Too many things to answer directly so re: Russia I'll just note that

A) yes, it's Michael, not Nicky, and Michael has not had any kids because his Prussian wife is barren
B) If you're a Polish nationalist, it will soon be Galicia you want to pay attention to...
C) The Finns are well ahead of Congress Poland but Russia may find "Finlandizing" Congress Poland an easier solution for their problems here soon
D) Russia is about 10 years behind OTL in terms of development, is my rough shorthand. Maybe more in some areas, less in others, idk. The CEW will probably narrow that delta a little bit due to the money flowing in from Germany specifically to buy raw goods (this is one major, MAJOR difference for Berlin compared to WW1), and that brings me to...
E) Russian radicalism came hand in hand with the dramatic changes in Russian standards of living in urban areas due to OTL's strong shift in the Russian economy followed by the national trauma of WW1. So by this point iTTL we're reaching 1905 levels of radicalism (which the 1912 upheavals followed by the toothless but symbolic Constitution of Michael that same year) but we haven't had the complete evaporation of Tsarist authority that really needs a RJW or WW1 to happen. Mikey is a fair deal more competent than Nicky, and Stolypin is around, but neither of those men is entirely flawless so there's still plenty of clouds on the Russian horizon
 
B) If you're a Polish nationalist, it will soon be Galicia you want to pay attention to...

C) The Finns are well ahead of Congress Poland but Russia may find "Finlandizing" Congress Poland an easier solution for their problems here soon

So, as the CEW gets worse we could see Galicia break-off either during or certainly after the war (I wonder if they will be seen as the European analogue to Texas in the GAW). If Russia actually accepts the Finlandization of Congress Poland, we could potentially see it swallow Galicia and form a Polish state under a cadet branch of the Romanov family with a decently powerful Sjem (though, would Gerany accept this? They are going to worry about Polish agitation in Poznan, Silesia, Kashubia and Western Prussia - in addition to Russia expanding its where of influence).

Its going to be interesting to see nationalization progress in such a Polish state. Even in OTL, during the 1920s national census, a good percent of the population of the Second Republic gave their ethnicity as "We Are From Here" (in other words, identifying with their village and province) rather than an established ethnic community, such as Pole, Ukrainian, etc.
 

kham_coc

Banned
If I remember correctly, current Tsar Michael doesn’t have a male child yet, so someone assassinated him could cause quite some troubles.
Not really, the absence of an heir has been factored in, so the de-facto heir (his newphew i believe) is already designated so there shouldn't be any confusion or crisis.
 
Not really, the absence of an heir has been factored in, so the de-facto heir (his newphew i believe) is already designated so there shouldn't be any confusion or crisis.
Did that person exist iOTL?
Also passing to a Nephew keeps to the Russian tradition of *never* having a Tsar die of old age and passing on the crown to his first born son.
 
Last edited:
So, as the CEW gets worse we could see Galicia break-off either during or certainly after the war (I wonder if they will be seen as the European analogue to Texas in the GAW). If Russia actually accepts the Finlandization of Congress Poland, we could potentially see it swallow Galicia and form a Polish state under a cadet branch of the Romanov family with a decently powerful Sjem (though, would Gerany accept this? They are going to worry about Polish agitation in Poznan, Silesia, Kashubia and Western Prussia - in addition to Russia expanding its where of influence).

Its going to be interesting to see nationalization progress in such a Polish state. Even in OTL, during the 1920s national census, a good percent of the population of the Second Republic gave their ethnicity as "We Are From Here" (in other words, identifying with their village and province) rather than an established ethnic community, such as Pole, Ukrainian, etc.
Such a Poland with a massive Ukrainian minority in eastern Galicia immediately becomes a very complicated state, complicated in the “Northern Ireland” variety. An Eastern Europe without the traumas of 1914-45 and thus a more complex ethnic mosaic becomes a very strange and tense place
Not really, the absence of an heir has been factored in, so the de-facto heir (his newphew i believe) is already designated so there shouldn't be any confusion or crisis.
Cousin - Kirill Vladimirovich, son of Uncle Vladimir.

