Alternate History Thread(CLOSED)

[Exalted Inquellian State]

After Hitler died the fascist council of leaders declared the new German led empire a multi political party democratic capitalist nation. Welcoming Jews as rich respected business man, business women, and Council of Ministers. The Greater German led empire recognized Israel as the main nation of the Jewish People. Recognized a Palestinian State of Palestine as the main nation of the Palestinian People. Happy ending for all at the end.

Ha! That happy ending reminds me of my timeline for the CSA winning. CSA wins the Civil War. They keep their slaves because slavery is in the Confederate constitution. In the twenties or thereabouts, the slaves revolt in a communist revolution and the South becomes less racist. The North becomes more racist due to the first Red Scare making Northers see everything "commie" as evil, and racial tolerance as commie due to the communist South suddenly adopting it. The North turns fascist in response to the "Southern Bolsheviks" and joins the Axis. The Allies still win, but barely, and the North maintains its power and economy. When the Cold War ends, the South stops being communist and turns into a racial utopia. The North remains a quasi-democratic dictatorship with no freedoms and a great economy. The North is now invading the South because the North's leader thinks there is an oppressed white minority.

How in the hell did they not amend the constitution before the 20's? Also, there probably would be an oppressed white minority.

[Voxija]

Ha! That happy ending reminds me of my timeline for the CSA winning. CSA wins the Civil War. They keep their slaves because slavery is in the Confederate constitution. In the twenties or thereabouts, the slaves revolt in a communist revolution and the South becomes less racist. The North becomes more racist due to the first Red Scare making Northers see everything "commie" as evil, and racial tolerance as commie due to the communist South suddenly adopting it. The North turns fascist in response to the "Southern Bolsheviks" and joins the Axis. The Allies still win, but barely, and the North maintains its power and economy. When the Cold War ends, the South stops being communist and turns into a racial utopia. The North remains a quasi-democratic dictatorship with no freedoms and a great economy. The North is now invading the South because the North's leader thinks there is an oppressed white minority.

How in the hell did they not amend the constitution before the 20's? Also, there probably would be an oppressed white minority.

The South was an agricultural economy where slavery is good economically in the short term (edit: inertia is hard to shake), and a society founded on white supremacy is hard to shake off white supremacy, just ask South Africa. But my timeline was constructed specifically to get to the point where the North is invading the South for similar reasons as Putin.

[Feyrisshire]

Well, I guess he would find a middle ground i.e- integrating all former Russian imperial territories, along with all Slavic territories, to form the U.S.S.S.R- Union of Soviet Socialist Slavic Republics.

Also, you said SUCCESSFUL revolution- so would he attempt revolution before or after 1933?

I don't really think that Stalin and Trotsky would materially differ much in foreign policy. Trotsky's "world revolution" and Stalin's "Socialism in One Country" might have looked much different in theory but in practice they would have been probably the same - because Stalin under Socialism in One Country was not isolationist. Stalin sent weapons to Spanish Republicans, he sent aid to the KMT, supported DPRK. Trotsky would have done the same.

More material differences of a Trotsky-led USSR would have been the continuation of War Communism and differences towards the Soviet bureaucracy.

[Exalted Inquellian State]

How in the hell did they not amend the constitution before the 20's? Also, there probably would be an oppressed white minority.

The South was an agricultural economy where slavery is good economically in the short term (edit: inertia is hard to shake), and a society founded on white supremacy is hard to shake off white supremacy, just ask South Africa. But my timeline was constructed specifically to get to the point where the North is invading the South for similar reasons as Putin.

I mean, that"s how Category III timelines are made(one's that prioritize the Rule of Cool). Regarding slavery though, the industrial revolution could replace all that. Also, Slaves are very, VERY, costly. That and the fact that the rest of the world banned it, in addition to the fact about a third of their population was slaves in the civil war, means that they would see a clear reason for reform.

[Exalted Inquellian State]

Well, I guess he would find a middle ground i.e- integrating all former Russian imperial territories, along with all Slavic territories, to form the U.S.S.S.R- Union of Soviet Socialist Slavic Republics.

Also, you said SUCCESSFUL revolution- so would he attempt revolution before or after 1933?

