History Community ~ All Empires Homepage


This is the Archive on WORLD Historia, the old original forum.

 You cannot post here - you can only read.

 

Here is the link to the new forum:

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Calendar   Register Register  Login Login


Forum LockedBritish Federation

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
Author
csw View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 19-Feb-2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 19
Post Options Post Options   Quote csw Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: British Federation
    Posted: 03-Mar-2009 at 21:58
I'm working on an AH universe with a load of counterfactuals (many designed to balance others out) but I figure plausibility is a key selling point of AH so I wanted to run a scenario by you guys involving what I call the British Federation:
 
It's 1924. The British, having barely won the Irish war and brushing defeat in Iraq under the rug, call the last Imperial Conference. And the British Empire as we know it ceases forever, and the British Federation is born.

So what is the Federation? Good question! It is most of the dominions and the UK combined into one country on a federal system. Technically, it is the United Kingdoms, because George V is as much king of the Kingdom of Canada as king of England, but this isn't a personal union. More than any kingdom, he is the king of "Britain" which is all the kingdoms together in a Federal union that is as loose as a Federation can get without being a Confederation.

But I don't know the particulars. I imagine this BF would have an American style Constitution, with a strong Senate designed to represent kingdom interests with a Commons to represent the people. PMs are made by consensus of both Houses with all the powers accustomed to historical British PMs. The unwritten British Constitution as we know it is largely codified at the Federal Level, the 1689 Bill of Rights almost verbatim with the right to bear arms known as the Fifth Right for example. Most of the laws (and House of Lords) are initially kept in the Kingdoms of England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales (separated to give the Isles more clout in the Senate). Church leadership nominated by the federal PM and approved by King. King of Britain automatically king of all Kingdoms.

Initial Kingdoms:
England
Scotland
Wales
Ireland
Canada
Australia
Patagonia (OTL's Argentina and Chile, invaded 1806 annexed 1810, 65% Anglicized, 20% Spanish, 10% Creole 5% Other. In here to give me a lot more leeway in influencing British politics, plus the divergence point is not often considered)

Assuming the Federation survives, and it will, how would this union effect the British military into WWII, during WWII and into the Cold War?

Anything I missed or should note? What do I need to do to make this plausible?
 
Thanks in advance!
Back to Top
edgewaters View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 13-Mar-2006
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2396
Post Options Post Options   Quote edgewaters Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Mar-2009 at 23:04

Well, for one thing, the Dominions (Canada, Australia, etc) are already separate Crowns and the title King of Canada, King of Australia and so on is already a separate title from the UK crown. I'm not sure how a union of the crowns could be effected.

Most of the Dominions woud balk at the idea of being run by an overseas legislative body, even if they had representation.

Historically speaking, Canada has had a tough time maintaining federalism just in Canada alone, I cannot imagine how much more difficult things would be to maintain a federalism so much larger!



Edited by edgewaters - 03-Mar-2009 at 23:08
Back to Top
csw View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 19-Feb-2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 19
Post Options Post Options   Quote csw Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Mar-2009 at 23:15
Ah! I See.
 
I should mention that the internal affairs of the separate kingdoms is largely untouched. Their own constitutions, etc, are kept in tact, in fact I picked 1923 because the Empire's internal relationships de facto is what I wanted the Empire's internal relationships to be circa 1965; The Home Islands power is considerable, but with England and Wales and Scotland divided that power is weakened. Functionally, it's a confederation with only foreign, military and treasury powers being united. Basically like the US before the Civil War. Would that, in light of circumstances of a Britain victorious over the Irish and in no real mood for outright rebellion, be enough to get the dominions to the table? I imagine concessions would be needed but I would need to know what they were.
Back to Top
edgewaters View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 13-Mar-2006
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2396
Post Options Post Options   Quote edgewaters Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Mar-2009 at 00:09

Oh ... well ... none of them have internal constitutions in 1923.

Foreign and military powers would probably be very very difficult after WW1, particularly in Canada's case (Aus etc might be easier),  treasury powers would be difficult at any time.

