Challenge: Make Venice (a big Venice with borders roughly over the Adige River) independent from Italy post WW2.
Miscellaneous >1900 (Alternate) History Thread
- Thread starter RMcD94
- Start date
I found some interesting remark on a 13 years old post on some russian forum
"
Was Russia threatened by an ecological crisis in the twenties?
In contrast to this side of overpopulation, the authors clearly attach quite different importance to its second side, the ecological one. S.A. Nefedov points to rapid changes in the landscape, a sharp decline in meadows and forests, and to the beginning of a decline in land productivity in the central and central Black Earth region, caused by the ecosocial crisis. According to Люри Д.И(Dmitry Igorevich Lurie, 1997) it was just beginning, but already approaching a catastrophic phase, and only the respite that the social disasters of 1914-1922 gave the land saved chernozems from the environmental disasters that had begun. B.N. Mironov does not specifically make a statement about this, which seems to mean that he assesses ecological problems as minor and solvable with the rapid spread of advanced farming methods. But, strangely enough, this aspect of the controversy has not become a point of contention.
I haven't found Nefedov's article itself yet, but that's okay. What are your opinions on it?"
I can't find the article by Lurie, but maybe there is more of it in his 2010 book ( Agricultural land dynamics in Russia in the 20th century and post-agrogenic recovery of vegetation and soils/Динамика сельскохозяйственных земель России в XX веке и постагрогенное восстановление растительности и почв )
This would be interesting, 1920s Great Famines in a non-soviet russia without WW1 may be a very serious risk. Something to mull over
I just read a book about Russian colonisation of Kazakhstan, so one of my first thoughts is that under the ~1910s Imperial russian peasent settlement policies, and without any institutional protection of the Kazakh people, this may decisively destroy their nation if a terrible famine is accompanied with larger scale russo-ukrainian settlement
"
Was Russia threatened by an ecological crisis in the twenties?
In contrast to this side of overpopulation, the authors clearly attach quite different importance to its second side, the ecological one. S.A. Nefedov points to rapid changes in the landscape, a sharp decline in meadows and forests, and to the beginning of a decline in land productivity in the central and central Black Earth region, caused by the ecosocial crisis. According to Люри Д.И(Dmitry Igorevich Lurie, 1997) it was just beginning, but already approaching a catastrophic phase, and only the respite that the social disasters of 1914-1922 gave the land saved chernozems from the environmental disasters that had begun. B.N. Mironov does not specifically make a statement about this, which seems to mean that he assesses ecological problems as minor and solvable with the rapid spread of advanced farming methods. But, strangely enough, this aspect of the controversy has not become a point of contention.
I haven't found Nefedov's article itself yet, but that's okay. What are your opinions on it?"
I can't find the article by Lurie, but maybe there is more of it in his 2010 book ( Agricultural land dynamics in Russia in the 20th century and post-agrogenic recovery of vegetation and soils/Динамика сельскохозяйственных земель России в XX веке и постагрогенное восстановление растительности и почв )
This would be interesting, 1920s Great Famines in a non-soviet russia without WW1 may be a very serious risk. Something to mull over
I just read a book about Russian colonisation of Kazakhstan, so one of my first thoughts is that under the ~1910s Imperial russian peasent settlement policies, and without any institutional protection of the Kazakh people, this may decisively destroy their nation if a terrible famine is accompanied with larger scale russo-ukrainian settlement
Grey Wolf
Donor
Interesting
It could push more people to the cities, which would then have to be fed - by imports?
Are we assuming that grain in Ukraine is still viable, it is the steppe lands that are not and the ex-forested lands beyond the Urals?
I'd have to read more in the mentionned book, but the text implies that chernozems were the soil most at risk, so Ukraine and south-western russia
Last edited:
Is it possible to have a "Miracle on the Volga" for 1990s Russia after the collapse of the Soviet Union? Countries like Japan, South Korea, and Germany built up very quickly from ashes, so could Russia do something similar? (Massive economic recovery)
Thinking about making a timeline where Ford does NOT pardon Nixon, exploring the ramifications from there. Possibly with a Vice President George HW Bush being the tipping point that leads Ford to make that decision, possibly not; I haven't decided yet. Mainly I want to ask: does such a TL exist already? I don't want to step on anyone's toes. I know there's a TL where Ford is reelected in 1976 but I haven't read it yet so don't know what's involved there. If no such TL exists, or if there is consensus that multiple timeliness about this political question are okay, then I will post something!
Looking up chernozems on WP I was struck that the Canadian Prairie is one of the other few places on Earth that has that type of soil. Was it a funny historical coincidence that Ukrainians immigrated to that region, or was it deliberately advertised as having the same agricultural conditions to prospective immigrants?
Uh, how would you begin? 1990s Russia was in very messy situation
Grey Wolf
Donor
My understanding about Japan is that the Korean War was the catalyst for this. That Japan's position made it important and that this led to the build up and development of its electronics industry.
Can you place Russia in such a position in an alternate 1990s? Realistically, this could only happen if China collapses maybe after Tiananmen, or a repeat. Russia's position North of China would make it advantageous to proivide help to US and allied forces.
