Your Stance in Various Post-1900 AH Scenarios

Read the OP first, please. Choose only 10 out of 20 options, either "yes" or "no&quot


  • Total voters
    107
Important note: Please only choose ten out of twenty options in the poll, one of either "yes" or "no".

Just curious about what will the majority of AH.com think about those scenarios...

1. Was it possible for Austria-Hungary to survive until present day, even if it won the WWI?
Yes, Austria-Hungary could certainly survive as a multi-national state, especially if it won the WWI.
No, multi-national states like Austria-Hungary are doomed to disintegration, with or without victory in WWI.

2. If Ottoman Empire stayed out of WWI, could it survive until present day?
Yes, without the loss in WWI, the Ottomans would be able to survive until present day.
No, Ottoman Empire wouldn't be able to survive until present day. If not in WWI, it will be eventually dismembered either internally or by the West.

3. Without United States intervention, would the Entente still win the WWI?
Yes, the Entente would still win the WWI, the major difference is that it will take longer time and more casualties than in OTL.
No, without the helps from United States, it would be more likely that the WWI will be ended by stalemate or phyrric Central Powers victory.

4. Was a Central Powers victory in WWI much better for the world than an Entente one?
Yes, the victory of the Central Powers would in all likelihood butterfly away Nazism, Communism, etc.
No, the ATL where Central Powers won the WWI would still have its own nastiness.

5. In a war between Nazi Germany and Soviet Union, without intervention and helps from other powers, would Soviet Union still win like in OTL?
Yes, since the Soviet Union had larger manpower and resources, compared to the Nazis..
No, without crucial helps such as Lend-Lease aids from United States, Soviet Union will be succumbed to Nazi onslaught.

6. If Imperial Japan focused its attention to China, would it be able to win in the end?
Yes, the weak and divided China wouldn't stand a chance against the entirety of Imperial Japanese Armed Forces.
No, in the long run it's practically impossible for Japan to conquer China, because of far larger population.

7. Was it possible for United States to not entering the WWII?
Yes, if Japan never attacked the Pearl Harbour, the United States wouldn't have a casus belli to enter the WWII.
No, even without the Pearl Harbour, sooner and later the United States would find a casus belli to declare war on the Axis.

8. If Hitler died before the Operation Barbarossa began, could his successor maintain Nazi dominance over Europe?
Yes, without Barbarossa and the destruction of most of Wehrmacht by the Red Army, the Nazis will dominate Europe for a much longer time.
No, in the long run either Soviet Union or Western Allies will liberate Europe from Nazi tyranny.

9. Was the Sino-Soviet split inevitable?
Yes, it's impossible for China and Soviet Union to remain friendly forever.
No, it's hard to make them stay in one bloc, but not impossible.

10. Was it possible for the Soviet Union to survives until present day?
Yes, with some reforms it's certainly possible for the Soviet Union to survives until present day.
No, a state based on Communism will still collapse eventually, sooner or later.
 
1) The Empire is unlikely in the extreme to make it to 2011. It would have to handle the double-whammy of the renewal of the Ausgleich and Franz Josef kicking the bucket, first.

2) Yes, they actually had a chance given their political and military reforms worked and the same people went on to rule postwar Turkey.

3) Yes, the Central Powers were doomed by 1917 anyway.

4) I don't think so, the Soviet Union's survival is a given unless the Kaiser wants to be the next Nicholas II, and with the USSR and UK plus a USA that would not like German hegemony there's your WWII alliance right there.

5) No, there'd be a gruesome stalemate that militarily wrecks both states but at least winds up with Germans thrown out of the Soviet Union.

6) No. They had from 1937-41 to do that, won every battle they fought, and none of that did anything for them.

7) No. It was already there in 1940 IOTL.

8) No. The Nazi regime was poorly structured to survive him because he wanted it that way.

9) Not inevitable, but probable whenever China feels sufficiently strong.

10) In the sense of a superpower? No. In the sense of a CIS with more teeth? Yes.
 
1) Aye. I guess with a revisited Augsleith in the 20's after a CP victory, a federated Empire could survived till present day.

2) Aye. The Turks, in every case out from Europe after the Balkan wars, could focus their efforts for reforms and keeping control of Middle East.

3) Nay. The Entente's economical situation wasn't better respect to that of the CP. However i guess the war in the West will conclude with a stalemate.

