Subject: AH Challenge: UK vs USA Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 19:37:23 +0100 From: "Ed Thomas" Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if I was watching a program charting the development of battleships on the TV, and a Naval expert said: 'People say that the treaty of Washington was a faliure, as it didn't stop Pearl Harbour, or prevent WWII. However I think perhaps the treaty may just have prevented the great Anglo-American war of 1928'. Apparently until the treaty both the UK and the USA considered each other as likely future enemies, and both sides used the other as the enemy when planning Naval excerises etc. The challenge is: With a POD no earlier then 1919, cause an Anglo-American war in the 1920s or 30s. Subject: Re: AH Challenge: UK vs USA Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 20:30:40 -0500 From: Robert Shimmin Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 On Wed, 18 Apr 2001, Ed Thomas wrote: > The challenge is: With a POD no earlier then 1919, cause an Anglo-American > war in the 1920s or 30s. Japanese invasion of U.S. held Philipines? Once the alliances sort themselves out, Britain lands on Japanese side. It would be easier to manage if the Bolsheviks lost power in 1919 or 1920. --RS Subject: Re: AH Challenge: UK vs USA Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 02:30:19 +0000 (UTC) From: randy@euclid.nmu.edu (Randy Appleton) Organization: Northern Michigan University Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 On Wed, 18 Apr 2001 19:37:23 +0100, Ed Thomas wrote: >I was watching a program charting the development of battleships on the TV, >and a Naval expert said: 'People say that the treaty of Washington was a >faliure, as it didn't stop Pearl Harbour, or prevent WWII. However I think >perhaps the treaty may just have prevented the great Anglo-American war of >1928'. Apparently until the treaty both the UK and the USA considered each >other as likely future enemies, and both sides used the other as the enemy >when planning Naval excerises etc. > >The challenge is: With a POD no earlier then 1919, cause an Anglo-American >war in the 1920s or 30s. > > It's Prohibition. Way to much Wiskey running from Canada. We cross a border to arrest someone. The Canadians take umbrage. Eventually we seize some Canadian land until the promise to prohibit alcohol or it's running to the US. War between Canada and the US. The UK burns the white house. ... -Randy -- ======================================================================== || Randy Appleton, Professor of Computer Science at Northern Michigan || || University. And a big fan of Linux! || ================= mailto:randy@euclid.nmu.edu ========================== Subject: Re: AH Challenge: UK vs USA Date: 19 Apr 2001 03:12:18 GMT From: prestorjon@aol.com (Prestorjon) Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 <> To my knowledge the Canadians were pretty cooperative in stopping booze smuggling across their border. Anyway I doubt a war in the 1920s would see a replay of 1812. If the US Navy isn't as big as the RN (or bigger) then its darn close and the US can outproduce Britain in a warship race. ----------------- He had been our Destroyer, the doer of things We dreamed of doing but could not bring ourselves to do, The fears of years, like a biting whip, Had cut deep bloody grooves Across our backs. -Etheridge Knight Subject: Re: AH Challenge: UK vs USA Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 05:31:48 +0000 (UTC) From: randy@euclid.nmu.edu (Randy Appleton) Organization: Northern Michigan University Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 On 19 Apr 2001 03:12:18 GMT, Prestorjon wrote: I wrote >>It's Prohibition. Way to much Wiskey running from Canada. We cross a >>border to arrest someone. The Canadians take umbrage. Eventually >>we seize some Canadian land until the promise to prohibit alcohol >>or it's running to the US. War between Canada and the US. The >>UK burns the white house. >> > >To my knowledge the Canadians were pretty cooperative in stopping booze >smuggling across their border. Anyway I doubt a war in the 1920s would see a >replay of 1812. If the US Navy isn't as big as the RN (or bigger) then its >darn close and the US can outproduce Britain in a warship race. > Something big has to change to get the US in a war with the UK. Any such change is likely to be implausable. I figure this is one of the most plausable of the implausable ones, but I'd love to hear a suggestion. I agree the UK *really* doesn't want war with the US in the 20's. But suppose we were going to attack Canada. What would they do? The whole dominion system is at stake. It's fish or cut bait, if you'll pardon a hick expression. And I do understand that they won't really burn the white house. That was me being flippant. My premiss is a somewhat irrational America. The whole prohibition time (phobition, flappers, great boom/great depression) seems irrational to me. -Randy -- ======================================================================== || Randy Appleton, Professor of Computer Science at Northern Michigan || || University. And a big fan of Linux! || ================= mailto:randy@euclid.nmu.edu ========================== Subject: Re: AH Challenge: UK vs USA Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 09:21:08 +0100 From: John H Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 On Thu, 19 Apr 2001 05:31:48 +0000 (UTC), randy@euclid.nmu.edu (Randy Appleton) wrote: > > >On 19 Apr 