The Union Forever: A TL

what exactly cause the war?
Nationalism and imperialism

The IEF is basically the USSR but with monarchy instead of communism. It's got hegemony over regions as different as Finland, Poland, Manchuria, the Stans of Central Asia, and the Caucasus region. With Russia itself dominating the politics of the union, and without the communist ideology that kept the OTL USSR around, there is little reason for these regions to see themselves as having anything to do with the Russian state, especially with a Russian monarch. With a power grab after the 2000 election going on, these regions more and more see the central government as not representing their interests. Thus a civil war leads to declarations of independence, as whichever side wins the civil war will be basically equally ignorant of their interests.

I highly recommend going back the last decade's worth of foreign/domestic updates and getting reacquainted with the situation. It's a very interesting story.
 

Mrstrategy

Banned
Nationalism and imperialism

The IEF is basically the USSR but with monarchy instead of communism. It's got hegemony over regions as different as Finland, Poland, Manchuria, the Stans of Central Asia, and the Caucasus region. With Russia itself dominating the politics of the union, and without the communist ideology that kept the OTL USSR around, there is little reason for these regions to see themselves as having anything to do with the Russian state, especially with a Russian monarch. With a power grab after the 2000 election going on, these regions more and more see the central government as not representing their interests. Thus a civil war leads to declarations of independence, as whichever side wins the civil war will be basically equally ignorant of their interests.

I highly recommend going back the last decade's worth of foreign/domestic updates and getting reacquainted with the situation. It's a very interesting story.
who has the strongest force of the civil war at the moment?
 
Nationalism and imperialism

The IEF is basically the USSR but with monarchy instead of communism. It's got hegemony over regions as different as Finland, Poland, Manchuria, the Stans of Central Asia, and the Caucasus region. With Russia itself dominating the politics of the union, and without the communist ideology that kept the OTL USSR around, there is little reason for these regions to see themselves as having anything to do with the Russian state, especially with a Russian monarch. With a power grab after the 2000 election going on, these regions more and more see the central government as not representing their interests. Thus a civil war leads to declarations of independence, as whichever side wins the civil war will be basically equally ignorant of their interests.

I highly recommend going back the last decade's worth of foreign/domestic updates and getting reacquainted with the situation. It's a very interesting story.

I wouldn't even call it like the USSR with monarchy; it's the Russian Empire that tried to make it something more than a Russian only empire. The USSR in 1990 was about 51% Russian; even without the tragedies and the revolutions which decimated USSR, the IEF is very likely minority Russian. Manchuria, OTL, has a population of roughly 117 million; the total worldwide Russian population is 129 million, roughly. So, with Manchuria, Poland, and other regions added that didn't exist before, the state is very definitely minority Russian.

Say... Roughly 40% Russian maximum (based on Mac's population, that'd make for a total Russian population of 152.4 million. Seems reasonable with a more conservative Russia with higher population growth and without WW2/Revolution deaths). Then you have roughly 30% of the population in Manchuria alone (say 114.3 million) This is extremely rough. And, with Russian growth slowing and Central Asia/other regions accelerating, they were losing that portion.

There was also the issue of Polish and other citizens becoming heads of various portions of the government. Most of the rebels seem to be those that are most opposed to Russia (see the Turkic nations/Islamic regions) or those that have held a centuries-long animus against Russia (Poland).

Of course, though Turkey and Persia are funding the rebellion in Central Asia, how likely is it that China attempts to co-opt the movement?

who has the strongest force of the civil war at the moment?

The IEF Russian Nationalist group probably has the largest military, though the Reformers have most of the loyalty of the minorities that aren't rebelling and a large portion of the military that is opposed to the former group.
 
I wouldn't even call it like the USSR with monarchy; it's the Russian Empire that tried to make it something more than a Russian only empire. The USSR in 1990 was about 51% Russian; even without the tragedies and the revolutions which decimated USSR, the IEF is very likely minority Russian. Manchuria, OTL, has a population of roughly 117 million; the total worldwide Russian population is 129 million, roughly. So, with Manchuria, Poland, and other regions added that didn't exist before, the state is very definitely minority Russian.

Say... Roughly 40% Russian maximum (based on Mac's population, that'd make for a total Russian population of 152.4 million. Seems reasonable with a more conservative Russia with higher population growth and without WW2/Revolution deaths). Then you have roughly 30% of the population in Manchuria alone (say 114.3 million) This is extremely rough. And, with Russian growth slowing and Central Asia/other regions accelerating, they were losing that portion.

There was also the issue of Polish and other citizens becoming heads of various portions of the government. Most of the rebels seem to be those that are most opposed to Russia (see the Turkic nations/Islamic regions) or those that have held a centuries-long animus against Russia (Poland).

