A Lenin-less World

You're right in your facts, but missing what I was saying entirely. This is about the conflict of 1918-1922, and most of what you said hadn't effectively materialized. Yes, eventually (to shut them up, I suspect) Britain threw them the (relatively worthless) Jubaland (after using it as leverage to force them out of the Dodecanese), but this was promised only in 1920 and not actually done until in 1925, far after the Fascist coup, and hence beyond the scope of the applicable discussion in this case. As of 1920 when Fascism was starting to gain momentum there's not even the promise of Jubaland, and there remains the fact of Italy being effectively excluded from all the good spoils of the German Empire and the OE. They eventually claimed Istria (essentially by force; later ceded by Yugo through the treaty of Rappallo) and D'Annunzio tried for Fiume, but Dalmatia wasn't happening. And ITTL likely won't happen as you stated, but it needs to be addressed by Hnau whatever the political changes as this is THE issue.

And believe me, OTL or ATL Italy suffered in WWI. Arguably as bad as France in terms of (per capita/per land area) territorial occupation, economic upset and raw casualties. It was effectively the loss at Caporetto and the allied "bail out" that biased the French and English into considering Italy more of a load than an actual ally, and hence of little consequence to them once their usefulness was fulfilled.

Ack! (Slaps forehead).

I forgot that Italy didn't gain those extra bits in Africa until sometime after the whole peace settlement.

There will certainly be fear and opposition to socialism ITTL (particularly from land barons and industry), but without the example from Lenin of a violent, bloody overthrow and complete fanatical reordering of society it won't likely cause the full-on panic it caused OTL. ITTL Italian Socialism may (recall my caveats here) be more amenable to the middle class and small land owners--and even business and land owners may be amenable to compromise and concessions without the OTL Bolshevik-inspired fears of being violently thrown out of their property and/or killed. Again, up to Hnau depending on how he establishes the politics.

As for Mussolini, he's a political opportunist out for himself, so he'll take whatever stand gets him followers. Mussie IMO would become the loudest Bolshevik on the block if he thinks that gets him into power. So here, no Lenin-inspired Communists (whether an official party or otherwise) doesn't really effect his returning to the socialist "fold" or not. Rather the specific political situation of TTL as Hnau defines it does. And yes, no reason for them to take him back. Then again, there's no necessary reason ITTL why he would leave in the first place if we assume the socialists are less radical and therefore more politically viable (opportunity uber alles).
His full burn-the-bridges resignation didn't happen until after the war and the resentment over the "stolen spoils". Again, a lot depends on whatever situation Hnau puts together here.

Hmm. I always thought Mussie fell out with the socialist party during WWI and thus before the POD. If it only fully happened after he came back from the war then he might still end up being in the socialist party. However since the resentment over the "stolen spoils" is likely to still be around in some form or another, perhaps he might still burn those bridges?
 

Hnau

Banned
Sorry, Geekhis and others, let me get to Archangel real quick on Spain because its an easy answer.

Rivera still takes dictatorial power over Spain, so you can expect the 1920s to be very similar to OTL. However, without the influence of Moscow, Spanish socialists are much more united. There is no real alternative to the Second International, so that keeps policies and ideology in line with the rest of the continent. The Popular Front was very divided in OTL... here, the parties that (might) compose it will be more united, and probably much more anarchist. In fact, events in the People's Federation will popularize the anarcho-syndicalist ideology quite a bit.

As for the Spanish Civil War... I really don't know if it'll start and if it does, it'll be much different. Spain is fairly insulated from the butterflies from the rest of the world as far as I'm concerned, everything except for its socialist politics will be very similar. But by the 1930s, the Great Depression could be different, and events may be taking quite a different turn. As for which side would win if it came to a civil war between Fascists and Socialists, I think it really depends on where Germany and Italy are at in the 1930s. The Socialists all around have a higher probability of winning, and the People's Federation would send many International Brigades and hardware, so, they would most likely win if the Fascists weren't aided by Germany and Italy.
 

Hnau

Banned
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 :rolleyes:) 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:
*snip* Japan *snip*

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.
 

Hnau

Banned
Chris S said:
Would that anger and resentment though ultimately lead to armed conflict in the future? I doubt it since unlike OTL, Germany is going to be hard pressed to find a lot of other states that are also dissatisfied with the peace settlement. Italy yes, but even in OTL Italy was initially opposed to Germany overturning provisions of the Versailles treaty. It can't offer *Russia anything in TTL as this alt-Soviet Union already has a boundary on the Curzon line and the baltic states and moldavia. Should Hitler or any other extremist come to power and wish to overturn Versailles then they could possibly do so (ending the Rhineland occupation, ending the restrictions on the army and the navy, ending the reparations payment) but revision of the borders with Poland would be practically impossible since you the FPR using Poland as a buffer essentially and probably have a rather warped relationship with Dmowski who initially favoured Polish autonomy in Tsarist Russia (since he believed Russification would fail and Russia offered the best opportunity for the reunification of all Polish territories under one rule and with an incomptent Russia administering it then with autonomy Poland would essentially be left to it's own devices). Dmowski also apparently disliked the old Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth for it's multinational structure so of course, he would have disliked Pilsudki's Międzymorze idea. Given Dmowski's distrust of minorities in a nation-state like Poland and his disinterest in acquiring areas which were in the old Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth that did not have Polish majorities (and his interest in acquiring area in German Pomerania and eastern Germany in general with Polish populations), Dmowski may even accept the idea of population transfers with some of the republics of FPR in order to make Poland homogenous. With all of this the only states Germany could ally with if any of it's leaders were willing to risk renewed war over the borders would be Italy and Romania. Bulgaria possibly but if Bulgaria is a people's republic with very good relations with the FPR that would be difficult, plus this Bulgaria would have south Drobuja to lose. In the end there may be no second world war and instead Germany just overturns the limitations imposed on it by Versailles (so it rebuilds it's army and navy, no longer has to pay reparations and the Rhineland is returned/the occupation of the Rhineland would be ended, Saar territory would be returned and maybe, just maybe Germany and Austria either form a customs union or unify entirely.

