Naïvely I had parsed "nonwhite" as referring to South Africa.
Last edited:
Es Geloybte Aretz Continuation Thread
- Thread starter carlton_bach
- Start date
yboxman
Banned
OTL, much of the atomic talent which participated in Project Manhatan, Tube Alloys and the misbegotten Nazi hydra of a nuclear project came from the ruins of the Habsburg Empire. Got to wonder how the concentration of talent, let alone transuranic production, in AH will influence Austro-German relations and how soon AH develops an independent nuclear capacity. I suppose the prestige and assurance coming from such a capacity will grant AH an extended lease on life, though I can't help thinking that it will nonetheless be mired in extended political parlysis and conflict, and that that can't help but negatively impacting its economic sustainability.
yboxman
Banned
Why the blazes does SOuth Africa need nukes? Australia presumably as insurance against Japan, and Canada against the U.S, but SA has no potentially dangerous neighbors other than its own nonwhite population - and I guess that won't be much of an issue TTL until much later (and obviously, no independent African neighbors supported by the Soviets with Cuban mercenaries roaming about so OTL comparision does not hold water). Unless the French in Madagascar and the COngo are somehow considered a threat I guess.
The primary problem that Austria-Hungary has is that it is forever compared to Germany. It's a reasonably wealthy country, its western areas (especially Austria and Bohemia) on par with Germany and France, and even the eastern regions not poorer than Italy or Spain. It's got a functioning civil service, a mainly non-corrupt administration, courts, railways that run broadly on time, and an industrial base that can turn out anything from mass-market cars to 44-cm mortars and intermediate-range nuclear missiles. Taken on its own merits, it's a perfectly fine Central European country. but compared to Germany, it eternally looks second best.
In the end, what ensures AH continues, though, is the general realisation that changing European borders is far too costly in blood and treasure. It's not worth breaking it.
South Africa does not really need nukes. Neither does Canada or Australia. But the nuclear deterrent is key to the defense of the Empire, and it is British practice to place these under the direct command of their Dominions' troops. That is why Australia, Canada and South Africa have nuclear arsenals as part of the Imperial forces.
It is part of how the imperial structure distinguishes proper 'core' entities from 'periphery', though it's not overtly called that. Nuclear weapons based in Kingston, Lagos, Malta, Hong Kong, Singapore and Bombay are under the direct command of the Royal Navy. Those in Punjab and Bengal are formally part of the empire-wide Royal Air Force. But those in the 'white' Dominions are in the local chain of command.
Strategically, the nuclear weapons in South Africa were put there to project British power over the southern half of the African continent. The main concern was that the French might try to cut the Cape-to-Cairo-axis, and of course the French have nuclear-armed forces in Senegal. It's not a high priority project.
@carlton_bach can i ask about the aftermath for the mittleuropa countries (is there a name for the group of countries that got independence in the baden baden treaty?) after the second war. How national identity develop will it be much more stronger due to the war? So will Ukranians be more distintct in this world to russian than in otl? will places such as poland had low russian populations some of the baltic countries and ruthania have big russian population will they be expelled after the end of the second war? Is there any other information you could share please on these nations.
edit: realised never got sent
edit: realised never got sent
Much of the Russian speaking population was expelled from Poland, the Baltics and Finland in the aftermath of the First War. So these are not a big issue, and the 'population exchanges' were useful for the new governments. They established their capabilities - you can't not have effective organs of government idf you need to adjudicate tens of thousands of property claims - they allowed them to be seen to care, giving land and homes to refugees, and reward their veterans (tens of thousands of Polish NA men received farms and homes that had been vacated by Russian speakers). The disruption of the war also destroyed lots of old allegiances, so that helped to create new primary identities based on language and nation.
National identity is a ticklish issue, though. Poland, Finland and Lithuania have been quite successful at building up a national identity in the German mould, based on language, culture and Volk identity. Latvia, Estonia and Ruthenia (that would be Ukraine) less so. But all of the countries have problems with having a staatsvolk, and these troubles don't end with the Second War.
The first thing is that most of them are mutual minority hosts. The establishment of Baden Baden enforces minority rights, too, so Poles in Lithuania and Ruthenia, Ruthenians in Poland, Letts in Lithuania etc. enjoy protections for their culture and language. You can't just enforce a one country-one language policy. In times of tension (and especially after Russia is defeated, the absence of a common enemy feeds those tensions), that can become a major irritant.
Secondly, there are issues of class interlinked with ethnicity, and it doesn't help that the Baden Baden rules try to fossilise the status quo. This is the biggest issue for Finland, which has grown a powerful sense of uinitary nationhood and struggles with the fact that so many of its ruling class, of the leaders and officers of its independence movement, of its prime ministers and great writers - speak Swedish. But the Polish minority in Lithuania and Ruthenia is in a similar position.
