The geographical distributon of wealth, population and political power in yourcountry

Every country has certain areas with more population, wealth and political power than the rest.

Your challenge is to change it, with a Pod after 1900.

For example, have Oregon being one of the most wealthy, populated and politically important states in the US. (If you prefer, you can choose any other US state or area that isn't rich, populated or politically important IOTL)

Other examples: Have a Brazil in which the North-East is the richest region nowadays. Have an Argentina with a much more populated Patagonia, and/or a less pooerer NorthWest.
 

maverick

Banned
Sounds really hard...

Of course, if the Nazis win WWII and expell all Russians west of the Urals to Siberia, then Moscow is depopulated and Omsk and the like are superpopulated...

But Argentina? even if Alfonsin moves the capital from Buenos Aires to Carmen de Patagones as he wanted, the Porteños are sure as hell not gonna move! it would be like a combination of the civil wars o 1859 and 1880:p
 
Sounds really hard...

Of course, if the Nazis win WWII and expell all Russians west of the Urals to Siberia, then Moscow is depopulated and Omsk and the like are superpopulated...

But Argentina? even if Alfonsin moves the capital from Buenos Aires to Carmen de Patagones as he wanted, the Porteños are sure as hell not gonna move! it would be like a combination of the civil wars o 1859 and 1880:p

Yep, maybe I should have post this in the pre-1900 forum, and asked for a Pod after 1800 (or, even better, 1700). But that would have been too easy;):D

Let's way and see if somebody comes up with other plausible example of post-1900 shifts in the geographical distribution of wealth/population/political importance in their countries.

If no one does, I'll start a new thread in the pre-1900 forum.
 
Germany is easy. Avoid World War II and the Iron Curtain, best with my favorite scenario, surviving Weimar.

Berlin would be far wealthier and more populous than IOTL, maybe exceeding 5 million people. No division, no problems.

Central Germany would be just as wealthy as the agglomerations near the Rhine, definitely more than in OTL. Saxony, Thuringia and Saxony-Anhalt would remain capitalist and southern Lower Saxony with northern Hesse wouldn't lose their neighborhood.

The parts of the Blue Banana (Rhine-Ruhr, Rhine-Main, Rhine-Neckar, Stuttgart) would fare similar to OTL.

Bavaria is a tough one. Franconia, the northern part of Bavaria, would fare better as it wouldn't lose its connection to Central Germany. Southern Bavaria would fare worse as it wouldn't profit from the loss of Central Germany.
 
Easy for Australia, just have the First Fleet pull up on the coast somewhere between Adelaide and Melbourne instead of going to Sydney.
 
Easy for Australia, just have the First Fleet pull up on the coast somewhere between Adelaide and Melbourne instead of going to Sydney.

That's possible, but would require a pre-1900 Pod.

However, as probably thew best way to get this in Australia and elsewhere is though a pre-1900 Pod, I'm starting a new thread in that sub-forum.

This thread will remain open, in case somebody comes up with other post-1900 Pods

And you don't have to limit yourselves to your country of origin. Any country will do.
 
If they chose a different place for the Federal capital instead of Canberra somewhere on the coast with a good harbour then there could be a population shift.
 
Sweden: less efficient power distribution make it better to place the heavy industry closer to the hydropower plants in Norrland. It is ASB since it require differnt physics.
 
Easy for Australia, just have the First Fleet pull up on the coast somewhere between Adelaide and Melbourne instead of going to Sydney.

A way to change the geographical distribution of wealth in Australia post-1900, is to prevent protectionism becoming part of the Federation-era 'Australian settlement', which lasted from around 1910 until the 1980's.

In the Australian context, protectionism favoured secondary industry (manafacturing), at the expense of primary industry (agriculture and mining). Secondary industry was heavily based in Victoria and to a lesser extent South Australia, meaning that Melbourne maintained its role as Australia's business capital well into the 20th century (long after Sydney had actually become the largest city population-wise). Primary industry was on OTOH heavily based in New South Wales, Queensland and Western Australia (although the urban areas of NSW are/were fairly industrial too).

If Australia adopts free trade in the early 20th century, it is likely that the centre of economic and political gravity moves primarily north-ward from Victoria into New South Wales and Queensland (and also to a lesser extent west-wards towards Western Australia. In a way this has occurred since the demise of the 'Australian Settlement' in the 1980's.
 
Finland gains independence about 1917 pretty much with the OTL borders. Russia does not became Communist but more or less a democratic state post-WWI. Let's assume, due to butterflies, no WWII, or at least one that seriously changes the status quo north of Tallinn.

In this case the Finnish economy remains geared towards catering to St. Petersburg much as during the autonomy. Most growth centers on the southern coast somewhat like IOTL, but in the east Viipuri (Vyborg) and surrounding southern Karelia will benefit more than it ever did.

Due to the proximity to St.Petersburg, Baltic carrying trade and the forestry industry growing in its Karelian hinterland, Viipuri will grow to rival Helsinki as a centre of population and economy by the 40s. In 2009, assuming a peaceful coexistence between Finland and a trade-friendly Russia, the Greater Viipuri area could conceivably have as much as a million people. It would have a sizable minority of foreigners, and very likely would be more genuinely international than Helsinki is today.

South-east Finland would benefit from the situation, especially along a, say, 300 to 400 km radius from St.Petersburg. Western Finland would be considerably less well off and Oulu (and possibly Tampere) would be seriously smaller and more insignificant in comparison to OTL.

The Finnish lakeland area, along with the Karelian isthmus, would have served as the main destination of short-range tourism from St. Petersburg, having long-established tourism sector, much stronger and of better quality than IOTL. The same Russian influence could be seen in the winter tourism in Lapland, though there the effect would not be so strong.
 
Top