Can't see Germany getting the Sudetenland in TTL since the Czechs would probably mend relations with the FPR in due time (after all it isn't like Czechoslovakia was formed for any long length of time and normal relations would probably resume within a decade). Plus with FPR bases in Slovakia and Hungary any attempt to seize the Sudetenland could well be supported by the Czechs formal allies and by the FPR.

As is tradition (;)) I'd like to back Chris' comments, especially these. But, Germany might become a much better friend of the People's Federation, presuming they stay democratic (essentially, if they avoid Nazification). With FPR backing, they might just get the territories they want, provided there is a legitimate referendum. But, then again, by the 1930s there might be a different political party in control... I'll get to that later. But the Socialist-Revolutionaries, at least, would love to support Germany's claims to Austria, the Sudetenland, and the Polish Corridor as long as they have the consent of the populations of those territories. This would hurt their relations with the Czechs and Poles, though... the former they might have a chance of eventually building up a good relationship after the Slovakia dispute, after all, and the latter might be shifted from reluctant, passive hostage to enraged opponent if the Corridor is taken away from them.

It seems like Germany is in a position where much depends on the FPR though. They stand to gain a lot if they stay democratic and build up a Berlin-Moscow Axis in the spirit of the Treaty of Rapallo. Germany could stay weak and keep its inferiority complex, however, if they become Nazi and start pushing against the Federation's friends.

Extrasolar Angel said:
*lots of supporting paragraphs snipped* ... So from economical point of view the situation actually will be better for Poland, while from military and political view Polish state is in worse shape.

You are absolutely right. Though, the FPR won't be providing for their military needs forever... I see that ending within a decade, maybe a little longer. A phased withdrawal from the country. And just for the record, Lviv is part of Ukraine from the Russo-Polish War on. The economy will most definitely be stronger in the long-run, and more politically united... but behind a racist, near-fascist authoritarian one-party state. It'll still be a sad, twisted little country, but maybe a wealthy, sad, twisted little country... Definitely the source of troubles in the future.
 

Hnau

Banned
Concerning Russian Democracy

It is an incredibly, INCREDIBLY difficult task to discover how the people of the Soviet Union might have voted, every few years or so, had they the chance. There are hints of the ebbs and tides of popular opinion in newspapers, and official reports in the Communist Party are somewhat useful, if not almost always subject to some kind of exaggeration in any direction, but the most useful source of material is the extensive October Election of 1917 to the Russian Constituent Assembly which actually took place in OTL.

Almost all of the internet sources you find will be in error, somewhat. So I had to go to the one man who devoted his entire life to reconstructing the election of October 1917: Oliver H. Radkey. His book, Russia goes to the polls: the election to the all-Russian Constituent Assembly, 1917 is absolutely the most important, wonderful thing to happen to me in the world of alternate history, and it made this timeline possible to write. He spends hundreds of pages talking about the election, what the people actually thought, and though I had to read it, no joke, three times over to fully understand it, in the end I came out with a complete grasp of exactly what the Russian people were thinking at the time... how they wanted to run their country, who they trusted, etc. etc. Now, I am an amateur, of course, but after devoting a few months to reading and understand every detail of that book, after poring over his many complex statements and analyses, I feel, seriously, as if I had gained a glimpse of Nirvana in one singular fragment of history. I own the election of October 1917 as few do, and I feel entirely confident that my suppositions are as correct as any historian will ever make. Professor Radkey is my spirit guide and I feel as if I can call upon his vast knowledge with just a few moments of introspection. This is quite heady and arrogant, I understand... if someone else made such a bold claim, I would doubt their truthfulness on all points. But, hey, I went through a grueling academic experience for months and whatever it did to my brain, something clicked, and that's just how I feel. I can't stop it at this point.

So let me tell you what the People of Rossiiskaya think and feel, or at least how they vote.

The next election will be held in September 1920, and unlike the days of October 1917, the election will be handled much more efficiently and smoothly. Everyone gets to vote, not just those in unoccupied non-Finnish European Russia and results come in a timely fashion. The delegates are seated during the official convocation instead of over a period of many months.

- Around 5% of the SR vote goes to independent peasant parties, as many of the peasants feel estranged by the dominant relationship of the SR intellectuals with their constituency.
- Another 5% of the SR vote goes to the Trudoviki (Popular Socialists) and to the Kadets, the only two parties that encourage private property. These consist of peasants and more middle-class folk that made what they could off of the Revolution and the following Black Repartition, and now want to escape the more strange socialistic policies of the SRs and live the rest of their lives in a capitalist democracy.
- Social democracy in Georgia collapses. It was really just a front for Georgian nationalism. Around 15% of the vote there remains in the RSDLP, the other 85% goes to Georgian nationalist parties.
- 5% of the independent peasant party vote goes to the Trudoviki or the Kadets... once again, this represents richer peasants who've made what they could off of the Black Repartition and now just want to keep what they've stolen and live in a good ol' Western capitalist democracy
- 75% of the Muslim vote in the Urals and in the Volga region is redirected towards Tatar nationalist parties. Many nationalistic Tatars got swallowed in the Mohammedan banner in October 1917... with a few years of contemplation, most decide to switch to parties that more accurately represent their goals.
- The Cooperative movement implodes and disappears. Those who voted for the Cooperative parties almost unanimously give their vote to the Socialist-Revolutionaries.
- 30% of the Socialist-Revolutionary vote in Kazan is redirected towards the RSDLP.

