|
Replies:
|
|
DetroitJones
|
May 29, 2015, 11:21 am
Post #291
|
|
- Posts:
- 3
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #33
- Joined:
- May 28, 2015
|
- JustinVuong
- May 29, 2015, 10:47 am
- DetroitJones
- May 28, 2015, 6:00 pm
Americano Cartel
- Link
- Real World Countries and Land Claimed: Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Belize, Honduras, Costa Rica, Panama, Haiti
- Why you want to join: Back on the wiki after a long absence, I was in another collab that's inactive now, so I'll join this one.
- Have you read everything concerning Altverse?: Y(I didn't read every page but I read the main page and the history page)
- Do you agree to comply to all rules and policies?: Y
- Other: Am I allowed to operate in Mexico since someone controls it?
You are allowed if you agree that the cartel is one of the fascist Mexican government's private groups and means to acquire funds overseas (so the Cartel has extensive ties to the government and functions similarly to a paramilitary organization or a state-sponsored criminal syndicate). OK I'm fine with that, but one question, why would Mexico sponsor a criminal organization? Especially one that's causing major trouble on their doorstep and in their backyard?
|
|
|
| |
|
JustinVuong
|
May 30, 2015, 7:15 pm
Post #292
|
|
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
- Posts:
- 130
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #6
- Joined:
- Dec 14, 2014
|
- DetroitJones
- May 29, 2015, 11:21 am
- JustinVuong
- May 29, 2015, 10:47 am
- DetroitJones
- May 28, 2015, 6:00 pm
Americano Cartel
- Link
- Real World Countries and Land Claimed: Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Belize, Honduras, Costa Rica, Panama, Haiti
- Why you want to join: Back on the wiki after a long absence, I was in another collab that's inactive now, so I'll join this one.
- Have you read everything concerning Altverse?: Y(I didn't read every page but I read the main page and the history page)
- Do you agree to comply to all rules and policies?: Y
- Other: Am I allowed to operate in Mexico since someone controls it?
You are allowed if you agree that the cartel is one of the fascist Mexican government's private groups and means to acquire funds overseas (so the Cartel has extensive ties to the government and functions similarly to a paramilitary organization or a state-sponsored criminal syndicate).
OK I'm fine with that, but one question, why would Mexico sponsor a criminal organization? Especially one that's causing major trouble on their doorstep and in their backyard? The Mexican government functions by promoting perpetual, sustained violence among the general populace to keep the people in fear and in need of support by the government. With sanctioned gangs offering protection and freedom for citizens to attack/exploit others, more and more citizens would find themselves inclined to participate in this process, thus advancing Mexico's (unofficial) policy of constant fear. The Mexican government of course, denies this connection and from time to time, leads brutal purges against any gangs that step out of line and pose a threat to the Mexican government structure. The idea is to boost legitimacy of the government itself while ensuring the people never develop the means to rise and revolt locally without through this controlled channel. The idea is that the Americano Cartel, at least in Mexico, operates on this basis. Mexico's control overseas is far less powerful of course, and so the Americano Cartel I'm assuming, will function with far more independence and autonomy outside Mexico.
|
| Kingdom of Sierra (main) | Mexican Social Republic | Great Korean Empire | Republic of Vietnam |
     
(ง ͠° ͟ل͜ ͡°)ง - Kingtrevor11
-
wow im sorry ur a fag
|
| |
|
DanChan123
|
May 30, 2015, 10:07 pm
Post #293
|
|
- Posts:
- 21
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #32
- Joined:
- May 26, 2015
|
- DanChan123
- May 28, 2015, 10:57 pm
- Zabuza825
- May 28, 2015, 7:48 am
- Dog of War
- May 28, 2015, 7:23 am
- Quote:
-
- DanChan123
- May 27, 2015, 6:08 pm
Actually, to correct all of you, the Kingdom of Oirat existed before the Soviet Union in its fictional history (The First Kingdom was established in 1856). The Russian Empire just occupied it during the First World War, unofficially claiming it as theirs, and the Soviets technically had control over it after they overthrew the Tsar in the middle of the war.
Oirat formed after the Crimean War. The year before its independence and the end of the war, the Russian Empire in 1855 had to release the emancipation of serfdom, bringing in a liberal reform to the country. This reform allowed the various cultural minorities to immigrate to the various large industrial cities in the South Russian area, such as Sevastopol/Sebastopol in Crimea; in this version of history, alot of non-Russian minorites were forced to work for the Russian army in Crimea. Meanwhile, the coalition of French, British, Ottomans, and Sardinians had already pushed into Crimea, taking control of Sevastopol and basically the entire peninsula was lost to them. The Crimean War was a big contributor to the start of Russia’s decline. I’m sure now that the non-Russian minorites and other people had a much more liberal role in the working class society after the serfdom was abolished. In real history, this opened the gateway for a communistic rebellion to take place. But what if there was also a cultural rebellion? There were PLENTY of cultural rebellions (i.e Cossack rebellions) that took place, but when they did, Russia was strong enough to stop them. What if Russia was not strong enough? I’m sure the British and French, who were unsatisfied with the gain from this war (including the land gain), would be quite eager to offer their “conquered” land to these kinds of people, if they all asked the same thing (which they did in this alternate history); I’m sure they’d be even more eager to give it away if it means: 1. To stop Russian expansionism and spheres of influence (from places like Georgia, Azerbaijian, Armenia), which was the whole point of the Crimean War. 2. Gaining tariff-free trade with Crimean ports. Europeans appreciated trading with Oirats in the 1600s and 1700s, because they did not have any international taxation system or reliance on a structure currency, until the Tsar came and annexed them when they were vulnerable (their khan was dead).
I say it’s very possible. And if Oirat did exist before the Soviets came about, then their wouldn’t be much of an argument about how it is unrealistic that Russia seemingly just let some other people take their land.
