An Equal to the USA?

The problem here is that one word describes two completely different scenarios. In the USA, New Zealand and Australia the population shifted rather quickly into a majority of European descent.

Where this did not happen, in Africa, Asia or India, the colonies never got past the point of supplying raw-materials to their colonial power. Thats what I meant by "colonialism is so 1800s", the British empire of 1900 may have controlled lots of land and resources, but it did not control enough of the type of land that could be settled by Europeans to rival the US.

Too late in history to exterminate the locals, and educating them while retaining control would be a slow, risky and tedious process, at least in the first decades.
A richer India with a literate middle class would most likely want a greater degree of autonomy, perhaps even independence, and then there is not BE anymore.

"No more empty lands" means that the alternate superpower would need a on a global scale a large, educated population and lots of room and resources already in 1900, and IMO only Germany and perhaps, if we stretch it, Russia could do this.

India didn't just ship raw materials to its colonial power. It developed pretty well under Britain.
And whether the inhabitants are of European descent or not is irrelevant; blacks and asians are just as capable once their culture is modernised.

You misunderstand the way the British empire worked. Its money didn't come from ruling India and taxing it, stealing all its resources, etc... it came from trade.
A independant, liberal democratic India with a still strong Britain would make for a STRONGER Britain than one that is still having to keep control of India. They get all the benefits of doing buisness in India with none of the drawbacks of having to put so much into defence and everything.

In AH in general too much focus is based on maps. Maps mean very litlte. More land != more power. The British empire drew far, far more strength from the non-pink South America than from Africa.

The best way for Britain to have gone imo would be a tighter commonwealth; as it was iotl the commonwealth was too...British by design. In that it relied too much on conventions, respect, friendship, etc... It should have had a more formal constitution tied into it. This would keep links more secure even given a bit of a disaster.
 
The policy was changed following the 1919 Diet-Military battle. OTL the Militarists came out of 1919 and the Siberian operation with a Veto over the actions of the Diet.
ATL the Diet comes out on top, and redefines Japan's Role in Asia, Plus having the Military Gutted in the Twenties, Japan doesn't have the forces to continue in China.

I don't see Japan as a viable rival to the U.S. at all though. Even if they manage to hold on to Korea and Taiwan, they simply don't have the resources to be anything other than a value-added export economy, or the land to support much more population than they have now. An export economy can be wealthy, but still depend totally on the availability of wealthy customers and thus incapable of reaching the top. And Japan holding on long term to much of China, even Manchuria, is unlikely. For much the same reasons, I don't think Germany has a chance, unless it completely dominates an alt-EU with everything west of Russia. The only real possibilities are a much more successfully modernized China and Russia.
 
Actually, economic growth barely beat Malthus.

Malthus wasn't concerned with the economy. He was more of an agricultural man.

I think India could have seen a lot more growth post-Independence if the INC leaders had accepted capitalism right out of the gate. Not full out, American style free market capitalism, but more European style, a lot of government involvement, but with the underlying acceptance that the market serves some purpose.

This kind of post-Independence policy would put India in the American camp of the Cold War, which would probably serve it well in its ongoing disagreements with Pakistan. Without American sponsorship the Pakistani regime is going to have a tougher time vis a vis India.

If India has access to Western markets and is open to Western investments, then it is going to have much bigger growth then it did OTL. India will provide an excellent model for the developing world, a multi-ethnic democracy with good economic growth. Though if India is allied to the US during the Cold War, this could keep China onside with the USSR.

Anyway, I think that by modern times in this ATL India will be a top 10 global economy. They have a peaceful nuclear program, and a space program (where satellite launches look an awful lot like ICBM tests). India is seen as a major global economic competitor of the US, but the long history as Cold War allies and India democratic government show India to be a reliable American ally in the new post-Cold War order.
 
Malthus wasn't concerned with the economy. He was more of an agricultural man.

I meant it as "India's population growth was barely outpaced by economic growth."

Ferguson is happy to leap to the Raj's defense by arguing that this was only because the Indian population boomed, but I am less generous to a pink world than he is.
 
It'd take an ASB induced miracle for India and China to have an exchange rate GDP anywhere near the USA at any time during the 20th century. I agree that both may have grown faster, and that PPP GDP of both looks respectable enough, but you don't pay for imports or finance foreign development in PPP currency. So I cannot see how China and India are candidates for peer competitor superpower status with the USA during the 20th century.
 
Assassination

Time to re-animate an old thread. Most posters suggested Russia as the best alternative but had trouble finding a good POD. May I suggest two PODs as early as the board allows (1900 or 1901).

1. Grand Duke Michael (born in 1878) meets Pyotr Stolypin who impresses him with his views that the police should maintain files on all possible dissidents (as he did as governor of Saratov in OTL), should reform Russian agriculture to generate a large Kulak class (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolypin_Reform) and should avoid wars (I do not know if he already held that view before the 1905 disaster but he might have).

