Miscellaneous >1900 (Alternate) History Thread

[Mitridates the Great]

What would it take for post-USSR Russia to credibly become a third faction? Liberalized and advanced in society and technology, but not necessarily "aligned with the West" (usually this is a code to say "Russia becomes a vassal to the United States").

The most similar example would probably be Gaullist France: a democratic, prosperous country, with a decent standard of living for its population, but at the same time with an autonomous foreign and domestic policy (instead of being based on copying, or rejecting, 1: 1, American policies).

 

[TheReplicator]

What would it take for post-USSR Russia to credibly become a third faction? Liberalized and advanced in society and technology, but not necessarily "aligned with the West" (usually this is a code to say "Russia becomes a vassal to the United States").

The most similar example would probably be Gaullist France: a democratic, prosperous country, with a decent standard of living for its population, but at the same time with an autonomous foreign and domestic policy (instead of being based on copying, or rejecting, 1: 1, American policies).

Is 'not becoming the USSR in the first place' an answer? Otherwise, maybe a POD where France (and Britain) work with Poland to force Germany into a two front war to great success and capitulate a lone Germany after a few years. Barbarossa had a huge effect on Russian demographics, so without losing a generation and suffering slower population growth as well as trying to hold an empire in Eastern Europe - it might go better for Russia in general to the point where dozens of millions more Russians are around today. Larger less demoralised population still growing at a fast rate (for Europeans, at least) post-USSR means they do better economically and demographically allows them to settle Siberia and their many aging cities 'properly'. Basically just find a way to prevent the crippling of Russian population growth, even better if you can cut down on famines and such (hence my first line).

 

[Mitridates the Great]

Is 'not becoming the USSR in the first place' an answer? Otherwise, maybe a POD where France (and Britain) work with Poland to force Germany into a two front war to great success and capitulate a lone Germany after a few years. Barbarossa had a huge effect on Russian demographics, so without losing a generation and suffering slower population growth as well as trying to hold an empire in Eastern Europe - it might go better for Russia in general to the point where dozens of millions more Russians are around today. Larger less demoralised population still growing at a fast rate (for Europeans, at least) post-USSR means they do better economically and demographically allows them to settle Siberia and their many aging cities 'properly'. Basically just find a way to prevent the crippling of Russian population growth, even better if you can cut down on famines and such (hence my first line).

The problem with the answer "do not become the USSR" is that it is highly probable that an equally catastrophic civil war would occur for Russia anyway, because the combination of unbearable conditions and administrative and governmental incompetence of the Russian Empire had placed the country in a difficult situation. situation in which, or they were reformed, or they burst. The problem is that OTL the Russian Empire opposed the reform attempts so violently that it ended up blowing up the country.

 

[TheReplicator]

The problem with the answer "do not become the USSR" is that it is highly probable that an equally catastrophic civil war would occur for Russia anyway, because the combination of unbearable conditions and administrative and governmental incompetence of the Russian Empire had placed the country in a difficult situation. situation in which, or they were reformed, or they burst. The problem is that OTL the Russian Empire opposed the reform attempts so violently that it ended up blowing up the country.

The issue is less the civil war and regime change, more the USSR economic and social reforms that caused or at least exacerbated famines throughout Russia and subject regions. Even if the regime changes from an absolute Monarchy to a highly corrupt Capitalist society, as long as their economic reforms aren't as radical or are at least spaced out more and accounted for, allowing the government to prevent widespread deathly famine - then that reduces the bodycount somewhat. I'm not saying the monarchy needs to stay in place, I'm saying the USSR (or similarly minded movements) specifically need to be kept out or tuned down.

 

[McPherson]

Anything plausible (^^^) (like shooting Stalin and Trotsky.) which reduces overall future famine, economic chaos, and mass murders in the new regime is a good progressive idea.

 

[Xenophonte]

Anything plausible (^^^) (like shooting Stalin and Trotsky.) which reduces overall future famine, economic chaos, and mass murders in the new regime is a good progressive idea.

Perhaps, if instead of being an Bolchevique regime, it would have had been a Menchevique one?

 

[McPherson]

Perhaps, if instead of being an Bolchevique regime, it would have had been a Menchevique one?