And yes, say what you will about the Romanovs, they had a straightforward succession and there were plenty of them to go around. (Also: everybody, please go read “Regency Crisis” by @Greg Grant not only is it a great story but it’s also specifically about Romanov succession)
Did that person exist iOTL?
Also passing to a Nephew keeps to the Russian tradition of *never* having a Tsar die of old age and passing on the crown to his first born son.
Yes he did indeed. And… yeah, true, good point!
 
The Central European War
"...importance which "peripheral" events had to the increasingly-complicated relationship between the five powers at the center of the conflict, but broader context nonetheless suggests why relations in Europe deteriorated so drastically between the Congress of Budapest in 1913 and the eventual beginning of the war in spring 1919. Key to understanding Italy's involvement, in particular, requires understanding Italian geopolitical goals in the Mediterranean and increasingly North Africa, and the hostile Franco-Austrian reaction to said goals.

In 1915, for instance, the Greek government, with the help of considerable British but also Italian loans, announced that it was budgeting for the purchase of a dreadnought vessel as well as two battlecruisers to secure its territorial waters and join the ranks of naval powers in the Med, of which there were now increasingly many. In most of Europe, this move was mostly met with eye rolls and derision. Greece was after all a small, poor country that almost certainly would struggle to afford such an investment and the implications of the move were not taken particularly seriously; Germany's foreign ministry even circulated a memorandum to the Naval Staff suggesting that it be viewed in the context of Britain "perhaps seeking to offload an old vessel upon the unsuspecting Hellenes for cash rather than sinking it in training exercises."

The Greek Naval Act of 1915 was not taken so lightly in the Ottoman Empire, however, which viewed the move as not only a direct threat to the integrity of her own Aegean waters but even a potential cassus belli. Only twelve years had passed since the violence of the Cretan Crisis in which the Ottomans had feared a European intervention to pry Crete away and hand it to Greece, and now Athens was seeking to secure the means to actually enforce potential territorial claims. The dreadnought would most likely be surplus, but the battlecruisers that the Gounaris government had ordered would be brand-new and built in Belfast by the British shipbuilder Harland & Wolff, thus making them first-class vessels and likely superior to anything the Ottomans could put to sea. While much of the money and technology backing Greek then was British - a holdover of the staunch Anglophilia of the Hellenic government of Gounaris that matched the impulses of the long-reigning George I, who though seventy was as spry a King as ever - the Greek military was increasingly drifting in a different direction, one that shifted from Anglophile neutrality to an Italophile position, particularly within the Navy, as viewing the "Roman cousins" as increasingly important for bringing Greek ambitions in not only Thessaly but all of its irredenta on either side of the Aegean into play, and that was before one considered the admiration that Greek Army officialdom held for the Prussian military and the Crown Prince Constantine's love of all things German, passed-through from his wife.

A ticking clock was thus started in Constantinople as the delays to the Turks' own Naval Act of the previous year now became not a frustration but a potentially deadly wait; realistically, the battlecruisers would take no more than thirty months to complete, bringing a conflagration in late 1917 into play as a possibility. The fear in the halls of the Porte, including amongst otherwise relatively liberal officials such as the Grand Vizier Prince Sabahaddin, was that a future Cretan revolt would be able to be supported by Greek vessels that, potentially with Italian reinforcements, could signal the end of Ottoman control of the island and encourage further uprisings across the Empire, particularly in the rugged and ethnically Serb countryside between Sarajevo and Nish or in the complicated swath of land between the Balkan Mountains and the Danube in northern Bulgaria.

Though French connections to the Ottomans had declined considerably in the wake of the Cretan Crisis and Cattoro Note that ended it, a potential time bomb in southeastern Europe nonetheless worried France, especially as the Quai d'Orsay came to see an ambitious Italian government under Giolitti as the chief instigator, a position that Austria shared with alarm. The collapse of Franco-Austrian influence in Constantinople, and the rapid growth of Italo-German influence in Athens and elsewhere in the Balkans, suggested that the potential "guarded flank" of the Iron Triangle was at risk, not in the sense that the Ottomans were about to go to war with Austria, but rather that the stability of the firm alliance system that had kept Europe in a tense but straightforward peace for forty years was starting to unravel, and unpredictability was likely to reign..."