Meanwhile, in August 1919, Zenzinov pushes through legislation that limits the power of factory committees to collectively own and manage factories. It is an attempt to return capitalism to the cities. This causes an uproar throughout the leftwing socialists. By the end of the year, the Left-Social Democrats finally split entirely from the RSDLP, and they create the "Russian Federalist Workers' Party", which is later shortened to the Federalist Workers' Party after the 1922 constitution. You see, the fabzavkomy movement was never hijacked by the Bolsheviks in order to get to power. People like Alexander Shlyapnikov and Alexandra Kollontai ("The Two Macedonians", good nickname maybe?) who in OTL led the Workers' Opposition are never purged and they rise through the ranks. By the early 1920s, anarcho-syndicalism will actually successfully hijack the entire left-of-centre of the RSDLP! There's still Marxism there, but the two ideologies are wound together pretty tightly.

By spring of 1920, the Socialist-Revolutionaries also fracture. Maria Spiridonova declares the departure of her leftwing faction, to be known as the Left-Socialist-Revolutionaries. They will be allied to the Federalist Workers' Party until the rightists of the SRs, including Vladimir Zenzinov, give up their domination of the party. The dream is that radical narodnik socialist policies can be implemented in the village and among the peasants, while in the cities Marxist anarcho-syndicalism can be implemented among the workers.

In other political sectors, the Peasant Union is growing more organized and gobbling up independent peasant parties. It's on the way towards becoming a party consisting of the peasants, by the peasants, and for the peasants.

The Constitutional Democrats, or Kadets, are becoming the one truly rightwing party, taking on as political refugees all the monarchists and capitalists whose parties have collapsed. They will shortly rename themselves into the "National Democrats", with no relationship to Polish National Democracy, and become a political party that believes minority rights are getting out of hand and that minorities would do well to learn the Russian language and give up their self-autonomy in their various "People's Republics". They also want a completely Western government and a capitalist economy similar to other modern countries in Europe.

In Central Asia, most people get to cast their first votes for the 1920 election, and two-thirds of the population in the region votes for nationalist parties, many of advocating independence. Thus begins a very important internal crisis that will last for years to come.

The exact numbers, however, require a great deal of number crunching. It is within my ability, but I do not have the time. I can't tell you exactly who wins or not, or what becomes of Russia. I'll give more information of trends for the rest of the 1920s, and actual policy developments I can predict, in my next update.
 
Just finished reading through this and wanted you to know it sounds great, and very interesting. Too bad there's going to be such a long hiatus, but I'm sure it will be quite as good when you get back.
 
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.



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.


My suggestion would be to find some good books that actually detail the exact events surrounding the Wall Street Crash and the trade and economic policies that happened shortly before and after (say 1925-1934). Then just take it step by step - see what would probably happen the same way or in a similar fashion or what might happen differently. In the end it might not be a definite "Great Depression" v. "No Great Depression". It might end up like 2009 and be more of a "Great Recession". Or they could be a fantastic boon that leads everyone into an orgy of wealth and suddenly everyone forgets their petty squabbles in the new eutopia. Or it could end being an even worse Depression than in OTL. Just try and identify what might have been the most likely causes and their effects and from their attempt to predict what differences in the causes would do for the effects.
 

Hnau

Banned
Major Economic Divergences

No Second World, no Stalinist Terror, no Brezhnev Stagnation, what might that mean? GDP per capita in the Federation of People's Republics might develop similar to European democracies. If we follow those trends, it is within reason to estimate that by the year 1950, the Federation of People's Republics would rise to a level just behind the United States of America. Throughout the 1950s the two powers would match each other in economic strength, but the larger amount of natural resources and the higher population of the People's Federation would provide enough of a boon that eventually the Federation would accelerate past the USA. By the 1960s and 1970s, the People's Federation would definitely become the most dynamic economy in the world.

This, of course, deals with a scenario that avoids all the details of history. There's certainly opportunity for devastation and war here as any other timeline, and that could retard the growth of the population and economy in the People's Federation. There has not yet been an evaluation for regional strength and the economic strength between blocs... just a comparison between the People's Federation and the United States. The USA could become the dominant member of a vast alliance of Western democracies, if they were pressured faster and harder by a determined, wealthy, healthy Russia. On the same token, the People's Federation could establish itself as the "Shepherd of Asia" and begin pooling the resources of the largest continent on Earth, including China, India, and possibly even the gigantic oil reserves of the Middle East.

But I will say that a Russia without Lenin, Stalin, or Brezhnev is, for a while at least, going to do much better economically. A Cold War scenario might emerge much sooner over a primarily economic and cultural rivalry, rather than an ideological conflict. The appearance of such a huge and dynamic economy (especially if this includes China) earlier in history will also likely accelerate technological progress, which should be interesting to see.