The Soviets would still annexe their land into the USSR, or at least create a puppet state. The Soviets were originally internationalists, so they rejected the ideas of nationalism and generally didn't give a toss about how independent your state was. The Soviets were instrumental for securing independence for Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia in WWI before they annexed them in the Russian Civil War that followed. The Western powers - especially Britain - were intent on having the balance of power and said that to keep the balance Russia must control the Caucasus. This was in WWI, and agreements like this were key to the fall of the Ottoman Empire. The fact that the Soviets took over worried the Great Powers, but they reasoned that they may as well let the Soviets take the regions to maintain the balance of power. - Quote:
-
Also remember that the Soviets were intent on gaining as much land as possible, and have as many puppet states as possible under their wing. Any state that was occupied by the Red Army in WWII ended up having a communist regime put in place - the exception I think was a portion of Austria. The entire Cold War was about the Soviets expanding their sphere of influence throughout the world. Turkey and Iran were spared from Soviet occupation as they were incredibly pro-Western at the beginning of the Cold War, and were the only nations the USSR boarded that never had a communist regime (Now ofc Iran eventually did its own thing but by that time the Soviets had started to get involved in its neighbour Afghanistan who they had been trying to control for years). As such I cannot see Oirat being an independent nation with its current territory during the Soviet era. A monarchy could exist if it reduced its land and let Russia have a boarder with Georgia and Azerbaijan, but it would very pro-Soviet during the Cold War (same as how Kuwait, Zambia, Syria, India, Burma, and Mali were not communist states but were heavily aligned with the USSR in the Cold War)
Oirat is an Islamic country that had plenty of Western allies from the start. Also, the monarchy is generally appreciated by the populace; the people of Oirat were quite happy with what they had starting from 1856 (this is not generalized… if you read about how they even wanted Prime Minister Sohor to become their king/shah as well). I’m sure the USSR would attempt to convert Oirat to communism (I’ll be writing about that later). The only way I’d see the USSR taking over is if the USSR tried invading Oirat, or if they assassinated the monarch and the ministry and tried to appoint a communist leader, which would not work well since the Oirat majority Muslim populace would not appreciate it, and will probably rebel. Oirat has a history of having a watchful eye on Russia, and I don’t think many Soviets would be able to immigrate into their society unlike the mutual freedom they had with countries like Kazakhstan. And if they tried to take Crimea, Oirat’s holy grail, all of Europe (countries with military agreements and trade agreements with Oirat Black Sea access) would be pretty pissed off. The USSR could not afford a direct war, as we have observed with Korea and Vietnam. Also, if you read the history, Russia had opposed Oirat independence in 1856 and 1914, rather than help support it like it did Armenia, Georgia, and Azerbaijian in WWI. Actually, if Oirat did come about, it would geopolitically cut Russia away from influencing Georgia, Azerbaijian, and Armenia LONG before WWI ever began, which would mean those three countries would never have had to face events such as the Armenian genocide, and would be virtually either neutral, supply-supportive, or fight against the Allies with Oirat and the Ottomans. (Does altverse have a policy on the influencing of real world history in multiple countries, cause I say that’d be unavoidable?)
If Russia didn't have control of Caucasus, its likely that Joseph Stalin would never have become the Soviet Premier, and that practically changes the entire of 20th century history. Also, the Soviets invaded pretty religious nations in Eastern Europe (most notable being Hungary) which the west let them get away with as they were previously occupied by Nazi's. The exceptions were states which were also occupied by American or British troops such as Iran. Altverse does prefer that nations do not change the history of other nations way too much. Four nations would obviously change a lot (Georgia, Azerbaijan, Armenia and Ukraine due to the whole Crimea thing) and possibly every nations on the planet if you consider the fact that Stalin would probably never become a Bolshevik without Russian influence over Georgia.
Just saying this, but I doubt that Stalin would even be named "Stalin" if Russia didn't have Georgia. He changed his name because he went Bolshevik, he was born as Joseph Jugashvili. Th main issue that you're facing right now, DanChan, is that Stalin was a HUGE influence in history. Without him, things in the 1900's would turn out VERY VERY differently. I know one might say "well you're one to talk Zab", and I will admit that I've stretched history a lot with my nations, essentially throwing history out the window actually. But I've also made sure that for my nations I won't drastically change other nations histories by throwing it out the window. Indeed, for the one nation that I didn't throw history out the window, Alkara (which I abandoned due to lack of interest in it), I realized that because of the region I was claiming there was no way that I could possibly not influence other nations history's unless I had it be part of both Russia and the Soviet Union (it had St Petersburg, once called Leningrad, after all), so I had it be conquered by Russia at one point. Now, I'm going to throw this out - chances are you probably aren't going to be able to get away with this unless you do one of two things. You could change your history drastically. Alternatively, you could change your nations geographic location.
How about this: Let’s just call Georgia/Azerbaijian/Armenia as AGA. Oirat and AGA were part of the Russian Empire long before Oirat became its own country. The people in AGA were mostly Christian, like the Russians, and ethnically reserved since they were in their small little section of the world with a mountain (Caucasus) boundary seperating them from the going-ons in main Russia, and the people in proto-Oirat were the huge Non-Russian and melting pot that strived for independence, and many of them were Islamic. I’m sure Russia can still control AGA, south of the Caucasus, despite Oirat’s independence. This would allow Stalin to still join up with the Bolsheviks. The Russians/Soviets dominated the entire Caspian Sea, since they had control of Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan. Oirat’s dominance was primarily in the Black Sea, which Russia also had control of. P.S. The Volgograd Oblast no longer belongs to Oirat.
Now that I have presented my point, is this a concluding yes or no?
|
|
|
| |
|
Alexander
|
May 31, 2015, 9:32 am
Post #294
|
|
- Posts:
- 31
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #30
- Joined:
- Apr 2, 2015
|
- DanChan123
- May 30, 2015, 10:07 pm
- DanChan123
- May 28, 2015, 10:57 pm
- Zabuza825
- May 28, 2015, 7:48 am
- Dog of War
- May 28, 2015, 7:23 am
- Quote:
-
- DanChan123
- May 27, 2015, 6:08 pm
Actually, to correct all of you, the Kingdom of Oirat existed before the Soviet Union in its fictional history (The First Kingdom was established in 1856). The Russian Empire just occupied it during the First World War, unofficially claiming it as theirs, and the Soviets technically had control over it after they overthrew the Tsar in the middle of the war.