4) Aye. Almost surely, Nazism will never exist. About Communism in Russia, i'm not sure of a German intervention with the whites, but in case of red victory, i guess we will saw a Soviet Russia and not a Soviet Union. I admit however that i'm partially affected to the Kaiserreich scenario about these statement...

5) Aye. But i considered the question in case of one side-war (Barbarossa after peace with the western allies, or Hitler avoided the war with them in someway)

6) Nay. China was too big to control all.

7) Nay. The USA in every case are gearing for war. However, without Pearl Harbor maybe the war with Japan will be avoided at least until the conclusion of the war against the Nazi.

8) Aye. Without Barbarossa, and above all without Hitler, the Axis will be more paradoxally mpre strong in Europe and the UK could agreed to peace talks.

9) Nay. But both China and the URSS prefered to keep their areas of influence, and to not meddle each other.

10) If URSS used better its resources to improve its economy in the 80's instead to partecipate in the military race against the USA, probably it will survived. But most of Eastern Europe will slip away from its control ( Probably only Romania will remained communist).
 
1. No, although not for the reasons stated. Did not vote.

2. I think it would have lost the majority-Arab regions - especially those with oil - and might have lost the majority-Greek and/or Kurdish and/or Armenian areas in subsequent conflicts, but could have survived. Did not vote.

3. I think it's possible, depending on the point of departure, but far from inevitable. Neither answer. Did not vote.

4. I think it would have had better aspects, it would have had worse aspects, and communism was an important social movement before Marx, let alone before Lenin appropriated it. Did not vote.

5. Yes, although the resource differences were far from overwhelming.

6. No, but population wouldn't be enough in itself.

7. When is the point of departure here? If the Nazis suffer major reverses in the early war, the mid/late war could get butterflied away. Did not vote.

8. No.

9. No.

10. Yes, but a state can't be based on communism or any other stateless philosophy.
 
1. Was it possible for Austria-Hungary to survive until present day, even if it won the WWI?

Yes, it was undergoing rapid economic growth and modernization even in the 1910s. While Franz Ferdinand (1863-1914) was not alone in advocating the "granting [of] greater autonomy to ethnic groups within the Empire and addressing their grievances".

A better living standard for its minorities could ensure survival in the long term.

2. If Ottoman Empire stayed out of WWI, could it survive until present day?

The Neoturks essentially managed to build modern Turkey, and they could instead a viable Ottoman Empire. Certain Arab-majority areas could achieve independence, but a smaller and modernized Ottoman Empire could face the challenges of the 21st century. As does the Turkey of or timeline.

3. Without United States intervention, would the Entente still win the WWI?

I could see the various opponents achieving a stalemate. The United Kingdom had trouble recruiting more men and attempts to expand conscription to include Ireland actually backfired. With general strikes all over Ireland and the popular support of Sinn Féin increasing in spectacular rates. France had suffered way too many casualties in failed offensives by 1917. Resulting in a mostly defensive strategy under Philippe Pétain (1856-1951) and low morale throughout the military forces. Italy achieved a number of victories against Austria-Hungary in 1917. But could not successfully invade their opponent due to supply problems. Leaving themselves open to an Austro-Hungarian counter-offensive by October, 1917. Japan had already achieved most of its goals in the Pacific Ocean and limited itself to simply helping allied ships safely travel the seas. Not commiting land forces to the European front.


On the other side, the German Empire achieved major victories over Russia in 1917. But could still not achieve victory in the western Front. Even the transfer of troops from the Russian front n late 1917/early 1918 failed to upset the balance of power. Defeatist attitudes in the populace were spreading wide. While Austria-Hungary managed to take Romania out of the war by 1916, its internal situation was unstable. Spending the last couple of years in the war increasingly depended on German support. Food shortages were increasing. The Ottomans had to face the Arab Revolt and were devoting troops to defending Palestine from invasion. counter-attacks seemed out of the question for them. In the Kingdom of Bulgaria, increasing economic hardship had turned much of the population against the war and the monarchy. With rebellion a likely option.

Had the war continued to 1919, I think all opponents would seek peace or face internal revolts, Russian-style.

4. Was a Central Powers victory in WWI much better for the world than an Entente one?

Any timeline where American banks and their influence are kept away from Europe is going to be better than the OTL. Entente victory came at the price of the United States' allies owing large sums of money to the American banking system. American economic influence expanded during the 1920s. Part of the reason why the Great Depression, starting in the United States, had such devastating effects in Europe was the co-dependence of their systems.

5. In a war between Nazi Germany and Soviet Union, without intervention and helps from other powers, would Soviet Union still win like in OTL?

