-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
I can see the Chinese respecting incumbent monarchs, but bringing a Czar back to Russia?? A nice idea if they intend to run Russia like the Japanese ran Manchuria, but do they really want that...?
A Czar could serve as the figurehead of a government consisting of White exiles though. Surely there's a Romanov prince around somewhere... Then again, the Whites won't be able to run the country all by themselves. The Chinese need to get the government apparatus (i.e. the red bureaucracy and administration) on their side, too. Shouldn't be too difficult, if they can reign in the Whites' desire for setting themselves up as the exclusive elite...
On the other hand, if the Whites toss out the red apparatchiks the way the US threw the Baath party people out of the Iraqi government (on behest of the exiles!) then they will quickly have an insurrection on their hands, much like in Iraq.
A Czar could serve as the figurehead of a government consisting of White exiles though. Surely there's a Romanov prince around somewhere... Then again, the Whites won't be able to run the country all by themselves. The Chinese need to get the government apparatus (i.e. the red bureaucracy and administration) on their side, too. Shouldn't be too difficult, if they can reign in the Whites' desire for setting themselves up as the exclusive elite...
On the other hand, if the Whites toss out the red apparatchiks the way the US threw the Baath party people out of the Iraqi government (on behest of the exiles!) then they will quickly have an insurrection on their hands, much like in Iraq.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Kirillovich,_Grand_Duke_of_Russia
The article says he hung out in France since 1938, and was placed under arrest and later put into a prison camp by the Germans. In this storyline the Chinese should have gotten their hands on him...
If you're gonna bring the Whites into the equasion, you'll have a new war in 5 years. The Whites asserted that they have rights over the area controlled by the russian empire even when they were losing in 1920, if they have control of the whole of Russia they'll be demanding the lot back. The whites are little better than the reds, I'm afraid. 
Democratic Russia is the only way to go. Perhaps Keresnky will have more luck once the russians have seen the evils of both Whites and Reds.
Democratic Russia is the only way to go. Perhaps Keresnky will have more luck once the russians have seen the evils of both Whites and Reds.
Inviting back Kerensky as a President is a smart move IMO. Right now, as in OTL, he's probably a lecturer in the USA talking about the promise of Russian democracy and where it went wrong. An intellectual leader who could join Kong in his quest for a democratic East.
What would be the difference between having a Czar and having a President in Russia? I mean, as far as day-to-day rule is concerned.
Kerensky is the default for a liberated market liberal russia. That said I'm wondering how he would fit. The Chinese could call him back with probable Allied backing, but he would probably be politically unreliable. Russian revolutionary is a bad word that describes Kerensky.
There's also how he would fit with the white russian exiles in the Far east who are mostly military refugees who fought with Kolchak and Semyonov or people involved with running the Manchuria railway who were already living in Manchuria. The Petrograd Soviet revolutionary atmosphere that made Kerensky is not something they experienced directly. For them, the fall of the czar, the provisional government and the Bolshevik Revolution were headlines happening 1500 miles away until their lives were destroyed by that same revolution. The emigres aren't necessarily czarist but they are definitely conservative. They have monarchists, fascists, and a few parliamentarians. There are much more liberal russians among their children now in their early to late twenties, but they aren't likely to support Kerensky either, him being before their time.
Kerensky's political group of czar era socialists and democrats largely died in the revolution and those that survived mostly fled into Europe. They are certainly going to be involved at Astana but they are coming from a position of disadvantage. The white Russians in China have had decades to build up political and military contacts within the chinese government, including significant war time service, while the european exiles are coming in with their hats in hand.
There's also the problem of Russian nationalism. The Chinese want to prevent russia from becoming a threat. Breaking it up into the constituent SSR's is a possibility, but in that situation the Russian SSR is still the largest by far; it could swallow up the other republics like it did when the Soviet Union was formed in the first place. Splitting the Russian SSR itself into smaller pieces has its own problems. The division would be unnatural and eventually the pieces would try to come together; forcing China to either commit troops to maintain the separation or go home and hope that a newly united Russia does not seek vengeance for the harsh peace. Also, splitting Russia proper is also a bit problematic on pure principle for a Chinese government that spent the last decade fighting to end internal divisions artificially imposed from outside. The soviet population is around 170 million in 1943, about 85 million are russians while the next largest minority ukrainians are only 23 million. China itself is going to get roughly 6 million people when the borders are finally drawn and almost half of them will be russians.