Of course, though Turkey and Persia are funding the rebellion in Central Asia, how likely is it that China attempts to co-opt the movement?



The IEF Russian Nationalist group probably has the largest military, though the Reformers have most of the loyalty of the minorities that aren't rebelling and a large portion of the military that is opposed to the former group.
Fair enough, I appreciate the better analysis and analogies!

China is almost certainly going to co-opt the movement in Manchuria in order to continue their push of technocracy. They'll probably succeed, too, unless the IEF goes haywire and starts tossing instasun. Even then, there may be a technocratic future for Manchuria, but seeing as we don't really know what nuclear war looks like IRL, it's up to the author to say who will rule the rubble.
 
Fair enough, I appreciate the better analysis and analogies!

China is almost certainly going to co-opt the movement in Manchuria in order to continue their push of technocracy. They'll probably succeed, too, unless the IEF goes haywire and starts tossing instasun. Even then, there may be a technocratic future for Manchuria, but seeing as we don't really know what nuclear war looks like IRL, it's up to the author to say who will rule the rubble.

It's fine. I see where you get the USSR approach (the national homelands, as it were) but the subnational units are, for many parts, still more akin to kingdoms. (See Chechenia, which encompasses a region where the Chechens are a minority (I think it was 25% or so) along with Dagestan, Kouban, and others. They aren't the same system of many different SSRs and ASSRs which promoted minorities; they were administrative regions established based upon old kingdoms and regions where Russian rule wasn't strong. (See how Khiva and Bukharra are still separate).

Basically, still a tie to hereditary rule and preexisting political identities; however, that causes trouble when some are nationalist based entities and some aren't. That's why I say it's more like the Russian Empire with lots of Congress (fill in the blank) that were gradually integrated/formed.

As for nukes...

Hrm...

1. Persia and Turkey threatening to detach a large portion of Central Asia.
2. Turkey openly stating they are likely to invade and occupy Armenia.
3. Germany pulling Poland and Finland away, and may try for the Baltics and Finland.
4. China funding rebellions in Manchuria and in the independent sphered nations.
5. No help from the rest of the civilized world when what is considered by most nations to be a dangerous rogue movement rapidly expands its power?

Sounds like the case for instant sunshine isn't that farfetched.
 
It's fine. I see where you get the USSR approach (the national homelands, as it were) but the subnational units are, for many parts, still more akin to kingdoms. (See Chechenia, which encompasses a region where the Chechens are a minority (I think it was 25% or so) along with Dagestan, Kouban, and others. They aren't the same system of many different SSRs and ASSRs which promoted minorities; they were administrative regions established based upon old kingdoms and regions where Russian rule wasn't strong. (See how Khiva and Bukharra are still separate).

Basically, still a tie to hereditary rule and preexisting political identities; however, that causes trouble when some are nationalist based entities and some aren't. That's why I say it's more like the Russian Empire with lots of Congress (fill in the blank) that were gradually integrated/formed.
I get what you're saying and agree.


As for nukes...

Hrm...

1. Persia and Turkey threatening to detach a large portion of Central Asia.
2. Turkey openly stating they are likely to invade and occupy Armenia.
Hm... This could be the point where Turkey and Persia become strong allies, an unstoppable force in the Middle East... or it could become the point where they war over Armenia and possibly Mesopotamian influence.


3. Germany pulling Poland and Finland away, and may try for the Baltics and Finland.

We still have yet to see how "steady" Osterloh will stay his hand in the region. If the IEF situation goes critical, I have little doubt Germany will try to expand the AES into Poland and the Baltics, and possibly Finland and even Ukraine, though Ukraine will almost certainly mean war regardless of how the chips fall in the IEF.

4. China funding rebellions in Manchuria and in the independent sphered nations.
5. No help from the rest of the civilized world when what is considered by most nations to be a dangerous rogue movement rapidly expands its power?
Or even some of the rest of the world pulling a Vietnam and deciding to try to stop the spread of technocracy through flimsy-reasoned declarations of war. I think this depends on how big the technocracy movement gets in the world powers, and how much of a threat the powers that be in these countries sees it.

Sounds like the case for instant sunshine isn't that farfetched.
Mac never said avoiding a 2nd Great War was a good thing... :eek:

Mac, could you reiterate the nuclear powers as of this moment? I can't find the post that did so.
 
Hm... This could be the point where Turkey and Persia become strong allies, an unstoppable force in the Middle East... or it could become the point where they war over Armenia and possibly Mesopotamian influence.

