Yeah, a socialist government would in an important country would certainly raise some eyebrows. I'd be somewhat mitigated by thr fact that it's democratic, but it might have repercussions with the coming Red Scare.
A New World Wreathed in Freedom - An Argentine Revolution TL
- Thread starter minifidel
- Start date
It IMO, would be more important that a socialist like reformist program sucesfully implemented by a democratically elected left wing party.
And one that is integrating/leading a stable ... It, not only would (IMO, seemingly mirroring the OTL Uruguayan Batllism) the UP history and international would possibly help to stabilize and alleviate social tensions in its society/political system.
But, I'd, guess, that its success would probably while disproving to most of their (at least the moderate ones) critics. So, I'd suppose that its trust in the electoral way (rightly so) with the consecutive electoral victories and particularly it's success would prove to be a viable alternative (reivindicating to TTL Mencheviks?) to similar the OTL Soviet (Bolsheviks) model.
In truth the Left Radicals are, essentially, OTL's Radical Civic Union and (moderate, reformist) Socialist Party rolled into one, with some elements of the Progressive Democratic Party and Uruguay's Battlism in the mix as well. The Socialist Party ITTL is more doctrinaire (hasn't been a Moscow to split with yet, and I'm still not sure I want to go that route with Russia anyway), but remains a marginal force in Platine politics anyway.
I'm still mulling over what direction post-war politics takes ITTL; Russia is one candidate for a "successful" revolution, but IMO so is the collapsing Austria-Hungary that I've described. In the absence of such a resounding and terrifying revolutionary victory though, the Red Scare probably isn't as pronounced.
I'm still mulling over what direction post-war politics takes ITTL; Russia is one candidate for a "successful" revolution, but IMO so is the collapsing Austria-Hungary that I've described. In the absence of such a resounding and terrifying revolutionary victory though, the Red Scare probably isn't as pronounced.
In what year would the AH Revolution be? If it’s before Versailles, it might scare the Entente into being more lenient with Germany for fear of them going communist like AH and Russia.
Anyways, I think a communist government in AH is bound to fall sooner or later, surrounded by hostile states and lacking the strategic depth of Russia. There’s also the matter that AH had 2 governments, so where would the revolution be? Vienna, Budapest, or both simultaneously? Would some of the minority region secede?
Last edited:
Wonder if there's ever gonna be a version of the Ibero-American Exhibition in this timeline. One can only imagine what the UP pavillion would be like.
The idea I have in mind is a Russian non-communist provisional government surviving until the end of the war (or possibly just falling into civil war between royalists and anti-monarchists before a provisional government can consolidate itself in the capital), with revolution striking the former Austro-Hungarian empire as a result of the peace treaty's stress on its dual monarchy.
The way I see it, the former empire devolves into a civil war, likely between a Vienna government and a Budapest government both claiming to be the legitimate government of the whole empire (it would depend on how punitive the treaties against the Entente are in general, and in a scenario where Italy is able to get more land off A-H through its improved performance on the battlefield, the Entente may stop just short of forcing the wholesale dissolution of the united empire).
The UP's pavilions are probably doing some wacky, wonderful things ITTL; I've already hinted at the country having a unique local variation on the neoclassical style with Incan influences, and it makes me wish I knew how to do architectural drawing to whip up some images in that style...
If Russia doesn’t fall, the war would end earlier, since Germany wouldn’t be able to muster the troops for the Kaiserslacht.
That is pretty much impossible. The Entente has no reason to keep it united, and by 1918 it was already difficult to keep it standing. Romania is taking Transilvania, Poland is taking Galicia, and Serbia is surely taking a pound of flesh, even if its not OTL Yugoslavia. At this point the Empire is completely discredited, and the remaining parts have little reason to stay together.
I disagree, cause, if well, I agree, that to conserve the whole empire would be pretty much impossible, at this stage... But, I'd think that the core regions, namely Austria and Hungary, barring the Entente active opposition, would have a good chance to remain united... If for anything, for sake of the stability...