Oirat formed after the Crimean War. The year before its independence and the end of the war, the Russian Empire in 1855 had to release the emancipation of serfdom, bringing in a liberal reform to the country. This reform allowed the various cultural minorities to immigrate to the various large industrial cities in the South Russian area, such as Sevastopol/Sebastopol in Crimea; in this version of history, alot of non-Russian minorites were forced to work for the Russian army in Crimea. Meanwhile, the coalition of French, British, Ottomans, and Sardinians had already pushed into Crimea, taking control of Sevastopol and basically the entire peninsula was lost to them. The Crimean War was a big contributor to the start of Russia’s decline. I’m sure now that the non-Russian minorites and other people had a much more liberal role in the working class society after the serfdom was abolished. In real history, this opened the gateway for a communistic rebellion to take place. But what if there was also a cultural rebellion? There were PLENTY of cultural rebellions (i.e Cossack rebellions) that took place, but when they did, Russia was strong enough to stop them. What if Russia was not strong enough? I’m sure the British and French, who were unsatisfied with the gain from this war (including the land gain), would be quite eager to offer their “conquered” land to these kinds of people, if they all asked the same thing (which they did in this alternate history); I’m sure they’d be even more eager to give it away if it means: 1. To stop Russian expansionism and spheres of influence (from places like Georgia, Azerbaijian, Armenia), which was the whole point of the Crimean War. 2. Gaining tariff-free trade with Crimean ports. Europeans appreciated trading with Oirats in the 1600s and 1700s, because they did not have any international taxation system or reliance on a structure currency, until the Tsar came and annexed them when they were vulnerable (their khan was dead).
I say it’s very possible. And if Oirat did exist before the Soviets came about, then their wouldn’t be much of an argument about how it is unrealistic that Russia seemingly just let some other people take their land.
The Soviets would still annexe their land into the USSR, or at least create a puppet state. The Soviets were originally internationalists, so they rejected the ideas of nationalism and generally didn't give a toss about how independent your state was. The Soviets were instrumental for securing independence for Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia in WWI before they annexed them in the Russian Civil War that followed. The Western powers - especially Britain - were intent on having the balance of power and said that to keep the balance Russia must control the Caucasus. This was in WWI, and agreements like this were key to the fall of the Ottoman Empire. The fact that the Soviets took over worried the Great Powers, but they reasoned that they may as well let the Soviets take the regions to maintain the balance of power. - Quote:
-
Also remember that the Soviets were intent on gaining as much land as possible, and have as many puppet states as possible under their wing. Any state that was occupied by the Red Army in WWII ended up having a communist regime put in place - the exception I think was a portion of Austria. The entire Cold War was about the Soviets expanding their sphere of influence throughout the world. Turkey and Iran were spared from Soviet occupation as they were incredibly pro-Western at the beginning of the Cold War, and were the only nations the USSR boarded that never had a communist regime (Now ofc Iran eventually did its own thing but by that time the Soviets had started to get involved in its neighbour Afghanistan who they had been trying to control for years). As such I cannot see Oirat being an independent nation with its current territory during the Soviet era. A monarchy could exist if it reduced its land and let Russia have a boarder with Georgia and Azerbaijan, but it would very pro-Soviet during the Cold War (same as how Kuwait, Zambia, Syria, India, Burma, and Mali were not communist states but were heavily aligned with the USSR in the Cold War)
Oirat is an Islamic country that had plenty of Western allies from the start. Also, the monarchy is generally appreciated by the populace; the people of Oirat were quite happy with what they had starting from 1856 (this is not generalized… if you read about how they even wanted Prime Minister Sohor to become their king/shah as well). I’m sure the USSR would attempt to convert Oirat to communism (I’ll be writing about that later). The only way I’d see the USSR taking over is if the USSR tried invading Oirat, or if they assassinated the monarch and the ministry and tried to appoint a communist leader, which would not work well since the Oirat majority Muslim populace would not appreciate it, and will probably rebel. Oirat has a history of having a watchful eye on Russia, and I don’t think many Soviets would be able to immigrate into their society unlike the mutual freedom they had with countries like Kazakhstan. And if they tried to take Crimea, Oirat’s holy grail, all of Europe (countries with military agreements and trade agreements with Oirat Black Sea access) would be pretty pissed off. The USSR could not afford a direct war, as we have observed with Korea and Vietnam. Also, if you read the history, Russia had opposed Oirat independence in 1856 and 1914, rather than help support it like it did Armenia, Georgia, and Azerbaijian in WWI. Actually, if Oirat did come about, it would geopolitically cut Russia away from influencing Georgia, Azerbaijian, and Armenia LONG before WWI ever began, which would mean those three countries would never have had to face events such as the Armenian genocide, and would be virtually either neutral, supply-supportive, or fight against the Allies with Oirat and the Ottomans. (Does altverse have a policy on the influencing of real world history in multiple countries, cause I say that’d be unavoidable?)
If Russia didn't have control of Caucasus, its likely that Joseph Stalin would never have become the Soviet Premier, and that practically changes the entire of 20th century history. Also, the Soviets invaded pretty religious nations in Eastern Europe (most notable being Hungary) which the west let them get away with as they were previously occupied by Nazi's. The exceptions were states which were also occupied by American or British troops such as Iran. Altverse does prefer that nations do not change the history of other nations way too much. Four nations would obviously change a lot (Georgia, Azerbaijan, Armenia and Ukraine due to the whole Crimea thing) and possibly every nations on the planet if you consider the fact that Stalin would probably never become a Bolshevik without Russian influence over Georgia.
