To Geekhis Khan
First of all, thank you for your kind words. I can't wait to get back to this timeline in two years. I finally feel as if I could get it all down all the way to the end of the 20th century if only I had a couple months to work pretty solidly on it. The first thing I am going to do when I get back is watch the last season of
Lost, and then I'm going to get a bunch of library books and get back to work. This timeline has been a dream of mine for years (just look through my history as Darkest and then Hnau, I have a lot of threads on this idea) and I'm sad to put it on a hiatus once again. I imagine and hope that eventually
A Lenin-less World going to be as expansive as Jared's and Faeelin's respective projects, and I hope to use this universe for video games in the future. My twin brother is a video game programmer and as soon as we get back from our religious missions we're going to form an indie game studio and I'd love to put together an in-depth game universe for some of our projects. Anyway, let me get to some of your ideas and questions, Geekhis.
Geekhis Khan said:
Versailles: more resistance to Wilson will change a lot... If Wilson's shut out this could spell a serious blow to idealist/internationalist ideas like the LoN and see a continuation, in a way at least, of Balance of Power.
Poincare will resist Wilson more, yes, but only on French aims. I don't think he'll be effective enough to establish an independent Rhenish state, though, so in the end Wilson is going to "win", and so you probably won't see to many butterflies from that direction.
Geekhis said:
Africa: France wants a bigger piece ATL, so how about Italy? OTL their being "cheated" out of African and even Anatolian possessions was a huge driver for social unrest and the rise of Fascism... Dalmatia is still going to be a major sore spot, particularly if Russia's backing Yugoslavia...
I don't think the People's Federation will be backing Yugoslavia for some time. Yugoslavia is going to be positioned against Bulgaria and Hungary throughout the 1920s over territorial issues, and that means positioning itself against the FPR. Pan-Slavism is only slightly stronger than in OTL, though it could definitely, definitely see a resurgence in later decades. Furthermore, the Socialist-Revolutionaries hate monarchism... see how they treated Romania... and some even said that there should be a liberal/socialist crusade to destroy all kingdoms around the world. That attitude will disappear by the late 1920s as the socialists in Russia adapt to real-world conditions, but it'll keep them from creating any serious bonds with Yugoslavia.
As for Italy and receiving African territory or Dalmatia... I just don't see it happening. No one
really supported Italy in their claims on Dalmatia enough to count, though you could list a couple sympathetic powers, with France first on the list. Poincare isn't going to be much different from Clemenceau in this regard. As for Anatolia, I do see Poincare supporting Italian claims there, and perhaps even Russia, but Ataturk will prove too strong. D'Annunzio and Fiume still happen, though, with mostly the same result.
Geekhis Khan said:
Italy in general will see huge butterflies ATL. No Red Revolution in Russia will help the more moderate Socialist wings and hurt the more extreme revolutionary, internationalist and Communist wings. Perhaps this allows more unity and less of OTL's flagrant abuse and alienation of petty landowners. The *Biennino Rosso in ATL may be more inclusive and united, which could see less popular fear and less semi-official government opposition to the Socialists. This would be a serious blow to Fascism, assuming it forms. Perhaps Mussolini, finding he has no real outlet in this "less shameful" victory environment, comes crawling back to Socialism. Even if Fascism does form, if the Socialists are more integrated and less radicalized and bent for revolution then Fascism may remain a minority movement. It certainly wont be getting as much tacit government support ATL. There may still be squadrist actions (particularly to break strikes), but it will possibly remain more localized, unorganized and reactionary (as opposed to OTL's "revolutionary" Fascism).
Absolutely! All of your suggestions are very useful. Ah, I forgot entirely about expounding upon this! You see, in my earlier version of the timeline, the German Revolution spiralled out of control, even though the socialists didn't take the country, and so the Red Scare still permeated throughout Europe and even the United States. Here, I decided it was more plausible to keep things more peaceful in Germany, so Italy will have to be completely redone. Originally, I had Mussolini still take the country... here, I'm almost positive that his path is completely different. The "Two Red Years" will be less scary, and no way will something like the March on Rome work. Like you said, Mussolini is going to be doing something radically different, though he'll still be running around causing trouble.
Geekhis Khan said:
Balbo, who knows? ... Farrinacci... Grandi...
