Tsarist Russia survives WW I: how does China develop?

I don't see why the allies wouldn't embrace Italy taking her share of the OE. After all, it WAS what was agreed and Italy would be alot more capable of contesting any other power's attempts to throw their weight around in the region than Greece would be (which I think both the Russians and the British would like, since both would be worried about the other being too strong in the Eastern Med).

Because Greece is more pliable to their interest/demand while Italy is competition in the game of the Great Power and there are just too many partecipant (Russia, UK and France).
Plus what was agreed in OTL was not even worth the ink used to written the treaty, so i doubt that ITTL will be different expecially with Wilson involved.
 
Who are they going to shell the shares to?

The only people that have money are the Americans, and I dont think they're interested in Russia.

As I previously noted, in the French case at least, overseas investment had mostly recovered by the mid 20s.

fasquardon
 
Prior to WW1 - the US had a fairly good relationship with Tsarist Russia. (Quite a lot of the Russian Navy was built in the US). American investment in the Russia was quite good and growing.

Russia had (as it still does) a lot of natural resources - why wouldn't they invest in a capitalist Russia if there is money to be made?

Fair enough.
 
Quote:
I don't see why the allies wouldn't embrace Italy taking her share of the OE. After all, it WAS what was agreed and Italy would be alot more capable of contesting any other power's attempts to throw their weight around in the region than Greece would be (which I think both the Russians and the British would like, since both would be worried about the other being too strong in the Eastern Med).

Because Greece is more pliable to their interest/demand while Italy is competition in the game of the Great Power and there are just too many partecipant (Russia, UK and France).
Plus what was agreed in OTL was not even worth the ink used to written the treaty, so i doubt that ITTL will be different expecially with Wilson involved.

Would Wilson be as involved ITTL?

And Wilson didn't stop the division of the ME between France/Britain - other than mitigating their control as LoN Mandates.

Greece's claims to Anatolia were significant - they wanted virtually all of it. and they wanted all of European Turkey (Thrace) and Constantinople - which they wanted as their new capital.

They particularly wanted Pontus and the area around Sinope on the Black Sea -- where there was then a Large Greek population. As well as the Aegean Coast - where there was also a large Greek Population.

And I don't see how other Entente Powers could stop them taking "their share' of Anatolia without a direct confrontation. Besides Italy didn't want much.

Only Anatalya Province.
 
Would Wilson be as involved ITTL?

Wilson will be involved in any case, due to the US being a Great Power and holding a lot of Entente debt, what will change will be the level of influence he will have, plus the presence of another player will cause more negotiation.



Greece's claims to Anatolia were significant - they wanted virtually all of it. and they wanted all of European Turkey (Thrace) and Constantinople - which they wanted as their new capital.

And Russia wanted the control of the strait...thing that nobody in France or Great Britain desire.



And I don't see how other Entente Powers could stop them taking "their share' of Anatolia without a direct confrontation. Besides Italy didn't want much.

Only Anatalya Province.[/QUOTE]

The region of Smyrne was promised/assigned to Italy, plus there is the dodecanese question and in any case both Paris and London in OTL considered Italy getting a foothold in ME not a good thing and tried to limit their 'acquisition', this was one of the reason in supporting Greece claims.

And how Greece can be stopped? In the same way of Italy...holding back loans and witholding political and material support.
 
Wilson will be involved in any case, due to the US being a Great Power and holding a lot of Entente debt, what will change will be the level of influence he will have, plus the presence of another player will cause more negotiation.

A lower level of Wilsonian influence - means that Entente Agreements are more likely to stand unchallenged.

And Russia wanted the control of the strait...thing that nobody in France or Great Britain desire.

I don't believe France & Britain cared about the straits in particular - it was Russia taking over the entire Ottoman Empire (a nineteenth century fear) -- and or an uncontrolled collapse of the Ottoman Empire that they wanted to avoid.

This would have been an agreed division of the Turkey between the Entente Powers - with main beneficiaries Russia, France & Britain getting the bits they want and Italy, Greece and potentially Bulgaria (if they came in on the Entente side in September 1915) getting Thrace.

I don't think France & Britain would have cared a jot about the Straits.

The region of Smyrne was promised/assigned to Italy, plus there is the dodecanese question and in any case both Paris and London in OTL considered Italy getting a foothold in ME not a good thing and tried to limit their 'acquisition', this was one of the reason in supporting Greece claims.

And how Greece can be stopped? In the same way of Italy...holding back loans and witholding political and material support.

Treaty of London only gave Italy Anatalya Province in Turkey -- not Smyrna?

And I don't see why the entente powers would stop Greece - they didn't in the OTL.

Also remember that the Sykes Picot Agreement was only partly carried out in the OTL -- it assigned much of Turkey/Anatolia to Russia & France.

France after their invasion did make a half hearted foray into south eastern Turkey - but didn't stay.

But with Russian 'feet on the ground' in Armenia AND with the Russians raising hell over the Genocide....the French would go in.

The Tsar would shout about genocide to the hills to discredit the Turks and justify their presence.

And if a war weary France & Russia were facing Ataturk's Nationalist resistance - having Greece in (to do most of the Fighting) would be quite useful.

As for Italy if stayed or went - probably wouldn't make a huge difference - I suspect they would stay - they did briefly land troops in Anatalya - it was only the prospect of fighting a major war there that led them to pull out
 
Paris and London in OTL considered Italy getting a foothold in ME not a good thing
.

The Italians already had Libya - so they had a foothold.

Why was not a good thing?

And do you have a source?

No different to what the French/British/Spanish were doing/did in North Africa & the ME.
 
Frankly I don't see a Tsarist Russia quarrelling with either France or Britain over the division of the Ottoman Turkish Empire or indeed in China.

The Anglo-Russian Entente 1907 had resolved the various Asian disputes & I don't see why the various agreements made during WW1 wouldn't do the same.

Britain & France made an agreement in 1915 with Russia over the division of Turkey - giving Armenia and the Straits to Russia. After the February Revolution 1917 they re-confirmed their commitment to give these territories to Provisional Government.

They made similar agreements to Italy & Greece and in the OTL lived up to them. the fact that Greece & Italy didn't succeed in keeping those territories was not due to France & Britain

Where I do see Britain & France's relations cooling to ice is with Tsarist Russia is over Poland.

Russia's war aim was to re-unite all of the Polish Territories into a Kingdom of Poland under the Tsar. To that affect they promised Autonomy to Poland. (Manifesto to the Polish Nation).

If the Poles decided to resist, which is very probable OR if Russia reneged and didn't give autonomy, which is possible, then there is conflict.

And potentially oppression and quite possibly a little massacre or two.

Then Anglo-Russian relations cool.....
 
After 1925.

IF the KMT's Northern Expedition starts in 1926 - I expect the Russians would at first be complacent (as were the British & French) but would look with concern if Nanking falls.

The big difference is that there would be no Comintern to fund the KMT/CPC. So would the KMT ever re-establish itself?


Without Soviet Russia, there would be no CCP, and without Soviet support the KMT could not even survive the internal squabbles in Guangdong.
 
The Italians already had Libya - so they had a foothold.

In North Africa and at Versailles they have tried to give to Italy the least possible even there

Why was not a good thing?

Because they don't want competition

And do you have a source?

Italy foreign policy in the intewar period by Burgwyn is good as any book about the conference of Versailles


No different to what the French/British/Spanish were doing/did in North Africa & the ME.

Yep, but they don't want to share the pie with anybody else or at least with someone that can be considered a menace at their interest; simple great power politics, nothing of new.
 
Top