If you pushed things back 10 years foreign and military powers would be alot easier, but would likely have a detrimental effect on the battlefield in WW1. One of the main reasons Canadian forces were so effective in that conflict is because the Canadian Corps and Arthur Currie were able to operate relatively independantly, and they were very innovative.

Building on its reputation and effectiveness during that conflict, Canada demanded (and received) sovereign control of foreign and military affairs.

Keep in mind that the Commonwealth was considered a superpower right up until WW2 (in fact, the term superpower arose as a descriptor for the Commonwealth during the interwar period). I can imagine some AH scenarios where the Commonwealth remains a superpower after WW2 - mostly involving a (temporary) peace accord with Germany after the fall of France, and not signing on to the Atlantic Charter or Bretton Woods but promoting the Sterling Area and the pound as global reserve currency. Instead of the Bretton Woods currency regime, the Sterling Area is promoted in Africa, Asia, and perhaps Latin America eventually. This was do-able barring British economic devastation from the war.

Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Location: Luxembourg
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7011
Post Options Post Options   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Mar-2009 at 11:02

You don't mention Africa (especially South Africa) at all, and the Argentine thing seems an unnecessary complication. You also don't mention India (the sub-continent), Malaysia, the West Indies or indeed any of the colonies.

Have you looked at the Statute of Westminster for a view of what happened in reality? In 1931 that established the legislative independence of the Dominions (at that time Canada, Newfoundland[1], Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa and the Irish Free State).

[1] Newfoundland opted for a return to direct rule from Britain a few years later, before eventually merging with Canada after WW2.
 
Edgewaters - Interesting point about the sterling area. There was certainly a strong movement within the Conservative part (Patrick Maitland springs to mind) pushing for more effort being put into strengthening the sterling area concept. I don't really know why it failed - that is, why the British balance of payments worsened so badly in the '50s - but the writing eas certainly on the wall by the time of Suez.
 
Incidentally, Canada, as I recall, was never in the sterling area (at least not from WW2 onward).


Edited by gcle2003 - 04-Mar-2009 at 11:07
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.
Back to Top
csw View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 19-Feb-2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 19
Post Options Post Options   Quote csw Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Mar-2009 at 13:48
I just refreshed  myself on the act and I must say, I knew less than I thought on the subject. I think the historical act makes my scenario at least a little more palpable. Legislative independence for the "UK" would be important, but the underlining concept of all equality of the various realms of the Empire, in my scenario is taken to a whole new level, in that the Home Isles become subject to the Dominions and vice versa in a Federal Union.
 
What I'm trying to stab at is that in my view, and certainly others is that the path to power is through political union. Doesn't have to be a unitary state, but it has to be politically bound tight enough to act as one body to the rest of the world (ie like the 50 states of the US which are technically separate entities and not provinces). The goal is to forge a nation out of the Empire, and that's why I didn't mention the colonies or India. Bringing India into this Union is a bad idea all around; it would make the Empire an extension of India, not they other way around. The non-white possessions would be incompatible due to the fact most of them were indigenous populations which were both resentful of the Empire and didn't speak English as their primary language and thus not culturally compatible. This along with the racial policies of South Africa (which were harsher than the rest of the dominions even before apartheid) is why South Africa is left out.
 
The idea is that the Iraq and Irish wars shake the establishment to it's foundations and the big wigs get it through their heads that the Empire might be a bit too big for it's britches. Solution: salvage as much of the Empire as possible (ie, the best shot they got is to bring the Dominions in and give them a solid reason to stay.) The goal of this is a British superpower capable of counter-balancing the USSR and the US during the cold war (but in actuality is an ironclad US ally). This is all part of an AH universe I'm creating and that's why the Patagonia entity is in there, that's for another story I'm fleshing out.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Location: Luxembourg
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7011
Post Options Post Options   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Mar-2009 at 15:21
But India in particular and the other territories and colonies apart from the dominions were the Empire's major claim to being a superpower and the major reason for its wealth. Without them I don't see how Britain's place as a superpower could be maintained. (As it was, the main residual strength of the sterling area in the '50s came from the fact that Kuwait certainly, and I think other of the Gulf States, belonged to it.)
 
