Die Alte Welt Hat Überlebt- A Central Powers Victory Collaborative Timeline
- Status
I've been following this for a while, and I thought I'd step in and make a few comments.
Firstly, @Red Arturoist, I get that you've put a lot of effort into making a modern-day map, but I concur with a number of other people that you really need to work chronologically. It seems like you've got world history up to WWII planned out well, but after that there's nothing really until the modern day, which is just a hodgepodge of maps and every possible idea you can think of. This may well be how the world turns out in the end, but you need to work in order, because otherwise you end up trying to twist history to fit your idea of the modern day, which can make it seem very forced and unrealistic. Certainly it's possible for the map to end up like this, but you need to establish a plan for how history has evolved to reach that point, instead of later trying to distort events to match a map you made, which can easily be changed.
Secondly, on Australia. I certainly like some of the ideas put forward by @YaaItsRewindTime, but you need to remember that Australia is an exceptionally stable country. There's no easy way to make a civil war erupt in Australia, and especially not in this time period. If you want to do something interesting with Australia, and keeping in mind the POD, having Western Australia secede in 1933 is your best bet. From there, you can potentially have diverging ideologies; an Australia that becomes revanchist and expansionist in response to WA's departure would be an interesting course to take. If, and I mean if, you need WA to have a weird ideology as well, then take into account their demographics and political history. WA is a very conservative and traditionalist state, and is highly unlikely to adopt a radical ideology.
Thirdly, on Britain. I think having Britain become fascist is extremely implausible, albeit less so under these circumstances. I think that @Hindustani Person's ideas are probably the most plausible, although it needs a bit more detail. Certainly, given the fact that Britain is (for one reason or another) fighting alongside Russia in WWII, it is unlikely that the regime will last too long after the war. I would remind you all here that not every country needs to have an interesting ideology. Plenty of countries OTL are just stock-standard, mediocre, semi-capitalist semi-democracies, and this timeline honestly could do with some more mediocre countries.
Finally, everyone needs to listen to each other more. I get that it seems like I'm stepping in here making grandiose declarations, but this is a collaborative timeline, and everyone's voices need to be heard. People saying things like
don't help at all in maintaining a friendly and collaborative atmosphere, and everyone needs to accept, myself included, that other people may have different ideas, that we should listen to all of them, and then decide as a group which is most plausible and interesting.
I'm sorry if I'm coming across as angry or something - I'm not - but this timeline has real potential and I don't want to see it become a muddled up mess or a shouting match.
Firstly, @Red Arturoist, I get that you've put a lot of effort into making a modern-day map, but I concur with a number of other people that you really need to work chronologically. It seems like you've got world history up to WWII planned out well, but after that there's nothing really until the modern day, which is just a hodgepodge of maps and every possible idea you can think of. This may well be how the world turns out in the end, but you need to work in order, because otherwise you end up trying to twist history to fit your idea of the modern day, which can make it seem very forced and unrealistic. Certainly it's possible for the map to end up like this, but you need to establish a plan for how history has evolved to reach that point, instead of later trying to distort events to match a map you made, which can easily be changed.
Secondly, on Australia. I certainly like some of the ideas put forward by @YaaItsRewindTime, but you need to remember that Australia is an exceptionally stable country. There's no easy way to make a civil war erupt in Australia, and especially not in this time period. If you want to do something interesting with Australia, and keeping in mind the POD, having Western Australia secede in 1933 is your best bet. From there, you can potentially have diverging ideologies; an Australia that becomes revanchist and expansionist in response to WA's departure would be an interesting course to take. If, and I mean if, you need WA to have a weird ideology as well, then take into account their demographics and political history. WA is a very conservative and traditionalist state, and is highly unlikely to adopt a radical ideology.
Thirdly, on Britain. I think having Britain become fascist is extremely implausible, albeit less so under these circumstances. I think that @Hindustani Person's ideas are probably the most plausible, although it needs a bit more detail. Certainly, given the fact that Britain is (for one reason or another) fighting alongside Russia in WWII, it is unlikely that the regime will last too long after the war. I would remind you all here that not every country needs to have an interesting ideology. Plenty of countries OTL are just stock-standard, mediocre, semi-capitalist semi-democracies, and this timeline honestly could do with some more mediocre countries.
Finally, everyone needs to listen to each other more. I get that it seems like I'm stepping in here making grandiose declarations, but this is a collaborative timeline, and everyone's voices need to be heard. People saying things like
don't help at all in maintaining a friendly and collaborative atmosphere, and everyone needs to accept, myself included, that other people may have different ideas, that we should listen to all of them, and then decide as a group which is most plausible and interesting.
I'm sorry if I'm coming across as angry or something - I'm not - but this timeline has real potential and I don't want to see it become a muddled up mess or a shouting match.
Last edited:
So neutral in World War II? Another interesting idea. However, I still think the Romanist regime should last.