Environmental Megaprojects

In OTL, leaders in the Communst Party of the Soviet Union often voiced their approval of plans to make sweeping changes in the very geography of the country. They believed through applied communist science and proletariat power, the very environment and ecology of the Soviet Union could be changed for the benefit of its people. Case in point: "The Plan for the Transformation of Nature", which called for a gigantic network of shelterbelts to be created by the state in order to aid agriculture; also the diversion southward of rivers flowing north into the Arctic using canals in order to bring much-needed water to the dry regions of Central Asia.

If the government of the People's Federation doesn't lapse into dictatorship, they'll have to survive by popular appeal. That means garnering the support of the peasants, the largest demographic in the People's Federation, for years and years to come. While I can't say that the Socialist-Revolutionaries will remain dominant, their narodnik ideology had its roots in the traditional beliefs of the peasants, and that will come to define a democratic Russia more and more as the decades pass. Why do I make mention of this? Because the Socialist-Revolutionaries almost deified the land itself... they didn't just think of land as a property to be shared and distributed by councils, to be toiled upon by whoever could use it best... the very land of Rossiiskaya constituted a sphere in which a particular civilization could develop with laws and trends unique to the rest of the world. They believed each land, and thus each nation, had its own historical pathway in progressing towards a socialist utopia. As an abstract idea, "land" was God to narodniks and the peasants.

As such, the ideas the Communists came up with to radically change the environment of the Soviet Union were no doubt inspired by ideas pervasive throughout Russian culture. In a timeline where Russia is democratic, these ideas are going to trickle up faster and in more force. The improved economy of the People's Federation will also allow them the means to put these ideas into action.

I predict calls for such widescale plans to create the "Great Russian Garden" will begin being formulated by the legislature by the late 1920s. As more technology and a more powerful economy comes into play, by the late 1930s work might actually begin. It'll take decades, but I expect a number of megaprojects to dig huge canals in order to divert Arctic-bound rivers southward, which will rapidly change the region of Central Asia. The Caspian Sea might grow substantially in area and depth after the Don River is diverted into the Volga, probably causing no small conflict with Persia. The increased evaporation of water will bring rains to the deserts of Central Asia and change the ecology of the region, most likely for the better.

These megaprojects will no doubt cause as much ecological harm as good. It'll disturb patterns and climates that have been around for centuries. This might cause the people and leaders of the People's Federation to begin adopting more environmentally-friendly sentiments. When the news comes in that global warming might become a problem, you can be sure that solving such a future problem will become a big deal to the Russian people. I imagine that Green politics and Arcology-centric concepts will find fertile ground there, and the People's Federation might even become a pioneer in formulating such ideas and creating new technologies based on them.
 
As is tradition (;)) I'd like to back Chris' comments, especially these. But, Germany might become a much better friend of the People's Federation, presuming they stay democratic (essentially, if they avoid Nazification). With FPR backing, they might just get the territories they want, provided there is a legitimate referendum. But, then again, by the 1930s there might be a different political party in control... I'll get to that later. But the Socialist-Revolutionaries, at least, would love to support Germany's claims to Austria, the Sudetenland, and the Polish Corridor as long as they have the consent of the populations of those territories. This would hurt their relations with the Czechs and Poles, though... the former they might have a chance of eventually building up a good relationship after the Slovakia dispute, after all, and the latter might be shifted from reluctant, passive hostage to enraged opponent if the Corridor is taken away from them.

It seems like Germany is in a position where much depends on the FPR though. They stand to gain a lot if they stay democratic and build up a Berlin-Moscow Axis in the spirit of the Treaty of Rapallo. Germany could stay weak and keep its inferiority complex, however, if they become Nazi and start pushing against the Federation's friends.

Well seeing as how the FPR will be governed by parties instead of individuals as the USSR was in OTL that should mean that FPR policy will generally follow what is acceptable to the various parties and by what the various parties see as being in their interests (or not in their interests).

Thus I could pretty much all of the parties you mentioned in the FPR looking for good relations with the Czechs and the Germans and some looking for normal relations with the Poles. I also doubt that any of them would really be wedded to the idea of nations being totally contiguous with territories inhabitated by their given nationalities - after all the FPR does contain Moldavia which has Romanians as well as "ArmeniTurKurdistan" with it's hodge-podge of Armenians, Kurds and Turks and they have Memel from Germany (do they still get Memel via Lithuania?) and taken to the extreme then the FPR parties should all be advocating for each of the hundreds of nationalities in the FPR to form a separate, independent state.

Incidentally, I understand that the Polish-FPR border follows the Curzon Line, but what of the boundary of FPR and Hungary in the region of Carpathian Ruthenia? In OTL Hungary got a southern strip of what is now Subcarpathia before taking the rest of Subcarpathia later on the following year. Would Hungary still get that southern strip of Subcarpathia or would the FPR get all of Subcarpathia?

I could see probably most FPR parties either supporting, or at least not being opposed to Germany and Austria uniting. That alone would probably be the basis of very good relations with the FPR and just about any party that comes to power in Germany during that time. The Kadets sound as if they would become very Russophilic in the long-term - as to what this would mean for their relations with Germany and Poland and the Czech Republic one can only guess, but I'm supposing that with Russophilia they will also be a bit more Pan-Slavic and would not be that supportive of any German claims in Poland and the Czech republic. The others sound as though they would probably only support German claims to some minor bits of Polish territory only if Poland was mistreating any Germany minority. Of course by the time National Democrats come to power in Poland, they might very well encourage and frighten the German minority into leaving for Germany (which would then decrease then basis for any German claims). Since the Czechs are very unlikely to mistreat the German minority in the Sudetenland to such an extent and with the Czechs having a democracy and fulll rights for all (plus with Germany being pauperized by the treaty of Versailles) there may not be enough support in the Sudetenland for a union with Germany early on and it just seems likely to me that the other FPR parties would probably compromise on Germany and the Czech republic - support (or not oppose) a German-Austrian union, but support the Czech republic as long as the Germans were being given a fair deal in the Czech republic.