Just saying this, but I doubt that Stalin would even be named "Stalin" if Russia didn't have Georgia. He changed his name because he went Bolshevik, he was born as Joseph Jugashvili. Th main issue that you're facing right now, DanChan, is that Stalin was a HUGE influence in history. Without him, things in the 1900's would turn out VERY VERY differently. I know one might say "well you're one to talk Zab", and I will admit that I've stretched history a lot with my nations, essentially throwing history out the window actually. But I've also made sure that for my nations I won't drastically change other nations histories by throwing it out the window. Indeed, for the one nation that I didn't throw history out the window, Alkara (which I abandoned due to lack of interest in it), I realized that because of the region I was claiming there was no way that I could possibly not influence other nations history's unless I had it be part of both Russia and the Soviet Union (it had St Petersburg, once called Leningrad, after all), so I had it be conquered by Russia at one point. Now, I'm going to throw this out - chances are you probably aren't going to be able to get away with this unless you do one of two things. You could change your history drastically. Alternatively, you could change your nations geographic location.
How about this: Let’s just call Georgia/Azerbaijian/Armenia as AGA. Oirat and AGA were part of the Russian Empire long before Oirat became its own country. The people in AGA were mostly Christian, like the Russians, and ethnically reserved since they were in their small little section of the world with a mountain (Caucasus) boundary seperating them from the going-ons in main Russia, and the people in proto-Oirat were the huge Non-Russian and melting pot that strived for independence, and many of them were Islamic. I’m sure Russia can still control AGA, south of the Caucasus, despite Oirat’s independence. This would allow Stalin to still join up with the Bolsheviks. The Russians/Soviets dominated the entire Caspian Sea, since they had control of Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan. Oirat’s dominance was primarily in the Black Sea, which Russia also had control of. P.S. The Volgograd Oblast no longer belongs to Oirat.
Now that I have presented my point, is this a concluding yes or no? I would Oirat would have to be a Soviet Socialist Republic. Or at least a communist puppet government, until 1989 - 1991.
Also you cannot have Crimea, because that would mess up the current events going on there.
|
|
|
| |
|
Dog of War
|
May 31, 2015, 10:00 am
Post #295
|
|
- Posts:
- 126
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #9
- Joined:
- Dec 15, 2014
|
- DanChan123
- May 30, 2015, 10:07 pm
- DanChan123
- May 28, 2015, 10:57 pm
- Zabuza825
- May 28, 2015, 7:48 am
- Dog of War
- May 28, 2015, 7:23 am
- Quote:
-
- DanChan123
- May 27, 2015, 6:08 pm
Actually, to correct all of you, the Kingdom of Oirat existed before the Soviet Union in its fictional history (The First Kingdom was established in 1856). The Russian Empire just occupied it during the First World War, unofficially claiming it as theirs, and the Soviets technically had control over it after they overthrew the Tsar in the middle of the war.
Oirat formed after the Crimean War. The year before its independence and the end of the war, the Russian Empire in 1855 had to release the emancipation of serfdom, bringing in a liberal reform to the country. This reform allowed the various cultural minorities to immigrate to the various large industrial cities in the South Russian area, such as Sevastopol/Sebastopol in Crimea; in this version of history, alot of non-Russian minorites were forced to work for the Russian army in Crimea. Meanwhile, the coalition of French, British, Ottomans, and Sardinians had already pushed into Crimea, taking control of Sevastopol and basically the entire peninsula was lost to them. The Crimean War was a big contributor to the start of Russia’s decline. I’m sure now that the non-Russian minorites and other people had a much more liberal role in the working class society after the serfdom was abolished. In real history, this opened the gateway for a communistic rebellion to take place. But what if there was also a cultural rebellion? There were PLENTY of cultural rebellions (i.e Cossack rebellions) that took place, but when they did, Russia was strong enough to stop them. What if Russia was not strong enough? I’m sure the British and French, who were unsatisfied with the gain from this war (including the land gain), would be quite eager to offer their “conquered” land to these kinds of people, if they all asked the same thing (which they did in this alternate history); I’m sure they’d be even more eager to give it away if it means: 1. To stop Russian expansionism and spheres of influence (from places like Georgia, Azerbaijian, Armenia), which was the whole point of the Crimean War. 2. Gaining tariff-free trade with Crimean ports. Europeans appreciated trading with Oirats in the 1600s and 1700s, because they did not have any international taxation system or reliance on a structure currency, until the Tsar came and annexed them when they were vulnerable (their khan was dead).
I say it’s very possible. And if Oirat did exist before the Soviets came about, then their wouldn’t be much of an argument about how it is unrealistic that Russia seemingly just let some other people take their land.
The Soviets would still annexe their land into the USSR, or at least create a puppet state. The Soviets were originally internationalists, so they rejected the ideas of nationalism and generally didn't give a toss about how independent your state was. The Soviets were instrumental for securing independence for Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia in WWI before they annexed them in the Russian Civil War that followed. The Western powers - especially Britain - were intent on having the balance of power and said that to keep the balance Russia must control the Caucasus. This was in WWI, and agreements like this were key to the fall of the Ottoman Empire. The fact that the Soviets took over worried the Great Powers, but they reasoned that they may as well let the Soviets take the regions to maintain the balance of power. - Quote:
-
Also remember that the Soviets were intent on gaining as much land as possible, and have as many puppet states as possible under their wing. Any state that was occupied by the Red Army in WWII ended up having a communist regime put in place - the exception I think was a portion of Austria. The entire Cold War was about the Soviets expanding their sphere of influence throughout the world. Turkey and Iran were spared from Soviet occupation as they were incredibly pro-Western at the beginning of the Cold War, and were the only nations the USSR boarded that never had a communist regime (Now ofc Iran eventually did its own thing but by that time the Soviets had started to get involved in its neighbour Afghanistan who they had been trying to control for years). As such I cannot see Oirat being an independent nation with its current territory during the Soviet era. A monarchy could exist if it reduced its land and let Russia have a boarder with Georgia and Azerbaijan, but it would very pro-Soviet during the Cold War (same as how Kuwait, Zambia, Syria, India, Burma, and Mali were not communist states but were heavily aligned with the USSR in the Cold War)
Oirat is an Islamic country that had plenty of Western allies from the start. Also, the monarchy is generally appreciated by the populace; the people of Oirat were quite happy with what they had starting from 1856 (this is not generalized… if you read about how they even wanted Prime Minister Sohor to become their king/shah as well). I’m sure the USSR would attempt to convert Oirat to communism (I’ll be writing about that later). The only way I’d see the USSR taking over is if the USSR tried invading Oirat, or if they assassinated the monarch and the ministry and tried to appoint a communist leader, which would not work well since the Oirat majority Muslim populace would not appreciate it, and will probably rebel. Oirat has a history of having a watchful eye on Russia, and I don’t think many Soviets would be able to immigrate into their society unlike the mutual freedom they had with countries like Kazakhstan. And if they tried to take Crimea, Oirat’s holy grail, all of Europe (countries with military agreements and trade agreements with Oirat Black Sea access) would be pretty pissed off. The USSR could not afford a direct war, as we have observed with Korea and Vietnam. Also, if you read the history, Russia had opposed Oirat independence in 1856 and 1914, rather than help support it like it did Armenia, Georgia, and Azerbaijian in WWI. Actually, if Oirat did come about, it would geopolitically cut Russia away from influencing Georgia, Azerbaijian, and Armenia LONG before WWI ever began, which would mean those three countries would never have had to face events such as the Armenian genocide, and would be virtually either neutral, supply-supportive, or fight against the Allies with Oirat and the Ottomans. (Does altverse have a policy on the influencing of real world history in multiple countries, cause I say that’d be unavoidable?)
If Russia didn't have control of Caucasus, its likely that Joseph Stalin would never have become the Soviet Premier, and that practically changes the entire of 20th century history. Also, the Soviets invaded pretty religious nations in Eastern Europe (most notable being Hungary) which the west let them get away with as they were previously occupied by Nazi's. The exceptions were states which were also occupied by American or British troops such as Iran. Altverse does prefer that nations do not change the history of other nations way too much. Four nations would obviously change a lot (Georgia, Azerbaijan, Armenia and Ukraine due to the whole Crimea thing) and possibly every nations on the planet if you consider the fact that Stalin would probably never become a Bolshevik without Russian influence over Georgia.
Just saying this, but I doubt that Stalin would even be named "Stalin" if Russia didn't have Georgia. He changed his name because he went Bolshevik, he was born as Joseph Jugashvili. Th main issue that you're facing right now, DanChan, is that Stalin was a HUGE influence in history. Without him, things in the 1900's would turn out VERY VERY differently. I know one might say "well you're one to talk Zab", and I will admit that I've stretched history a lot with my nations, essentially throwing history out the window actually. But I've also made sure that for my nations I won't drastically change other nations histories by throwing it out the window. Indeed, for the one nation that I didn't throw history out the window, Alkara (which I abandoned due to lack of interest in it), I realized that because of the region I was claiming there was no way that I could possibly not influence other nations history's unless I had it be part of both Russia and the Soviet Union (it had St Petersburg, once called Leningrad, after all), so I had it be conquered by Russia at one point. Now, I'm going to throw this out - chances are you probably aren't going to be able to get away with this unless you do one of two things. You could change your history drastically. Alternatively, you could change your nations geographic location.
How about this: Let’s just call Georgia/Azerbaijian/Armenia as AGA. Oirat and AGA were part of the Russian Empire long before Oirat became its own country. The people in AGA were mostly Christian, like the Russians, and ethnically reserved since they were in their small little section of the world with a mountain (Caucasus) boundary seperating them from the going-ons in main Russia, and the people in proto-Oirat were the huge Non-Russian and melting pot that strived for independence, and many of them were Islamic. I’m sure Russia can still control AGA, south of the Caucasus, despite Oirat’s independence. This would allow Stalin to still join up with the Bolsheviks. The Russians/Soviets dominated the entire Caspian Sea, since they had control of Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan. Oirat’s dominance was primarily in the Black Sea, which Russia also had control of. P.S. The Volgograd Oblast no longer belongs to Oirat.
Now that I have presented my point, is this a concluding yes or no? I will continue to say no unless Russia maintains a boarder with the Caucasus nations. The Russian empire would not realistically have the resources to maintain influence over the nations from the Ottoman Empire unless they had a direct land boarder with them. In this case I have to say Zabuza825 summed it up perfectly -
"You could change your history drastically.
Alternatively, you could change your nations geographic location."
The second option is just overall a lot easier
|
         Left<--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------->Right
|
| |
|
DanChan123
|
May 31, 2015, 1:22 pm
Post #296
|
|
- Posts:
- 21
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #32
- Joined:
- May 26, 2015
|
- Alexander
- May 31, 2015, 9:32 am
- DanChan123
- May 30, 2015, 10:07 pm
- DanChan123
- May 28, 2015, 10:57 pm
- Zabuza825
- May 28, 2015, 7:48 am
- Dog of War
- May 28, 2015, 7:23 am
- Quote:
-
- DanChan123
- May 27, 2015, 6:08 pm
Actually, to correct all of you, the Kingdom of Oirat existed before the Soviet Union in its fictional history (The First Kingdom was established in 1856). The Russian Empire just occupied it during the First World War, unofficially claiming it as theirs, and the Soviets technically had control over it after they overthrew the Tsar in the middle of the war.
Oirat formed after the Crimean War. The year before its independence and the end of the war, the Russian Empire in 1855 had to release the emancipation of serfdom, bringing in a liberal reform to the country. This reform allowed the various cultural minorities to immigrate to the various large industrial cities in the South Russian area, such as Sevastopol/Sebastopol in Crimea; in this version of history, alot of non-Russian minorites were forced to work for the Russian army in Crimea. Meanwhile, the coalition of French, British, Ottomans, and Sardinians had already pushed into Crimea, taking control of Sevastopol and basically the entire peninsula was lost to them. The Crimean War was a big contributor to the start of Russia’s decline. I’m sure now that the non-Russian minorites and other people had a much more liberal role in the working class society after the serfdom was abolished. In real history, this opened the gateway for a communistic rebellion to take place. But what if there was also a cultural rebellion? There were PLENTY of cultural rebellions (i.e Cossack rebellions) that took place, but when they did, Russia was strong enough to stop them. What if Russia was not strong enough? I’m sure the British and French, who were unsatisfied with the gain from this war (including the land gain), would be quite eager to offer their “conquered” land to these kinds of people, if they all asked the same thing (which they did in this alternate history); I’m sure they’d be even more eager to give it away if it means: 1. To stop Russian expansionism and spheres of influence (from places like Georgia, Azerbaijian, Armenia), which was the whole point of the Crimean War. 2. Gaining tariff-free trade with Crimean ports. Europeans appreciated trading with Oirats in the 1600s and 1700s, because they did not have any international taxation system or reliance on a structure currency, until the Tsar came and annexed them when they were vulnerable (their khan was dead).
