Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Would you change anything?

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
You have no idea how close Japan was to fully murdering China. They were very close indeed to forcing a total surrender. Japan most likely wouldn't have attacked the UK though, it didn't need any materials if the USA wasn't blockading. China would be a pretty shitty place to be though!
 
Even if the US hadn't blockaded Japan conflict between Japan and the Allies was inevitable. The only difference in this scenario is that Japan would have time to consolidate a strong industrial base in China. Then they would most likely take advantage of France's struggles against the Germans to invade French Indochina, leading to conflict with the France, Britain and the Netherlands. They would most likely win this conflict and occupy the former colonies of French Indochina and the Dutch West Indies.

Of course if WW2 ended with Soviet occupation of Europe as you say then the Japanese would be faced with a choice of continuing their totalitarian militarist regime or becoming a puppet of the Soviet Union. Pretty sure they would choose the former.
 
French Indochina belonged to Vichy France, so it could have avoided any trouble there.

Japan did not wish to go to war with the UK.
 
Petrarch said:
French Indochina belonged to Vichy France, so it could have avoided any trouble there.

Japan did not wish to go to war with the UK.
Click to expand...
Didn't Japan basically demanded Indochina from the Vichy government?
 
marat271 said:
How exactly would the US not going into WW2 lead into a fascist Asia? It'd more be a communist one, since the US wouldn't be there to influence them against communism. And really, the US didn't go against Germany when they attacked France and Great Britain. Why would they intervene if Japan attacked France and Holland (which it did)
Click to expand...

Yes, because the US is just going to let Japan become the dominant force in Asia.

Joagaru said:
i forgot to say one last change.

If i could teleport in time i would stop Hitler and the National Socialist Party from doing the Holocaust,and make them come back to the original plan.That of deporting them to Madagascar.How would i do that?simple.I would show them that because of the holocaust they will be hated by the entire world,the jews will have their own country + influence in the US parlament and a strong aliance with the US.

This way,there would be no holocaust,the jews would be safe and sound in Madagascar(altough they would still emigrate to America) and who knows maybe the world would be shaped differentley
Click to expand...

So much wrong with this post.
 
Sarmatia1871 said:
Constitutional crisis as Prussian elite become rather wary of having a 29 year old assume full control of the regency.

Plus hardening of reactionary political stances throughout Germany, owing to the political assassination of a leading Royal.
Click to expand...

Then let us off him in January-February 1862, and make it look as if he choked on a pretzel.
neutral.gif
 
I'd get Charles the Bold an heir, even if I had to perform his marital duties for him. Might give him some choice advice too...for instance, "be polite to Freddy III."
 
JKNUBZ said:
I'd get Charles the Bold an heir, even if I had to perform his marital duties for him. Might give him some choice advice too...for instance, "be polite to Freddy III."
Click to expand...

Brilliant.

How about convincing Charlemagne to adopt Primogeniture, thereby preventing (or at least stalling) the fracturing of the Holy Roman Empire? It would probably spark a rebellion, but nothing that the Emperor of the Franks couldn't handle.
 
I would "remove" Franz Josef I. With vastly different challenges if he were to succumb to an unfortunate accident in 1848, 1868 or 1889.

Removing him in 1848, ideally before he could abolish the brand new Austrian Constitution as it was drafted by parliament, would leave austrian throne to much more liberally minded Maxmilian, IRL mexican emperor. He would be only 16 and with a war on his hands, but if he got rid of PM Schwarzenberg, resisted his mother's influence and didn't repeal constitution, early liberal Austrian Empire would be possible. Though how to quell Hungarian revolution without Schwarzenberg negotiating Russian armies' aid... maybe giving in to their demands? Was it feasible? I don't even really know what Hungarians wanted. Could anyone enlighten me?

Offing him in 1868 would put Rudolf on the throne. IRL, he committed suicide in 1889 together with his mistress over Franz Josef's pressure to end their relationship. In 1868, he would be ten. With his father dead, obvious regent would be his mother, famous Sissi. She was quite liberal, so increasing her influence on state affairs right after the Ausgleich set a precedent how to deal with dissatisfied minority seems good. Maybe Slavs could get their Triple Monarchy? Austria-Hungary-Slavia? But she didn't get along very well with the rest of the court, and Sofie, Franz Josef's mother, was still alive. If she got on top, it wouldn't be pretty. Her tumor will get her in 1872, though. Not much time for her to screw things up.

