Discussion in 'Alternate History Discussion: Before 1900' started by HistoricalArthropod, Mar 12, 2019.
That's a good one.
Look, I know we all Love villains with British Accents - a car advert said so and so it must be true - but that doesn't mean you have to make us the Villains in everything! (It's only paranoia if you believe that this thread wasn't set up for the specific purpose of making Britain the aggressor in a World War ... so it's probably EXTREME Paranoia then!).
Nothing personal, just picking a country which by the late XIX was trying to dictate to a maximum number of countries what they should or should not do. And, as for the nature of you complaint, look at how many posts are about wanking Britain in one form or another so we are not even remotely close to a balanced picture of the world.
Russia (the Soviet Union) is an obvious contender. In the interwar period, it definitely appeared as though the Soviets were on a crash course with the West. Butterfly away the Nazis and keep the internationalist element in power in the USSR, and presto - you have a world war between the USSR and an anti-Soviet coalition.
Hell, even before the rise of the Soviets, Tsarist Russia was one of the most infamous states in the world with its proven record of autocracy, antisemitism, and ethnic cleansing, not to mention its frightening size. It's not a stretch to imagine a rekindling of the Great Game which sparks a general war in Eastern Europe.
Hmm. These are all interesting ideas. Though, what would happen to a Britain and/or Russia that lost an industrial world war? Would it be similar to what happened to Germany otl?
How about a war against the Soviet Union? Anything from 1918 to its fall could in theory could suffice.
Probably pretty ASB, but how about:
An Italian-led Axis in WW2.
You can have Britain be the bad guy having them lose a major war, and then tarred and feathered as being the one who has been causing wars in Europe in order to preserve a dangerous balance of power, instead of just letting one war happen and letting Europe be ruled peacefully under one power, thus preventing future wars for power over the region.
DC Stevenson not caught. KLAN led USA.
More expansionist Czarist Russia
Maybe the British...?
France is unlikely after losing two wars against Germany and the USSR is... well the USSR?
Reminds me of this: https://www.deviantart.com/rvbomally/art/War-in-Our-Time-485371677
No Nazis, because it's really hard to prevent OTL's WWII while they're around, Japan gets sick of Britain and France selling weapons to the Chinese and launches it's southern war plan (perhaps foregoing the attacks on the US until after Japan has pushed the allies east of Singapore and acquired the DEI oil fields, as something of a Hitler attacking the USSR analogue). On one hand TTL there's no European theatre to distract the Allies, on the other TTL the lower threat of war in Europe means the Allied armies are weaker in general.
With no Holocaust to overshadow them, the Japanese War Crimes get the scrutiny they deserve.
Hmm. These are all good ideas. But, I wonder. What would happen to a Britain or Russia that losg a world war? Would they be dismantled like Germany otl?
To be honest, it is very difficult with an 1880 POD.
You can't really have Britain as the antagoniser. They were the "number one" world power, who had built the international political system around itself for most of the 19th century, so were the "status quo" country who would defend the current order, not try to rock the boat.
An 1880 POD for France is too late given their relative decline against the other powers.
Russia, China and the US are certainly possibilities, as they are all large countries with the potential to shake up the order, but you would need major changes to their domestic politics (and in Russia and China's case, it's economic development) to be antagonisers. However, they also all had large land areas, plentiful natural resources and agriculture, and could dominate in their own backyards, so were not really chasing a "place in the sun" like Germany was.
Japan's power limited it to being a regional "bad guy".
And Germany was in a unique position, it was an economically developed power like the Western democracies, but it had a political system that allowed for it to become the way it was. The other world powers either had developed economies with democratic political systems, so were less prone to starting a World War, or were autocratic countries that were too weak and under developed to start a costly World War.
Germany was in the unique situation of having all of this - the economic strength of the democracies and a political system that gave the Kaiser enough control to impose his will on the world in a less responsible manner than a democracy would.
Hmm, well, I didn't stay the world war had to be the first one. So, maybe ww1 is Germany successful breaking the status quo and making a new one, and imposing harsh treaties on France/Britain/Russia (take your pick). And whi ever lost the previous war will come back for a round 2, frothing at the mouth to re establish the old order. How about that?
I think this would be a good timeline.
What if the European powers got involved in US Civil War.
If Germany wins everyone else too to weak to challenge her without the US joining in
Why so? Clearly Germany was strong enough after loosing ww1 to come back for round 2. Even if France and Russia are in shambles, I can see Britain having the strength for a come back.
Germany was the strongest single power in Europe who was only successfully held down by fighting almost every single other Great power. She was strong enough to come back because Germany is an incredibly strong military and industrial power Britain with all due respect is not as strong as Germany and does not have the same capability to recover or to fight
So, was Germany really that uniquely suited to such a scenerio more than any other country?
Separate names with a comma.