There are only two ways the Empire could have remained a superpower. One - the unlikely one - depended on the ability (and desire) of the 'white' dominions to maintain their ascendancy my military means. The other, which was tried and went off rather at half-cock, was to form a multi-racial society based on mutual respect and common interests. Unfortunately the only interest that seems to have been in common turned out to be cricket. Ermm
 
With regard to the relative power of the home countries and the dominions, it's worth recalling that Great Britain had twice as many people as the dominions all put together, and that maybe 7-8 out of 10 (I don't know an exact figure) of those were in England itself. 
 
Incidentally I have no idea what you mean by the 'Iraq war' or why anyone should have been 'shaken' by it.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.
Back to Top
csw View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 19-Feb-2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 19
Post Options Post Options   Quote csw Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Mar-2009 at 17:22
There was a violent insurgency in Iraq in the early 1920s which Britain lost more badly than in Ireland. They actually tried to gas Iraqi villages to quell the uprising and failed. This is why the Hashemite princes where given their thrones in Jordan and in Iraq; to try and quell popular discontent. The British papered it over as best they could but both Ireland and Iraq were stunning defeats for the nation then considered the most powerful in the world.
 
While it is true that the Home Isles would be demographically dominant in our world (5 million Ireland, 5 million Scots, 5 million Welsh 30 million English = 45 million), these are not a solid block given a chance. From everything I've been told even the English and Welsh think very differently from each other. Then let's add up the Dominions (Canada 12 million, Australia 8 million, New Zealand 2 million =22 million) and another 22 million from Patagonia, and you have 44 million Commonwealthers and 45 million Home Islanders, which is a fair split even without Patagonia. No one state has total dominance over the others, though like Virginia in the US, most of the leadership would come from England for at least a generation. That said, a Federation of the White Dominions and the Home Isles seems not at all unfeasible.
 
As for the superpower bit; the BF could not be AS powerful as either the US or the USSR; remember even at it's height, the USSR itself was only half as powerful as the US in terms of GDP. BUT if the White Dominions and the Home Islands retain more of their unity, they would have a synergy that in this world the separate countries lacked apart. Power is not linear, it multiplies, sometimes it's geometrical.
 
But am I beginning to make method of my apparent madness?


Edited by csw - 04-Mar-2009 at 17:24
Back to Top
edgewaters View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 13-Mar-2006
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2396
Post Options Post Options   Quote edgewaters Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Mar-2009 at 20:17

Originally posted by gcle2003

Edgewaters - Interesting point about the sterling area. There was certainly a strong movement within the Conservative part (Patrick Maitland springs to mind) pushing for more effort being put into strengthening the sterling area concept. I don't really know why it failed - that is, why the British balance of payments worsened so badly in the '50s - but the writing eas certainly on the wall by the time of Suez.

Mostly because of Bretton Woods and the Atlantic Charter. The US used its leverage, in the wake of Britain's economic troubles during the war, to secure its post-war interests (such as getting the dollar instituted as the reserve currency, many other things). 

Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Location: Luxembourg
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7011
Post Options Post Options   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Mar-2009 at 20:26
Originally posted by csw

There was a violent insurgency in Iraq in the early 1920s which Britain lost more badly than in Ireland. They actually tried to gas Iraqi villages to quell the uprising and failed.
Nonsense. The rebellion is 1920 has been heavily promoted and built up by Arab/Kurdish nationalists, but it was easily put down. 'Gassing Iraqi villages' is a new one on me, though a commonplace false assertion is that Churchill advocated using poison gas. The british did use white phosphorus, which is not a gas, and not poisonous: though it can cause lethal burns its commonest military use is to create smokescreens, followed by its use as an incendiary weapon.

Mind you, if you put in stuff about Britain using poison gas in Iraq it'll probably help your sales in parts of the Middle East, assuming you have an Arabc translation.
This is why the Hashemite princes where given their thrones in Jordan and in Iraq; to try and quell popular discontent. The British papered it over as best they could but both Ireland and Iraq were stunning defeats for the nation then considered the most powerful in the world.
Neither Ireland nor Iraq was a defeat for Britain. Iraq in particular was a child's play victory. Ireland is more complicated and certainly not child's play, but in essence the outcome in the '20s was much what the UK government had established as a goal before 1914. It didn't change until Ireland left the Commonwealth after ww2, but that was in the future and anyway perfectly peaceable.
 
