|Hello and welcome to the Alternate History Wiki!|
We are a community for creating fictional alternative histories. We hope you will feel at home here and wish you good luck contributing to our ever-growing collection of timelines.
Some other helpful reference pages:
Some general tips:
|Greetings, Althistorian 2005.|
You have recently uploaded a Duplicate File onto this Wiki. Be aware that this practice is not accepted here, as the desired file has already been uploaded and is ready to be used on demand. Please feel free to read our guidelines so as avoid uploading duplicate files in the future.
Please be advised that this will be counted as your First Strike. If three strikes occur within a six-month period of each other, than your account may be temporarily suspended for up to a week. If you believe this strike was incorrectly issued, you may dispute this with the issuer of the strike (please do so in a civil and courteous manner).
|Regards, -- NuclearVacuum 16:37, August 9, 2018 (UTC)
Re: Central Power Sweden
The reason why I flagged your timeline as ASB - Biased was because of the post-WWI settlement. As I understand it Sweden would almost certainly not have the economic or military strength required to hold colonies as far away as Madagascar and Indochina.
While that is generally true, Germany had a poor experience with ineffective allies in WWI OTL such as Austria-Hungary and would unlikely support Swedish claims to land that it couldn't hold by itself.
On a second note, another thing I found that is ASB is the idea that Britain would be completely split apart into four nations. The most German politicians and military leaders had considered was an independent and united Ireland but no mention was ever made of splitting Wales and Scotland off.
Sorry for the delay in responding, life got in the way.
Put yourself in Germany's shoes. You just fought a long, devestating war for four years. You nearly suffered domestic revolution, public starvation, ineffectual allies, etc. When the war is finally over, your job still isn't over. You have to deal with maintaining order in Germany's new Eastern European territories, which are all in a state of civil war. You have to make sure that France, Britain, and Italy uphold their terms of the peace treaty. You need to come to terms with what may happen in Austria-Hungary, which was effectively useless and will likely need a lot of help if it is to survive in one piece. And now Sweden, albeit an effective ally, comes to you and asks you for your help in gaining and maintaining colonies that it never had any claim to in the first place. My guess is Germany would likely say no.
As for splitting apart the United Kingdom, the idea of breaking away Wales and Scotland would just be nonsensical. Ireland made sense because it was culturally different enough and the population clearly did not want to remain under British rule. Wales and Scotland had no sizeable independence movements at this time. Finally, the precedent of completely dividing a great power simply did not exist at this time. France and Britain did not insist that Germany be split apart after WW1. Germany was not going to divide France had the Germans won WW1. Doing so without obvious ethnic justification was simply unheard of and mainland Britain did not have enough justification to merit it.
Alright, there's a lot to go over, so please bear with me.
Long story short, regardless of Sweden joining the Central Powers, there will still be both a blockade and a general starvation. Let's see why.
First, the OTL Swedish Navy in 1914 was of no threat to the British Navy whatsoever. But, let's say that since it's an expansionist Sweden, it builds up a few battleships or heavy cruisers of its own. That's all well and good, but we also need to see how the neighboring nations react.
First, it was strongly suspected that Sweden favored the Central Powers in OTL, largely because of Sweden's dislike of Russia. A more expansionist Sweden would likely be seen as even more likely to join the war on Germany's side. So, with a stronger Swedish Navy, Russia is naturally going to deploy more of its naval forces in the Baltic to counter a potential German and Swedish attack. Keep in mind the Russian capital is at St. Petersburg, so it makes sense that Russia is going to amass a larger and stronger fleet than OTL to keep it safe against Sweden and Germany.
With this larger fleet in the Baltic, Germany and Sweden are going to devote more forces to keep it contained, preventing them from being used in the North Sea. But, Germany and Sweden will still have large naval forces to challenge the British blockade. However, there's a catch. Britain has also been seeing that Sweden is rather close with Germany and takes steps accordingly. If Sweden were to join the war and there was even a slight chance that a combined German-Swedish fleet might beat the British Navy in the Channel, the British would adjust their forces. Why would Britain do this? They are an island nation and protection from blockade is Britain's number one priority, otherwise they will starve.