- The Central European War
 
The Forgotten Front: The Isthmian Campaigns of the Great American War
"...march from Santa Ana towards Guatemala City was predicated on the Nicaraguan National Guard that Butler had spent the last two years building into a formidable fighting force would be enough to keep the threat against forces in eastern Honduras real enough to prevent them from attacking through his rear, and that the newly-formed Isthmian Expeditionary Force of thirty thousand men from the Army meant to serve as auxiliaries alongside the Marines thrusting into the heart of Centro would be sufficient support. The reality of the campaign of summer 1915 was that many of its predicates were woefully wrong; the IEF had, unlike Butler's rugged "Jungle Jims," not been exposed to the kind of brutal, humid and malarial fighting conditions in the sweaty, forested hills of the Isthmus that had gotten the core of the Marines in El Salvador experienced in the type of war they were fighting. Yellow fever and other diseases ripped through the Army men, slowing Butler's march as much as frequent guerilla attacks and the extremely difficult terrain between Santa Ana and the capital, where a single narrow road looped through high mountains and thick foliage, and retreating Centro forces alternated between staging ambushes from the trees or burning the jungle so that it was so thick with smoke Butler's men could not advance. The Nicaraguans, meanwhile, bent but did not break, relinquishing a fair deal of land to Centroamerican-Mexican forces to the point they had to withdraw south of Esteli, but this fighting retreat into the teeth of American defenses set up in Nicaragua did pull that weight of forces away from Butler's columns.

This was the context in which the events of August 2nd, 1915 occurred. The Americans were winning, but they were winning slowly and brutally and at great cost. The Centroamericans were collapsing, but not so quickly that it threatened Mexican positions, with the road network in Honduras essentially still intact for Huerta's men to move via Tegucigalpa, the place he had initially expected Butler to strike towards. Resupply for the Bloc by sea was impossible, and Mexican soldiers were getting increasingly hungry, antsy and frustrated, with fights frequently breaking out between Centroamerican recruits and Huerta' more professional men, who pejoratively called their allies monos - monkeys. Huerta, no stranger to ambition and ruthlessness in his rise in the ranks of the Mexican Army, finally had had enough. After two years of war, Estrada Cabrera had done nothing but complain about Nicaragua daring to exist and indulged corruption and incompetence within his own ranks as Mexico bled in the Isthmian jungles to defend him. Above and beyond that, it was not an uncommon view in Mexican circles that Centroamerica existed in the first place at Mexico's pleasure, as it had been the unequivocal support of the Emperor Maximilian in the 1870s and early 1880s for Justo Rufino Barrios' project of uniting Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras into a single state that had seen the federation come about. To put the overriding Mexican attitude into American colloquial terms, it was Mexico that had brought Centro into the world, and thus Mexico who could take it out.

Early on the morning of August 2nd, 1915, the ostentatious Presidential Palace in Guatemala City was attacked - not by American Marines, who were about sixty-five kilometers away, but by elite Mexican forces personally loyal to Huerta. Surprised, the Centroamerican guards were rapidly overwhelmed and killed to the man. Soon afterwards, President Manuel Estrada Cabrera, one of the bete noires of the United States in the first decade and a half of the 20th century for his indulgence of Confederate and Mexican meddling with American businesses in Centroamerica and his belligerency towards Nicaragua, was dragged out into the courtyard, placed up against a wall, and executed not to the calm intonations of his last rites but over his livid screams and protests.

Huerta's decision to simply usurp command over Centroamerica remains controversial even in Mexico, where he is pilloried for the decision. An exploration of his thinking is meant not to absolve him of his unilateral murder of his ally Estrada Cabrera but rather to understand the context of the events of August 2nd. In the view of Huerta and his staff, who were returning to Guatemala City later that day to secure order after the city plunged into chaos, Centroamerica was effectively done the moment El Salvador fell earlier in the year, and they were highly dubious of the ability of Estrada Cabrera's men to defend Guatemala City. Rather than throw more blood and treasure into the matter, they instead proposed the dissolution of the Union, letting Honduras fend for itself, and throw all Mexican attention towards preserving their position in Guatemala, which had always been the main focus of Mexico City anyhow.