While it is true that the Home Isles would be demographically dominant in our world (5 million Ireland, 5 million Scots, 5 million Welsh 30 million English = 45 million),
5 million Welsh! There are only 2 million now and 5 million Scots - what happened to them?
As of a few years ago 84% of the population of the UK lived in England. It was probably a bit less in the 1920s but a lot more than two thirds.
Where did you get your figures?
 these are not a solid block given a chance. From everything I've been told even the English and Welsh think very differently from each other. Then let's add up the Dominions (Canada 12 million, Australia 8 million, New Zealand 2 million =22 million)
That's more than they had in 1939, let alone the early '20s, before substantial immigration. Hong Kong had more people living in it than New Zealand.
and another 22 million from Patagonia, and you have 44 million Commonwealthers and 45 million Home Islanders, which is a fair split even without Patagonia.
Well I suppose you can make up whatever you like about 'Patagonia' - why not make it 40 million and have the English king move there?
 No one state has total dominance over the others, though like Virginia in the US, most of the leadership would come from England for at least a generation. That said, a Federation of the White Dominions and the Home Isles seems not at all unfeasible.
 
As for the superpower bit; the BF could not be AS powerful as either the US or the USSR; remember even at it's height, the USSR itself was only half as powerful as the US in terms of GDP. BUT if the White Dominions and the Home Islands retain more of their unity, they would have a synergy that in this world the separate countries lacked apart. Power is not linear, it multiplies, sometimes it's geometrical.
[/QUOTE]
Britain and Ireland and the 'white' dominions (even adding in South Africa) just don't have much more clout to compete any more than Britain had on its own. If you can find a way of including India and the colonies and parts of the Middle East you would have a powerful and rich set of resources that could compete with any other bloc. But the dreams of people like Beaverbrook and Churchill remained dreams.
 
But am I beginning to make method of my apparent madness?
No. You just seem to be making up things to suit yourself. As long as you don't care for realism you can make up anything. The merit of the book then depends how well you tell the story, but I don't see why you're bothering to ask historical question.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.
Back to Top
csw View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 19-Feb-2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 19
Post Options Post Options   Quote csw Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Mar-2009 at 01:39
Wow, I go job hunting for a while  and I get this. Seemed to have touched a nerve GCle, didn't mean to. See the way I thought about this is a modern day scenario: If UK, Ireland, Canada, Canada and New Zealand would have about 120 million people, which while not enough population to make a Federation a superpower, it would give them much increased resources and territory as well as geographical flexibility and interests that none of them have on their own.
 
Now, by the time superpower was coined, it referred to the Empire and Commonwealth, and India was already a net drain. Never seen the figures but everyone who talked about it to me (teachers, professors, amateurs) said this. My ostensible Federation needs the non-English parts like a hole in the head, not because of race, but incompatible cultures.
 
That said, I don't get why everyone is always so eager to defend the stupidities of the past, especially in the devolution of the British Empire. Anyone with a brain in their heads could see that only through unity is their power and only through power is there freedom. Joseph Chamberlain knew this, Churchill knew this, and now you tell me other prominent British politicians knew this, but they could do nothing, while other commonwealth leaders sold out to the decay of experience and special interest so that the US became the unquestioned axis of the English speaking world. As an American, I am glad. But this though experiment posits a different scenario: what if the Home Isles and the Dominions, in unity, formed a separate block, a weaker, but alternate superpower to the US after the Second World War?
 
What would it want? What would it do? And why does this sound so impossible and yet every other unforeseen event in the 20th century, especially anything to do with Communism, is taken without the slightest bit of WTF?
Back to Top
edgewaters View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 13-Mar-2006
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2396
Post Options Post Options   Quote edgewaters Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Mar-2009 at 06:45

Originally posted by csw

What would it want? What would it do?

Well ... essentially it would take a role not unlike the EU does today. A tentative partnership with the US where interests coincided (which would not be uncommon), but rivalry and competition where they differed.