Something that UP would definitely have to have for WWII is the Nahuel DL-43 tank.
This argument could make sense before the war or with a premature ending to the war, but the 1918 Empire was anything but stable. No one wants to remain shackles to the losers, and by going independent the nations can have a fresh start. Let’s also remember that nationalism isn’t entirely rational and tends to flare up in times of crisis.
So, even after Italy, Romania, Poland and Serbia trimming off the Empire, you still got Austria and Hungary proper, Slovakia, Slovenia and Bohemia/Czechia.
Czechia amounts by itself to 75% of the entire industry of AH. Why would they remain in the rump empire, who isn’t even able to provide the protection it used to?
Then you have Slovakia. Unlike Czechia, they were in Hungarian part of the Empire, which was pretty notorious for their awful handling of minorities and policies of Magyarization. Why they would want to stay united with them in anyone‘s guess.
That leaves us with Slovenia, which honestly I don’t know enough about, Austria and Hungary proper (basically the OTL post WW1 borders of those countries). There’s little reason to keep the personal union up, and Hungary was already making noises of independence. They would probably not stay after seeing all the Empire crumbling around them, and might even have a communist Revolution like OTL and get their ass handed to them by the Romanians.
Even without accounting for all the internal problems and assuming a union would survive without outside intervention, what reason whatsoever does the Entente have to allow the Hapsburg monarchy to survive?
The Russian front still collapses, the only difference I'm envisioning is either someone other than the Bolsheviks winning the power struggle in the wake of the Provisional Government's failures at the front and subsequent dissolution, or competing claimants to "government of Russia" making the peace treaty on the Eastern front a de facto if not de jure reality.
A much-reduced "Danubian Federation" is the extent of the surviving united entity I'm envisioning, with considerable loss of land at its borders (Italy gets its territorial adjustments in the Alps and Dalmatia, Serbia as you said is likely going to get Bosnia out of the ordeal at minimum, and whatever claims they might have on Hungarian land, etc.).
In all honesty, I'm increasingly tempted to just handwave the post-war settlement into "OTL except for Russia and more favorable borders for Italy in the Adriatic" for simplicity's sake.
I suspect that the United Provinces will take to tanks and mechanization quite enthusiastically, as the benefits of motorized and tracked systems will be evident even for internal patrol and border garrisoning reasons. I fully expect the much larger Platine automotive industry, combined with its storied tradition of domestic armaments production, to provide the Platine armed forces with as many trucks and light tanks as they can churn out.
The problem I have with this is, besides the internal problems I listed above, why would the Entente ever allow that? What do they get out of it?
I think logic points towards there, for now. I can’t see anymore changes that ITTL could’ve happened in the European settlement. What’s UP getting out of the deal? It’ll likely be minor anyways.
Are you planning to have a similar OTL WW2? Already not Soviet Russia could cause enough butterflies to prevent the rise of the Nazis as we know them. Scratch that, the fact that the US is not as powerful as it was OTL would mean that the Great Depression may not happen or be much more limited.
Quite minor indeed, and most likely consisting primarily of economic compensation; there's very little territorially that it might be interested in even if it were on the table, and I believe that "refuelling station in formerly German South Africa (Namibia)" is the maximum extent of land that might be transferred to the UP.
OTL's WW2 is emphatically butterflied away, at minimum because the entire ideological underpinning of the war won't exist ITTL. A 2nd global war isn't impossible, but is not guaranteed. It'll depend on three things that are still in flux ITTL: the institutional design of the League of Nations ITTL, the geopolitical fallout of the postwar period (the 1920s were a war-torn decade in much of central and eastern Europe IOTL, and is likely to suffer a similar fate ITTL) and the economic fallout of the neoclassical consensus having the bottom fall out from under its feet.
