Alternate History Ideas and Discussion

Reader mode
Buba said:
A Russia in 1914 borders and different history could reach 1B. It was pushing 200M pre-WWI.

India without breakup would be looking at 2B by now.
Click to expand...

An unpartitioned India, Yes. But I think that a Russia in 1914 borders would have peaked at 500-600 million. Maybe 700 million if it also eventually conquers and annexes Inner Manchuria. But even then, it would lose a bit of people if it eventually ended up losing Poland. But Yeah, going over 700 million is probably unrealistic without extremely massive immigration into Russia, and even then, you might only be able to get up to 750-800 million at the very most by the early 21st century, I think.

But of course you could also wait for Russia's breeders to become a larger share of Russia's total population later on.
 
@ATP @Marduk @sillygoose What if Poland would not have gotten Lower Silesia (as opposed to Upper Silesia) in the post-World War II peace settlement?

So, the dark black territory on this map remains a part of Germany after the end of World War II:

Vertreibungsgebiet.jpg
 
In the long run not that much changes.
In the shorter run:
- land hunger among Polish peasants is alleviated slightly less
- less land to absorb Poles choosing Poland over USSR

In the medium run - Poland does not become one of the world's largest copper and silver producers, the State owned KGHM company being a cash cow for both the State Budget and for party cronies (of the party currently in power).
 
History Learner said:
Someone has been reading Karlin's Age of Malthusian Industrialization...
Click to expand...

Yep. Do you disagree with his premise?

And FWIW, this won't necessarily only occur in an era of Malthusian industrialism. Even a hyper-advanced society could still select for breeder genes, after all.
 
What are the "breeders" you people are talking about? I've only come across this term as a slur used by homosexuals towards normal people.
 
Buba said:
In the long run not that much changes.
In the shorter run:
- land hunger among Polish peasants is alleviated slightly less
- less land to absorb Poles choosing Poland over USSR

In the medium run - Poland does not become one of the world's largest copper and silver producers, the State owned KGHM company being a cash cow for both the State Budget and for party cronies (of the party currently in power).
Click to expand...

Apparently there is some copper in Lower Silesia, but do you have a silver map of Poland?

5cb2ecfa0362e49d45229c1ac810ce8b.png
 
WolfBear said:
@ATP @Marduk @sillygoose What if Poland would not have gotten Lower Silesia (as opposed to Upper Silesia) in the post-World War II peace settlement?

So, the dark black territory on this map remains a part of Germany after the end of World War II:

Vertreibungsgebiet.jpg
Click to expand...

As @Buba said.I would add,that in that case we probably get more East Prussia - but certainly without Królewiec.
Well,i always liked lakes and old castles ruins.
 
ATP said:
The more,the merrier ! :LOL:
And,if we have less copper from Silesia,it would not hurt Poland,only made our goverments less corrupted.
Click to expand...

Would the same logic also apply to getting less natural resources from Upper Silesia as well? Maybe World War I should have been avoided and thus if Poland would have eventually been recreated, its territories should have been limited to the former Russian and Austrian parts of Poland?

By the way, off-topic, but in which additional cases have separate national or sub-national identities developed as a result of centuries of separation? I'm asking because with the Poles, separate Masurian, Kashubian, and Silesian identities developed as a result of these three Polish subgroups spending centuries under Prussian/German/Austro-Prusso-German rule. Even the Imperial German census recognized the uniqueness of the Masurians and Kashubians, albeit not of the Silesians:

Sprachen_Deutsches_Reich_1900.png


I can think of Moldova (separated from Romania by Russia/the Soviet Union for a couple of centuries) developing its own identity, separate from that of Romania, but who else? Alsace-Lorraine's Germans, I would presume, due to them living under French rule for a couple of centuries. And of course the US due to its early independence from Britain. But who else?
 
WolfBear said:
Would the same logic also apply to getting less natural resources from Upper Silesia as well? Maybe World War I should have been avoided and thus if Poland would have eventually been recreated, its territories should have been limited to the former Russian and Austrian parts of Poland?

By the way, off-topic, but in which additional cases have separate national or sub-national identities developed as a result of centuries of separation? I'm asking because with the Poles, separate Masurian, Kashubian, and Silesian identities developed as a result of these three Polish subgroups spending centuries under Prussian/German/Austro-Prusso-German rule. Even the Imperial German census recognized the uniqueness of the Masurians and Kashubians, albeit not of the Silesians:

Sprachen_Deutsches_Reich_1900.png


I can think of Moldova (separated from Romania by Russia/the Soviet Union for a couple of centuries) developing its own identity, separate from that of Romania, but who else? Alsace-Lorraine's Germans, I would presume, due to them living under French rule for a couple of centuries. And of course the US due to its early independence from Britain. But who else?
Click to expand...

Only Kashubians really mattered - their language really differ from polish.But - they still consider themselves as poles,so turning them into other nation is not possible,even for german agents like Donald Tusk.
Actually,kashubians are most patriotic group in Poland now,not counting german agents,of course.

P.S without WW1 there would be no Poland.If you want Poland without parts stealed by prussians,you need them win WW1.Not possible,they lost war thanks to their own prussian stupidity.

P.S.S We need upper Silesia for coal,so no.
 
ATP said:
Only Kashubians really mattered - their language really differ from polish.But - they still consider themselves as poles,so turning them into other nation is not possible,even for german agents like Donald Tusk.
Actually,kashubians are most patriotic group in Poland now,not counting german agents,of course.

P.S without WW1 there would be no Poland.If you want Poland without parts stealed by prussians,you need them win WW1.Not possible,they lost war thanks to their own prussian stupidity.
Click to expand...

What odds would you place on an eventual revolution in Russia without World War I? Because I've heard different opinions about this topic.

P.S.S We need upper Silesia for coal,so no.
Click to expand...

Just the eastern part (as in the interwar era) or all of Upper Silesia.
 
WolfBear said:
What odds would you place on an eventual revolution in Russia without World War I? Because I've heard different opinions about this topic.
Click to expand...

Eventually? Odds of even unlikely events approach unity as the time window extends. But not in 1917 or 1918. People don't tend to rebel when their lives are getting better even if other people's lives are getting better faster. And delay really hurts the Reds because the higher technology at hand the harder it is to maintain and revolution is bad for supply chains. The Whites meanwhile get foreign aid from everyone who doesn't want to face their own Communist revolution.
 
Reader mode
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top