Jul
07
2017

Go check out my alternate history map quandary on Patreon!

Found here. I put it up there for two reasons: one, I needed the practice in embedding images to Patreon posts.  The process is not entirely intuitive.  Second, it’d be awesome if I made it through the next checkpoint, which would be the point where the monthly short stories hit 3K words.  So, hey, tell your friends!  Buck a month is all it takes, folks.

4 Comments

  • UnmovingGreatLibrary says:

    Lacking a Patreon account, I’ll comment here. Like the others, I think the second map makes more sense, and the resulting non-Soviet state would be more viable on its own.
    .
    The big problem I have with it is the border with Japan isn’t where it logically would be. It would make more sense to either leave what’s on the mainland in Russian hands, or if the Japanese do get a slice of it, move the border further north to the Amur River. The latter would more likely be what the Japanese would demand, while the former would be what the U.S. would insist upon, particularly if we owned Kamchatka.
    .
    The United States and Japan already had other potential flashpoints for war in this period, and we were not shy about throwing our weight around to get what we wanted (i.e., forcing the Japanese to withdraw the Tanaka Memorial and then the British to end their alliance with Japan). It would be interesting to see what the limits to American influence would be if presented with interests in the Russian Far East demanding a share of it, too.
    .
    And as a final thing, I think Magadan should keep its name. Renaming cities like that was something the Reds did, and keeping the original name also would let the Whites pretend that the original Petrograd wasn’t forever lost to them.

    • Moe_Lane says:

      On that last point: Magadan didn’t actually exist until Stalin needed a port for his slave camps. The Japanese also don’t officially run the protectorate in the timeline; they ‘merely’ have full use of Vladivostok. The Japanese also did rather better out of the naval Treaty of Washington, which is easing tensions down a bit in the area.

      • UnmovingGreatLibrary says:

        Well, my face is figuratively red, then. I learned something new today.
        .
        A “better” outcome for Japan in the Washington Treaty would make for an interesting divergence point in and of itself. Giving the Japanese parity with the USN and RN in the treaty might make them feel proud of themselves, but it would give them a whole new, different set of problems to solve.
        .
        Well, you did say “significantly impacted”. 😀

        • Moe_Lane says:

          The funny part is that they didn’t even want parity. The Japanese ran the numbers and figured that all they needed was a 7:5 ratio to theoretically be able to beat the US Navy (after all, we were a two-ocean navy and they weren’t).

RSS feed for comments on this post.



Site by Neil Stevens | Theme by TheBuckmaker.com