Incidentally what are the Kadets called after they become the National Democrats. Reading up on the Polish National Democrats I see that they were called Endeks in Poland. Would the Russian National Democrats be called Nadeks in the FPR?

You are absolutely right. Though, the FPR won't be providing for their military needs forever... I see that ending within a decade, maybe a little longer. A phased withdrawal from the country. And just for the record, Lviv is part of Ukraine from the Russo-Polish War on. The economy will most definitely be stronger in the long-run, and more politically united... but behind a racist, near-fascist authoritarian one-party state. It'll still be a sad, twisted little country, but maybe a wealthy, sad, twisted little country... Definitely the source of troubles in the future.

I had a question about that - the FPR bases in Poland. Would that have been a result of them winning the Russo-Polish war? I would have thought that they would have just won it and left Poland alone thereafter.

Concerning Russian Democracy

The Constitutional Democrats, or Kadets, are becoming the one truly rightwing party, taking on as political refugees all the monarchists and capitalists whose parties have collapsed. They will shortly rename themselves into the "National Democrats", with no relationship to Polish National Democracy, and become a political party that believes minority rights are getting out of hand and that minorities would do well to learn the Russian language and give up their self-autonomy in their various "People's Republics". They also want a completely Western government and a capitalist economy similar to other modern countries in Europe.

The former Kadets will probably lose a lot of support if they take the stance of everyone should learn Russian and that the various PRs should give up autonomy. I can't see how the Constitutional/National Democracts could hold together in that instance. Some split would seem likely between those advocating widespread adoption of Russian and the end of autonomy and those who aren't as concerned or are actually supportive of autonomy within the FPR and don't want to lose votes. So in the end the anti-autonomy faction would probably end up being it's own party and the more pragmatic section which would like to gain right-wing votes across the whole of the FPR would form another party. Monarchists would probably end up being split between the two.

In Central Asia, most people get to cast their first votes for the 1920 election, and two-thirds of the population in the region votes for nationalist parties, many of advocating independence. Thus begins a very important internal crisis that will last for years to come.

The nationalist parties would probably get a lot of support at first, but given the varied nature of Central Asian society (various nationalities scattered throughout Central Asia including Russians and Cossacks plus nomadic Central Asians, town dwelling Central Asians and sedentary farmers) I doubt those parties would have a lot of support for long since their vote may get poached by the Social Democrats, the Socialist Revolutionaries and the Peasants' Union (especially the Peasants' Union I think). Thoughts of independence may well fade as it did in Finland (after all if it could fade in Finland after the Finns basically get a lot of autonomy and then get what they want from their own parties.....). The Central Asian and even the Caucasian nationalist parties should also suffer a disadvantage in the future after the land repartition, any electrification and the building of road and rail networks and the provision of water from those environmental megaprojects. It would be kind of hard to compete come election time when the SRs, SDs, PUs, FPR-wide Kadets, etc can claim to have provided electricity, water, roads and land (and will undoubtedly promise more as well as promising prosperity) when the nationalist parties can't. Plus any of those environmental projects will offer lots of water which I think would attract a lot of votes. Later with ecological disasters, the nationalist parties would probably get an increase in the vote as a backlash/protest vote over the horrible side-effects, but by that time there might well be a Green party which would draw most of those votes.

Hnau said:
Major Economic Divergences

No Second World, no Stalinist Terror, no Brezhnev Stagnation, what might that mean? GDP per capita in the Federation of People's Republics might develop similar to European democracies. If we follow those trends, it is within reason to estimate that by the year 1950, the Federation of People's Republics would rise to a level just behind the United States of America. Throughout the 1950s the two powers would match each other in economic strength, but the larger amount of natural resources and the higher population of the People's Federation would provide enough of a boon that eventually the Federation would accelerate past the USA. By the 1960s and 1970s, the People's Federation would definitely become the most dynamic economy in the world.

It's possible; provided the FPR doesn't end up in a dictatorship it would be very unlikely that any one individual will have enough of an impact on the FPR to cause a dramatic drop in the FPR's GDP per capita. It's not like the FPR will experience 20 years of Brezhnev stagnation. I would expect though that at least 1 or 2 incompetent leaders to float to the top (cream rises to the top, but sh*t also floats). This might well cause the FPR to experience one or two terms, perhaps maybe three terms (but not consecutive terms) of stagnation and perhaps deflation between 1930 and 1970. So maybe about 6-18 years of poor economic performance out of a 40 year period.

This, of course, deals with a scenario that avoids all the details of history. There's certainly opportunity for devastation and war here as any other timeline, and that could retard the growth of the population and economy in the People's Federation. There has not yet been an evaluation for regional strength and the economic strength between blocs... just a comparison between the People's Federation and the United States. The USA could become the dominant member of a vast alliance of Western democracies, if they were pressured faster and harder by a determined, wealthy, healthy Russia. On the same token, the People's Federation could establish itself as the "Shepherd of Asia" and begin pooling the resources of the largest continent on Earth, including China, India, and possibly even the gigantic oil reserves of the Middle East.

Well that would all depend on the USA, Western Europe and Asia. Without any second world war, Indian independence might happen very differently (although it would probably happen before the 1980s). China will also be very different without any WWII and without Tibet, Sinkiang/Uyghuristan and Mongolia. Chiang Kai-shek may end up slightly different. In OTL he took the KMT away from being somewhat leftist and in alliance with the communists (and even modelling some of their structure off the communist party) to being rightist. However, the KMT itself would probably be quite different from it was in OTL by the time Chiang comes to run it. Sun Yatsen may well be killed in Guangzhou in 1923 (not sure how many butterflies you want to unleash). If Sun isn't killed in 1923 then the reforms of the KMT might go differently in 1924 without any aid from a non-existent Comintern. FPR-Chinese relations thereafter will probably be complex. If Chiang leads the KMT to victory over the warlords then he and the KMT will probably not take too kindly to FPR support for East Turkistan. This may lead to a cooling of relations, although that may be countered by any FPR support for China should the Manchuria issue crop up in the 1930s between China and Japan.

Mao in this TL will probably have a very similar history up until 1921 - he would still partake in the May Fourth Movement in 1919 and still end up in a library and being introduced to Marxist thought. He may still end up in Shanghai and end up at the Congress of what would become the CCP in OTL but which may end up being more of an anarchist or anarcho-communist group which may only have the name "Chinese Communist Party" (or "Chinese Workers' Party" or "Chinese Marxist Party" or something). Should he join he may end up being more of an anarchist and could well end up dead. Or he could end up not liking it and then joining the KMT and perhaps take part in any Left-wing splinter group from the KMT when Chiang Kai-shek draws the KMT to the right). Mao would probably write a few essays, treatises or even a few books on his thoughts leading to a minor school of thought in China called "Maoism" by western reporters (that's assuming he isn't killed while taking part in an anarchist plot to bomb somewhere or assassinate someone). He might also just join the military and become a left-wing soldier. He could well become any combination of these as well.

Environmental Megaprojects

In OTL, leaders in the Communst Party of the Soviet Union often voiced their approval of plans to make sweeping changes in the very geography of the country. They believed through applied communist science and proletariat power, the very environment and ecology of the Soviet Union could be changed for the benefit of its people. Case in point: "The Plan for the Transformation of Nature", which called for a gigantic network of shelterbelts to be created by the state in order to aid agriculture; also the diversion southward of rivers flowing north into the Arctic using canals in order to bring much-needed water to the dry regions of Central Asia.

If the government of the People's Federation doesn't lapse into dictatorship, they'll have to survive by popular appeal. That means garnering the support of the peasants, the largest demographic in the People's Federation, for years and years to come. While I can't say that the Socialist-Revolutionaries will remain dominant, their narodnik ideology had its roots in the traditional beliefs of the peasants, and that will come to define a democratic Russia more and more as the decades pass. Why do I make mention of this? Because the Socialist-Revolutionaries almost deified the land itself... they didn't just think of land as a property to be shared and distributed by councils, to be toiled upon by whoever could use it best... the very land of Rossiiskaya constituted a sphere in which a particular civilization could develop with laws and trends unique to the rest of the world. They believed each land, and thus each nation, had its own historical pathway in progressing towards a socialist utopia. As an abstract idea, "land" was God to narodniks and the peasants.

As such, the ideas the Communists came up with to radically change the environment of the Soviet Union were no doubt inspired by ideas pervasive throughout Russian culture. In a timeline where Russia is democratic, these ideas are going to trickle up faster and in more force. The improved economy of the People's Federation will also allow them the means to put these ideas into action.

I predict calls for such widescale plans to create the "Great Russian Garden" will begin being formulated by the legislature by the late 1920s. As more technology and a more powerful economy comes into play, by the late 1930s work might actually begin. It'll take decades, but I expect a number of megaprojects to dig huge canals in order to divert Arctic-bound rivers southward, which will rapidly change the region of Central Asia. The Caspian Sea might grow substantially in area and depth after the Don River is diverted into the Volga, probably causing no small conflict with Persia. The increased evaporation of water will bring rains to the deserts of Central Asia and change the ecology of the region, most likely for the better.

These megaprojects will no doubt cause as much ecological harm as good. It'll disturb patterns and climates that have been around for centuries. This might cause the people and leaders of the People's Federation to begin adopting more environmentally-friendly sentiments. When the news comes in that global warming might become a problem, you can be sure that solving such a future problem will become a big deal to the Russian people. I imagine that Green politics and Arcology-centric concepts will find fertile ground there, and the People's Federation might even become a pioneer in formulating such ideas and creating new technologies based on them.

