No WW1: the Economic Factors.
- Thread starter Hashasheen
- Start date
Extrasolar Angel
Banned
In the long run I don't think that the empires are sustainable.
Russian Empire and Austroe-Hungary is prone to ethnic conflict and strife, as well as eventual collapse.
Britain can't sustain its colonies forever.
Germany faces growing unrest in its Eastern provinces.
All empires would try to exploit weakness in others to gain power.
So in the long run some kind of conflict is inevitable.
I would guess that in the long run Britain and Germany would possibly gang up on Russia exploiting its internal problems, but Russia eventually would win.
Of interest to war would be the scale of transportation infrastructure in Russia, without WW1 Russian railways would allow it quickly mobilize and move troops, something that Germany feared.
Russian Empire and Austroe-Hungary is prone to ethnic conflict and strife, as well as eventual collapse.
Britain can't sustain its colonies forever.
Germany faces growing unrest in its Eastern provinces.
All empires would try to exploit weakness in others to gain power.
So in the long run some kind of conflict is inevitable.
I would guess that in the long run Britain and Germany would possibly gang up on Russia exploiting its internal problems, but Russia eventually would win.
Of interest to war would be the scale of transportation infrastructure in Russia, without WW1 Russian railways would allow it quickly mobilize and move troops, something that Germany feared.
I siad earlier that the united states would most likly shift its economic focus onto latin america since it has no europe to rebuild. what sort of changes is this likly to cause? will it actually make things worse for the latin countries?
I Blame Communism
Banned
If we assume that all nations are inherently "prone" to what actually befell the, AH is a bit useless. Austria-Hungary: we've all been talking about the conflict between the Magyar nobility and practically everyone and then all the conflicts were local (Polano-Ruthese, Italo-Slovene) and none were allowed to get beyond bitter debate because the Hapsburg state was about eight times for functional than it's given credit for. In WW1, the Germans and Hungarians were loyal, obviously, the Slovenes and Croats were from the Treaty of London until near the end, the Czechs were meh, the Poles had Austro-Polish plans and were only really alienated by Brest-Litovsk One and Two, the Ukrainians were downright enthusiast, The Bosniaks were pretty Austrophil, and the Romanians were quiet until Romania was in the war.
As for Russia, who's going to be able to secede? How will they manage against the titanic power and casual brutality of the Tsarist state?
This one I actually agree with. France, Germany, Belgium, Netherlands, and Portugal too.
I'd refute this but I actually have no idea what you're talking about.
Really? Austria-Hungary, to name one, just wants to survive. And really, in the summer of '14, the protagonists all to one extent or another believed that they had to act as they did.
God I hate that word.
Why? Which internal problems? Have I missed something?
Germany feared this but that doesn't mean they should of. OTL, Russia mobilised faster than anyone had imagined... and a fat lot of good it did them. Supplies were the fundamental issue, supplies and the eventually home-front breakdown.
Well ... I tend to think that would be a very good thing for those countries. What do you feel would be the motivation? Purely economic or can you see strategic interest as well, or both? I tend to think as the Europeans juggle alliances and keep the 'great game' going that the US is going to eventually have an interest in developing some actually help in the Western Hemisphere. Several scenarios create such thoughts whether the European East (Russia) vs West stare down or something smaller like simply some kind of German-Anglo alliance. The investments can be tied directly to economics as well. With such interests in mind, and with massive investment of American technologies and capital Brazil can be jump started on the way to real power. Argentina likewise. Cuba could be turned into a real economic and military ally. Mexico ... well, I have my doubts anything can help or kick start her so I'm not holding my breath. I see a lot of potential if the right connection, investments, and attitudes are reached. A lot of work, pressure, and long standing changes ... but very doable if under the right motivations.
hmmm, fascinating. Now if only only I could think of a good response!
Well, if we assume that pre-OTL War trends will continue, Germany's border provinces with Congress Poland would have the percentage of their populations that are/identifies as Polish increase.
The Sandman
Banned
As far as the "minorities in Russia" issue: won't Germany, Austria, the Ottomans, the Japanese, the British, the Swedes (Finnish stuff), and any coherent government in China and Persia all have a vested interest in causing as much internal trouble for Russia as possible? The US is the only power that doesn't have any particular reason to care about Russia's rise into a superpower, aside from the annoyance of having competition.
Extrasolar Angel
Banned
Indeed they will. Russia in turn will cause trouble for Austria as it did in OTL.
Depending on the level of its power projection, it can also influence the tensions in British Empire, and if they play their cards right they could also have influence in certain parts of German Empire, although that is difficult .
The basic point is that all empires have certain situations and conditions that they are unlikely to efficiently control, and other powers will see this as potential asset to exploit.
Don't worry.this is interesting stuff.
of course I just though of something else, if the world war waits until the 1960's that means somebody might have the bomb by then. and if that's true than.... oh no, I just realised, in this world Einstien stays german!!
In this world,in 1960s Germany is for sure a democracy.
Jaded_Railman
Banned
Which, of course, says nothing as to the reasons I referred to. For instance, the long-run K-wave in early modern Europe is believed to have been driven by the general wars that dominated the period. When a wave in a medium propagates, it doesn't just do that because 'that is the natural action of a wave', it does that because a whole bunch of particles in the media are bumping together in just the right way to cause the wave motion to appear. Same thing here. Changing the underlying circumstances which drive the cycle changes how it propagates. There might not be a recession in the 1930's; really, without WWI, there definitely won't be a depression on the scale we saw IOTL.
The Great Depression was largely caused by ten years of attempting to fix the Gold Standard, which broke during the course of financing the war. The combined actions of the world's central banks over the period managed to maintain something approaching stability (if you don't count the recessions in '20 and '26). However, the greatest efforts of men cannot forever hold back the flood-tide of the whole of the human race. The general trend reasserted itself and the world's economy began unraveling in the late 20's.
WITHOUT a broken gold standard, things will still be somewhat iffy. The Taylor Rule, Milton Friedman, and all the people who figured out how to run a central bank with something approaching skill are a half century away. Even with some imagined genius at the helm...well, nobody is perfect. Eventually, some central bank somewhere will run a contractionary policy and, if it's an important enough country, there will be a slump. However, whether that slump turns into a general, world-wide depression entirely depends on how it's responded to in the central banks of other countries. It almost certainly won't turn out as badly as the OTL Great Depression.
this is all very good (certanly better than I could do), but I have one thing to ask. given your earlier findings, which decade is this slump most likely to come in. my guess is late 40's.