There's also how he would fit with the white russian exiles in the Far east who are mostly military refugees who fought with Kolchak and Semyonov or people involved with running the Manchuria railway who were already living in Manchuria. The Petrograd Soviet revolutionary atmosphere that made Kerensky is not something they experienced directly. For them, the fall of the czar, the provisional government and the Bolshevik Revolution were headlines happening 1500 miles away until their lives were destroyed by that same revolution. The emigres aren't necessarily czarist but they are definitely conservative. They have monarchists, fascists, and a few parliamentarians. There are much more liberal russians among their children now in their early to late twenties, but they aren't likely to support Kerensky either, him being before their time.
Kerensky's political group of czar era socialists and democrats largely died in the revolution and those that survived mostly fled into Europe. They are certainly going to be involved at Astana but they are coming from a position of disadvantage. The white Russians in China have had decades to build up political and military contacts within the chinese government, including significant war time service, while the european exiles are coming in with their hats in hand.
There's also the problem of Russian nationalism. The Chinese want to prevent russia from becoming a threat. Breaking it up into the constituent SSR's is a possibility, but in that situation the Russian SSR is still the largest by far; it could swallow up the other republics like it did when the Soviet Union was formed in the first place. Splitting the Russian SSR itself into smaller pieces has its own problems. The division would be unnatural and eventually the pieces would try to come together; forcing China to either commit troops to maintain the separation or go home and hope that a newly united Russia does not seek vengeance for the harsh peace. Also, splitting Russia proper is also a bit problematic on pure principle for a Chinese government that spent the last decade fighting to end internal divisions artificially imposed from outside. The soviet population is around 170 million in 1943, about 85 million are russians while the next largest minority ukrainians are only 23 million. China itself is going to get roughly 6 million people when the borders are finally drawn and almost half of them will be russians.
The historical name of Astana would be Akmolinsk, by the way. It was changed to Tselinograd in 1961 and only then to Astana in 1992.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astana
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astana
I think the key to weakining Russia in an acceptable manner would be to shave off its western SSRs only, and integrating them somehow within the new European framework. They have the most nationalism at this point and the best historical precedence. The Baltic countries have been independent in the interwar era, Belorussia and Ukraine can call on common history with Poland, and together they will take ~30-40% of the Russian industry and population with them.
For the rest, I think the key to keeping Russia harmless will be in small cessations of territory as well as regulations of Russian internal policy.
If China takes back the Russian far east (Transamur), that will be a relatively small territorial cession, but one which will in one strike end any and all pretensions of Russia being a Pacific power, or ever threatening Manchuria again. With Vladivostok gone, their only other Pacific ports are inhospitable places like Okhotsk or Magadan. They suffice as small ports from which to maintain communications with Kamchatka or a small fishing fleet, but nothing else.
The key to keeping the remainder of China's new Siberian frontier safe would be to impose a federal structure on Russia's transural possessions. If the provinces can make their own economic agreements with China, without consulting Moscow first, that should link them closely to China and could create very good synergy. Chinese help in the exploitation of Siberia's natural riches would strengthen the region as a whole.
In Central Asia I think the situation will be uncritical for China as well. There need not be any independence of the 'stans, after all the Russo-Chinese frontier is one of the most inhospitable mountain ranges and strategically very safe for China. China's strategic interests beyond its borders woud, here too, be best served if the Tashkent/Ferghana region within Russia was turned into a federal subdivision of Russia, with the authority to determine its own economic policy and make economic agreements with China. The Soviet administration of the region was 100% tailored to doing the exact opposite - balkanizing the region as much as possible, stifling any hints at local independence, and exploiting it to an unsustainable maximum for the benefit of the remainder of the USSR. China would be well advised to undo that, and set up a local power center within the Russian federation, a power center that can assert its own interests against Moscow. I'm thinking along the lines of uniting the whole Almaata-Tashkent-Fergana-Samarkand region into one federal entity within Russia, with an elected Duma of its own, its own economic planning agency and a big credit line with the Chinese Central Asia Bank to fuel its economic development.
For the rest, I think the key to keeping Russia harmless will be in small cessations of territory as well as regulations of Russian internal policy.
If China takes back the Russian far east (Transamur), that will be a relatively small territorial cession, but one which will in one strike end any and all pretensions of Russia being a Pacific power, or ever threatening Manchuria again. With Vladivostok gone, their only other Pacific ports are inhospitable places like Okhotsk or Magadan. They suffice as small ports from which to maintain communications with Kamchatka or a small fishing fleet, but nothing else.