I've operated under the assumption that no single historical event is predetermined, but that larger trends are harder to shake, and events that would both be recognizable OTL and bear similar names ITTL are bound to happen. The Great Depression won't happen, but a great depression is all but guaranteed because of the way the post-war economy was designed and operated.
The one I'm most interested in thinking about is the shape of the post-war international system; there are multiple "second" tier countries that are a) powerful enough collectively to be a significant power block unto themselves (though the reality is that there's very little cooperation within the group) and b) historically adverse to European power politics in general - Colombia, Brazil and the United Provinces may still lag behind relative to the US and the European metropoles, but the cost and carnage of WW1 has dramatically cut the gap, and they get seats at the LoN as victors of the Great War in addition to their status as regional powers.
That means that either the LoN will implode out of impotence earlier, or will have more weight to it as the relative power of its members is more evenly distributed than OTL given there are fewer but more powerful New World members.
I think some degree of German irredentism in the 30s is probably unavoidable, but given the appeasement policy of GB and France, it need not mean war. Any sane German government, even if it’s a far right dictatorship, would see that going to war again against all of Europe is not a good idea.
Has anything changed to make Brazil stronger than OTL? If anything, I would argue that having two regional powers of comparable size and power ITTL should hinder some development. I could well see many of those immigrants that arrived in the late 19th century/early 20th choosing the seemingly more prosperous UP and Colombia.
I could see some move for it when the depression makes protectionism flare up and the colonial empires close unto themselves. Some closer South American cooperation could be a way to avoid being completely dependent on overseas markets and thus lessening the need for anything resembling the Roca-Runciman treaty.
Back on the topic of ITTL WW2, Im not knowledgeable on what caused Japan to go nuts, but a Pacific War would be very interesting due to the sheer difference. US has much less projection in the Pacific (do they even have Hawaii?), and the Latin American countries have probably a decent Navy when combined.
BTW, who owns Easter Island?
I have to decide just how bad the 20s get to figure out how much worse the 30s might be.
Brazil has the advantage of starting off with a head start on its development, prestige, power projection and armed forces. Additionally, there are proportionally more immigrants to go around in South America with a smaller USA, and although there are British, American or French middlemen in the way a lot of the time, there's already considerable economic exchange between the three so it's also a case of "a rising tide lifts all ships".
As a matter of fact, the centennial of the end of the Latin American Independence Wars would be a fitting occasion to start laying the groundwork for that kind of closer ties down the line...
Not only do they not have Hawaii (probably still an independent monarchy under putative British protection), there's no American presence in the Philippines either. Still need to figure out what happens with the Philippines in the absence of the Spanish-American War ITTL...
Still Chile.
Still Spanish or they revolt I guess.
I could see the Pacific war being between the British and the Japanese mainly then.
Japan was a number of things, cultural factors, a militarist society, etc etc. They were primed to be an european style awful empire but they went full crazy (IMO) because the other empires didn't treat them as such and actively conspired against their interests more than once. So the Japanesse empire wanted to be a big kid in the big kids table doing all the fun stuff like conquering comparatively undeveloped areas, go full militarist, genocides, etc etc and the big meany euros didn't invite them over to play.
If japan had some more luck at gaining "respect" and were slightly less militaristic (all of which is pretty doable) then they could have "just" been another awful empire of the ear instead of Asia's verison of Nazi Germany.
So is there anything that would change ITTL to prevent that? Or are we looking to OTL with less American intervention?
No fucking idea. I guess that japan having more examples of would-be empires in the form of the more successful american states could open the way for closer international relations not defined by power plays from stronger sates to weaker ones? Alternatively they luck out somewhat and are less "primitive" in their war with Russia/have less of an european intervention and gain a better victory thus no lingering revanchism?
I honestly can't think of any point of divergence off the top of my head as the TL has mostly been focusesd on latam and the Southern Cone in particular.
Given the characteristic racism of this period, they would look down on the new american states probably.
I think we're already past a possible divergence in the Russo-Japanese war.