Yes. Lend-Lease or not, the Five-Year Plans for the National Economy of the Soviet Union had achieved an amazing increase in the industrial capacity of the state. A steady annual industrial growth of 12% to 13%, a policy or recruiting both men and women in the military forces, the availability of resources such as oil, and the total war mentality of the Soviets would overwhelm the Germans.

6. If Imperial Japan focused its attention to China, would it be able to win in the end?

No. They could achieve victory only if they gained the support of the local population. Gaining them as a fresh supply of recruits. Their Three All Policy ensured zero co-operation and zero benefits. Seriously, "Kill All", "Burn All", and "Loot All" in areas you intend to use? See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Alls_Policy and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_East_Asia_Co-Prosperity_Sphere

7. Was it possible for United States to not entering the WWII?

The United States passed the point of no return back in 1940, when they started severing trade relations with Japan. Which were absolutely necessary for the Japanese war effort. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_–_United_States_relations#World_War_II

"Through the 1930s, Japan's oil consumption was dependent at 90% on imports, 80% of it coming from the United States. Furthermore, the vast majority of this oil import was oriented towards the Navy and the military.America opposed Tokyo's expansionist policies in China, the East Indies and the Pacific Islands. On July 26, 1940 the U.S. government passed the Export Control Act, cutting oil, iron and steel exports to Japan.This containment policy was seen by Washington as a warning to Japan that any further military expansion would result in further sanctions. However, Tokyo saw it as a blockade to counter Japanese military and economic strength. Accordingly, by the time the United States enforced the Export Act, Japan had stockpiled around 54 million barrels of oil.America exported oil to Japan until 1940, long after the invasion of Manchuria. Sanctions were too weak and not focused enough to stop the Japanese military at an early stage of expansion. By 1940, the American share of export of oil on the Japanese market dropped to 60%."

"These various actions taken by Washington were nothing compared to the full embargo imposed on Japan in July 1941.[12] All oil shipments were held back and Japanese assets in the United States were to be frozen. Since only 4.5 million barrels of oil were coming in from the Dutch East Indies, Japan's reaction was to organize an attack of the United States on the Pacific front. The attacks on Pearl Harbor were strongly influenced by the energy insecurity which the embargo created."

There is no chance for the United States to not have war with Japan in the 1940s. Though they could probably find a way to peacefully resolve their differences with Nazi Germany.


8. If Hitler died before the Operation Barbarossa began, could his successor maintain Nazi dominance over Europe?

Yes, if Nazi Germany focuses all its efforts in defeating lingering resistance movements and financing or equipping the various separatist movements within the British empire. Leaving Stalin to his own devices for a decade. A more stable Nazi germany could then be organized by administrators more competent than Hitler.

Was the Sino-Soviet split inevitable?

Yes. Ideological differences always existed, so a break between the two Communist parties could actually have been reached even prior to the 1960s. As it was, the split took place when the de-Stalinization of
Nikita Khrushchev (1894-1971, in power 1953-1964) clashed with the Stalinist tendencies of Mao Zedong (1893-1976, in power 1949-1976). If both leaders happen to be in power at the same time, there is no other solution.

Was it possible for the Soviet Union to survives until present day?

Assuming Kruschev manages to maintain a coherent and effective liberalization process. Which actually survives the end of his term. And if efforts to increase the supply of consumer goods actually succeed instead of leading to shortages by the 1980s. I don;t see anyother reasons for it to fall. Perhaps it can survive the fall of the United States. Which due to their adherence to capitalism are doomed to an endless circle of "recession and depression".
 
Last edited:
Yes, it was undergoing rapid economic growth and modernization even in the 1910s. While Franz Ferdinand (1863-1914) was not alone in advocating the "granting [of] greater autonomy to ethnic groups within the Empire and addressing their grievances".

A better living standard for its minorities could ensure survival in the long term.
The problem is that the areas with the fast growing uneasy minorities and the economically growing areas...are different places within the empire.
 
Ottomans and Austrians are odd. I don't see them existing in their beginning of the century big empire form but could Austria-Hungary and Turkey with a monarchy continue? Certainly.

WW1- the US had very little to do with the Entente winning. I don't even see that as much of a question.

CP victory- don't see how it would be better. Sure it nips the immediate problem of Hitler in the bud but makes the potential for a heap of others.

Soviets- a hard one. They did need foreign supplies. But...I think they could eventually pull through left to themselves.

Japan- nah, its not taking China, it lacks the manpower to hold it.

