Miscellaneous <1900 (Alternate) History Thread

[NedStark]

Maybe the Union would still be democratic, but instead of growing weaker Philadelphia decides to pull an Anglo-Russian Convention with the Confederacy (albeit with gritted teeth), for two key reasons:

One, the Union is willing to recognise Confederate control over Nicaragua (the CSA wants their Nicaragua Canal and has already built it ITTL) and formerly Spanish Cuba and Puerto Rico in exchange for Confederate recognition of Baja California as rightful Union territory. The CSA agrees, and even cedes Chihuahua and Sonora to the Union to allay Union fears about being encircled, since they would lose to the Union in the event of another war and already have access to the Pacific thanks to the Nicaragua Canal anyway.

Two, the threat of an expansionist Japan to the west. The Union and Confederacy decide that it's better to cooperate in fending off Japanese influence in the Pacific and Americas than to let Japan pit them against each other and take the spoils in the event of yet another Union-Confederate war. The Union might be a democracy, but still not exactly super welcoming to the Asian races by any means.

Maybe when the alt-USSR forms, things will really go to shit for both the US and the Confederacy, what with this alt-USSR backing vanguardist (TTL's analogue for communists) movements in North America and the internal unrest within both states contributing towards their defeat at the hands of the United States of Mitteleuropa (basically a merger of the German and Austro-Hungarian Empires) and the remaining Allied Powers (mainly Italy and Spain, plus a Bonapartist France that switched sides to prevent the total collapse of their empire) as their own people rise up in revolt.

In that case, the Confederate would have been the junior partner.

I don’t see Japan progress faster than IOTL. They won’t be a threat until the 1920s. Besides, since the Confederacy has no presence in the Pacific, they should not worry about Japan.

Plus, unlike the Confederacy, the Union would not suffer much instability and unrest. Also, over the long run there would be more Progressive social/political reforms passed in TTL Union - and that would marginalize communism.

I will have to note that IOTL, US North had as much industry as Britain and Germany combined by 1914, and was running away from both powers even before OTL WW1. It would have dwarfed this “United States of Mitteleuropa”, since A-H is not going to surpass Britain, not in the 1910s-1930s. Plus, there is an entire Atlantic Ocean separating US and Europe.

 

[Grey Wolf]

Say there's no Hapsburg Spain but OTL's colonial conquests go more or less as OTL. Is there a scenario where the Spanish pursue an imperial title through their claim of being the Sapa Inca? OTL the Spanish attached the title of Sapa Inca to the titles of Phillip II but there was no real need for it's aggrandization seeing as they were simultaneously the Emperor of the Romans. Europeans really only started scrambling for imperial titles after Napoleon with the declaration of the Austrian Empire and the titular uplifting of the British Raj to give the British monarch the title 'Empress of India' IIRC. What would it take for the Spanish to put a lot of pressure on the Papacy to essentially uplift their assortment of crowns with an imperial title through succession as the Sapa Inca? And would the provided scenario result in a shift in strategy in colonial matters?

Off the top of my head, this might change how the Viceroyalty of Peru evolves and its borders are defined if nothing else. The need to validate the grandeur of the tile could result in more Inca political structures being preserved as well

IIRC one of the previous medieval kings used "Emperor of Spain" to indicate that he was sovereign over all of the Christian kingdoms, united under him. As you say, the later Spanish kings were also heirs to both the Aztec and Inca thrones, so in theory these are imperial titles - after all, when Iturbide seceeded Mexico he claimed the title of Emperor for himself.

 

[NanyangShogun1868]

In that case, the Confederate would have been the junior partner.

I don’t see Japan progress faster than IOTL. They won’t be a threat until the 1920s. Besides, since the Confederacy has no presence in the Pacific, they should not worry about Japan.

Plus, unlike the Confederacy, the Union would not suffer much instability and unrest. Also, over the long run there would be more Progressive social/political reforms passed in TTL Union - and that would marginalize communism.

I will have to note that IOTL, US North had as much industry as Britain and Germany combined by 1914, and was running away from both powers even before OTL WW1. It would have dwarfed this “United States of Mitteleuropa”, since A-H is not going to surpass Britain, not in the 1910s-1930s. Plus, there is an entire Atlantic Ocean separating US and Europe.

So this is borderline ASB then?

ITTL, I'm actually planning on having Mexico be against the joint US-Confederate alliance. More details later on. And also a French Empire (complete with French Algeria and French West Africa) that initially sides with the Sino-Atlantic Powers (USA, CSA and China) but later betrays them and sides with Mitteleuropa to prevent their colonial empire from totally falling apart (the natives didn't like being used as cannon fodder and revolted en masse).

It's actually part of a fan-made TL-191 spinoff that I'm working on right now that involves a Japan that expanded faster and larger than OTL, plus an India that goes on to become a major power player in the 20th century and much more to come. To be fair, the main inspiration is RvBOMally's Timeline-191.3, but with a lot of differences since this is still a work in progress.

 

[TheWitheredStriker]

How important was Gibraltar truly to the British? Would things like British Malta, British Cyprus, and British Egypt be butterflied if the British didn't hold the Rock? From what I've read, British possession of Gibraltar was moreso to check entry of other countries through the Strait of Gibraltar than to have a foot in the door per se; being less of a military/naval base and more of a "checkpoint" for other powers. But I'm not totally sure about this.

I ask because I'm curious if anything major would change if the British didn't control Gibraltar. And I'm not just talking about temporarily holding it but then losing it back to Spain, I'm talking about a scenario where the British never hold Gibraltar at any point in history. As in, they don't conquer it in 1704 and they don't conquer it at any point thereafter either. It's simply never British in the first place.

 

[Zyobot]

‘AHC: Russian Empire Colonizes Mongolia’.