I don't really think that Stalin and Trotsky would materially differ much in foreign policy. Trotsky's "world revolution" and Stalin's "Socialism in One Country" might have looked much different in theory but in practice they would have been probably the same - because Stalin under Socialism in One Country was not isolationist. Stalin sent weapons to Spanish Republicans, he sent aid to the KMT, supported DPRK. Trotsky would have done the same.

More material differences of a Trotsky-led USSR would have been the continuation of War Communism and differences towards the Soviet bureaucracy.

Well, you're probably right. But since Trotsky pushed it form the beginning, I guess he would still try to unite all Slavs, Mongols, and Fins.

[Greater Miami Shores]

What if America collapsed, depending on the timeline? What if Spain had won the Spanish American war? What if Batista had not made his biggest mistake of letting Fidel out of Prison. 2 alternate histories. Cuba would still be the loyal isle island province of España La Madre Patria, which I would support. Cuba would be a prosperous democratic multi political party capitalist nation. Greater Miami would be a province of Cuba, Cuba would be a regional province of Miami. Making my impossible dream come true. Led by Popular Conservative Republican Nationalist Party President Lincoln Diaz-Balart and Vice President Ileana Ros-Lehtinen. They would be elected together as a Presidential ticket for two maximum consecutive 5 year terms. The Vice President would serve as the President's Chief of Staff of The Council of Ministers, Personal advisor to the President, and tie breaker on the President's behalf in the 100 members Parliament of Parliament Representatives.

Future Popular two consecutive 5 year terms Conservative Republican Nationalist Party Presidents:

1 President Lincoln Diaz-Balart.
1 Vice President Ileana Ros-Lehtinen.
Jewish Cuban on her mothers side, married to a Finnish Jew, has been to Israel at least once and considers herself a strong supporter of Israel and the Jewish People.
Father of Cuban Spaniard descent.

2 President Ileana Ros-Lehtinen.
2 Vice President Mel Martinez.

3 President Mel Martinez.
3 Vice President Marco Rubio.

4 President Marco Rubio.
4 Vice President Giovanni Corrado.

5 President Giovanni Corrado.
5 Vice President Eddie Gonzalez.
Giovanni Corrado of Italian birth and descent, the first Popular non Cuban Vice President and President.

Making my impossible dream come true.

[Feyrisshire]

Well, you're probably right. But since Trotsky pushed it form the beginning

Trotsky was not the one who first came up with "world communism". It was Karl Marx who first thought that the proletariat (working class) had to cooperate internationally to establish world socialism hence "Workers of the world, unite". The debate came when the Bolsheviks realized that capitalist countries in Europe are not going to fall to revolution soon, so the need for "Socialism in One Country".

I guess he would still try to unite all Slavs, Mongols, and Fins.

Lol, this was no one's goal in the USSR. The USSR stopped its expansion at the Baltics, Belarus and Ukraine since this was all the lands they can realistically annex i.e Russian historical borders as an excuse for a buffer. Annexing anyone such as "trying to unite all Slavs" is simply out of the question and is contrary to Marxist ideology.

[Exalted Inquellian State]

Well, you're probably right. But since Trotsky pushed it form the beginning

Trotsky was not the one who first came up with "world communism". It was Karl Marx who first thought that the proletariat (working class) had to cooperate internationally to establish world socialism hence "Workers of the world, unite". The debate came when the Bolsheviks realized that capitalist countries in Europe are not going to fall to revolution soon, so the need for "Socialism in One Country".

I guess he would still try to unite all Slavs, Mongols, and Fins.

Lol, this was no one's goal in the USSR. The USSR stopped its expansion at the Baltics, Belarus and Ukraine since this was all the lands they can realistically annex i.e Russian historical borders as an excuse for a buffer. Annexing anyone such as "trying to unite all Slavs" is simply out of the question and is contrary to Marxist ideology.

Why did the USSR invade Poland while in a civil war then? Poland was a Slavic nation. And Russian historical land. The last part goes to Mongolia and Finland.

[The Two Jerseys]

I had to vote for Soviet anime, it's the derpiest option there.

I promised to make a serious and detailed alt history timeline for "What if anime and hentai was made in the USSR" if it ever wins the poll.

Everyone get out there and vote!

Make Anime Soviet Again!

[Feyrisshire]

Why did the USSR invade Poland while in a civil war then? Poland was a Slavic nation. And Russian historical land.

