Not sure, I'll have to check. Thank you for the reply!
Miscellaneous >1900 (Alternate) History Thread
- Thread starter RMcD94
- Start date
I just checked, and yep, peace talks started two months after the royal massacre. However, they went nowhere because the Maoists withdrew and launched another attack.
That being said, without Gyanendra's suspension of the Constitution and sacking of the government, maybe the Nepalese monarchy will emerge from the civil war more or less fine, when it does end. Maybe.
That being said, without Gyanendra's suspension of the Constitution and sacking of the government, maybe the Nepalese monarchy will emerge from the civil war more or less fine, when it does end. Maybe.
I have a question regarding a later Central Powers victory: If the first treaty of Brest Litovsk was signed by the Russians instead of the second, and they only ceded Congress Poland, Lithuania, and Courland, would these gains actually make Germany stronger post war? They don't weaken Russia significantly.
Another question: Without unsecured loans from the US, does the Kerensky government make peace with the CP instead of launching their offensive?
Finally: How would a Russian defeat in the Brusilov offensive impact the course of the war? Would we see an early Russian revolution? Falkenhayn probably stays on as commander of the German armed forces. What would a peace deal with Russia look like? What would the effects on the Western front be?
Another question: Without unsecured loans from the US, does the Kerensky government make peace with the CP instead of launching their offensive?
Finally: How would a Russian defeat in the Brusilov offensive impact the course of the war? Would we see an early Russian revolution? Falkenhayn probably stays on as commander of the German armed forces. What would a peace deal with Russia look like? What would the effects on the Western front be?
I mean as far as I know Birendra was popular enough that even the communists mourned when he died. Would be funny to have a monarchy with a communist dominated parliament though.
You would likely get something like this if the post war denazification efforts were less successful in Germany and Austria. I could imagine you might be more likely to get the formation of small Nazi terror groups like happened during the years of lead in Italy.
I personally think it is quite likely in an Operation Tannenbaum style senario that Switzerland is going to be ravaged by the war. The Nazi invasion would be extremely bloody on both sides and a prolonged resistance movement is likely. Skiping over the major ripple effects it would have on the war itself after words likely you have a new Swiss government led by one of the revolutionaries who came to fame during the war. I think they definitely join nato and abandon neutrality. The war would have proven that Neutrality was ineffective for the nation and that they needed to pick a side like what Belgium and the Netherlands did. I think they would take a bit of border territory but not much to be honest.
Is it possible for military aircraft to fly under the radar of a enemy navy by flying right above the ocean?
Could Greece get western thrace from bulgaria after the 2nd balkan war
Last edited:
I've heard that "In WWII, one out of every twelve Soviet people died to Nazi Germany?!" Is this anywhere close to reality, or is this just propaganda? I think it's propaganda, but I wonder just how high that proportion was.
The population of the USSR in 1941 was about 195 million but by 1946 was only about 170 million, according to this site. That's a fall of over 12%, so one in eight, even higher than the figure you've heard. This paper generally agrees with those figures, though notes that there were/are some significant error bars on the figures (in other words, they could be higher or lower, for many different reasons - but still within the same sort of range). Much of the population drop was due to deaths directly attributable to Nazi Germany (deaths of soldiers in combat, bombing of civilians, war crimes, etc). Others deaths were indirectly caused (lack of food, shelter, etc, particularly amongst the elderly and children). Then there's the demographic impact caused by fewer births (in blunt terms, if the young men are away at war, the women won't have as many children), which again is indirectly attributable to the war.
So, overall, that one-in-twelve figure you've heard is certainly realistic and there's a good chance it's an underestimate.
Last edited:
In regards to a timeline I’m making.
What would happen if Breckinridge Long wasn’t alive to oppose a US oil embargo to Italy during the invasion of Abyssinia?
What would happen if Breckinridge Long wasn’t alive to oppose a US oil embargo to Italy during the invasion of Abyssinia?
This might technically belong in the Pre-1900 thread but it would still exist today:
Could this happen/Has this happened? A country (other than the USA) becoming xenophilic in an attempt to attract as much immigration as possible to get more population/people to hold jobs? If so, what are the more successful versions of this?
What is the supposed relationship between "attracting people" and "hold their jobs"?
I think that seems like the kind of thing that requires adherence to some twisted economic theory to believe there is any relationship.
In any case, I would say that what you are going to achieve is exactly the opposite effect, because now there are many more job seekers than available job offers.
Not to mention that this generally leads to downward competition where the employer will prefer to hire immigrants who are more easily exploitable than native workers who are more aware of their legal rights.
Ok thanks! I guess I was getting my immigration metaphor wrong.
Then what exactly you want to write about? I'm curious.
I think I just got my idea wrong about jobs/immigration, so I'll wait until I know more about the topic. I think this is just me confusing video game mechanics with real immigration.