Different paths for all of them, probably less important.
Geekhis Khan said:
If Italy avoids Fascism we may see no Hitler as he has no big role model. However, Germany is going to be getting shafted regardless, perhaps worse with a more stubborn France. You've already butterflied the Spartasicts, but the Freikorps are still in action. Tough call on where Germany is going.
It really is confusing there. I recently read a few books on Adolf Hitler's life (ugh, you know how
that makes for comforting reading

) as he was causing me enormous head-aches in the earlier version of my timeline, in which he pulled off a March on Berlin and began a German Civil War which he loses after a long, horrible Allied blockade of the country. That whole sequence of events dashed my confidence in the earlier version, as I felt it was implausible. But Hitler was one twisted dude, and he had the ambition and passion even before he heard what Mussolini was able to accomplish. I've already rolled dice to see if he survives the alt-WWI, and he does, unfortunately. He's going to enter the DAP a few months later,
after he leaves the military, which is going to slow him down a bit. He might not come up with his Beer Hall Putsch here without Mussolini, and will be much less confident in manipulating national events without the evidences of the Russian Revolution. Nazism will still emerge, but it'll be different... less fear of Marxism, which means it'll probably keep more of a socialist angle... slightly more fear of Jews because of emigrants from Poland and propaganda from Warsaw... slightly more appreciation for the Poles ("return of German territories and a protectorate over Poland should be enough, no need for anything more drastic... once Germanization of the population begins, they can become loyal, ideologically-friendly servants!")... less fear and hatred of Russia, more fear and hatred directed against the Allies... and most importantly, they'll want to win a democratic election right from the start, so that might give them an edge. Altogether, Hitler might lead a party that desires a socialistic, nationalistic, anti-Jewish pan-German state, but maybe not world domination and lebensraum. That makes it a little
more scary, though, because if they come into power, they'll probably hang onto it a lot longer. Lots of potential for butterflies there, though.
Geekhis Khan said:
... war guilt... war debt... Versailles... anger and resentment.
Most certainly. Versailles will be just a tad more harsh, though I can't see reparations getting much worse than it became in OTL.
Geekhis Khan said:
*snip* hyperinflation *snip*
Definitely. A lot depends what party comes to power in the early 1920s and how they react to it... do they do better than OTL or worse? However, interesting thing here: because the French parliament will be more socialist (though without a socialist majority) into the early 1920s, Alexandre Millerand won't replace Aristide Briand with Raymond Poincare when he did in January 1922. Why? Because in OTL the decision to replace Briand with Poincare was very unpopular with the left. Millerand almost went back on the decision because of this. With the left stronger, it'll be unpopular enough that Briand will remain prime minister for at least another year... if hyperinflation continues to get worse in Germany, Poincare might step in and call for an occupation of the Ruhr, but if the Germans are able to mostly solve their financial problems before early 1923, there won't be an occupation of the Ruhr, and Briand will remain Prime Minister even longer. Good stuff there with Briand at the helm that reminds me of Faeelin's
Holding Out for a Hero.
Geekhis Khan said:
But ask them at your own risk: the more hard-core Keynesians and Anti-Keynesians on this board will have diametrically opposed and equally stubborn views.
Tell you what. When I get back in August 2011, if the economy is recovering and we're doing better, then I will promptly thank President Obama and become a Keynesian and apply it to this timeline. If things are worse, and presuming society hasn't collapsed, then I'll become an anti-Keynesian/Monetarist/Chicago school/whatever and apply
that to the timeline.

This has been quite a problem for me, as I really don't know what to believe concerning economics... everyone sounds so convincing and intelligent whatever side they try to convert me to.
Geekhis Khan said:
Yes, yes. Confusing, Japan is. In my earlier version they became engaged enough in the RCW that they stayed on track and the militarists came to power. However, I decided any Siberian intervention was unlikely after I went over source documents that says that they had to be goaded into helping. You see, if the Czech Legions aren't stranded, then the Americans aren't going to send troops into Siberia, and if the Americans don't have troops on the ground there, the Japanese aren't going to feel safe sending soldiers either. Possibly no Rice Riots. A lot depends on the Great Depression, yes. Very unsure of what to do here.