I say it’s very possible. And if Oirat did exist before the Soviets came about, then their wouldn’t be much of an argument about how it is unrealistic that Russia seemingly just let some other people take their land.
The Soviets would still annexe their land into the USSR, or at least create a puppet state. The Soviets were originally internationalists, so they rejected the ideas of nationalism and generally didn't give a toss about how independent your state was. The Soviets were instrumental for securing independence for Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia in WWI before they annexed them in the Russian Civil War that followed. The Western powers - especially Britain - were intent on having the balance of power and said that to keep the balance Russia must control the Caucasus. This was in WWI, and agreements like this were key to the fall of the Ottoman Empire. The fact that the Soviets took over worried the Great Powers, but they reasoned that they may as well let the Soviets take the regions to maintain the balance of power. - Quote:
-
Also remember that the Soviets were intent on gaining as much land as possible, and have as many puppet states as possible under their wing. Any state that was occupied by the Red Army in WWII ended up having a communist regime put in place - the exception I think was a portion of Austria. The entire Cold War was about the Soviets expanding their sphere of influence throughout the world. Turkey and Iran were spared from Soviet occupation as they were incredibly pro-Western at the beginning of the Cold War, and were the only nations the USSR boarded that never had a communist regime (Now ofc Iran eventually did its own thing but by that time the Soviets had started to get involved in its neighbour Afghanistan who they had been trying to control for years). As such I cannot see Oirat being an independent nation with its current territory during the Soviet era. A monarchy could exist if it reduced its land and let Russia have a boarder with Georgia and Azerbaijan, but it would very pro-Soviet during the Cold War (same as how Kuwait, Zambia, Syria, India, Burma, and Mali were not communist states but were heavily aligned with the USSR in the Cold War)
Oirat is an Islamic country that had plenty of Western allies from the start. Also, the monarchy is generally appreciated by the populace; the people of Oirat were quite happy with what they had starting from 1856 (this is not generalized… if you read about how they even wanted Prime Minister Sohor to become their king/shah as well). I’m sure the USSR would attempt to convert Oirat to communism (I’ll be writing about that later). The only way I’d see the USSR taking over is if the USSR tried invading Oirat, or if they assassinated the monarch and the ministry and tried to appoint a communist leader, which would not work well since the Oirat majority Muslim populace would not appreciate it, and will probably rebel. Oirat has a history of having a watchful eye on Russia, and I don’t think many Soviets would be able to immigrate into their society unlike the mutual freedom they had with countries like Kazakhstan. And if they tried to take Crimea, Oirat’s holy grail, all of Europe (countries with military agreements and trade agreements with Oirat Black Sea access) would be pretty pissed off. The USSR could not afford a direct war, as we have observed with Korea and Vietnam. Also, if you read the history, Russia had opposed Oirat independence in 1856 and 1914, rather than help support it like it did Armenia, Georgia, and Azerbaijian in WWI. Actually, if Oirat did come about, it would geopolitically cut Russia away from influencing Georgia, Azerbaijian, and Armenia LONG before WWI ever began, which would mean those three countries would never have had to face events such as the Armenian genocide, and would be virtually either neutral, supply-supportive, or fight against the Allies with Oirat and the Ottomans. (Does altverse have a policy on the influencing of real world history in multiple countries, cause I say that’d be unavoidable?)
If Russia didn't have control of Caucasus, its likely that Joseph Stalin would never have become the Soviet Premier, and that practically changes the entire of 20th century history. Also, the Soviets invaded pretty religious nations in Eastern Europe (most notable being Hungary) which the west let them get away with as they were previously occupied by Nazi's. The exceptions were states which were also occupied by American or British troops such as Iran. Altverse does prefer that nations do not change the history of other nations way too much. Four nations would obviously change a lot (Georgia, Azerbaijan, Armenia and Ukraine due to the whole Crimea thing) and possibly every nations on the planet if you consider the fact that Stalin would probably never become a Bolshevik without Russian influence over Georgia.
Just saying this, but I doubt that Stalin would even be named "Stalin" if Russia didn't have Georgia. He changed his name because he went Bolshevik, he was born as Joseph Jugashvili. Th main issue that you're facing right now, DanChan, is that Stalin was a HUGE influence in history. Without him, things in the 1900's would turn out VERY VERY differently. I know one might say "well you're one to talk Zab", and I will admit that I've stretched history a lot with my nations, essentially throwing history out the window actually. But I've also made sure that for my nations I won't drastically change other nations histories by throwing it out the window. Indeed, for the one nation that I didn't throw history out the window, Alkara (which I abandoned due to lack of interest in it), I realized that because of the region I was claiming there was no way that I could possibly not influence other nations history's unless I had it be part of both Russia and the Soviet Union (it had St Petersburg, once called Leningrad, after all), so I had it be conquered by Russia at one point. Now, I'm going to throw this out - chances are you probably aren't going to be able to get away with this unless you do one of two things. You could change your history drastically. Alternatively, you could change your nations geographic location.
How about this: Let’s just call Georgia/Azerbaijian/Armenia as AGA. Oirat and AGA were part of the Russian Empire long before Oirat became its own country. The people in AGA were mostly Christian, like the Russians, and ethnically reserved since they were in their small little section of the world with a mountain (Caucasus) boundary seperating them from the going-ons in main Russia, and the people in proto-Oirat were the huge Non-Russian and melting pot that strived for independence, and many of them were Islamic. I’m sure Russia can still control AGA, south of the Caucasus, despite Oirat’s independence. This would allow Stalin to still join up with the Bolsheviks. The Russians/Soviets dominated the entire Caspian Sea, since they had control of Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan. Oirat’s dominance was primarily in the Black Sea, which Russia also had control of. P.S. The Volgograd Oblast no longer belongs to Oirat.