Would they divert rivers to the Caspian or to the Aral? There are quite a few towns around the Caspian such as Baku and Astrakhan and parties don't win votes by drowning peoples homes. Between opposition from Persia/Iran and the locals/voters around the Caspian I think any attempts to divert Artic flowing rivers into the Caspian will die in committee before they even get voted on in the parliament. Likewise any attempts to divert the Don into the Volga and thus into the Caspian. Unlike the USSR, the leaders of the FPR (at least up until the TL to date) actually have to listen to the population and can't just force them to move to other areas like eastern Central Asia or Siberia. Even if they proposed building sea-walls around places like Baku and Astrakhan the costs will be so much that such projects will surely only remain on the drawing board. Many folks in eastern Ukraine and southwestern Russia (especially those in Rostov-on-Don) would not like the idea of their river system being diverted and robbing them of water as well as a vital trade and transportation route. I think what is more likely is that any idea to divert the Don into the Volga will simply morph into the idea of building a canal between the Don and the Volga (such an idea has also existed for a long time - since Peter the Great and before him the Ottomans). Such a canal would definitely be a vote winner - inhabitants along the Don will now have a way to trade with Baku and other Caspian settlements without ever offloading their boats. Likewise Caspian Sea basin inhabitants would now be able to have a direct outlet to the Don and thence the Sea of Azov and from there the Black Sea and the world. Nobody loses their homes and everybody gains. Even the military, which could now move ships even further into the interior of *Eurasia. The Sea of Azov was a pretty safe haven, but now the Navy has the Dardanelles and Bosphorus Straits as restrictive entry points into the Black Sea for any enemy navy (although the Dardanelles would be under Greco-Turkish control in TTL) and then they have Strait of Kerch as another restrictive entry point for any enemy ships attempting to attack their navy and now they would be able to pull some ships all the way to the Caspian. This would naturally spur interest in creating a canal from the Baltic to the Volga as in OTL so that *Eurasia could well have a "United Deep Inland Waterway System" as it does now and allow certain ships to move between the Caspian, Azov, Black and Baltic Seas (and indirectly ameliorate the restrictions imposed on the navy by having the Dardanelles and Bosphorus remaining under foreign control - so a slightly lessened dependence on the Black Sea Straits). Over time a canal may then be built between the Caspian and the Aral creating a naval reserver even deeper into *Eurasia. As for the Aral I suspect what might happen would be that the death of any Artic river diversions to the Caspian may allow for the idea of the Artic rivers being diverted to the Aral instead. It would be a shorter route for a lot of Artic flowing rivers in western Siberia and it would lead to a sea with fewer inhabitants on it's shore and a lot more people who would love to have water in the surrounding region. Perhaps some water would also be diverted to Lake Balkash. This would cause an increase in the size of the Aral and probably be accompanied by the diversion of the Amu and Syr Darya rivers to irrigate the areas south of the Aral. So the Aral would then shrink and probably stay somewhere around it's pre-1960 OTL size whilst the steppes north and south of the Aral become more irrigated. Ecological troubles would definitely occur (the loss of the desert climate in some areas and it's influence elsewhere, the loss of some water from the Artic river systems and it's effects on the Artic Ocean and Tundra and Taiga, invasive species moving from the Baltic and Black Seas into the Volga, Caspian and the Aral).

As you said a lot of these ideas are going to trickle up faster and in more force, but a lot of them may not be acted upon because of the opposition of voters.
 
Last edited:

Hnau

Banned
This is probably my last post here. I wanted to get a little bit more into my notes, but there wasn't too much left. All the interesting stuff is already up on this thread. So, instead, I will answer Chris' most excellent questions.

Chris S said:
do they still get Memel via Lithuania?

I was thinking that the League of Nations would award it to Germany ITTL, though I am not positive that's what would happen.

Chris S said:
but what of the boundary of FPR and Hungary in the region of Carpathian Ruthenia? In OTL Hungary got a southern strip of what is now Subcarpathia before taking the rest of Subcarpathia later on the following year. Would Hungary still get that southern strip of Subcarpathia or would the FPR get all of Subcarpathia?

Carpathian Ruthenia goes to the People's Republic of the Ukraine, as that's how the Ruthenians would have voted if given a choice, which could very well happen.

Chris S said:
they might very well encourage and frighten the German minority into leaving for Germany (which would then decrease then basis for any German claims).

Right. I was seriously considering giving much more to Germany ITTL, inspired by Faeelin's Warsaw Falls, 1920 timeline.

Chris S said:
Would the Russian National Democrats be called Nadeks in the FPR?

Hmm, I hadn't thought of it, but that sounds like a possible nickname.

Chris S said:
Would that have been a result of them winning the Russo-Polish war? I would have thought that they would have just won it and left Poland alone thereafter.

That was pretty up in the air. I really needed a second opinion on that idea.

Chris S said:
The former Kadets will probably lose a lot of support if they take the stance of everyone should learn Russian and that the various PRs should give up autonomy. I can't see how the Constitutional/National Democracts could hold together in that instance. Some split would seem likely between those advocating widespread adoption of Russian and the end of autonomy and those who aren't as concerned or are actually supportive of autonomy within the FPR and don't want to lose votes. So in the end the anti-autonomy faction would probably end up being it's own party and the more pragmatic section which would like to gain right-wing votes across the whole of the FPR would form another party. Monarchists would probably end up being split between the two.

I think there are enough right-wing Russians in the Federation that the National Democrats will have a shot, especially after the revolutionary sentiment of the post-war era fades away. I personally doubt that the group that advocates autonomy will be large enough to split entirely from the Nat. Dems... now, if and when there is a Great Depression, that could shake up the political sphere quite a bit, so you might see a new, more moderate party championing non-socialist Western government.

Chris S said:
The nationalist parties would probably get a lot of support at first, but given the varied nature of Central Asian society (various nationalities scattered throughout Central Asia including Russians and Cossacks plus nomadic Central Asians, town dwelling Central Asians and sedentary farmers) I doubt those parties would have a lot of support for long since their vote may get poached by the Social Democrats, the Socialist Revolutionaries and the Peasants' Union (especially the Peasants' Union I think). Thoughts of independence may well fade as it did in Finland (after all if it could fade in Finland after the Finns basically get a lot of autonomy and then get what they want from their own parties.....). The Central Asian and even the Caucasian nationalist parties should also suffer a disadvantage in the future after the land repartition, any electrification and the building of road and rail networks and the provision of water from those environmental megaprojects. It would be kind of hard to compete come election time when the SRs, SDs, PUs, FPR-wide Kadets, etc can claim to have provided electricity, water, roads and land (and will undoubtedly promise more as well as promising prosperity) when the nationalist parties can't. Plus any of those environmental projects will offer lots of water which I think would attract a lot of votes. Later with ecological disasters, the nationalist parties would probably get an increase in the vote as a backlash/protest vote over the horrible side-effects, but by that time there might well be a Green party which would draw most of those votes.

