Eurofed
Banned
Hmm. I broadly agree, but I have to question whether it's really fair to call all three dynasties "far right". The Legitimists invented the phrase, of course, and their ideological heirs include the NF and quite possibly some sort of fascist French movement in the intebellum. That actual House of Bourbon would alienate people unnecessarily, but as with General Boulanger, the ideological agreement and overlap of personnel could be significent.
The "Orleanists" as a movement had splintered by the late 1870s. The more liberal had generally accepted the republic and become part of its politics, or else drifted away to ideological "Legitimists". And "Bonepartism" was more a statement of a personal conviction about France and politics than a coherent programme. After all, Napoleon III's own regime had been somewhat scatterbrained and ended up thoroughly discredited.
Well, of course you are broadly right as well. I should have more properly spoken of the "far right" fringes of the three traditional factions of the French right. Also that the French far right was mostly fueled by the Legitimist and Bonapartist traditions in the 20th century. Of course, this is mostly true in the broad sense of a general political worldview and set of attitudes and feelings, than in the strict sense of supporters of the various pretender dynasties. The ultra-Catholic, reactionary-authoritarian "Legitimists" and the militarist-imperialist populist-charismatic "Bonapartists". In various combinations, these two components would make up the framework of any French "fascism". And most likely it would end up involving some kind of more talented and resolute Boulanger figure. It may or may not restore the monarchy as a figurehead, even if the true power would be in the hands of the generals and politician strongmen that accomplish the regime change, or the restoration may be promised for the distant future, with the lead strongman officially becoming some kind of "Regent", or the President for life (depending which faction gets the upper hand).
Highly questionable. Ukraine is where the goodies are, and the oil is to be had firstly in the Caucasus. If Russia was to keep the Caucasus and at least Donbas, it might work, but the less the lose, the less reason they have to automatically plot against Germany.
Well, in a CP-cum-Italy victory TL, I would generally expect a CP victory in 1916-17. The war would have gone on long enough for the CPs to build up the animosity and enforce some kind of Brest-Litovsk & reverse Versailles harsh peace of Russia and France. Therefore I expect that Ukraine would almost surely be lost to Russia, including the Donbas. Heck, I would most likely expect a "Greater Ukraine" to be created, with the Don, Rostov, and Kuban regions as well (there were large amounts of Ukrainians in those regions before Stalin wiped them out in the 1930s). Concerning the Caucasus, it may or may not be lost as well, although with the Ottomans in the CPs, and the CPs not as exhausted as the OTL Entente, I think it most likely that the victors would be albe and willing to support the independence of Transcaucasia Federal Republic and the Mountain North Caucasus Republic as their vassals.
However, in this istuation I do expect that Russia would make a concerned effort to develop the natural resources of Siberia and Central Asia ealier than OTL, to fuel its industrialization, economic recovery, and rearmament. If those resources are put to good use, I assume that Russia can grow back mighty enough to unleash its challnege to the CP-led European order, even without Greater Ukraine and the Caucasus.
A possibility not given enough consideration, it seems to me, is "Green Russia" or "Pink Russia": the Bolshevik success was hardly predestined. The "whites" couldn't win the RCW in an Entente victory world, but what if we did something in the style of "A Leninless World"? Menshevik-SR flavoured people take over in the absense of Bolshevik energy and organisation and sign the original B-L. Russia is a lot stronger (the civil war will be a far-right fizzle-out, most likely), ideologically hostile to Germany, yet much more able to find friends.
Well, this is a definite possibility. I agree that Russia would be stronger. Of course, it remains to be seen whether a Green/Pink Russia would be as willing and determinate as a Red/Brown one to follow the revanchist path all the way to a WWII rematch. Its ideological hostility to a German-AH-Italian block that is most likely to evolve towards British-style liberal conservative constitutional monarchies (quite possibly with socialists as influential as in OTL Sweden) might not be so radical. It would find less ideological hostility from the rest of the world, but so would the CPs. The USA would remain aloof (unless Japan brings it in the fray, of course). Britain would have gotten a rather lenient peace, only losing some minor, mostly Mediterranean stuff: Malta, Cyprus, Somaliland, little else, and giving back the German and Italian colonies. As such, I assume that the British Empire would made its peace with the CP hegemony long ago when WWII looms, and appetite in Britain for a rematch would be rather limited.
Last edited: