futurist
Banned
Banned
Posts: 837 
Likes: 12
|
Post by futurist on Jul 20, 2018 22:24:21 GMT
Let's say that Russia would have escaped Bolshevism. This can be done--for instance--by having Kornilov and Kerensky actually cooperate in July 1917 and shoot and kill all of the Bolsheviks that they can get their hands on. Obviously a military regime in Russia might not last for very long, but whichever regime will replace it will be much less bad than the Bolsheviks were. Also, a non-Bolshevik regime in Russia might be tempted to remain involved in World War I--at least nominally--up to the very end. Anyway, if Russia survives WWI in one piece, escapes Bolshevism, acquires additional territory at the end of World War I (such as Trebizond and the Armenian Vilayets of the Ottoman Empire), and develops so much throughout the 20th century that it becomes a developed country by the year 2000, would Russia's southernmost regions have become Russia's version of the Sun Belt? For the record, when I'm talking about Russia's southernmost regions, I mean southern Central Asia, the Caucasus, Crimea, and the formerly Ottoman territory which Russia would have acquired at the end of World War I in this scenario. Could these regions have become Russia's version of the Sun Belt in this scenario? Also, for the record, the Sun Belt refers to the southern part of the United States: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_Beltupload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/11/Sun_belt.svg It is called the Sun Belt due to its warm climate and also acquired a reputation for dynamism as a result of its rapid population growth in the decades after the end of World War II. From Wikipedia: "The Sun Belt has seen substantial population growth since the 1960s from an influx of people seeking a warm and sunny climate, a surge in retiring baby boomers, and growing economic opportunities. The advent of air conditioning created more comfortable summer conditions and allowed more manufacturing and industry to locate in the sunbelt. Since much of the construction in the sun belt is new or recent, housing styles and design are often modern and open. Recreational opportunities in the sun belt are often not tied strictly to one season, and many tourist and resort cities, such as Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Miami, Myrtle Beach, New Orleans, Orlando, Palm Springs, Phoenix, St. George, and San Diego support a tourist industry all year.[3][4]" Anyway, any thoughts on this? |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Member is Online
Posts: 24,836
Likes: 13,225
|
Post by stevep on Jul 21, 2018 10:54:58 GMT
Let's say that Russia would have escaped Bolshevism. This can be done--for instance--by having Kornilov and Kerensky actually cooperate in July 1917 and shoot and kill all of the Bolsheviks that they can get their hands on. Obviously a military regime in Russia might not last for very long, but whichever regime will replace it will be much less bad than the Bolsheviks were. Also, a non-Bolshevik regime in Russia might be tempted to remain involved in World War I--at least nominally--up to the very end. Anyway, if Russia survives WWI in one piece, escapes Bolshevism, acquires additional territory at the end of World War I (such as Trebizond and the Armenian Vilayets of the Ottoman Empire), and develops so much throughout the 20th century that it becomes a developed country by the year 2000, would Russia's southernmost regions have become Russia's version of the Sun Belt? For the record, when I'm talking about Russia's southernmost regions, I mean southern Central Asia, the Caucasus, Crimea, and the formerly Ottoman territory which Russia would have acquired at the end of World War I in this scenario. Could these regions have become Russia's version of the Sun Belt in this scenario? Also, for the record, the Sun Belt refers to the southern part of the United States: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_Beltupload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/11/Sun_belt.svgIt is called the Sun Belt due to its warm climate and also acquired a reputation for dynamism as a result of its rapid population growth in the decades after the end of World War II. From Wikipedia: "The Sun Belt has seen substantial population growth since the 1960s from an influx of people seeking a warm and sunny climate, a surge in retiring baby boomers, and growing economic opportunities. The advent of air conditioning created more comfortable summer conditions and allowed more manufacturing and industry to locate in the sunbelt. Since much of the construction in the sun belt is new or recent, housing styles and design are often modern and open. Recreational opportunities in the sun belt are often not tied strictly to one season, and many tourist and resort cities, such as Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Miami, Myrtle Beach, New Orleans, Orlando, Palm Springs, Phoenix, St. George, and San Diego support a tourist industry all year.[3][4]" Anyway, any thoughts on this?
Its possible although I think the sheer population concentration in Russia and the Ukraine is likely to remain dominant, especially if they avoid the bloodbaths of the civil war, communist rule and a Nazi invasion. In 1914 the projects for the Russian empire was that within a decade or so it would have more population than the rest of Europe put together. You might see a lot of them moving south but that's going to result in conflict with the local populations as their increasingly swamped by Slavic speakers. Even for groups like the Georgians and Armenians I suspect let alone the many Muslim populations in the region. If Russia doesn't get a more liberal regime that allows them to leave or become largely self-governing I suspect things would get very ugly.