To say that this decision was unpopular in Mexico City would be an understatement, especially as Huerta reorganized the Centroamerican government by force into the "Military District of Guatemala" with himself as its Supreme Commander, viewed on both sides of the border as a prelude to him simply declaring himself as Guatemala's warlord. General Bernardo Reyes, the Chief of Staff of the Mexican Army, issued a warrant for his arrest and court martial, and twenty thousand Mexican soldiers were diverted from marching north to Los Pasos to instead be sent to Guatemala to secure the territory, auguring a potential battle between rival Mexican factions. This debacle was a further sign to Mexico's internal opponents of continuing the war, of whom Reyes was an increasingly important voice, that continuing on the current course would lead to ruin for Mexico and that it was best to simply cut losses and agree to a separate peace with the United States while there was a good deal to be had rather than continue down the sinking ship with the Confederacy and, apparently, Centroamerica, which over the course of August was pulverizing itself back into three separate nation states before Mexico's very eyes, with anti-Huerta riots, mutinies and declarations spreading across Honduras and northern Guatemala with remarkable speed..."

- The Forgotten Front: The Isthmian Campaigns of the Great American War
 
"...importance which "peripheral" events had to the increasingly-complicated relationship between the five powers at the center of the conflict, but broader context nonetheless suggests why relations in Europe deteriorated so drastically between the Congress of Budapest in 1913 and the eventual beginning of the war in spring 1919. Key to understanding Italy's involvement, in particular, requires understanding Italian geopolitical goals in the Mediterranean and increasingly North Africa, and the hostile Franco-Austrian reaction to said goals.

In 1915, for instance, the Greek government, with the help of considerable British but also Italian loans, announced that it was budgeting for the purchase of a dreadnought vessel as well as two battlecruisers to secure its territorial waters and join the ranks of naval powers in the Med, of which there were now increasingly many. In most of Europe, this move was mostly met with eye rolls and derision. Greece was after all a small, poor country that almost certainly would struggle to afford such an investment and the implications of the move were not taken particularly seriously; Germany's foreign ministry even circulated a memorandum to the Naval Staff suggesting that it be viewed in the context of Britain "perhaps seeking to offload an old vessel upon the unsuspecting Hellenes for cash rather than sinking it in training exercises."

The Greek Naval Act of 1915 was not taken so lightly in the Ottoman Empire, however, which viewed the move as not only a direct threat to the integrity of her own Aegean waters but even a potential cassus belli. Only twelve years had passed since the violence of the Cretan Crisis in which the Ottomans had feared a European intervention to pry Crete away and hand it to Greece, and now Athens was seeking to secure the means to actually enforce potential territorial claims. The dreadnought would most likely be surplus, but the battlecruisers that the Gounaris government had ordered would be brand-new and built in Belfast by the British shipbuilder Harland & Wolff, thus making them first-class vessels and likely superior to anything the Ottomans could put to sea. While much of the money and technology backing Greek then was British - a holdover of the staunch Anglophilia of the Hellenic government of Gounaris that matched the impulses of the long-reigning George I, who though seventy was as spry a King as ever - the Greek military was increasingly drifting in a different direction, one that shifted from Anglophile neutrality to an Italophile position, particularly within the Navy, as viewing the "Roman cousins" as increasingly important for bringing Greek ambitions in not only Thessaly but all of its irredenta on either side of the Aegean into play, and that was before one considered the admiration that Greek Army officialdom held for the Prussian military and the Crown Prince Constantine's love of all things German, passed-through from his wife.

A ticking clock was thus started in Constantinople as the delays to the Turks' own Naval Act of the previous year now became not a frustration but a potentially deadly wait; realistically, the battlecruisers would take no more than thirty months to complete, bringing a conflagration in late 1917 into play as a possibility. The fear in the halls of the Porte, including amongst otherwise relatively liberal officials such as the Grand Vizier Prince Sabahaddin, was that a future Cretan revolt would be able to be supported by Greek vessels that, potentially with Italian reinforcements, could signal the end of Ottoman control of the island and encourage further uprisings across the Empire, particularly in the rugged and ethnically Serb countryside between Sarajevo and Nish or in the complicated swath of land between the Balkan Mountains and the Danube in northern Bulgaria.