That implies a much smarter class of Russian socialists and reformers who still have to get out of the war somehow and who arrange for a few key Bolshevik dirt-naps in that process while they handle the economy and the inevitable revanchists. How that was to be done is ... I am open to suggestions?

 

[Xenophonte]

That implies a much smarter class of Russian socialists and reformers who still have to get out of the war somehow and who arrange for a few key Bolshevik dirt-naps in that process while they handle the economy and the inevitable revanchists. How that was to be done is ... I am open to suggestions?

Well, for one a Menshevik one, for its ideological bases would have and/or would have looked for a broader base of support and so I'd guess that it wouldn't have gone to the same extents, in matters of economic policy an/or perhaps it wouldn't be enforced in the same way that OTL Bolshevik regime.

 

[Zyobot]

'Adolf Hitler With Heinrich Himmler's Beliefs'.

That is, a fascination with the occult and even more loony racial theories than IOTL. He doesn't need to be so squeamish about blood and gore, though.

 

[nick_crenshaw82]

WI Louis B. Mayer and Irving Thalberg had been included in merger talks between William Fox and the Loew family?

Fox Film - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Grey Wolf]

Interesting erroneous reportage, or at least erroneous inference from it. So what would have happened I wonder if it were true
#

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1424108143701803010

 

[Ogrebear]

Is there a pre 1980’s version of Elon Musk who if they had been allowed to would have the drive/cash to put private satellites/spaceships etc into space?

 

[Grey Wolf]

Is there a pre 1980’s version of Elon Musk who if they had been allowed to would have the drive/cash to put private satellites/spaceships etc into space?

Howard Hughes

 

[tonycat77]

I've been reading about the IJN on the wiki, why it seems their post 1942 performance was so abysmal?
Phillipine sea and Leyte for instance.
Was the US so well equipped?
Was the loss of trained aicrew at midway so catasthrophic?
Was the code breaking such a game changer?

 

[Mitridates the Great]

I've been reading about the IJN on the wiki, why it seems their post 1942 performance was so abysmal?
Phillipine sea and Leyte for instance.
Was the US so well equipped?
Was the loss of trained aicrew at midway so catasthrophic?
Was the code breaking such a game changer?

Basically yes.

The IJN had a habit of keeping veterans at the forefront rather than putting them to train replacements. That meant sending increasingly rookie sailors and carrier pilots versus an increasingly veteran US Navy.

The breaking of the codes helped a lot, but also that the IJN tended to copy the plans with which they had won previous battles (apparently it never occurred to them that their enemies would study how they had won them the first time and prepare accordingly).

Rather than being well equipped, the USA could make up for its losses much faster than the Japanese.

The IJN was atrocious at ASW and American submarines took advantage of that to sink as many merchant ships as they could. That was fatal for Japanese logistics.

 

[Count of Crisco]

I've been reading about the IJN on the wiki, why it seems their post 1942 performance was so abysmal?
Phillipine sea and Leyte for instance.
Was the US so well equipped?
Was the loss of trained aicrew at midway so catasthrophic?
Was the code breaking such a game changer?

It's due to a number of factors. Attrition of their core of experienced pilots in the big battles earlier, loss of much of their logistics train to allied subs, good admirals being punished for not winning hard enough, good admirals dying.

Also another factor is that the IJN simply refused to accept that they had lost and would continue to funnel ships and men into lost cause battles, relying on the same tactics which had made the situation as bad as it was.

There is also the fact that many of their prewar advantages like night fighting and the LL were countered by the Allies, and in turn the Allies learned and corrected their doctrine and tech to better defeat the Japanese.

 

[Grey Wolf]

I've been reading about the IJN on the wiki, why it seems their post 1942 performance was so abysmal?
Phillipine sea and Leyte for instance.
Was the US so well equipped?
Was the loss of trained aicrew at midway so catasthrophic?
Was the code breaking such a game changer?

Damage control blew the Taiho up

 

[Count of Crisco]

Damage control blew the Taiho up

Thats known as trying to hard.
Speaking to Japanese damage control in the voice of Obi-wan "now you have become the very thing you swore to destroy!"