The biggest irritant in the Baltics is the German minority. It's big, it's influential, it has direct channels to Berlin and it is ready to play on them. That ensures them a privileged position beyond what anyone else there can hope for.
And there are the Jews, who also enjoy protection by Germany (in the interest of the status quo, and because they are unswervingly loyal to the Kaiser). Mainly in Poland and Lithuania, they are numerous and - it's not fair to say they are privileged, influential or wealtrhy the way the Finnish Swedes or Baltic Germany are, but they are privileged and wealthy beyond what their neighbours think Jews should be.
After the Second War, with Ruthenia and Estonia growing eastward, these countries take in larger Russian-speaking minorities they immediately begin assimilating quite forcefully. Across most of the other states of the German periphery, there is above all a desire for reestablishing normality, It makes for a tense mixture of national triumphalism and an artificial "all-in-this-together-ness". In Eastern AH, though, where the Russians used national identities more successfully to sow dissension and stir up trouble, it's a much harsher story. Nobody in Mitteleuropa will ever cooperate with Moscow, no matter how much their own governments suck.
I don't know how it looked like in Finland and Baltics but in Congress Poland largest Russian speaking group were Russian speaking Jews, who immigrated to Poland from Belarus.
ITTL there are even more Jews from Russia in Poland, but they will quickly learn to speak proper Yiddish. Russian is not a language you want to be heard speaking in public for many years after 1908.
Both these nation expand, so ruthania modern Ukraine what does estonia want?
Has poland tried to claim or buy Vilnius? Surely poland wants it badly?
Btw how does forced assimilation work?
Estonia does not particularly want anything. They get a strip of land along the Gulf of Finland because the Germans will no longer permit the Russians to have it. It's a small border adjustment, but Estonia is a small country so proportionally, it is significant.
They wanted it very much, but didn't get it a Baden-Baden. After that it kind of became another of the 'lost lands', a political football for the conservatives, but nothing they had any realistic chance of actually getting back.
Basically, you get new papers with 'proper' names. Every agent of the state you meet will speak the language you are now expected to master. Your children will attend school where they are taught to read and write it, and get beaten and humiliated for not speaking it properly. You will also deal with superiors at work speaking that language, making it clear that if you are hoping for any kind of career, you better had, too. If you're a young man, there is military service, also entirely in that language, with brutal punishments for failing to speak it. And if you get sick, the doctor and hospital staff will be speaking to you in that language as well. Civic associations, publishing, news, entertainment media, all of those things are available to you in your new country's language only. If you comply, learn it (even poorly) and make the proper effort, there are small rewards. You can get better jobs, join the clubs and activities of your betters. If you don't, there are punishments. If you rebel, things can be made very painful. It's mid-20th century, a lot of young men with memories of the war are happy to volunteer for some informal language education in a dark alley or out in the fields. And of course, even if you want to be the hero, there's your daughter, your wife, your sister to consider.
Russian as a primary language can survive in rural areas, isolated villages and orthodox church communities where everybody tills the soil and nobody has any great expectations of life. But nowhere else.
apologies im an idiot but doesn't forced assimilation not work? Prussia/ Germany was never able to turn the poles german, similar to russoification and turkification. Kurds are still kurds, finns, balts, etc still themselves.
It's certainly not a surefire method, but it works just fine if your interest is establishing an ethnic hierarchy. And it can work. For every Breton, Kurd or Basque still proudly speaking their ancestral language, theres a descendant of Wends or Occitans who doesn't. This will be a painful memory once people approach the postwar years with a clearer eye and more distance, but it will also ensure that the Russian minority is not a significant influence in those years. And it will reduce their numbers significantly. It really does that.
Difference between Bretons and Poles is the fact, that the latter had their own state until end of 18th century, and even centry later in pre partirion areas majority of landowners and clergy were Polish speaking. Poles were not reduced to peasants and workers even in Prussia.
In that sense, the situation of the Russian minority in Estonia and Ukraine ITTL is more like that of the Prussian Poles. But of course 'Russia' is not exactly a name people in those countries associate good things with
Very interesting, do the Estonians end up protecting and preserving the Ingrians as a legitimate ethnic nation?
Also after the first war, Estonia wanted Pskov and didn't get it. Presumably they would still want it? When you said they had pushed East that was my first thought.
Oh this is interesting - in the absence of the World Wars of OTL, does that mean the Balfour Declaration and Statute of Westminster are averted entirely (producing, I suppose, Imperial Federation in its place).
Those that are still there, yes. The Finnish state acted as the protector of the Ingrians and a lot of them were moved as part of the population exchanges. But Finland is also a kind of 'big brother' to Estonia, their policies are very similar.
They are getting it this time around, but a city full of pissed-off Russians isn't worth that much.
I must admit I have not given too much thought to the details, but yes, the idea is a kind of imperial federation with self-government for the Dominions and a path to that status for the colonies.
You know, that just might happen ITTL. It is that kind of place.