Maybe Britain, rather than directly fascist, is ultra-reactionary conservative (like Germany would have been under a Kapp-Lüttzwitz government)? Would that be a better description? Or Leese was a real fascist, and then, ultra-ractionaries take over?
In my ideas, West Australia didn't adopt any radical ideology. It is libertarian and ultra-democratic if you want, ultra-capitalist, and its culture can well be conservative. Why not? East Australia is the socialist nation here.
I don't understand at all. Germany is a democracy (as are many Eastern European countries), the US is a democracy, most of Central America and the Caribbean, ...
Also, why do you think this could turn into drama or something? I thought there was a consensus of a fascist/Romanist Britain, but it turned out there wasn't. Now we are seeking such a consensus. What exactly is the problem?
Don't panic. I don't agree with that, and we worked from a modern map in TTDN as well.
EDIT: I do, for example, accept the result of the poll. We conducted a poll on who should be the Vozhd, and we decided.
We could also conduct a poll on Britain.
What do you think of a poll on Britain? @Hindustani Person , @Ferd42 , et al?
Also, @KaiserEmu , I have incorporated others' ideas into my map quite often. And I am also prepared to change things - no problem with recolouring Britain if we decide to not have it fascist or so.
Western Australia is mostly fine, although again, I would err on the side of moderation.
Sure, and that's fine. I just think that instead of trying to shoehorn different ideologies into all sorts of countries without regard for their history of political culture. Case in point Eastern Australia, which has almost no history of radicalism, left- or right-wing.
Because I've seen it happen many times before. There is no problem with seeking consensus; consensus is good. The problem is it often isn't sought.
I wasn't panicking. I will, however, mention, that what was done in another thread is not necessarily the right way to do it. More specifically, TTDN worked from the premise that the CSA won and the US remained divided to this day. This thread works from the premise that Germany and the Central Powers won WWI. One you work backwards, one you work forwards.
Because saying one thing without accepting room for negotiation and discussion is a recipe for arguments, insults and kicks. This sort of thread requires everyone to remain calm and open to new ideas.
That is an example of how to do things, and probably should be followed more often. It also allows people to take part in decision making without having to put themselves out there; they can just vote quietly on which idea they think is better.
Key word there is my. This isn't your project; it's everyone's, and while you absolutely have the right to make a map of how you see the world ending up, your map does not equal the map. You can change things if you want to, but you need to stop working on the basis that your map is the authoritative map. Don't change things if you don't want to, just accept that your ideas are not everyone's ideas, and so when someone puts forward their ideas, as happened with Australia, don't then distort them and say that is what Australia is like now.
I'd also reiterate my position on working chronologically. Instead of deciding Britain is fascist and working from there, decide on what the world looks like in 1950, 1960, 1970 etc, and see if Britain remaining fascist works within the greater lore of the timeline as it develops.
Also, please don't double-post like that. It takes up needless space in the thread. No problem with editing a post, or waiting until you have all your ideas before posting.
Actually, thanks, @KaiserEmu for the input on Australia. Western Australia seceding because, in 1933, a socialist party wins the elections...
ALso, shall I create a strawpoll on Britain (on the strawpoll website that @black_0 uses for their polls)?
ALso, shall I create a strawpoll on Britain (on the strawpoll website that @black_0 uses for their polls)?
I meant this. Note that in the same year, the Communist Party got only 442 votes in the election.
I would recommend doing that, as it allows multiple polls to run at once.
Sorry for everything, and honestly, I did think that we had sought consensus on a fascist Britain.
Did I? I made the map, and even the map is only a proposal. Why do you think I regard a map as final and authoritative?
Shall we moderate Western Australia further? My first idea was an Objectivist (Ayn Rand-type ancap) West Australia, and compared to the idea, libertarian democracy like put forward by @YaaItsRewindTime is significantly more moderate already.
That's actually a good point for Britain.
I generally am open to new ideas, and probably I shouldn't see others' posts in this thread as establishing canon. That is sometimes my problem. I will try to learn that - just as I regard my posts as only ideas (and yes, this includes he world map) - other posts are on the same level.
That's fine. And I'm not criticising you for that, I'm just saying we all need to be wary of how we behave to keep the thread fun.
A liberal-libertarian democracy is probably okay.
That's probably my main point. Weird ideologies for the sake of weird ideologies, or balkanisation for the sake of balkanisation isn't really interesting. A timeline is a lot more interesting when you can see how a country's existing political situation evolved into what it became, and when you take into account existing political and geopolitical realities.
That's probably a good idea. I suggest an @Hindustani Person, as the OP, makes an index of all ideas that have officially been made canon, so we can keep track of what is known and separate spitballing ideas from established canon. Approaching everything as just an idea until a consensus on it has been reached is the best strategy for everything here; especially on areas not really mentioned, like China or South America. Just because up til now one person's ideas are the only ideas on a particular topic doesn't make that canon by default. The more discussion, the better.