2. A month later, a revolutionary gets lucky and assassinates Tsar Nicholas II. Michael is the new Tsar and appoints Stolypin as his advisor (he was obviously right about watching subversives). OTL there was much opposition to Stolypin's reforms. However, here they are imposed by the tsar and there is no post 1905 Duma.

I assume that the Michael/Stolypin double act runs to at least 1930. Russia agrees a deal with Japan based on Japan having Korea and Russia Manchuria. Michael is also good at flattering Kaiser Wilhelm II and tells him how much he envies his huge fleet.
 
India didn't just ship raw materials to its colonial power. It developed pretty well under Britain.
[barely beat Malthus] I meant it as "India's population growth was barely outpaced by economic growth."

Ferguson is happy to leap to the Raj's defense by arguing that this was only because the Indian population boomed, but I am less generous to a pink world than he is.

I think we need to seesome sources on both sides of this one, it is an interesting debate but both sides are just assertions so far.

Of course, this is my History degree training kicking in... :p

... Michael is also good at flattering Kaiser Wilhelm II and tells him how much he envies his huge fleet.
Oh, I say! [/Fell] :D
 
I think we need to seesome sources on both sides of this one, it is an interesting debate but both sides are just assertions so far.

Don't trust me. Trust Niall Ferguson, an unapologetic fan of the former British Empire, in his book Empire: The Rise and Demise of the British World Order and the Lessons for Global Power .
 
Re: comparison of USSR with contemporary Europe. It is as if to say "Deng reforms in China did not bear any fruits as Chinese standards of living today are piss-poor comparing to Germany". Well, duh, but what about comparison between Europe and pre-Deng China and Europe and post-Deng China? Russian Empire had been fourth to fifth in the world (and that's if you believe Conquest and co., who are on crusade to prove inferiority of the Soviet system). Soviets were unquestionnably second in the world in 1941, after lost decade of war and revolutionary devastation. Well, nice kind of "communist devastation".
 
?How about Japan?

1921
Washington Naval Treaty, In the Light of the Treaty, the Anti Militarists use this as a excuse to gut the Military Budget.

Give me a break. The military saw it as a slight to Japan & used it as an excuse to increase spending. A cut, even if it could be achieved, would bring down the gov't at the will of IJA, every time, because the minister of war & navy had to be a serving officer.

1922
While some adjustment is made to the Budget, it is still lots less than OTLs.
One of the worse hit areas is in Research and Modernization.
1923
With less money to spend, Japan's Military begins to focus on Training of Forces, and Quality of Equipment.

That's a contradiction, isn't it? And IJA did focus on training: in bayonet charges & hand to hand combat, with little regard for the new tactical, & technical, realities. With less money, how do they develop new, better equipment? Furthermore, IJA SOs, by & large, had a poor grasp of science & technology, let alone its potential impact on the battlefield.

1927
The KMT manages to unite Southeast China, and begins to attack Warlords in the West and North.

Slim chance, IMO.

1934
Second Sino-Nippon war. The Japanese Army and Navy fight two different Wars.
The Japanese Army defeats the Chinese Forces along the Great Wall, While the Navy Invades Hainan Island.

Why does it take 3 years longer to start than OTL?

1935
While the Japanese Army is able to defeat any Chinese attempt to move north of the Great Wall, [thanks to their copies of the German Panzer tank] They don't have the forces to invade South, and the Diet Forbids any attempt.
Most of the Fighting is Concentrated in Hainan.

Why does IJA copy German tanks, given they had their own designs, IJA had slim interest in armored warfare, & IJA SOs were, by & large, technically incompetent? And what makes you think the Diet was capable of forbidding IJA to do anything? Japanese military, IJN & IJA, answered only to the Emperor.

1936
Treaty of London [British Negotiated]

Why does Japan agree to this? And where does Britain gain the leverage to make it happen?

Japanese military Has clearly recognized the Supremicy of the Diet.

That is plain ASBs.

1939
Japan begins construction of Fortifications along the Russian Border in Manchuria and Sahalkin. after several Border Incidents.
These are designed for defense and are intended to keep the Japanese troops well away from the Border and out of Trouble.

Why? IJA wanted war with Russia.

First Japanese versions of the ME 109, and the Panzer IV arrive in Manchuria, and Hianan.

Why? Japan had her own aircraft industry, & Me-109 would not have met the specs of IJAAF or IJNAF in maneuverability without ASBs.

1942
Japan begins selling Russia, Repair parts for the Captured German Tanks, along with other war Equipment and Supplies.

This is a big ASB. Japan was signatory to Anti-Comintern Pact, not to mention hoping Russia would be defeated...

1945
Italy Surrenders
1946
Germany surrenders. Japan buys lots of the German prototype Equipment.

And the war lasts longer than OTL why, exactly?

Sounds like a Japan wank to me.
 
Top