What if William Randolph Hearst won the 1906 governorship of New York and later on the presidency in 1908 or 1912?
Politically Hearst was a very progressive democrat, probably would have been like Woodrow Wilson minus his Confederacy-fanboyism, but domestically he would have probably been associated with Tammany Hall(if they dont break) and his fortune might make his "common man" appeal tarnished, on the other hand his media empire would be handy if he ever had to square off with Theodore Roosevelt.
As for his foreign policy, Hearst (iirc) had supported the Mexican revolution at the start and always favored the side that could bring stability, so basically just like OTL US he would probably be constantly changing horses mid race(Madero, then Huerta, then Carranza), but the difference here is that Hearst had a personal investment in Mexico, his father owned several ranches in the Sierra Madre, and in 1916 his Babicora hacienda was occupied twice by Villa's rebels, who stole his cattle, killed a worker and fought his private guards, so Hearst from that point on became a warhawk and defended that the US should stabilize Mexico.
On top of that, Hearst was an enemy of the British Empire, aswell as a Germanophobe and hated the League of Nations, so an isolationist that disliked both sides of WW1 and oppose American entry.
So with this we have the Kaiser's wettest dream, an isolationist who wants to invade Mexico after Villa. Any thoughts?
Politically Hearst was a very progressive democrat, probably would have been like Woodrow Wilson minus his Confederacy-fanboyism, but domestically he would have probably been associated with Tammany Hall(if they dont break) and his fortune might make his "common man" appeal tarnished, on the other hand his media empire would be handy if he ever had to square off with Theodore Roosevelt.
As for his foreign policy, Hearst (iirc) had supported the Mexican revolution at the start and always favored the side that could bring stability, so basically just like OTL US he would probably be constantly changing horses mid race(Madero, then Huerta, then Carranza), but the difference here is that Hearst had a personal investment in Mexico, his father owned several ranches in the Sierra Madre, and in 1916 his Babicora hacienda was occupied twice by Villa's rebels, who stole his cattle, killed a worker and fought his private guards, so Hearst from that point on became a warhawk and defended that the US should stabilize Mexico.
On top of that, Hearst was an enemy of the British Empire, aswell as a Germanophobe and hated the League of Nations, so an isolationist that disliked both sides of WW1 and oppose American entry.
So with this we have the Kaiser's wettest dream, an isolationist who wants to invade Mexico after Villa. Any thoughts?
A question for the panel if it is okay. I'm working on my WTCPC timeline and one of its features is earlier civil right in the US. Now I have one source which says William Carney was the first African-American to be award the Medal of Honor, awarded in 1900 for actions in the ACW in 1863. I have another source which says he wasn't, there were awards before him. Very unhelpfully this source doesn't list said earlier awards. Can anyone tell me which is correct?
As the POD is so close to 1900 and has more effects post-1900 than pre-1900:
WI: Spanish-Japanese War rather than a Spanish-American War?
Could the Japanese win, and if so, how would this affect the rest of the 20th century, and indeed the development of Japan, with the annexation of Spain's pacific empire? Would this result in Spain losing in the Pacific, and as a result doubling down on their campaign in Cuba? Would a Russo-Japanese war still occur? How would this affect the probability of a hypernationalist Japan arising after ww1? Assuming ww1 isn't butterflied by this POD.
WI: Spanish-Japanese War rather than a Spanish-American War?
Could the Japanese win, and if so, how would this affect the rest of the 20th century, and indeed the development of Japan, with the annexation of Spain's pacific empire? Would this result in Spain losing in the Pacific, and as a result doubling down on their campaign in Cuba? Would a Russo-Japanese war still occur? How would this affect the probability of a hypernationalist Japan arising after ww1? Assuming ww1 isn't butterflied by this POD.
The problem is that the names of Burgundy and Lotharingia/Lorraine are already in use by existing territories, so I don't think the idea would occur to anyone.
Grey Wolf
Donor
1898?
Navally it's going to go down to how the Spanish cruisers perform vis a vis the Japanese ones, but the Japanese are coming off the Sino Japanese War with both reinforcements and salvage
The Germans might be more inclined to push their luck if it is Japan rather than the USA
Or you might see Japan act decisively so that the Germans don't even get into the play at Manila
Will the Spanish send the Pelayo?
I've replied to your same question in pre-1900: https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...-history-thread.463313/page-162#post-23597708
I'd think that, assuming Japanese victories at the start, that Germany might intervene on Spain's side if it can. Germany has already intervened via the Triple Alliance in 1895, I wouldn't put it past Wilhelm to try and have a go at a second intervention with the aim of siphoning off Taiwan from Japan or something. Exactly how the other great powers might react to this I don't know, too many variables over who might want what and how each reacts to any actions the others take.
I think Spain would send the Pelayo in this instance, Japan wouldn't/doesn't have the power projection to launch a fleet to Spain's atlantic coast in Spain's eyes, so they'd be more confident about forming a taskforce with which to reverse any losses/shore up their position in the pacific.