But the USSR did not annex all of Poland, they left it independent as the Polish People's Republic. They also did not invade it to "unite all Slavs" but as a result of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Tsarist Russia also did not get all Poland, only a part of it (Congress Poland). If USSR wanted to restore Tsarist historical territory, why didn't they get Warsaw which was part of Tsarist Congress Poland?

The last part goes to Mongolia and Finland.

Mongolia was also not annexed by the USSR. It was left independent as the Mongolian People's Republic. The USSR also did not get all of Finland, which was historically owned by Tsarist Russia as the Grand Duchy of Finland.

[Exalted Inquellian State]

Why did the USSR invade Poland while in a civil war then? Poland was a Slavic nation. And Russian historical land.

But the USSR did not annex all of Poland, they left it independent as the Polish People's Republic. They also did not invade it to "unite all Slavs" but as a result of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Tsarist Russia also did not get all Poland, only a part of it (Congress Poland). If USSR wanted to restore Tsarist historical territory, why didn't they get Warsaw which was part of Tsarist Congress Poland?

The last part goes to Mongolia and Finland.

Mongolia was also not annexed by the USSR. It was left independent as the Mongolian People's Republic. The USSR also did not get all of Finland, which was historically owned by Tsarist Russia as the Grand Duchy of Finland.

When I'm talking about Poland, I'm talking about the Polish-Soviet War between 1919 and 1921. Also, if they did annex Congress Poland, keeping the rest free wouldn't make to much sense. Finland(if it completely lost) would likely also be annexed. Mongolia I can undestand however, so I'll give you that.

[Feyrisshire]

When I'm talking about Poland, I'm talking about the Polish-Soviet War between 1919 and 1921. Also, if they did annex Congress Poland, keeping the rest free wouldn't make to much sense.

But then again the Polish-Soviet War was started by both sides who have reason to go to war - Lenin wanted to use Poland to be able to spread Communism to Germany while Jozef Pilsudski wanted to break up Russia.

And if they intend to keep the rest free, then it begs the question of if they really intend to annex...

Finland(if it completely lost) would likely also be annexed. Mongolia I can undestand however, so I'll give you that.

It's clear that annexing Finland simply wasn't the USSR's goal from the start. Vladimir Lenin and the Bolsheviks recognized Finland's Declaration of independence in 1918.

[Exalted Inquellian State]

When I'm talking about Poland, I'm talking about the Polish-Soviet War between 1919 and 1921. Also, if they did annex Congress Poland, keeping the rest free wouldn't make to much sense.

But then again the Polish-Soviet War was started by both sides who have reason to go to war - Lenin wanted to use Poland to be able to spread Communism to Germany while Jozef Pilsudski wanted to break up Russia.

And if they intend to keep the rest free, then it begs the question of if they really intend to annex...

Finland(if it completely lost) would likely also be annexed. Mongolia I can undestand however, so I'll give you that.

It's clear that annexing Finland simply wasn't the USSR's goal from the start. Vladimir Lenin and the Bolsheviks recognized Finland's Declaration of independence in 1918.

Well, Trotsky wasn't Lenin. He would likely want to spread the revolution to Finland (something his more successful rival decreased to taking borderlands), and want to annex Poland. As you said, he probably wouldn't be idiotic enough to take over Germany, but he would, in my opinion, use Poland to invade another nearby state- Czechoslovakia.

[Pax Nerdvana]

Interesting thread! A while ago I had started putting together a timeline where the Space Race continued because the Soviets put a man on the Moon right after Apollo 11.

[Feyrisshire]

Well, Trotsky wasn't Lenin. He would likely want to spread the revolution to Finland (something his more successful rival decreased to taking borderlands), and want to annex Poland.

You don’t need to annex countries to spread a socialist revolution to them, you only need to make them socialist. The USSR was limited in areas it can annex i.e Belarus, Ukraine, Baltics, Kresy as large annexations would be against Bolshevik policy on the “national question”.

Trotsky wasn’t Lenin, but he was also a Marxist and a Bolshevik and neither did he disagree with the Bolshevik stance on the national question or what Lenin did with Finland. He would simply continue previous Bolshevik foreign policy such as an independent socialist Finland and an independent socialist Poland, as annexing Poland outright - a country with a clear case for independence would be unimaginable.