Let's think further about *Nazi!Russia - with Rodzaevsky at the helm as Vozhd. Of course you can use my dates, @Hindustani Person. And actually, @KaiserEmu , I'll try working chronologically here, but the dates are purposely left vague.
Now I also understood why some people advocate working chronologically: It shows the curent state of a nation far better than going backward. Going backward is a different idea, for example practised in a reverse map game.
some time in 1942: A non-aggression pact with Red France is concluded.
Late 1942-Late 1943: With assistance due to the Great Abkhaz Betrayal, the Caucasian nations are invaded and Commissariats established. They are ruled by Commissars who get their orders from Moscow and Moscow only.
1943: A coup establishes an Orthodox supremacist government in Romania.
Early 1944 (April or May?): feeling extremely confident now that all lands of the USSR are Russian again, Russian armies invade Poland.
Mid-1945: The Polish government, despite all the help they got from Germany and its allies, is overthrown by Russia and its allies. Poland is re-incorporated and subjugated as they are regarded as "Catholic traitors". People who convert to Russian Orthodoxy are held in high esteem as they "have proven to be true Slavs".
September 1945: Germany is invaded simultaneously by Russia and Red France. Austria, the Czech Republic and Hungary help Germany, while Romanist Spain and Portugal stay neutral. Britain also stays neutral (if we have a Romanis Britain at that time?).
Shortly after Königsberg and some areas of the Rhineland (up to Krefeld and Mönchengladbach) are taken, the invasion stalls in winter.
1946: The Battles of Berlin, Köln and Frankfurt prove the most difficult in World War II yet as German soldiers engage their enemies in grueling house-to-house combat, fighting to their deaths for every inch. Millions of soldiers die and many aircraft and pieces of equipment are lost on both sides.
Early 1947: As the winter was extraordinarily cold and last summer saw bad harvests in Ukraine (and other areas?), food rations are cut all over Russia. The first riots erupt in Vladivostok and St. Petersburg.
by May 1947: The riots in Vladivostok, as they clearly appear to be Neo-Bolshevik in nature, begin to be supported by Japan.
by late 1947: The riots got worse and worse, and spiralled into a civil war. Germany retakes its territory and in Poland, Ukraine and the Caucasus, underground guerilla activities to liberate their respective homelands begin to be supported by the German allies. Also, a quick civil war has reinstated democracy in Romania.
Now I also understood why some people advocate working chronologically: It shows the curent state of a nation far better than going backward. Going backward is a different idea, for example practised in a reverse map game.
some time in 1942: A non-aggression pact with Red France is concluded.
Late 1942-Late 1943: With assistance due to the Great Abkhaz Betrayal, the Caucasian nations are invaded and Commissariats established. They are ruled by Commissars who get their orders from Moscow and Moscow only.
1943: A coup establishes an Orthodox supremacist government in Romania.
Early 1944 (April or May?): feeling extremely confident now that all lands of the USSR are Russian again, Russian armies invade Poland.
Mid-1945: The Polish government, despite all the help they got from Germany and its allies, is overthrown by Russia and its allies. Poland is re-incorporated and subjugated as they are regarded as "Catholic traitors". People who convert to Russian Orthodoxy are held in high esteem as they "have proven to be true Slavs".
September 1945: Germany is invaded simultaneously by Russia and Red France. Austria, the Czech Republic and Hungary help Germany, while Romanist Spain and Portugal stay neutral. Britain also stays neutral (if we have a Romanis Britain at that time?).
Shortly after Königsberg and some areas of the Rhineland (up to Krefeld and Mönchengladbach) are taken, the invasion stalls in winter.
1946: The Battles of Berlin, Köln and Frankfurt prove the most difficult in World War II yet as German soldiers engage their enemies in grueling house-to-house combat, fighting to their deaths for every inch. Millions of soldiers die and many aircraft and pieces of equipment are lost on both sides.
Early 1947: As the winter was extraordinarily cold and last summer saw bad harvests in Ukraine (and other areas?), food rations are cut all over Russia. The first riots erupt in Vladivostok and St. Petersburg.
by May 1947: The riots in Vladivostok, as they clearly appear to be Neo-Bolshevik in nature, begin to be supported by Japan.
by late 1947: The riots got worse and worse, and spiralled into a civil war. Germany retakes its territory and in Poland, Ukraine and the Caucasus, underground guerilla activities to liberate their respective homelands begin to be supported by the German allies. Also, a quick civil war has reinstated democracy in Romania.
If they are persecuting the Celts, might there be Irish backed revolts, maybe even some kind of Pan-Celtic revolution?
I like this timeline of events, my only quibble is that I doubt that the French would stay in the war for long, they'd probably occupy the Rhineland and then make peace
I have indeed thought of South Greece as Romanist. North Greece as a constitutional monarchy.
If it's south Greece, then shouldn't it be... Spartacist?
I indeed thought of Hellenism (we can also call it Spartacism) as the Greek branch of Romanism, so you are not totally wrong in your reading of my ideas.
No reason to, as I had much the same idea as you.
- Status