Though French connections to the Ottomans had declined considerably in the wake of the Cretan Crisis and Cattoro Note that ended it, a potential time bomb in southeastern Europe nonetheless worried France, especially as the Quai d'Orsay came to see an ambitious Italian government under Giolitti as the chief instigator, a position that Austria shared with alarm. The collapse of Franco-Austrian influence in Constantinople, and the rapid growth of Italo-German influence in Athens and elsewhere in the Balkans, suggested that the potential "guarded flank" of the Iron Triangle was at risk, not in the sense that the Ottomans were about to go to war with Austria, but rather that the stability of the firm alliance system that had kept Europe in a tense but straightforward peace for forty years was starting to unravel, and unpredictability was likely to reign..."

- The Central European War
*FIVE*? (France, Germany, Italy, AH *and*....)
 
Couldn't have expected less from Huerta. Either in OTL or TTL he must do something that places him in the pantheon of Mexican villians. However, I don't think he will be universally villified as in OTL, at least in the eyes of Mexican historiography (Guatemalan is another thing), as I'm sure there will be some people that will justify his actions in Central America in the context of the war, in contrast to OTL, where I'm pretty sure he's one of the few villains of Mexican history who hasn't received some positive light in recent years (like Díaz, Iturbide or Maximilian himself).

Back to the greater context of the war, the Mexican government must act ASAP: disavow Huerta's actions in Guatemala and call it a day with the US. Whatever they have to pay right now (either monetary/economic concessions or something related to Baja California [never!]) it's way better than if they decide to keep fighting on.
 
"...march from Santa Ana towards Guatemala City was predicated on the Nicaraguan National Guard that Butler had spent the last two years building into a formidable fighting force would be enough to keep the threat against forces in eastern Honduras real enough to prevent them from attacking through his rear, and that the newly-formed Isthmian Expeditionary Force of thirty thousand men from the Army meant to serve as auxiliaries alongside the Marines thrusting into the heart of Centro would be sufficient support. The reality of the campaign of summer 1915 was that many of its predicates were woefully wrong; the IEF had, unlike Butler's rugged "Jungle Jims," not been exposed to the kind of brutal, humid and malarial fighting conditions in the sweaty, forested hills of the Isthmus that had gotten the core of the Marines in El Salvador experienced in the type of war they were fighting. Yellow fever and other diseases ripped through the Army men, slowing Butler's march as much as frequent guerilla attacks and the extremely difficult terrain between Santa Ana and the capital, where a single narrow road looped through high mountains and thick foliage, and retreating Centro forces alternated between staging ambushes from the trees or burning the jungle so that it was so thick with smoke Butler's men could not advance. The Nicaraguans, meanwhile, bent but did not break, relinquishing a fair deal of land to Centroamerican-Mexican forces to the point they had to withdraw south of Esteli, but this fighting retreat into the teeth of American defenses set up in Nicaragua did pull that weight of forces away from Butler's columns.

This was the context in which the events of August 2nd, 1915 occurred. The Americans were winning, but they were winning slowly and brutally and at great cost. The Centroamericans were collapsing, but not so quickly that it threatened Mexican positions, with the road network in Honduras essentially still intact for Huerta's men to move via Tegucigalpa, the place he had initially expected Butler to strike towards. Resupply for the Bloc by sea was impossible, and Mexican soldiers were getting increasingly hungry, antsy and frustrated, with fights frequently breaking out between Centroamerican recruits and Huerta' more professional men, who pejoratively called their allies monos - monkeys. Huerta, no stranger to ambition and ruthlessness in his rise in the ranks of the Mexican Army, finally had had enough. After two years of war, Estrada Cabrera had done nothing but complain about Nicaragua daring to exist and indulged corruption and incompetence within his own ranks as Mexico bled in the Isthmian jungles to defend him. Above and beyond that, it was not an uncommon view in Mexican circles that Centroamerica existed in the first place at Mexico's pleasure, as it had been the unequivocal support of the Emperor Maximilian in the 1870s and early 1880s for Justo Rufino Barrios' project of uniting Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras into a single state that had seen the federation come about. To put the overriding Mexican attitude into American colloquial terms, it was Mexico that had brought Centro into the world, and thus Mexico who could take it out.