Now that I have presented my point, is this a concluding yes or no?
I would Oirat would have to be a Soviet Socialist Republic. Or at least a communist puppet government, until 1989 - 1991. Also you cannot have Crimea, because that would mess up the current events going on there. Sure, I can give away Crimea (Like the Soviets occupied it or something during the Russian Civil War, and then annexed it) However, the Socialist Republic thing would be tricky.
First you have to consider that: The Oirats are very, very skeptical and mistrusting the actions of both the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union over the centuries. Uprisings were rare, as the majority of them were basic Muslims, they had no problem with races since they were founded on very multi-racial grounds, they had a decent circulation of food, any able-bodied person could work and make money. And virtually all the central European powers were dependent on trade with Oirat on the grounds of oil, coal, and clothing, because unlike the Russians, they did not require a tariff until temporarily between 1932 and 1933 because of the Great Depression. Well, you might say that Stalin consolidated his power greatly during the Depression, but Oirat only started going down in the 1932, but immediately came back to a rise as the Prime Minister and his Minister of Commerce decided to abolish the tariff, an action which made other countries want Oirat goods even more, since they could not afford to by from the other countries affected greatly by the Depression. So actually Oirat would have come off much better up until WWII, but remember that the Soviets lost the battle of Sevastopol, and thus all of Crimea, such that the Nazis could either move toward Moscow, or hit Oirat first. I’d say that Nazis would’ve moved onto Moscow before the winter, but they would still have bombed Oirat. But would that really devastate Oirat’s government such that the Soviets would easily take over after? The Soviets lost 1/4 of their people in that war, and were too busy with Korea and whatnot. A communist rebellion happened in Astrakhan, but it was successfully suppressed, and the event eventually led to a reform in which Oirat became even closer to the West.
Any able-bodied man or woman of the Oirat nation at the time could be called upon by the King in defense of their country in war, and with foreign armies who like Oirat trade better than Russia’s, the USSR would have to reconsider an invasion of Oirat.
|
|
|
| |
|
DanChan123
|
May 31, 2015, 6:26 pm
Post #297
|
|
- Posts:
- 21
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #32
- Joined:
- May 26, 2015
|
- Dog of War
- May 31, 2015, 10:00 am
- DanChan123
- May 30, 2015, 10:07 pm
- DanChan123
- May 28, 2015, 10:57 pm
- Zabuza825
- May 28, 2015, 7:48 am
- Dog of War
- May 28, 2015, 7:23 am
- Quote:
-
- DanChan123
- May 27, 2015, 6:08 pm
Actually, to correct all of you, the Kingdom of Oirat existed before the Soviet Union in its fictional history (The First Kingdom was established in 1856). The Russian Empire just occupied it during the First World War, unofficially claiming it as theirs, and the Soviets technically had control over it after they overthrew the Tsar in the middle of the war.
Oirat formed after the Crimean War. The year before its independence and the end of the war, the Russian Empire in 1855 had to release the emancipation of serfdom, bringing in a liberal reform to the country. This reform allowed the various cultural minorities to immigrate to the various large industrial cities in the South Russian area, such as Sevastopol/Sebastopol in Crimea; in this version of history, alot of non-Russian minorites were forced to work for the Russian army in Crimea. Meanwhile, the coalition of French, British, Ottomans, and Sardinians had already pushed into Crimea, taking control of Sevastopol and basically the entire peninsula was lost to them. The Crimean War was a big contributor to the start of Russia’s decline. I’m sure now that the non-Russian minorites and other people had a much more liberal role in the working class society after the serfdom was abolished. In real history, this opened the gateway for a communistic rebellion to take place. But what if there was also a cultural rebellion? There were PLENTY of cultural rebellions (i.e Cossack rebellions) that took place, but when they did, Russia was strong enough to stop them. What if Russia was not strong enough? I’m sure the British and French, who were unsatisfied with the gain from this war (including the land gain), would be quite eager to offer their “conquered” land to these kinds of people, if they all asked the same thing (which they did in this alternate history); I’m sure they’d be even more eager to give it away if it means: 1. To stop Russian expansionism and spheres of influence (from places like Georgia, Azerbaijian, Armenia), which was the whole point of the Crimean War. 2. Gaining tariff-free trade with Crimean ports. Europeans appreciated trading with Oirats in the 1600s and 1700s, because they did not have any international taxation system or reliance on a structure currency, until the Tsar came and annexed them when they were vulnerable (their khan was dead).
I say it’s very possible. And if Oirat did exist before the Soviets came about, then their wouldn’t be much of an argument about how it is unrealistic that Russia seemingly just let some other people take their land.