I think you are absolutely right in those ideas. These sound like very good predictions given what I know about popular opinion in Central Asia (which is much more than most people would, but not as much as what I know about the portion of the People's Fed. on the western side of the Urals.

Chris S said:
Sun Yatsen may well be killed in Guangzhou in 1923 (not sure how many butterflies you want to unleash). If Sun isn't killed in 1923 then the reforms of the KMT might go differently in 1924 without any aid from a non-existent Comintern. FPR-Chinese relations thereafter will probably be complex. If Chiang leads the KMT to victory over the warlords then he and the KMT will probably not take too kindly to FPR support for East Turkistan. This may lead to a cooling of relations, although that may be countered by any FPR support for China should the Manchuria issue crop up in the 1930s between China and Japan.

Mao in this TL will probably have a very similar history up until 1921 - he would still partake in the May Fourth Movement in 1919 and still end up in a library and being introduced to Marxist thought. He may still end up in Shanghai and end up at the Congress of what would become the CCP in OTL but which may end up being more of an anarchist or anarcho-communist group which may only have the name "Chinese Communist Party" (or "Chinese Workers' Party" or "Chinese Marxist Party" or something). Should he join he may end up being more of an anarchist and could well end up dead. Or he could end up not liking it and then joining the KMT and perhaps take part in any Left-wing splinter group from the KMT when Chiang Kai-shek draws the KMT to the right). Mao would probably write a few essays, treatises or even a few books on his thoughts leading to a minor school of thought in China called "Maoism" by western reporters (that's assuming he isn't killed while taking part in an anarchist plot to bomb somewhere or assassinate someone). He might also just join the military and become a left-wing soldier. He could well become any combination of these as well.

Wise insights, definitely. Chinese history will be very different without Soviet Communist influence, and Kai-shek and Zedong are going to have very different lives.

Chris S said:
Would they divert rivers to the Caspian or to the Aral? There are quite a few towns around the Caspian such as Baku and Astrakhan and parties don't win votes by drowning peoples homes. Between opposition from Persia/Iran and the locals/voters around the Caspian I think any attempts to divert Artic flowing rivers into the Caspian will die in committee before they even get voted on in the parliament. Likewise any attempts to divert the Don into the Volga and thus into the Caspian. Unlike the USSR, the leaders of the FPR (at least up until the TL to date) actually have to listen to the population and can't just force them to move to other areas like eastern Central Asia or Siberia.

People will definitely want the the Caspian to be 're-filled', though, when it starts drying up. That could increase popular appeal. But you are right, Chris. A canal would probably be the more likely choice, while the diversion of Arctic-bound rivers into the Aral would also be more likely. Thanks for the advice.

Well, that's my last post here, probably. Thanks for everything everybody, I hope you will all be around to enjoy the timeline when I get back to it. Refer to Chris if any other questions crops up, he's helped me out a lot on this timeline and he's earned my trust.

I reserve the right to bump this thread in two years!

Ciao.
 
I have been thinking along similar lines for the last few weeks. Today, after searching through the site for similar ideas, I found this thread. I was originally trying to think of a scenario that preserved the Provisional Government until the calling of the Constituent Assembly, but I see that this scenario is perhaps better in the long run. I will certainly look into that book on the electioneering of the Constituent Assembly. I am very interested in the analysis of the history outside Russia, which I know relatively little about. The Russian scenario makes sense to me, although I do think that without Bolshevik agitation in the army it would have perhaps fared better in the July offensive, it's impossible to tell. I had thought that with the July offensive experiencing more success, there would not have been July Days. I may be ill informed about what actually triggered them, however. Presumably the Provisional Government would have made the same mistakes viz-a-viz Finland if it had stayed in the war. It seems reasonable that if the July offensive were more successful, Austria-Hungary and Turkey may have sought a separate peace (as Kerensky asserts they were beginning to in October OTL). That leads to a completely different ATL however. I may start a separate thread for that, but I'd first like to review as much as I can to do with this related scenario, to be better prepared. The possibility of massive siberian redirection of rivers is terrifying. Potentially, with such a great decrease in the constant influx of fresh water into the Arctic, the Arctic would start to become more saline, losing much of its ice cover. The loss of much of the Artctic ecosystem would be accompanied by a significant decrease in the albedo of the earth, which could potentially lead to far more global warming than any paltry CO2 emissions. The Federation of People's Republics would perhaps benefit from this, in terms of a warmer Siberia and navigable arctic, but the world would not, and would rightly blame them for it. Of course, this entire theory could be gas. I haven't investigated the exact temperatures in the arctic, the salinity, or the flow of waters.
 

Hnau

Banned
I'm rewriting this timeline with a slightly different angle in my timeline 99 Red Balloons. The link can be found in my signature. I've gotten kind of busy with school and moving to a different state so there haven't been too many updates yet. Basically it's A Lenin-less World with earlier butterflies and an overarching guiding theme.
 
Top