His demise in 1889 would put Franz Ferdinand d'Este, IRL shot in Sarajevo in prelude to WW1, on the throne. He supported concessions to Slavs. Mainly to annoy Hungarians, but still, it was a good thing. He also wanted Austria to act as a great power, but not irrationaly - for example, he advocated caution when dealing with Serbia. He wasn't very likable though. But he was smart, pragmatic and energetic, and Austria desperately needed a dose of good leadership at that time, after political stagnation under Franz Josef.

Any of those would have been better than Franz Josef I., IMO. Maybe some liberal policies would bind minorities to the state, and Austrian Empire would survive the onset of nationalism. Man can dream :)
 
Beelz said:
Brilliant.

How about convincing Charlemagne to adopt Primogeniture, thereby preventing (or at least stalling) the fracturing of the Holy Roman Empire? It would probably spark a rebellion, but nothing that the Emperor of the Franks couldn't handle.
Click to expand...
Charlemagne did in fact hand all of his empire to his son Louis. You'd have to do your convincing on Louis, who split the empire up when he died and caused the eventual splintering of Frankish power.
 
almoravid said:
Then let us off him in January-February 1862, and make it look as if he choked on a pretzel.
neutral.gif
Click to expand...

It is difficult to say - the idea that Friedrich III was an Amazing Lost Liberal Opportunity for Germany was as much a construction of anti-Wilhelmine forces in post-1889 Germany as anything else, which has then been taken up with gusto by British and American historians attempting to explain "what went wrong" with Germany historically. However, he was still very pro-military, fairly conservative, and Prussian, and so would still have run up into conflict with progressives and anti-militarists in the Landtag. And Prussia is still going to be looked upon as the great hope for kleindeutsch nationalists in Germany, and be at the centre of the German economy.

Also, Friedrich (like everyone else...) had a pretty stormy relationship with Bismarck, but a lot of that historically had to do with "Designated Heir with Nothing To Do" syndrome, and there wasn't really anyone else around who could effectively manage the Prussian Landtag. If anything, you might just get even more unstable government and crises, rather than actual liberal parliamentary course.

There is a very good recent book on all this, which has recently come out: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=bNN89kVNNy0C&source=gbs_navlinks_s
 
Thank you, Sarmy, I will check it out once my schedule permits it.

Leviathan07 said:
Charlemagne did in fact hand all of his empire to his son Louis. You'd have to do your convincing on Louis, who split the empire up when he died and caused the eventual splintering of Frankish power.
Click to expand...

Actually, adopting primogeniture is what Louis the Pious tried to do, giving all the Empire to Lothair and leaving Louis the German with the fiefdom of Bavaria and Pippin with Aquitaine. It was the later civil war between Louis the Pious and Lothair (because he tried to give Charles the Bald parts of Lothair's inheritance) that made Aquitaine and Bavaria rise to prominence as proto-Germany and proto-France.
 
Leviathan07 said:
Charlemagne did in fact hand all of his empire to his son Louis. You'd have to do your convincing on Louis, who split the empire up when he died and caused the eventual splintering of Frankish power.
Click to expand...

Really? Looks like I'd have to give Louis some friendly advice.
 
Beelz said:
Really? Looks like I'd have to give Louis some friendly advice.
Click to expand...

If your goal is to keep the frankish empire together, your best bet is to damage his reproductive organs once Ermengarde died.
 
Move that bomb a little closer to Hitler at the end of WWII.

Barry Goldwater for President!
 
PiriReis said:
Also persuade Suleiman the Magnificent not the execute his eldest son, Mustafa. Prince Mustafa was recognised as the most talented of all the sons of Suleiman and he had interesting plans for the future, like going to the New World. The Ottoman empire would have been different under this prince.
Click to expand...
I'd convince him to leave the Mediterranean to the pirates, and rather to focus all his naval energies on ejecting the Portugese from the Indian Ocean.
 
Chamboozer said:
I'd convince him to leave the Mediterranean to the pirates, and rather to focus all his naval energies on ejecting the Portugese from the Indian Ocean.
Click to expand...

That's a really good one. I wonder if Britain would ever establish a foothold in India if the Ottomans dominated the area?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back