The Soviets would still annexe their land into the USSR, or at least create a puppet state. The Soviets were originally internationalists, so they rejected the ideas of nationalism and generally didn't give a toss about how independent your state was. The Soviets were instrumental for securing independence for Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia in WWI before they annexed them in the Russian Civil War that followed. The Western powers - especially Britain - were intent on having the balance of power and said that to keep the balance Russia must control the Caucasus. This was in WWI, and agreements like this were key to the fall of the Ottoman Empire. The fact that the Soviets took over worried the Great Powers, but they reasoned that they may as well let the Soviets take the regions to maintain the balance of power. - Quote:
-
Also remember that the Soviets were intent on gaining as much land as possible, and have as many puppet states as possible under their wing. Any state that was occupied by the Red Army in WWII ended up having a communist regime put in place - the exception I think was a portion of Austria. The entire Cold War was about the Soviets expanding their sphere of influence throughout the world. Turkey and Iran were spared from Soviet occupation as they were incredibly pro-Western at the beginning of the Cold War, and were the only nations the USSR boarded that never had a communist regime (Now ofc Iran eventually did its own thing but by that time the Soviets had started to get involved in its neighbour Afghanistan who they had been trying to control for years). As such I cannot see Oirat being an independent nation with its current territory during the Soviet era. A monarchy could exist if it reduced its land and let Russia have a boarder with Georgia and Azerbaijan, but it would very pro-Soviet during the Cold War (same as how Kuwait, Zambia, Syria, India, Burma, and Mali were not communist states but were heavily aligned with the USSR in the Cold War)
Oirat is an Islamic country that had plenty of Western allies from the start. Also, the monarchy is generally appreciated by the populace; the people of Oirat were quite happy with what they had starting from 1856 (this is not generalized… if you read about how they even wanted Prime Minister Sohor to become their king/shah as well). I’m sure the USSR would attempt to convert Oirat to communism (I’ll be writing about that later). The only way I’d see the USSR taking over is if the USSR tried invading Oirat, or if they assassinated the monarch and the ministry and tried to appoint a communist leader, which would not work well since the Oirat majority Muslim populace would not appreciate it, and will probably rebel. Oirat has a history of having a watchful eye on Russia, and I don’t think many Soviets would be able to immigrate into their society unlike the mutual freedom they had with countries like Kazakhstan. And if they tried to take Crimea, Oirat’s holy grail, all of Europe (countries with military agreements and trade agreements with Oirat Black Sea access) would be pretty pissed off. The USSR could not afford a direct war, as we have observed with Korea and Vietnam. Also, if you read the history, Russia had opposed Oirat independence in 1856 and 1914, rather than help support it like it did Armenia, Georgia, and Azerbaijian in WWI. Actually, if Oirat did come about, it would geopolitically cut Russia away from influencing Georgia, Azerbaijian, and Armenia LONG before WWI ever began, which would mean those three countries would never have had to face events such as the Armenian genocide, and would be virtually either neutral, supply-supportive, or fight against the Allies with Oirat and the Ottomans. (Does altverse have a policy on the influencing of real world history in multiple countries, cause I say that’d be unavoidable?)
If Russia didn't have control of Caucasus, its likely that Joseph Stalin would never have become the Soviet Premier, and that practically changes the entire of 20th century history. Also, the Soviets invaded pretty religious nations in Eastern Europe (most notable being Hungary) which the west let them get away with as they were previously occupied by Nazi's. The exceptions were states which were also occupied by American or British troops such as Iran. Altverse does prefer that nations do not change the history of other nations way too much. Four nations would obviously change a lot (Georgia, Azerbaijan, Armenia and Ukraine due to the whole Crimea thing) and possibly every nations on the planet if you consider the fact that Stalin would probably never become a Bolshevik without Russian influence over Georgia.
Just saying this, but I doubt that Stalin would even be named "Stalin" if Russia didn't have Georgia. He changed his name because he went Bolshevik, he was born as Joseph Jugashvili. Th main issue that you're facing right now, DanChan, is that Stalin was a HUGE influence in history. Without him, things in the 1900's would turn out VERY VERY differently. I know one might say "well you're one to talk Zab", and I will admit that I've stretched history a lot with my nations, essentially throwing history out the window actually. But I've also made sure that for my nations I won't drastically change other nations histories by throwing it out the window. Indeed, for the one nation that I didn't throw history out the window, Alkara (which I abandoned due to lack of interest in it), I realized that because of the region I was claiming there was no way that I could possibly not influence other nations history's unless I had it be part of both Russia and the Soviet Union (it had St Petersburg, once called Leningrad, after all), so I had it be conquered by Russia at one point. Now, I'm going to throw this out - chances are you probably aren't going to be able to get away with this unless you do one of two things. You could change your history drastically. Alternatively, you could change your nations geographic location.
How about this: Let’s just call Georgia/Azerbaijian/Armenia as AGA. Oirat and AGA were part of the Russian Empire long before Oirat became its own country. The people in AGA were mostly Christian, like the Russians, and ethnically reserved since they were in their small little section of the world with a mountain (Caucasus) boundary seperating them from the going-ons in main Russia, and the people in proto-Oirat were the huge Non-Russian and melting pot that strived for independence, and many of them were Islamic. I’m sure Russia can still control AGA, south of the Caucasus, despite Oirat’s independence. This would allow Stalin to still join up with the Bolsheviks. The Russians/Soviets dominated the entire Caspian Sea, since they had control of Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan. Oirat’s dominance was primarily in the Black Sea, which Russia also had control of. P.S. The Volgograd Oblast no longer belongs to Oirat.
Now that I have presented my point, is this a concluding yes or no?
I will continue to say no unless Russia maintains a boarder with the Caucasus nations. The Russian empire would not realistically have the resources to maintain influence over the nations from the Ottoman Empire unless they had a direct land boarder with them. In this case I have to say Zabuza825 summed it up perfectly - "You could change your history drastically. Alternatively, you could change your nations geographic location." The second option is just overall a lot easier I took the first option. The Soviet Union took over West Oirat during the Astrakhan Communist Rebellion of 1920, and West Oirat remained an SSR until it was returned to the Kingdom in 1991 for three reasons.
-The spread of Islam -USSR decline -The Kingdom of Oirat (East Oirat) was a better nation.
Agreed?
|
|
|
| |
|
Dog of War
|
May 31, 2015, 8:12 pm
Post #298
|
|
- Posts:
- 126
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #9
- Joined:
- Dec 15, 2014
|
Qatif
- Link
- Real World Countries and Land Claimed: Part of the Eastern Province and Northern Borders Region of Saudi Arabia.
- Why you want to join: Because it opens up roleplaying possibilities
- Have you read everything concerning Altverse?: Y
- Do you agree to comply to all rules and policies?: Y
- Other: Your additional comments here.
|
         Left<--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------->Right
|
| |
|
Alexander
|
June 1, 2015, 5:22 pm
Post #299
|
|
- Posts:
- 31
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #30
- Joined:
- Apr 2, 2015
|
So, is Ukraine approved, now that the concerns have been addressed (in case you have not seen my last post)?
|
|
|
| |
|
DetroitJones
|
June 1, 2015, 6:17 pm
Post #300
|
|
- Posts:
- 3
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #33
- Joined:
- May 28, 2015
|
So can I add my nation to the list of active ones on the wikia?
|
|
|
| |
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
|