As you said, he probably wouldn't be idiotic enough to take over Germany, but he would, in my opinion, use Poland to invade another nearby state- Czechoslovakia.

Again, you don’t need to annex a country to put troops to them, you just need to put a friendly government. This was also all things that were already done by Stalin in OTL, and he also was successfully able to take over Germany (but only a small part of it).

[Exalted Inquellian State]

Well, Trotsky wasn't Lenin. He would likely want to spread the revolution to Finland (something his more successful rival decreased to taking borderlands), and want to annex Poland.

You don’t need to annex countries to spread a socialist revolution to them, you only need to make them socialist. The USSR was limited in areas it can annex i.e Belarus, Ukraine, Baltics, Kresy as large annexations would be against Bolshevik policy on the “national question”.

Trotsky wasn’t Lenin, but he was also a Marxist and a Bolshevik and neither did he disagree with the Bolshevik stance on the national question or what Lenin did with Finland. He would simply continue previous Bolshevik foreign policy such as an independent socialist Finland and an independent socialist Poland, as annexing Poland outright - a country with a clear case for independence would be unimaginable.

As you said, he probably wouldn't be idiotic enough to take over Germany, but he would, in my opinion, use Poland to invade another nearby state- Czechoslovakia.

Again, you don’t need to annex a country to put troops to them, you just need to put a friendly government. This was also all things that were already done by Stalin in OTL, and he also was successfully able to take over Germany (but only a small part of it).

In 1918, the central powers offered peace to Russia. And I'm not talking about the second brest-litovsk, I'm talking abut the first. In the original version, Russia would have kept Ukraine and Belarus. Trotsky, who had significant weight in the delegation, objected, which lead to another German offensive that culminated in a harsher treaty for Russia and cost the central powers the war. It's clear Trotsky believed in the "no annexations, no indemnities" slogans of the Bolsheviks. He wanted to preserve the Russia Imperial territory(maybe besides Finland) as a socialist state. Regarding Pan-Slavic ethnic borders, there were socialist leaders that advocated those, like Tito.

You know, since we're discussing this so much, we might as well add it to the poll.

[Feyrisshire]

In 1918, the central powers offered peace to Russia. And I'm not talking about the second brest-litovsk, I'm talking abut the first. In the original version, Russia would have kept Ukraine and Belarus.

There was no "original" or first version of Brest-Litovsk where Russia would have kept Ukraine or Belarus. The first Brest-Litovsk was signed in Feb 9 1918 with Ukraine making it independent away from Russia. Ukraine wanted to be free anyway.

Russia not losing any of its territory was not going to happen as the Central Powers' intention was to break up Russian territory anyway, no matter what the Bolsheviks say "peace without annexations".

Trotsky, who had significant weight in the delegation, objected, which lead to another German offensive that culminated in a harsher treaty for Russia and cost the central powers the war. It's clear Trotsky believed in the "no annexations, no indemnities" slogans of the Bolsheviks. He wanted to preserve the Russia Imperial territory(maybe besides Finland) as a socialist state.

You are assuming motives when they are not present.

It's no surprise that Bolsheviks, including Trotsky would be against a further German incursion into Russian territory (as any Russian would be). The reason Trotsky rejected was he wanted to delay the signing of the treaty to get support from the Entente or to wait if a German proletariat revolution would come - not to "preserve Russia Imperial territory"

The Bolshevik rhetoric "No annexations, no indemnities" as present with Trotsky or Lenin's Soviet Decree of Peace does not refer to Russia alone, but it's more of an anti-war internationalist call where annexations are condemned as against self-determination. The Bolsheviks call that all nations sign a peace "without annexations and indemnities". You can read the whole context of it in The Soviet Decree of Peace.

And again Trotsky never wrote anything about operating on a concept of Russian irredentism i.e "Russia Imperial territory" and again, he simply does not differ with Lenin on the Bolshevik stance on the "national question"

Regarding Pan-Slavic ethnic borders, there were socialist leaders that advocated those, like Tito.

I don't know how would you define "Pan-Slavic" but Tito never called for wider Slavic unity or Pan-slavism of some sort. His idea the "Brotherhood and unity" is not centered only on Slavs, but that the Slavic nations in Yugoslavia and its minorities, both Slavs and non-Slavs are equal to each other.