USA in WW2- It was going to enter sooner or later for sure.

Nazi Europe- not going to happen. Even assuming a asb Nazi victory I only give them till the 70s or 80s at the most. The had lots of problems.

Sino-Soviet split- impossible to answer. Would China and the USSR ever have disagreements? Sure, of course they would. Would they certainly be as bad as OTL? No.

Soviets in the present day- sure, it could happen. All it would take would be Russia not changing its name.
 
WW1 things are alll very speculative. Austria-Hngary and the Ottoman Empire could have never survived as what they where at that time. Changes where inevitable. Thats what happens to every country.

The CP was doomed to fail with or without facing USA.

Surrender was no option for the Soviet Union. Much like it was no option for Germany. With the Allies the USSR would have still won against the Nazis, simly because they needed to.

Hm, i really do think Japan could conquer China had it stayed focussed. The country would keep fighting though even after occupation. But the Koumintang could have surrendered.

Stalinism was doomed to collapse. Like i said, it happens to every country.
 
I only answered for those I felt vaguely confident about. Some questions really needed a third or fourth option though.
 
1. No. It was already too far gone by 1914 (hence the hyphenated name)

2. Did Persia survive? Ottoman Empire wouldn't either, it would be cut up by the West and Russia/USSR eventually

3. How would the US stay neutral? If we were completely detached, pyrrhic CP victory. If we help the Entente without sending troops, pyrrhic Entente victory

4. No, a quick Entente victory (quick enough to keep White Russia) would have been better.

5. Aid to USSR definitely helped, but overall, military strategy and the temperament of their leaders (both Hitler and Stalin were crazy in their own ways) could swing this either way.

6. Win a war? Yes. Occupy China indefinitely? No

7. No, something would happen for the US to enter. German raid against America? Another passenger ship sunk? Something will happen, and the public will demand war...

8. Stalin would have invaded Germany in 42 or 43 anyway, so no.

9. I dont think so, but I havent looked into this enough to say for sure.

10. They could survive if they did not try to take on the US in an arms race and occupy half of Europe. Those things cost money and resources that could have kept the Soviet economy strong and its international reputation clean.
 

wormyguy

Banned
1. Sure, Austria-Hungary could survive, if you just get rid of WWI altogether.

2. Sure, either get rid of WWI or have the CP win.

3. The Entente would eventually starve Germany out with the blockade. It was knocking out Austria-Hungary that ended the war anyway.

4. Did not vote on this one, CP plans for Eastern Europe were unpleasant to say the least. Of course you would probably be butterflying Hitler.

5. Yes, the Soviets are the clear favorites in Barbarossa, even unassisted.

6. Not possible.

7. Change the president away from one determined to enter the war and sure.

8. The Soviets will eventually invade, and in any case Naziism was hardly an indefinitely sustainable system.

9. Mao's ego was pretty large, and this would essentially require the Soviets to treat him as a co-equal, but it's possible there could be no split.

10. Sure, the Soviet Union could survive until the present day, though it'd either have adopted a Chinese-style economic system or be on the verge of collapse today.
 
The problem with the Entente winning without the US is that the Entente is pretty exhausted, too. Its a race to see who wises up first.
 
After three days, the poll result is, well...interesting, but not very surprising. It shows how we, the AH.comers, still can't agree on one thing by 100%.

Anyway, to get more votes and thus to see whether the current result will change or not, bump.
 
1- No, A-H in his form was doomed, the new treaty with the Magyar will basically transform the A-H empire in the CIS, a victory can give some some change but only if is very quick, by 1916 even if victoriuos the damage to the economy, to the prestige of the state and the rising of the communist ideology will bring the A-h empire to break

2 - Well this is less clear cut, not in the form of 1914 (politically and territorial) and with a bumpy road but it's very possible.

3 - The entente will win regardless of the direct american intervention

4 - Naa, the only thing that will change will be the name of some actors in the political scene, but in the great scheme will get the same result (yes i'm a little cynical).

5 - Well depend as what you call victory. Repel the Nazi to the pre war border? Yes, go the OTL way till Berlin? Never

6 - No, too much territory and people and not enough resources

7 - Yes, it's a strong possibility

8 - yes...for a decade or two tops, after that the party is over

9 - Yes, both want to be the leader of the communist block and neither like to play second fiddle.

10 - it's possibile, but it will not be the Soviet Union that we know it, probably more like China and with less foreign commitment (Warsaw pact included)
 
Top