Also as your comments while the US sunbelt has problems with water shortages it has managed to survive that - so far anyway - but central Asia especially is even more vulnerable. True if it avoided the widespread growing of cotton then its less likely to see the death of the Aral Sea and widespread problems that are developing there.
|
|
futurist
Banned
Banned
Posts: 837
Likes: 12
|
Post by futurist on Jul 21, 2018 15:34:35 GMT
Let's say that Russia would have escaped Bolshevism. This can be done--for instance--by having Kornilov and Kerensky actually cooperate in July 1917 and shoot and kill all of the Bolsheviks that they can get their hands on. Obviously a military regime in Russia might not last for very long, but whichever regime will replace it will be much less bad than the Bolsheviks were. Also, a non-Bolshevik regime in Russia might be tempted to remain involved in World War I--at least nominally--up to the very end. Anyway, if Russia survives WWI in one piece, escapes Bolshevism, acquires additional territory at the end of World War I (such as Trebizond and the Armenian Vilayets of the Ottoman Empire), and develops so much throughout the 20th century that it becomes a developed country by the year 2000, would Russia's southernmost regions have become Russia's version of the Sun Belt? For the record, when I'm talking about Russia's southernmost regions, I mean southern Central Asia, the Caucasus, Crimea, and the formerly Ottoman territory which Russia would have acquired at the end of World War I in this scenario. Could these regions have become Russia's version of the Sun Belt in this scenario? Also, for the record, the Sun Belt refers to the southern part of the United States: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_Beltupload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/11/Sun_belt.svgIt is called the Sun Belt due to its warm climate and also acquired a reputation for dynamism as a result of its rapid population growth in the decades after the end of World War II. From Wikipedia: "The Sun Belt has seen substantial population growth since the 1960s from an influx of people seeking a warm and sunny climate, a surge in retiring baby boomers, and growing economic opportunities. The advent of air conditioning created more comfortable summer conditions and allowed more manufacturing and industry to locate in the sunbelt. Since much of the construction in the sun belt is new or recent, housing styles and design are often modern and open. Recreational opportunities in the sun belt are often not tied strictly to one season, and many tourist and resort cities, such as Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Miami, Myrtle Beach, New Orleans, Orlando, Palm Springs, Phoenix, St. George, and San Diego support a tourist industry all year.[3][4]" Anyway, any thoughts on this?
1. Its possible although I think the sheer population concentration in Russia and the Ukraine is likely to remain dominant, especially if they avoid the bloodbaths of the civil war, communist rule and a Nazi invasion.
2. In 1914 the projects for the Russian empire was that within a decade or so it would have more population than the rest of Europe put together.
3. You might see a lot of them moving south but that's going to result in conflict with the local populations as their increasingly swamped by Slavic speakers. Even for groups like the Georgians and Armenians I suspect let alone the many Muslim populations in the region. If Russia doesn't get a more liberal regime that allows them to leave or become largely self-governing I suspect things would get very ugly.
4. Also as your comments while the US sunbelt has problems with water shortages it has managed to survive that - so far anyway - but central Asia especially is even more vulnerable. True if it avoided the widespread growing of cotton then its less likely to see the death of the Aral Sea and widespread problems that are developing there. 1. Agreed--though I was thinking that a significant number of Russians--especially retirees--might move to the southern territories due to their warmer climate. 2. Do you have a source for this? 3. Oh, sure, the locals are going to be pissed off, but what exactly are they going to be able to do about it? After all, Russians would have more say in government policy than they would due to the Russians' massively superior numbers (overall, throughout the entire country). As for Georgians and Armenians, I'm not sure that they are going to complain much about a greater Russian and Ukrainian presence on their territories. After all, it could help develop their economics and would also give them confidence that Russia is committed to improving the well-being of their regions. The Muslims in Azerbaijan and Central Asia might be less pleased with massive Russian settlement on their territory, though. Also, I was thinking of having Russia be run either as a liberal democracy or as a developmental dictatorship (as in, a capitalist dictatorship similar to, say, Franco's in Spain) in this TL. 4. Oh, water shortages are certainly a very real issue in both the U.S. Sun Belt and the Russian Sun Belt in this TL. However, what's interesting is that, in spite of this issue, Central Asia's population managed to significantly grow during the 20th and early 21st centuries. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Member is Online
Posts: 24,836
Likes: 13,225
|
Post by stevep on Jul 21, 2018 20:38:40 GMT
futurist
On the issue of Russian population I can't remember where but I was involved in a discussion about how Europe might have gone without WWI and someone said this. I was initially doubtful but he supplied some sources which surprised [and convinced] me. Think it was only about20 years or so from 1914 this was predicted. Coupled with Russian industrialisation and improvements in infrastructure there were suggestions you could see a drastic change in alliances, probably with Britain, Japan and the OTL central powers all committed to at least a defensive alliance against Russia.
Steve
|
|
futurist
Banned
Banned
Posts: 837
Likes: 12
|
Post by futurist on Aug 27, 2018 6:58:14 GMT
futurist
On the issue of Russian population I can't remember where but I was involved in a discussion about how Europe might have gone without WWI and someone said this. I was initially doubtful but he supplied some sources which surprised [and convinced] me. Think it was only about20 years or so from 1914 this was predicted. Coupled with Russian industrialisation and improvements in infrastructure there were suggestions you could see a drastic change in alliances, probably with Britain, Japan and the OTL central powers all committed to at least a defensive alliance against Russia.
Steve
An anti-Russia alliance of Britain, Japan, and the Central Powers starting from the 1920s or 1930s certainly makes a lot of sense assuming that Kaiser Bill doesn't do anything to piss anyone off. Such an alliance could certainly set the stage for a very interesting alternative World War I in the mid-20th century. |
|