And why does this sound so impossible and yet every other unforeseen event in the 20th century, especially anything to do with Communism, is taken without the slightest bit of WTF?

For my part, it's mostly because the most important of the White Dominions - Canada - had little or no enthusiasm, after WW1, to have its foreign affairs dictated from London, let alone having its military commanded by non-Canadians any longer. It had dropped the pound and was no longer part of the Stirling Area, either, so it's obvious that economic interest in a greater union was a no-go as well.

Australia was actually pushed into independance kicking and screaming, so the "Federation" might have kept Aus and NZ but that's not really enough to prevent it from being drawn into the US orbit as a satellite. Ireland obviously could not be kept, and South Africa would have been a drain just like India (not to mention a huge political liability).

Some things in history turn on freak chance, like the Bolshevik coup during the Russian revolution. The Whites might have retaken the country, or the Mensheviks might have prevailed. But other events in history are long-term developments that don't depend on any single little variable or man-made decision, but are an inevitable product of the course of history; resisting them is like resisting a force of nature, it can be done, but the costs and lack of benefits eventually make it ludicrous to go on. The devolution of power to the Dominions is one such event.

Back to Top
Parnell View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 04-Apr-2007
Location: Ireland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1367
Post Options Post Options   Quote Parnell Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Mar-2009 at 10:08
lol - barely won the Irish war? I don't think anyone could claim the British 'won' the Irish war. We had hundreds of guerrila fighters in the south ready to fight on - and who did, by fighting a civil war with the new government. 
"Neither apathy nor antipathy can ever bring out the truth of history" Eoin Mac Neill.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Location: Luxembourg
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7011
Post Options Post Options   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Mar-2009 at 10:28
Originally posted by Parnell

lol - barely won the Irish war? I don't think anyone could claim the British 'won' the Irish war.
We got rid of Ireland (most of it), which was something. Smile
 
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.
Back to Top
Parnell View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 04-Apr-2007
Location: Ireland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1367
Post Options Post Options   Quote Parnell Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Mar-2009 at 12:54
You had to keep on to the most irritating part of it though, didn't you? Don't know whether to hug you of punch you for that one. (Assuming I can hold you personally responsible :-)
"Neither apathy nor antipathy can ever bring out the truth of history" Eoin Mac Neill.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
Editorial Staff
Editorial Staff
Avatar

Joined: 29-Sep-2006
Location: Chile
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7508
Post Options Post Options   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Mar-2009 at 13:09
Patagonia British? I doubt. With that criteria you should better consider Valparaiso... Although british demographic influences there have been minor, the cultural heritage is noticeable.
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)
Back to Top
Bernard Woolley View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian


Joined: 11-Jun-2008
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 154
Post Options Post Options   Quote Bernard Woolley Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Mar-2009 at 00:58

Originally posted by edgewaters

For my part, it's mostly because the most important of the White Dominions - Canada - had little or no enthusiasm, after WW1, to have its foreign affairs dictated from London, let alone having its military commanded by non-Canadians any longer. It had dropped the pound and was no longer part of the Stirling Area, either, so it's obvious that economic interest in a greater union was a no-go as well.

Very true. Furthermore, lumping Canada into the "English-speaking world" ignores that big dollop of Frenchdom smack in the middle of it, which has always been rather ambivalent about the whole King-and-Empire thing. They wouldn't have stood for Canada being used as a tool to assert British power abroad.

This is why Mackenzie-King led this country through WWII on the strength of that most quintissentially Canadian of election campaign promises: "Conscription if necessary, but not necessarily conscription."
Back to Top
csw View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 19-Feb-2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 19
Post Options Post Options   Quote csw Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Mar-2009 at 01:36
Bernard, I see the truth in what you said, and I guess I must explain what circumstances the Federation takes place in. The British public and establishment in my world freak the F*** out over Ireland and the Black and Tans are given all the support they need to crush Irish resistance regardless of cost. They refer to this as Cannae Time; after the great Roman defeat at the hands of Hannibal. Historically the Romans then devoted themselves to preserving the Republic, including conscripting every able male down to the criminals in jail and doing whatever it took to defeat Carthage. Likewise, in this supreme moment of crisis, as the Empire faces war and insurrection everywhere, the Establishment, including George V, understands that the Empire must be saved REGARDLESS OF COST, or they will be killed by angry mobs, probably but not assuredly, of right wing mind set.
 
