United Indonesia - why? The same for United Indochina.
Because why wouldn't Indonesia unite? Much of their early foreign policy IOTL was directed towards uniting as much as they could under the Indonesian flag, and without a United Nations to oppose their aims in West Papua, and with Britain mostly withdrawn from Asia, I see no reason why they wouldn't take over those regions. I don't like uniting nations and creating space-filling empires, but in this scenario, I don't see a way for Indonesia to be any smaller than OTL, and in fact it's hard to see them not expand on their OTL holdings.
Besides, the lack of borders does not mean that a country is an enormous superpower. It's a common fallacy in AH that large country = stable and prosperous. Indonesia's wars of conquest will upset a lot of people, and I could see active independence movements in Aceh, Borneo, Timor and West Papua at least, maybe even an active insurgency or two somewhere. I was envisioning Indonesia as much more authoritarian than its neighbours, partly to overcome such diversity.
I am assuming that Indochina becomes independent after WWI - I thought I saw something about that somewhere. In that case it would remain united. The only other option I can see would be for it to become a German colony, but that would be an uphill battle for the Germans (given they're fighting colonial revolts elsewhere also). I think it would be much more likely for them to sponsor an independent Indochina in which they can ensure European business interests are protected. If you have a different idea, feel free to share it.
and the not-really-communist East Australia. Ulimaroa is an excellent idea (but why wouldn't some of the Northern Territory etc. join it, like
@YaaItsRewindTime depicted)!
The Northern Territory was at the time still technically part of South Australia, and then subordinated to the Federal Government. For the NT to join, either you have to have SA join (which is unlikely given they are economically linked to the east, not the west), or for the federal government to somehow voluntarily surrender territory. I see both of these as unlikely, especially if Australia is part of the Sinosphere, in which case Darwin becomes a key link to East Asia.
As (self appointed) "Britain dev" I personally don't like the Ullimora thing. I had plans for the "old money" being part of the reform movement.
That's fine. I wasn't expecting the vast majority of the 'old money' to go there anyway, and significant parts would probably return. I just felt that it was a more interesting approach than having them go to Canada, which seems to be the default in scenarios like these. I was thinking that just enough would stay to make it interesting, and just enough would go in the first place so as to leave their mark on the country.
There you can see why I think your plausibility standards for here are too high. I do find the Ulimaroa idea interesting, but now that we have a reformed UK (instead of a still Proactive one), I don't think we need Ulimaroa.
Yes, the UK has reformed. However, I see Ulimaroa as less a Britain-in-exile, but more an Australia with greater British influence, developing a culture that would be something like what you'd get if you put Texas, England, and Australia in a blender. Most British émigrés will have returned to a post-Proactivist Britain by now, but their cultural and political influence remains, and those who didn't return to Britain have some of the greatest political clout.
I don't know much about Australia to be honest, but I do think we have now destroyed important parts of this timeline. We can revamp many things, but for my Germany thing to work, we at least need a left-wing Japan (which you would say this is - I don't know?) to be an "ally" of Germany.
What important aspects do you see as destroyed? As far as I can see, the only vital aspect is that the Central Powers win WWI, however I've tried to adhere to existing canon as much as possible, while I've tried to make sure my ideas strike a balance between plausibility and originality. What Germany thing are you talking about, and why is it so important that Japan be red for that?
I'll try to put together a revised plan soon.