 

[McPherson]

I've been reading about the IJN on the wiki, why it seems their post 1942 performance was so abysmal?
Phillipine sea and Leyte for instance.
Was the US so well equipped?
Was the loss of trained aicrew at midway so catasthrophic?
Was the code breaking such a game changer?

1. Get "Shattered Sword" and "Eagle Against the Sun".
2. Philippine Sea shows what having a good admiral means (Ozawa) when he has to face off against Spruance, who is hobbled by an incompetent, (Mitscher).
3. Leyte Gulf shows what happens when a lousy admiral (Halsey) faces off against a navy (Toyoda, Kurita and Nishimura) who knows they are beaten going in. When dumb blind luck and Halsey hands them a victory on the silver plate, then the fighting qualities of the Joe Sailor and core competent leadership of the United States Navy shine, and the other side folds up like a badly stacked house of cards.
4. The IJN was not as affected by aircrew loss as the USN at Midway. Midway was a USNAS catastrophe. It took a full whole year to replace the trained aircrew and leadership who were spent there.
5. Being able to break 8-10% of message traffic helped, but the IJN was doing about as well against the Americans with RDF, traffic analysis and Congress, inept and security lax MacArthur and some really sloppy allies blowing American operations and secrets. It was a wash. What really helped was the ORANGE Team at Pearl who could play the Japanese in simulation. They mostly got it right. They even predicted Leyte, but guess who did not listen at the pre-battle conference to Spruance?

 

[tonycat77]

Basically yes.

The IJN had a habit of keeping veterans at the forefront rather than putting them to train replacements. That meant sending increasingly rookie sailors and carrier pilots versus an increasingly veteran US Navy.

The breaking of the codes helped a lot, but also that the IJN tended to copy the plans with which they had won previous battles (apparently it never occurred to them that their enemies would study how they had won them the first time and prepare accordingly).

Rather than being well equipped, the USA could make up for its losses much faster than the Japanese.

The IJN was atrocious at ASW and American submarines took advantage of that to sink as many merchant ships as they could. That was fatal for Japanese logistics.

It's due to a number of factors. Attrition of their core of experienced pilots in the big battles earlier, loss of much of their logistics train to allied subs, good admirals being punished for not winning hard enough, good admirals dying.

Also another factor is that the IJN simply refused to accept that they had lost and would continue to funnel ships and men into lost cause battles, relying on the same tactics which had made the situation as bad as it was.

There is also the fact that many of their prewar advantages like night fighting and the LL were countered by the Allies, and in turn the Allies learned and corrected their doctrine and tech to better defeat the Japanese.

Damage control blew the Taiho up

1. Get "Shattered Sword" and "Eagle Against the Sun".
2. Philippine Sea shows what having a good admiral means (Ozawa) when he has to face off against Spruance, who is hobbled by an incompetent, (Mitscher).
3. Leyte Gulf shows what happens when a lousy admiral (Halsey) faces off against a navy (Toyoda, Kurita and Nishimura) who knows they are beaten going in. When dumb blind luck and Halsey hands them a victory on the silver plate, then the fighting qualities of the Joe Sailor and core competent leadership of the United States Navy shine, and the other side folds up like a badly stacked house of cards.
4. The IJN was not as affected by aircrew loss as the USN at Midway. Midway was a USNAS catastrophe. It took a full whole year to replace the trained aircrew and leadership who were spent there.
5. Being able to break 8-10% of message traffic helped, but the IJN was doing about as well against the Americans with RDF, traffic analysis and Congress, inept and security lax MacArthur and some really sloppy allies blowing American operations and secrets. It was a wash. What really helped was the ORANGE Team at Pearl who could play the Japanese in simulation. They mostly got it right. They even predicted Leyte, but guess who did not listen at the pre-battle conference to Spruance?

Thanks for all the replies.
Can those issues be fixed? i'm not looking for a "japan takes half america" kinda scenario, just a more even out naval warfare.
Was Pearl Harbor really that important? Seems to me at a glance they just took out some old modernized battleships, could they had just gone with the invasions they planned, then just sink the fleet when it set sails?
Japan had some nice submarines, could they had used them in a better way?