I doubt the former, principally because a Turkey that could successfully take (and probably purge) Armenia will likely do the same throughout the Middle East.

...It's kinda funny that I am actually hoping Syria steps up and does something. Seems odd considering what is going on in he word, but Syria could likely counter any Turkish expansion. (After all, either they or the Kurds would be the next target)

We still have yet to see how "steady" Osterloh will stay his hand in the region. If the IEF situation goes critical, I have little doubt Germany will try to expand the AES into Poland and the Baltics, and possibly Finland and even Ukraine, though Ukraine will almost certainly mean war regardless of how the chips fall in the IEF.

I think even the Baltics would mean it. Finland isn't as vital, and Poland, while damaging, is peripheral and always has been a headache. It wouldn't be nuclear war, but if the IEF manags to take care of other fronts... who knows.

Or even some of the rest of the world pulling a Vietnam and deciding to try to stop the spread of technocracy through flimsy-reasoned declarations of war. I think this depends on how big the technocracy movement gets in the world powers, and how much of a threat the powers that be in these countries sees it.

Considering they are threatening Siam, Burma, Manchuria, and India... the IEF was the containment on Technocratic China as all of the other counterweights were neutered after the Asia-Pacific war. To make the overly simplistic comparison, who' gonna plug the dike once the little dutch boy no longer has his thumb in it?

Mac never said avoiding a 2nd Great War was a good thing... :eek:

Very true.

I think the nuclear powers are the US, Great Britain, France, Italy, Germany, the IEF (who knows where the warheads are kept, of course), and China. I imagine that West Africa might work on some (analogous to South Africa OTL), and that some British dominions could quickly develop the capability... Just off the top of my head.
 
Yeah, that was feigned enthusiasm for a Persian-Turkish alliance.
Good point on Syria and Kurdistan. Hell, Persia and/or another actor in the region could use Turkey's possible imminent power grab as an excuse to start their own war.

Yeah, the IEF really needs the Baltics for the Baltic. And while there's little value in using nuclear arms on that front, crazy shit can happen when a nuclear power with a poorly centralized government goes tits up...

Nice comparison

Thanks for the recap.
 
Yeah, that was feigned enthusiasm for a Persian-Turkish alliance.
Good point on Syria and Kurdistan. Hell, Persia and/or another actor in the region could use Turkey's possible imminent power grab as an excuse to start their own war.

Yeah, the IEF really needs the Baltics for the Baltic. And while there's little value in using nuclear arms on that front, crazy shit can happen when a nuclear power with a poorly centralized government goes tits up...

Nice comparison

Thanks for the recap.

Ah, I gotcha. Yeah, I just don't see it. Once IEF is no longer a major threat... There's no longer the large enemy to position against.
Sounds very likely, actually. And if they just happen to wander into IEF territory...

Quite; and their Russian population might actually be approaching 50% in some of the Baltics; that's up to Mac. There's also no Kaliningrad either.

Well, it is apt. All of this is happening at a period of decline for the major blocs. With the US looking inward, Germany on the gravy train, and the UK not so strong, it remains to be seen if anything is done.

That's just off the top of my head; I may be wrong.

So, any other countries that are vulnerable to Technocratic revolution? Perhaps Malaya (Chinese diaspora) or North Borneo (historical discontent with Brunei, which purchased the region) on top of the ones already mentioned?
 
Well Malaya, North Borneo, and Brunei are all Commonwealth, so technocratic uprisings will bring the UK and friends into the fray in a very direct way. The UK is already facing losing world-relevance with the Commonwealth declining; if they've got a PM who is hedging his future on the Commonwealth, that could be the ticket for a UK into entry into the IEF war, but I can't remember Lever's policy direction re: the Commonwealth.
Of course we could see worldwide attempts at technoputsches. But with the center of gravity in the technocratic world centered on East Asia, I'd look at unaligned states like Indonesia or the Philippines, in addition to the OTL Chinese territories that may be carved from the IEF in the coming years. The Arabian Peninsula is also suspiciously unaligned for the moment. Maybe some kind of Islamic bend on technocracy could sprout up in some of those states?

But with the chaos of a nuclear war, all bets and all alliances are really up in the air.
 
Weapon Profile: Taylor-Jalenson No. 3 Rifle
Great update. Do you care to do an installment on the Taylor-Jalenson?
Sure.

800px-No_4_Mk_I.JPG

A British Army Taylor-Jalenson SMTJ No. 3 bolt-action rifle, with a 10-round magazine and polished wood finish. The No. 3 and No. 4 standards of the SMTJ are the most common versions of this rifle, and it is primarily used for heavy game hunting and sport shooting. Some versions of the rifle are still in service with a few countries around the world, including Madras, Burma and the various Caribbean countries.