Early on the morning of August 2nd, 1915, the ostentatious Presidential Palace in Guatemala City was attacked - not by American Marines, who were about sixty-five kilometers away, but by elite Mexican forces personally loyal to Huerta. Surprised, the Centroamerican guards were rapidly overwhelmed and killed to the man. Soon afterwards, President Manuel Estrada Cabrera, one of the bete noires of the United States in the first decade and a half of the 20th century for his indulgence of Confederate and Mexican meddling with American businesses in Centroamerica and his belligerency towards Nicaragua, was dragged out into the courtyard, placed up against a wall, and executed not to the calm intonations of his last rites but over his livid screams and protests.

Huerta's decision to simply usurp command over Centroamerica remains controversial even in Mexico, where he is pilloried for the decision. An exploration of his thinking is meant not to absolve him of his unilateral murder of his ally Estrada Cabrera but rather to understand the context of the events of August 2nd. In the view of Huerta and his staff, who were returning to Guatemala City later that day to secure order after the city plunged into chaos, Centroamerica was effectively done the moment El Salvador fell earlier in the year, and they were highly dubious of the ability of Estrada Cabrera's men to defend Guatemala City. Rather than throw more blood and treasure into the matter, they instead proposed the dissolution of the Union, letting Honduras fend for itself, and throw all Mexican attention towards preserving their position in Guatemala, which had always been the main focus of Mexico City anyhow.

To say that this decision was unpopular in Mexico City would be an understatement, especially as Huerta reorganized the Centroamerican government by force into the "Military District of Guatemala" with himself as its Supreme Commander, viewed on both sides of the border as a prelude to him simply declaring himself as Guatemala's warlord. General Bernardo Reyes, the Chief of Staff of the Mexican Army, issued a warrant for his arrest and court martial, and twenty thousand Mexican soldiers were diverted from marching north to Los Pasos to instead be sent to Guatemala to secure the territory, auguring a potential battle between rival Mexican factions. This debacle was a further sign to Mexico's internal opponents of continuing the war, of whom Reyes was an increasingly important voice, that continuing on the current course would lead to ruin for Mexico and that it was best to simply cut losses and agree to a separate peace with the United States while there was a good deal to be had rather than continue down the sinking ship with the Confederacy and, apparently, Centroamerica, which over the course of August was pulverizing itself back into three separate nation states before Mexico's very eyes, with anti-Huerta riots, mutinies and declarations spreading across Honduras and northern Guatemala with remarkable speed..."

- The Forgotten Front: The Isthmian Campaigns of the Great American War
Will there even be a Centroamerica to *sign* a peace treaty with the Americans?
Heck at this point, I'm starting to wonder whether there will be a Guatemala. Be interesting if Mexico actually *gained* land as a result of the GAW.

Note, I'm assuming that British Honduras hasn't really seen significant effects of the war. Maybe more shipping since it is a neutral, but not much. Of course that leads to the question of the roads between Belize city and Guatemala...
 
Last edited:
Belgium, likely.
🤐 but, also, it’s been somewhat telegraphed I suppose
Couldn't have expected less from Huerta. Either in OTL or TTL he must do something that places him in the pantheon of Mexican villians. However, I don't think he will be universally villified as in OTL, at least in the eyes of Mexican historiography (Guatemalan is another thing), as I'm sure there will be some people that will justify his actions in Central America in the context of the war, in contrast to OTL, where I'm pretty sure he's one of the few villains of Mexican history who hasn't received some positive light in recent years (like Díaz, Iturbide or Maximilian himself).

