Alternative History
Advertisement

Critics[]

Arbo, I really don't understand about your concept of the UNSR. This is just seem like a parallel of OTL USSR because it's established in the area that including European part of Russia on the similar time with the 1917 October Revolution and 1922 Treaty of Union.

The UNSR is like a combination of both the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany that had the rapid industrialization of the Bolsheviks and anti-semitic stances of the Nazis. You didn't even put any reason why the Nationalist Party arose and the Lithuanian Revolution erupted. I think..(sorry if I'm so rude), you only made this page for a justification for making a situation similar with Soviet-German conflict prior the World War II with the UNSR in the place of the USSR and Holy Roman Empire in the place of the Third Reich so you can make a page about World War II for your timeline.

Come on, Arbo, even with the World War II in your timeline, when you gave a POD for your timeline, ALL of the stories that happened in our timeline will absolutely being changed (butterfly effect) in your timeline. Making a World War not limited only by having a Nazi and a Soviet together (or sort of its) in your TL and let them fight. It's depend on how you set and playing the conflicts between your countries long time before the war can occured because history is a game of diplomacy and politics. FirstStooge (talk) 09:03, April 19, 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're mostly right - I did indeed make up the war simply because I felt that every timeline needs a big mid-20th century war to shake things up a bit, and my UNSR is indeed too obviously based on a combination of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. However, there is an explanation which I invented to fit the war and perhaps never included in the article:
  • Religion isn't really an issue, just as it wasn't in the real WWII. So all that matters is how countries and their politics have evolved differently over time, the details of which I'm slowly filling out. The exact timing doesn't really matter either; you could just call it coincidence that events in the OTL and TTL happen to be synchronised
  • The Lithuanians have long been a powerful people and have an extensive body of history and mythology for nationalists to draw upon. They fought off the Germans, the Romans, and the Mongols, and they have a legendary king who rose from rags to riches and defeated all his country's enemies. It wouldn't be at all implausible for a far-right political party to start promoting Lithuanian supremacy.
  • Poles, Russians and other ethnic groups have also played a big part, so a Lithuanian "master race" is out of the question. However, a joint Lithuanian-Polish-Muscovite "master culture" is not, and any who fail to adhere to it, such as Jews, could be subject to oppression and persecution.
  • Each of the ethnic groups within the union may be willing to support the nationalism legend of the union as a whole, but not to have the achievements of the Lithuanians emphasised above all others. I'm thinking of how the people of OTL Scotland have historically been very pro-British, but not necessarily at all pro-English. TTL Poles and Russians would be eager to be in a federation with the Lithuanians, but not to be in a single unitary state where the Lithuanians would be dominant because of their greater numbers.
  • The HRE and Lithuania have both been great powers in Europe for centuries, and for most of the time they've bordered one another. Like OTL France and Germany, it's only natural that there should be some sort of constant mistrust and rivalry between the two.
  • The old Lithuanian-Polish-Muscovite Commonwealth was corrupt and stagnating and collapsed following its defeat in WWI, in which it was utterly humiliated. Taking all of the above factors into account, there would naturally be a strong nationalist backlash and a desire for revenge both against the HRE and against the generals who supposedly betrayed their country.
Does that sound reasonable?
Arbolianus (talk) 00:29, April 29, 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it is reasonable now. Thank you so much for your explanation. FirstStooge (talk) 03:39, April 29, 2013 (UTC)

Advertisement