Name: Taylor-Jalenson bolt-action rifle

Designer: Patrick Nelly Taylor and George Elliot Jalenson [1] (produced by Royal Small Arms Factory Enfield)

Type: Bolt-action rifle

Caliber: .303 British (7.7x56mm)

Feed system: 10 round detachable box magazine (usually reloaded by magazine [2])

Adopted: 1897-1904 across the British Empire

Users: British Empire, dominions and colonies

Notes: By the time of the eve of the 20th century, the British Army realised that the collection of old rifles that they had in stock at the time were becoming completely useless due to the rapid innovations that weapons had been making since the mid 19th century. Rapid fire bolt action weapons had become the norm in the world, while the single shot muzzle loader and the single shot breech loader had entered its final days as the standard weapons of the day. In the late 1880's the British Army presented an ultimatum to the gun designers of the day to design a bolt action weapon that can counter the famous Dreyse-Mauser Waffenfabrik AG in Prussia and the Winchester Repeating Arms Company in the United States. Two pairs of designers, James Paris Lee & William Ellis Metford and Patrick Nelly Taylor & George Elliot Jalenson won out, but Taylor and Jalenson won out after Lee and Metford bankrupted themselves creating their weapon. The rifle entered service with the British Army in 1897 and gained a prominence for its fast bolt action and powerful round, things that would prove useful during the Great War where it faced Imperial French Army forces carrying French built Lebel-Berthier Modele 1902 rifles. In the field, the Taylor-Jalenson became infamous for its tactic of the "Jalenson Gallop", a tactic where British troops try to fire as many rounds from the rifle down range in a semi-accurate formation in a time for a horse to gallop 5 furlongs, which is about a minute. The rifle was also rugged and reliable, with many rifles managing to survive the rainy storms and sticky French mud and still work afterwards. After the Great War, the rifles continued in service with the British Army until it was finally replaced with the equally famous Batts-Enfield assault rifle in 1953.

[1] These fictional two weapons designers replaced James Paris Lee and William Ellis Metford in the rifle business after the latter two went broke in early 1891, making the Taylor-Jalenson bolt-action rifle for RSAF Enfield. Taylor and Jalenson are presented as fictional rivals to Lee and Metford in ATL.

[2] Differing from OTL policy on reloading the Lee-Enfield, which was reloaded by using two stripper clips, the British Army decided it would be too clumsy to try to reload two 5 round stripper clips in the field, so they used the magazine, which was intended to be fixed on the rifle as the new reload. This helped the SMTJ stay reliable when the Great War rolled around and the magazine protected the rounds from being clogged up by dirt or water.
 
Last edited:
Manchuria, OTL, has a population of roughly 117 million; the total worldwide Russian population is 129 million, roughly. So, with Manchuria, Poland, and other regions added that didn't exist before, the state is very definitely minority Russian.
Manchuria OTL has seen some pretty major immigration from the rest of China post WWII. The growth rate was way higher than the rest of China and developping the fertile soils to help feed China was a major goal of the PRC. I forget quite how early Russia split it off hear, but the population could be only 50-60 million fairly easily in this world.
 
Manchuria OTL has seen some pretty major immigration from the rest of China post WWII. The growth rate was way higher than the rest of China and developping the fertile soils to help feed China was a major goal of the PRC. I forget quite how early Russia split it off hear, but the population could be only 50-60 million fairly easily in this world.

What affect Japanese occupation had to population of Manchuria in OTL? That didn't happen in TTL. And how did OTL Great Leap affect?
 
What affect Japanese occupation had to population of Manchuria in OTL? That didn't happen in TTL. And how did OTL Great Leap affect?
Japan slowed Chinese immigration, but added some Japanese settlers (who were later kicked out). May have affected the Korean population as well, but I'm not sure.

As for the famines of the Great Leap Forward, that was part of why they sent so many settlers up there. It had been a place to send drought/famine struck Chinese peasants since the mid-1700s. (I can't find good numbers post 1800 though, except mentions that it was then that migration picked up.)
 
Japan slowed Chinese immigration, but added some Japanese settlers (who were later kicked out). May have affected the Korean population as well, but I'm not sure.

As for the famines of the Great Leap Forward, that was part of why they sent so many settlers up there. It had been a place to send drought/famine struck Chinese peasants since the mid-1700s. (I can't find good numbers post 1800 though, except mentions that it was then that migration picked up.)

True, although I am considering relatively steady growth considering the near century-long lack of conflict. That, and there probably was some sum of Chinese refugees after the Technocracy was established. I remember reading that many of the refugees from Japanese Hainan fled to the US; a technocratic crackdown on dissidents might have driven a similar exodus to Manchuria.

I still think that, without all the conflicts of the 20th century plaguing Manchuria, even with the lowered settlement (granted, I don't know how many of those killed during the Great Leap forward and how many settled during that time earlier. All the mentions that I see are that immigration picked up as well), the population of Manchuria should approach 25% of the IEF at a minimum (about 95 million). I see them as a major counterweight towards Russian ambitions in general. If Manchuria and enough of the surrounding regions in general stay with the IEF, there actually is a chance for the reformers to win and establish a true minority-majority government. If Manchuria leaves, that alone would turn the IEF majority Russian, which reduces the chance of the survival of the IEF as anything more than a glorified Russian Empire to a large degree.
 
Sure.


A British Army Taylor-Jalenson SMTJ No. 3 bolt-action rifle, with a 10-round magazine and polished wood finish. The No. 3 and No. 4 standards of the SMTJ are the most common versions of this rifle, and it is primarily used for heavy game hunting and sport shooting. Some versions of the rifle are still in service with a few countries around the world, including Madras, Burma and the various Caribbean countries.

Name: Taylor-Jalenson bolt-action rifle

Designer: Patrick Nelly Taylor and George Elliot Jalenson [1] (produced by Royal Small Arms Factory Enfield)

Type: Bolt-action rifle

Caliber: .303 British (7.7x56mm)

Feed system: 10 round detachable box magazine (usually reloaded by magazine [2])

Adopted: 1897-1904 across the British Empire

Users: British Empire, dominions and colonies

Notes: By the time of the eve of the 20th century, the British Army realised that the collection of old rifles that they had in stock at the time were becoming completely useless due to the rapid innovations that weapons had been making since the mid 19th century. Rapid fire bolt action weapons had become the norm in the world, while the single shot muzzle loader and the single shot breech loader had entered its final days as the standard weapons of the day. In the late 1880's the British Army presented an ultimatum to the gun designers of the day to design a bolt action weapon that can counter the famous Dreyse-Mauser Waffenfabrik AG in Prussia and the Winchester Repeating Arms Company in the United States. Two pairs of designers, James Paris Lee & William Ellis Metford and Patrick Nelly Taylor & George Elliot Jalenson won out, but Taylor and Jalenson won out after Lee and Metford bankrupted themselves creating their weapon. The rifle entered service with the British Army in 1897 and gained a prominence for its fast bolt action and powerful round, things that would prove useful during the Great War where it faced Imperial French Army forces carrying French built Lebel-Berthier Modele 1902 rifles. In the field, the Taylor-Jalenson became infamous for its tactic of the "Jalenson Gallop", a tactic where British troops try to fire as many rounds from the rifle down range in a semi-accurate formation in a time for a horse to gallop 5 furlongs, which is about a minute. The rifle was also rugged and reliable, with many rifles managing to survive the rainy storms and sticky French mud and still work afterwards. After the Great War, the rifles continued in service with the British Army until it was finally replaced with the equally famous Batts-Enfield assault rifle in 1953.

[1] These fictional two weapons designers replaced James Paris Lee and William Ellis Metford in the rifle business after the latter two went broke in early 1891, making the Taylor-Jalenson bolt-action rifle for RSAF Enfield. Taylor and Jalenson are presented as fictional rivals to Lee and Metford in ATL.

[2] Differing from OTL policy on reloading the Lee-Enfield, which was reloaded by using two stripper clips, the British Army decided it would be too clumsy to try to reload two 5 round stripper clips in the field, so they used the magazine, which was intended to be fixed on the rifle as the new reload. This helped the SMTJ stay reliable when the Great War rolled around and the magazine protected the rounds from being clogged up by dirt or water.

Very cool! You mention that the Taylor-Jalenson uses a detachable box magazine. I think the photo being for the Lee-Enfield shows a built in magazine. Does anybody know of a similar weapon but with a detachable magazine we could use as substitute photo? Keep up the good work RyderWest. Cheers!
 
Very cool! You mention that the Taylor-Jalenson uses a detachable box magazine. I think the photo being for the Lee-Enfield shows a built in magazine. Does anybody know of a similar weapon but with a detachable magazine we could use as substitute photo? Keep up the good work RyderWest. Cheers!
Well, I saw a video and you can actually detach the magazine on the Lee-Enfield as seen here:

But the problem is that Google is giving me modern weapons with detachable magazines when I search up bolt action rifles with detachable magazines, so no luck there. Besides, this is 1897 in the UK and 36 years after the POD, so I think we can sort of handwave that to be honest.
 
Top