You know, since we're discussing this so much, we might as well add it to the poll.

I think you shouldn't the change the poll for now, since a day has already passed and many people have already voted.

[Exalted Inquellian State]

In 1918, the central powers offered peace to Russia. And I'm not talking about the second brest-litovsk, I'm talking abut the first. In the original version, Russia would have kept Ukraine and Belarus.

There was no "original" or first version of Brest-Litovsk where Russia would have kept Ukraine or Belarus. The first Brest-Litovsk was signed in Feb 9 1918 with Ukraine making it independent away from Russia. Ukraine wanted to be free anyway.

Russia not losing any of its territory was not going to happen as the Central Powers' intention was to break up Russian territory anyway, no matter what the Bolsheviks say "peace without annexations".

Trotsky, who had significant weight in the delegation, objected, which lead to another German offensive that culminated in a harsher treaty for Russia and cost the central powers the war. It's clear Trotsky believed in the "no annexations, no indemnities" slogans of the Bolsheviks. He wanted to preserve the Russia Imperial territory(maybe besides Finland) as a socialist state.

Alright, fine, you win. However, the central powers did originally offer lighter terms. Ukraine kinda sorta declared it's own independence before.
You are assuming motives when they are not present.

It's no surprise that Bolsheviks, including Trotsky would be against a further German incursion into Russian territory (as any Russian would be). The reason Trotsky rejected was he wanted to delay the signing of the treaty to get support from the Entente or to wait if a German proletariat revolution would come - not to "preserve Russia Imperial territory"

The Bolshevik rhetoric "No annexations, no indemnities" as present with Trotsky or Lenin's Soviet Decree of Peace does not refer to Russia alone, but it's more of an anti-war internationalist call where annexations are condemned as against self-determination. The Bolsheviks call that all nations sign a peace "without annexations and indemnities". You can read the whole context of it in The Soviet Decree of Peace.

And again Trotsky never wrote anything about operating on a concept of Russian irredentism i.e "Russia Imperial territory" and again, he simply does not differ with Lenin on the Bolshevik stance on the "national question"

Regarding Pan-Slavic ethnic borders, there were socialist leaders that advocated those, like Tito.

I don't know how would you define "Pan-Slavic" but Tito never called for wider Slavic unity or Pan-slavism of some sort. His idea the "Brotherhood and unity" is not centered only on Slavs, but that the Slavic nations in Yugoslavia and its minorities, both Slavs and non-Slavs are equal to each other.

You know, since we're discussing this so much, we might as well add it to the poll.

I think you shouldn't the change the poll for now, since a day has already passed and many people have already voted.

[Feyrisshire]

Why are you quoting me?

[Exalted Inquellian State]

Why are you quoting me?

I thought I typed it in. Anyway, fine, I admit it, you won. But the Germans actually did propose a slightly more lax treaty on the Bolsheviks. Ukraine declared independence on it own.

[Exalted Inquellian State]

Alright guys, this is our chance. Everyone, vote for Alexander living to old age!

[Dominioan]

Alt history made up on if the CSA won the civil war. Any constructive criticism is appreciated =3

The CSA wins the civil war and gains their independence. Both sides are severely weakened by the war, and since they didn't unite, they never had access to each others industries to help each other get back on their feet. However, the South is the much weaker one, since they rely on mostly human labor over factories. Slaves continue to migrate to the North, and provided it with labor and support. The South continued to barely hold on, thanks mostly to trade from Britain and France. But as slavery continued there, they eventually withdrew their support as the CSA was still very pro-slavery. The North had managed to become powerful again, and the South was still full of angry slaves. Eventually they, with support from the North, overthrew the government and set up a communist system akin to the Soviet Union. The North made them be fair to the former masters, may of which emigrated to avoid prosecution. The CSA, now the United Peoples Socialist States of America (UPSSA), was very close to the Soviet Union. When WW1 rolled around, they remained mostly neutral until the North joined the conflict on the Allies side. The Allies still won, but barely, as the UPSSA took every action to disturb the North (The American Republic). When WW2 came, they joined the Allies with the Soviet Union. When the cold war came around, the North was outmatched. On Christmas Day, a joint attack by the USSR and the UPSSA captured Washington, and used their own nukes against them. The UPSSA annexed the Eastern half of the AR, and the western half became the Communist Colonies of the Soviet Union (CCSU). Thanks too the two countries supporting each other, the authoritarian communist system survived into the 21st century. Most of the Americas and Asia became communist over time, and Europe and Africa became the capitalist hubs for power.