Back to the greater context of the war, the Mexican government must act ASAP: disavow Huerta's actions in Guatemala and call it a day with the US. Whatever they have to pay right now (either monetary/economic concessions or something related to Baja California [never!]) it's way better than if they decide to keep fighting on.
Hard to think of a more straightforward villain in Mexican history than Victoriano Huerta. But, yeah, it’ll be Guatemalans who absolutely despise the man, that’s for sure
Will there even be a Centroamerica to *sign* a peace treaty with the Americans?
Heck at this point, I'm starting to wonder whether there will be a Guatemala. Be interesting if Mexico actually *gained* land as a result of the GAW.

Note, I'm assuming that British Honduras hasn't really seen significant effects of the war. Maybe more shipping since it is a neutral, but not much. Of course that leads to the question of the roads between Belize city and Guatemala...
I hadn’t considered Mexico annexing Guatemala outright, honestly. Maybe they swap Baja California for Guatemala…? Would certainly be a hardcore move lol, but maybe an easier sell to the Mexican public!

Of course there’s lots of ways that could go badly, violently wrong, too, so…
Awww yeahhhh We finally get to see Germany lay the smack down on France
Soon, soon
Is there a world map for this?
Its in the previous threads. At the end of each part.
The original thread has several, as @Mayukh noted
 
Interesting note here is Britain's very different attitude to the Mediterranean as they help build the Greek navy - they don't seem to consider it quite so crucial as they did IOTL, likely as a result of Suez being French ITTL. Hence it's easy to see them turn their gaze to the sub-Saharan African coast or Central America in order to keep the passageway to India open, rather than an unreliable (if still relatively speedy) Mediterranean path (that'll likely be even less reliable during the CEW) and thus possibly being somewhat neutral to Italian/Spanish expansionism on the Med (the repercussions for Malta and Gibraltar being questionable but I doubt Britain just gives either of them up unless the empire is completely imploding). Also now I can't remember if Cyprus went British ITTL or if the Ottomans still have it.
 
Last edited:
Interesting note here is Britain's very different attitude to the Mediterranean as they help build the Greek navy - they don't seem to consider it quite so crucial as they did IOTL, likely as a result of Suez being French ITTL. Hence it's easy to see them turn their gaze to the sub-Saharan African coast or Central America in order to keep the passageway to India open, rather than an unreliable (if still relatively speedy) Mediterranean path (that'll likely be even less reliable during the CEW) and thus possibly being somewhat neutral to Italian/Spanish expansionism on the Med (the repercussions for Malta and Gibraltar being questionable but I doubt Britain just gives either of them up unless the empire is completely imploding). Also now I can't remember if Cyprus went British ITTL or if the Ottomans still have it.
That’s more or less it. The Uk has its base in Malta and at Gibraltar (and Aden for that matter), but sans Suez her strategic calculations are way different.

Cyprus is still Ottoman here, as is Crete for that matter (though governed under the Halepa power sharing scheme)

The Greeks are a bit of a wildcard for me; it’s hard to see Venizelos becoming a Thing in Greece without his native Crete as much of a focal point, and it’s hard to chart out what a Greece lacking Venizelism would even be like at this point
 
I hadn’t considered Mexico annexing Guatemala outright, honestly. Maybe they swap Baja California for Guatemala…? Would certainly be a hardcore move lol, but maybe an easier sell to the Mexican public!

Of course there’s lots of ways that could go badly, violently wrong, too, so…
I could see this happening as a way to appease the Mexican public, yeah. It would make the region an ulcer for Mexico for a while (which could make for some fascinating future narratives in the region), but there would be some benefits. Depends on if those benefits outweighs the problems (and how much of their recently nationalised economy the Mexicans get back to keep from the Americans).

Short term gains - sooner payment of debts and such via cash crops such as banana, coffee and sugar (assuming those aren't monopolised by US fruit companies in the aftermath)

Long term gains - additional untapped mineral, oil, and gas wealth when that is eventually discovered, greater tourism potential assuming the area is developed, control over the majority of Mayan historical sites (which based on the previous thread could possibly even restart the whole Mesoamerican cultural fascination and architectural movement)

Downsides - guaranteed guerilla action for a long period, likely additional American commercial influence in the region, possible concern from the UK over Belize, and an eternally fearful relationship from Nicaraga and El Salvador
 
Top