The key to keeping the remainder of China's new Siberian frontier safe would be to impose a federal structure on Russia's transural possessions. If the provinces can make their own economic agreements with China, without consulting Moscow first, that should link them closely to China and could create very good synergy. Chinese help in the exploitation of Siberia's natural riches would strengthen the region as a whole.
In Central Asia I think the situation will be uncritical for China as well. There need not be any independence of the 'stans, after all the Russo-Chinese frontier is one of the most inhospitable mountain ranges and strategically very safe for China. China's strategic interests beyond its borders woud, here too, be best served if the Tashkent/Ferghana region within Russia was turned into a federal subdivision of Russia, with the authority to determine its own economic policy and make economic agreements with China. The Soviet administration of the region was 100% tailored to doing the exact opposite - balkanizing the region as much as possible, stifling any hints at local independence, and exploiting it to an unsustainable maximum for the benefit of the remainder of the USSR. China would be well advised to undo that, and set up a local power center within the Russian federation, a power center that can assert its own interests against Moscow. I'm thinking along the lines of uniting the whole Almaata-Tashkent-Fergana-Samarkand region into one federal entity within Russia, with an elected Duma of its own, its own economic planning agency and a big credit line with the Chinese Central Asia Bank to fuel its economic development.
I'd say shave off eastern Siberia to China. It's full of riches and sparsely populated. China is full of people. They need space. Besides, Tom Clancy wrote about it in a book a few years ago. That is the same guy who wrote about planes crashing in the US, before 9/11. It's got to be the way.*nods*
So did everyone who's ever written a book about aircraft.
No, if you're gonna present Tom Clancy as a prophet, look to Ghost Recon and the prediction that there'd be a war between Russia and Georgia over Southy Ossetia in 2008.
As for Siberia, it's... rather useless in HoI, isn't it?
Yeah, not much in Siberia. A few places with alot of resources, a few VP's and Airfields, and alot of useless land.
To aid the wonderful speculation here, I'm posting this map from AAR 51. It shows what areas are going to China. This is imporatns for Siberia because just like Canadians and the US border, the vast majority of Siberian russians live within the blue line. (The exact areas going to China are Sakhalin Oblast, Khabarovskiy Krai, Primorsky Krai, Amurskaya Oblast, Chita Oblast, Buryatskaya ASSR, Tuvinskaya ASSR, Gorno Altaskaya Autonomous Oblast, Vostochno - Kazakhstanya Autonomous Oblast, Semipalatinsk Oblast, Taldy Kurgan Oblast, Alma Ata Oblast, Issik- Kul'skaya Oblast, Tian Shan province (kyrgyzstan) and Gordo Badakhshanskaya Autonomous Oblast.)
Actually, it looks like you're leaving the main population centers in central and western Siberia in Russian hands: Omsk, Novosibirsk, Krasnoyarsk, Bratsk, Irkutsk. Along the entire arc from Kazakhstan to lake Baikal, the area of the blue line appears rather less populated than those areas further north, so the Canadian analogy does not entirely hold true...
Only eastwards of Lake Baikal you're really robbing them of their main population centers. As well as both of their east-west railroads. (West of lake Baikal the Russians should still have at least one big railroad running to Irkutsk)
You're also leaving them with most of the areas that the Soviets in later times designated as their cores for industrial development in Siberia:
Which means that there is still a need for a Chinese policy towards Siberia and central Asia since the majority of Russian population and economy in those reas will remain under Russian sovereignty.
Leviathan puts forward a very effective and plausible argument... A federal system where the eastern and Central Asian parts have close links with China would foster co-operation and also strengthen local autonomy so a monolithic power like the Russian Empire or USSR can't emerge again.
Taking over Transamur would also fit with the idea of US domination of the Sea and China dominating the Land; remove any presence that would potentially infringe on that. Other than that, be sure to liberate the Baltic States, Estonia is one of my favourite countries in Europe despite my shockingly poor command of the language!
Taking over Transamur would also fit with the idea of US domination of the Sea and China dominating the Land; remove any presence that would potentially infringe on that. Other than that, be sure to liberate the Baltic States, Estonia is one of my favourite countries in Europe despite my shockingly poor command of the language!
Last edited: