Well, when it comes to update, Grey Wolf, you really are second to no one!
Not one, but two world wars
! Good gracious me! None the less, I've got a couple of questions
.
OTL Russia had three line of expansion: the Balkans, India and the Pacific. In your timeline, you've adressed the latter and I suppose the russians have abandoned the whole thrust to India in exchange of better relations with Britain, but seems to me that your Russia has been quite passive in the whole Balkan region. I was thinking that there would have been several frictions with the ottomans and the hungarians over the region.
In the second world war I don't quite understand why Germany stay neutral. Given the fairly recent defeat, Germany should have been eager to get revenge over the french and regain part of her lost prestige. After all a strong Germany would act as counterweight to France, so it would be an asset for Britain.
Since escalating the war is hardly in France favour, could the french try to avoid the war with the neighbouring countries? They could blame the whole incident over the fleet admiral, saying that "he has gone too far" and "abused his power". Unless Belgium and Italy are already Britain's clients, but it didn't seem so, they could pretend to accept the explanation (and an hefty compesation, of course).
Italy could go to war anyway, hoping to conquer Rome, but the italian goverment could also be tempted to get Sicily back, so I guess that there would be a sort of "bidding war" to get Italy as ally.
Guess it's a typo for neutrality, isn'it?
Why? It's hardly in austrian interest to keep South Tyrol and later paying compensation to Italy. It would have been more logic to use the Tyrol card to get scott free of economic payments, since the latter can crush an economy and Tyrol, while being a wonderful region, was also quite poor at the turn of century.
Finally, I'm afraid I find the whole third war chapter a bit...rushed.
Britain seems quite devoided of reliables allies, without a good explanation and this is in stark contrast to OTL, where Britain was in a similar situation.
The USA, in my opinion, falls a it too easily. Even if they aren't a powerhouse like OTL, they should have resisted more to the CSA. Besides I'm not bought to the incorporation act. After nearly a century from the civil war, both nations should have developed a distinct personality. I can perfectly see a puppet goverment in the USA, and several fanatics both in CSA and USA claiming to "rejoin what was once divided", but I doubt that these position could become dominantin the CSA. After all the CSA finds his own foundation, his raison d'être, in the separation from the USA.
A part from these points, I find your update great. Keep up with the good job.
Cornelius
Not one, but two world wars
OTL Russia had three line of expansion: the Balkans, India and the Pacific. In your timeline, you've adressed the latter and I suppose the russians have abandoned the whole thrust to India in exchange of better relations with Britain, but seems to me that your Russia has been quite passive in the whole Balkan region. I was thinking that there would have been several frictions with the ottomans and the hungarians over the region.
In the second world war I don't quite understand why Germany stay neutral. Given the fairly recent defeat, Germany should have been eager to get revenge over the french and regain part of her lost prestige. After all a strong Germany would act as counterweight to France, so it would be an asset for Britain.
Added to this is a French attack on the remains of the British-led Neutrality Patrol, sinking both the British vessels and the Italian and Belgian ones which had remained with it.
Belgium and Italy declare war on France, neither having much choice in the matter after the sinking of their Far Eastern Naval forces
Since escalating the war is hardly in France favour, could the french try to avoid the war with the neighbouring countries? They could blame the whole incident over the fleet admiral, saying that "he has gone too far" and "abused his power". Unless Belgium and Italy are already Britain's clients, but it didn't seem so, they could pretend to accept the explanation (and an hefty compesation, of course).
Italy could go to war anyway, hoping to conquer Rome, but the italian goverment could also be tempted to get Sicily back, so I guess that there would be a sort of "bidding war" to get Italy as ally.
whilst Germany officially declares her independence.
Guess it's a typo for neutrality, isn'it?
Austria took the opportunity to sue for peace, and was allowed to keep its conquests in the S Tyrol
Austria paying compensation for damage caused in her campaign
Why? It's hardly in austrian interest to keep South Tyrol and later paying compensation to Italy. It would have been more logic to use the Tyrol card to get scott free of economic payments, since the latter can crush an economy and Tyrol, while being a wonderful region, was also quite poor at the turn of century.
Finally, I'm afraid I find the whole third war chapter a bit...rushed.
Britain seems quite devoided of reliables allies, without a good explanation and this is in stark contrast to OTL, where Britain was in a similar situation.
The USA, in my opinion, falls a it too easily. Even if they aren't a powerhouse like OTL, they should have resisted more to the CSA. Besides I'm not bought to the incorporation act. After nearly a century from the civil war, both nations should have developed a distinct personality. I can perfectly see a puppet goverment in the USA, and several fanatics both in CSA and USA claiming to "rejoin what was once divided", but I doubt that these position could become dominantin the CSA. After all the CSA finds his own foundation, his raison d'être, in the separation from the USA.
A part from these points, I find your update great. Keep up with the good job.
Cornelius