This Britain is FULLY capable of re-mobilizing, this Britain is FULLY capable of invading the Dominions, this Britain is fully capable of hanging the MPs, and this Britain rebuilding the Empire from the ground up, democratic or not. The slogan Federation or Death is as much a hopeful slogan as it is a death threat against opposition, home and abroad. And to be sure, there is a LOT of violence. The Federation is an offer that no one can refuse, except the South Africans who risk racial integration should the winds of opinion shift anymore in the rest of the Federal signatories. Even they are bound more tightly to London and perversely, there's a move to remove blacks from modern South Africa in anticipation of either voluntarily or involuntarily joining the Federation, which by the end of World War II is largely complete, with a massive sterilization program for all resisters.
 
This is hardly unique; many ethnic groups in many countries are ruthlessly sterilized between 1910 and 1945, in the name of racial hygiene or control, Hitler is by no means the instigator. Now this did happen in our world, but it happens in mine on a much greater scale, and it makes for a very nasty decolonization, a more Marxist world (the Libertairian motto on many a T-Shirt in that world is: 'But Communism only killed 175 million people! Let's try it again!' a slogan that mocks leftists), and an American Civil Rights Era known in that world 'The Violence.'
Back to Top
edgewaters View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 13-Mar-2006
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2396
Post Options Post Options   Quote edgewaters Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Mar-2009 at 01:50

Originally posted by csw

Historically the Romans then devoted themselves to preserving the Republic, including conscripting every able male down to the criminals in jail and doing whatever it took to defeat Carthage. Likewise, in this supreme moment of crisis, as the Empire faces war and insurrection everywhere, the Establishment, including George V, understands that the Empire must be saved REGARDLESS OF COST

Conscription was one of the most contentious issues in Canada - and that was against the hated "Hun", imagine against the Irish!! Violation of long-established home rule is only going to make things much worse, as well. 

 
This Britain is FULLY capable of re-mobilizing, this Britain is FULLY capable of invading the Dominions, this Britain is fully capable of hanging the MPs
Perhaps, but it wouldn't be able to afford to occupy and govern them. 
In any case, if there was any threat of that happening, the Monroe Doctrine would be invoked and Britain would find itself at war with the US.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
Editorial Staff
Editorial Staff
Avatar

Joined: 29-Sep-2006
Location: Chile
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7508
Post Options Post Options   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Mar-2009 at 02:31
Originally posted by csw

This Britain is FULLY capable of re-mobilizing, this Britain is FULLY capable of invading the Dominions, this Britain is fully capable of hanging the MPs, and this Britain rebuilding the Empire from the ground up, democratic or not.
 
Gimme a break. Britain survived WWII thanks to the help of the U.S., and hardly won against a third world country like Argentina Wink... Britain is just a shadow of the empire it used to be.
 
Originally posted by csw

The slogan Federation or Death is as much a hopeful slogan as it is a death threat against opposition, home and abroad. And to be sure, there is a LOT of violence. The Federation is an offer that no one can refuse, except the South Africans who risk racial integration should the winds of opinion shift anymore in the rest of the Federal signatories. Even they are bound more tightly to London and perversely, there's a move to remove blacks from modern South Africa in anticipation of either voluntarily or involuntarily joining the Federation, which by the end of World War II is largely complete, with a massive sterilization program for all resisters.
 
 
Where do you read your news? I haven't seen that on BBC Confused 
 
Originally posted by csw

This is hardly unique; many ethnic groups in many countries are ruthlessly sterilized between 1910 and 1945, in the name of racial hygiene or control, Hitler is by no means the instigator. Now this did happen in our world, but it happens in mine on a much greater scale, and it makes for a very nasty decolonization, a more Marxist world (the Libertairian motto on many a T-Shirt in that world is: 'But Communism only killed 175 million people! Let's try it again!' a slogan that mocks leftists), and an American Civil Rights Era known in that world 'The Violence.'
 
I see. You read ultranationalist press...
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.078 seconds.