[Exalted Inquellian State]

Alt history made up on if the CSA won the civil war. Any constructive criticism is appreciated =3

The CSA wins the civil war and gains their independence. Both sides are severely weakened by the war, and since they didn't unite, they never had access to each others industries to help each other get back on their feet. However, the South is the much weaker one, since they rely on mostly human labor over factories. Slaves continue to migrate to the North, and provided it with labor and support. The South continued to barely hold on, thanks mostly to trade from Britain and France. But as slavery continued there, they eventually withdrew their support as the CSA was still very pro-slavery. The North had managed to become powerful again, and the South was still full of angry slaves. Eventually they, with support from the North, overthrew the government and set up a communist system akin to the Soviet Union. The North made them be fair to the former masters, may of which emigrated to avoid prosecution. The CSA, now the United Peoples Socialist States of America (UPSSA), was very close to the Soviet Union. When WW1 rolled around, they remained mostly neutral until the North joined the conflict on the Allies side. The Allies still won, but barely, as the UPSSA took every action to disturb the North (The American Republic). When WW2 came, they joined the Allies with the Soviet Union. When the cold war came around, the North was outmatched. On Christmas Day, a joint attack by the USSR and the UPSSA captured Washington, and used their own nukes against them. The UPSSA annexed the Eastern half of the AR, and the western half became the Communist Colonies of the Soviet Union (CCSU). Thanks too the two countries supporting each other, the authoritarian communist system survived into the 21st century. Most of the Americas and Asia became communist over time, and Europe and Africa became the capitalist hubs for power.

How did they become friends with the USSR before WW1, when it didn't exist. Also, the Soviet Union was against colonization, so if you want them to annex the western side at all (unlikely, since the USSR didn't have many warm water posts in it's east), yu'll need to make them a soviet protectorate.

[Dominioan]

Alt history made up on if the CSA won the civil war. Any constructive criticism is appreciated =3

The CSA wins the civil war and gains their independence. Both sides are severely weakened by the war, and since they didn't unite, they never had access to each others industries to help each other get back on their feet. However, the South is the much weaker one, since they rely on mostly human labor over factories. Slaves continue to migrate to the North, and provided it with labor and support. The South continued to barely hold on, thanks mostly to trade from Britain and France. But as slavery continued there, they eventually withdrew their support as the CSA was still very pro-slavery. The North had managed to become powerful again, and the South was still full of angry slaves. Eventually they, with support from the North, overthrew the government and set up a communist system akin to the Soviet Union. The North made them be fair to the former masters, may of which emigrated to avoid prosecution. The CSA, now the United Peoples Socialist States of America (UPSSA), was very close to the Soviet Union. When WW1 rolled around, they remained mostly neutral until the North joined the conflict on the Allies side. The Allies still won, but barely, as the UPSSA took every action to disturb the North (The American Republic). When WW2 came, they joined the Allies with the Soviet Union. When the cold war came around, the North was outmatched. On Christmas Day, a joint attack by the USSR and the UPSSA captured Washington, and used their own nukes against them. The UPSSA annexed the Eastern half of the AR, and the western half became the Communist Colonies of the Soviet Union (CCSU). Thanks too the two countries supporting each other, the authoritarian communist system survived into the 21st century. Most of the Americas and Asia became communist over time, and Europe and Africa became the capitalist hubs for power.

How did they become friends with the USSR before WW1, when it didn't exist. Also, the Soviet Union was against colonization, so if you want them to annex the western side at all (unlikely, since the USSR didn't have many warm water posts in it's east), yu'll need to make them a soviet protectorate.

Cool thx. Whats your CSA alt, if you have one?

[Exalted Inquellian State]

How did they become friends with the USSR before WW1, when it didn't exist. Also, the Soviet Union was against colonization, so if you want them to annex the western side at all (unlikely, since the USSR didn't have many warm water posts in it's east), yu'll need to make them a soviet protectorate.

Cool thx. Whats your CSA alt, if you have one?

Well, I don't have one. For now, Turtledove's 191 timeline is the closest to me, except the whole "nazi CSA"