As you pointed out, Sweden does not join the war until 1915. That gives Britain and France plenty of time to adjust their naval forces, especially after Italy joins their side, to redeploy naval forces from lower risk areas like the Americas, Africa, and Asia in order to bolster their fleets in the Channel and the North Sea. Again, if Britain loses the Channel, they've lost, so they will go all out to defend it. With Italy in the war and effectively keeping Austria-Hungary contained at sea, they can afford to move more battleships and support craft to the Channel to keep that outcome from happening. Japan even sent ships to help the war effort in Europe in 1917. In this scenario, I wouldn't be surprised if they showed up sooner.
So to close, even with Sweden entering the war, Swedish naval forces would be divided and the Entente will counter in enough force to make breaking the blockade implausible. But the blockade was not the only reason why Germany starved late in the war.
In 1916, there were terrible harvest conditions, which can effectively be boiled down to poor climate conditions that year and the fact that millions of men and horses, normally used for agriculture, had been drafted for the war effort. As a result, most German crops made it to the cities rotten. Instead of their normal diets, most Germans ate Swedish turnips, hence why it was called the "Turnip Winter". Even in the best countries least under threat there were food rationing and drafts. Sweden, very clearly in the thick of it, would also draft many men and horses away from its agriculture and would want to conserve its food supplies for its own troops as well. So in short, because of the poor climate, inefficient workforce because of the war, and Sweden being in the war, it's highly likely that people will be just as hungry, if not more so, than in OTL.
With the blockade still in force and hunger still present, Germany is not going to leave the war much better socially than it did in OTL, even if it won. Unrest would still be present. And while it is entirely possible that Germany would sell Sweden a few battleships or the like post-war, you need more than battleships to support a colonial empire. You need a strong economy, and Sweden's is going to be devastated just like all of Europe's because of the war. It will not be able to support colonies as populated and as distant for it as South Africa and Indochina and Germany will not be in a position to do so on Sweden's behalf.
As far as the peace process itself, I noticed you have Britain and Japan being directly invaded and occupied by Germany. This simply cannot happen given Britain's superior navy, as I explained earlier, and Japan's sheer distance from German operational range. Germany's best bet in forcing Britain to come to the table is to economically starve them or (more likely) defeat them on the European continent. Again, Britain would redeploy naval forces to prevent enemy control over the Channel, so there simply won't be enough German or Swedish ships to break the British and French navies enough to the point where Germany could actually invade the British mainland.
In terms of the peace settlement, Britain would simply not be broken up in the way you described. Wales and Scotland would not be split off in the context of the time, as again it was simply unheard of and the regions had no reason to break away. As far as France is concerned, there is no way that Germany would return land to France, by sale or for free, because of ethnic reasons. Imperial Germany had few concerns about the ethnic makeup of territories and certainly would not give back territory to France, the country that it had fought numerous wars with over the last forty-five years and was widely seen as its main antagonist.
None of this is to say that your timeline idea is a bad one, or the central argument (Sweden joining the Central Powers) is implausible. It's just to say that some of the finer details that you have written (breaking the blockade, invading Britain/Japan, dissecting Britain) are not plausible for this period in time. Please let me know if you have any questions.
I don't think you'd have to rewrite the entire timeline, just some small parts here and there to get more or less the same result.
But, completely up to you. As you say, nothing wrong with having some fun.
Ideas for Althists (because you asked)
I have some ideas that I'll probably not develop... Here they are.
1.Many states break up.A POD could be that the Carolingian Empire never broke up and all of it transformed into the HRE.Russia would likely also be divided,as would Spain,Poland-Lithuania, and Britain.Extra irony points if you make the Balkans more centralized than everywhere else. 2.If you don't like Balkanization,you could also have Justinian look more to the future for a mega-Byzantium and have the Mongols not fall. 3.Rome manages to defeat the barbarian invasions and breaks up along provincial lines.
Someone Vandlized Your Page
Some guy calling himself Жан Бедель Бокасса 21 has joined the wiki and he is a real troll . He valdized your your prolfilo page and two other people's page. Should I undo his vandlizism, or do you what to do it your self. :Жан Бедель Бокасса 2 has also detled the contents of serval pages. Now that lordganon is essently gone who do you think I should report Жан Бедель Бокасса 2 to.
Greetings, I saw your recent timeline and noting this as a situation that is possible in a timeline I am working on I stopped by to invite you to write down some ideas on the Proposals (National Union America) page regarding such a presidency. The youtuber AltHistoryHub has a video on the topic that could give you some ideas. Baron Joshua (talk) 10:28, June 17, 2019 (UTC)