2001 03:12:18 GMT, Prestorjon wrote: >I wrote >>>It's Prohibition. Way to much Wiskey running from Canada. We cross a >>>border to arrest someone. The Canadians take umbrage. Eventually >>>we seize some Canadian land until the promise to prohibit alcohol >>>or it's running to the US. War between Canada and the US. The >>>UK burns the white house. >> >> >>To my knowledge the Canadians were pretty cooperative in stopping booze >>smuggling across their border. Anyway I doubt a war in the 1920s would see a >>replay of 1812. If the US Navy isn't as big as the RN (or bigger) then its >>darn close and the US can outproduce Britain in a warship race. >> > >Something big has to change to get the US in a war with the UK. Any such >change is likely to be implausable. I figure this is one of the most >plausable of the implausable ones, but I'd love to hear a suggestion. > >I agree the UK *really* doesn't want war with the US in the 20's. But >suppose we were going to attack Canada. What would they do? The whole >dominion system is at stake. It's fish or cut bait, if you'll pardon a >hick expression. > >And I do understand that they won't really burn the white house. That was >me being flippant. > >My premiss is a somewhat irrational America. The whole prohibition time >(phobition, flappers, great boom/great depression) seems irrational to >me. I thought about this for my Gallipoli TL but decided against it, the US and the UK might have had somewhat restrained upto the 1900s but from then on in both were batting for the same side so to speak. I don't think a naval arms race would result in war between the UK and US. What might occur is a stiffening of trade relations between the two countries and possibly an earlier Imperial Preference bill being passed in the UK Parliament. The reduction of trading oportunities between the two nations could produce some form of cold war. The UKs war debt to the USA is always going to be a sticky point, however the British government will not want to be seen to repudiate loans as this might give other countries who have borrowed from them similar ideas. I believe that good sense would prevail on both sides. John "I go to London and see the busy multitudes in Fleet Street and the Strand, and it comes across my mind that they are but the ghosts of the past, haunting the streets that I have seen silent and wretched, going to and fro, phan- tasms in a dead city, the mockery of life in a galvanised body." H. G. Wells Subject: Re: AH Challenge: UK vs USA Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 12:08:13 +0100 From: philh@comuno.freeserve.co.uk (phil hunt) Organization: Comuno Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 On Thu, 19 Apr 2001 05:31:48 +0000 (UTC), Randy Appleton wrote: > > >On 19 Apr 2001 03:12:18 GMT, Prestorjon wrote: >I wrote >>>It's Prohibition. Way to much Wiskey running from Canada. We cross a >>>border to arrest someone. The Canadians take umbrage. Eventually >>>we seize some Canadian land until the promise to prohibit alcohol >>>or it's running to the US. War between Canada and the US. The >>>UK burns the white house. >> >> >>To my knowledge the Canadians were pretty cooperative in stopping booze >>smuggling across their border. Anyway I doubt a war in the 1920s would see a >>replay of 1812. If the US Navy isn't as big as the RN (or bigger) then its >>darn close and the US can outproduce Britain in a warship race. >> > >Something big has to change to get the US in a war with the UK. Any such >change is likely to be implausable. I figure this is one of the most >plausable of the implausable ones, but I'd love to hear a suggestion. Prohibition, like the WO(S)D is an inherently stupid idea, so I can well imagine politicians commiting stupidities in support of it. If, at the same time, there as disputes in the Phillipines, Latin America, etc, war is more likely. >I agree the UK *really* doesn't want war with the US in the 20's. But >suppose we were going to attack Canada. What would they do? The whole >dominion system is at stake. It's fish or cut bait, if you'll pardon a >hick expression. Let's also assume that immediately after WW1, britian held a conference with its dominions where they all agreed a mutual defence treaty. So, if Britian doesn't fight, it loses its Great Power status as Australia, new Zealand and South Africa look for allies elsewhere -- and SA looks like to take much of British Africa with it. -- *****[ Phil Hunt ***** philh@comuno.freeserve.co.uk ]***** "Mommy, make the nasty penguin go away." -- Jim Allchin, MS head of OS development, regarding open source software (paraphrased). Subject: Re: AH Challenge: UK vs USA Date: 20 Apr 2001 03:35:12 GMT From: prestorjon@aol.com (Prestorjon) Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 <> Oh they'd defend Canada but I don't see a reason why the US would invade them. ----------------- He had been our Destroyer, the doer of things We dreamed of doing but could not bring ourselves to do, The fears of years, like a biting whip, Had cut deep bloody grooves Across our backs. -Etheridge Knight Subject: Re: AH Challenge: UK vs USA Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 12:03:23 +0100 From: philh@comuno.freeserve.co.uk (phil hunt) Organization: Comuno Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 On 19 Apr 2001 03:12:18 GMT, Prestorjon wrote: ><border to arrest someone. The Canadians take umbrage. Eventually >we seize some Canadian land until the promise to prohibit alcohol >or it's running to the US. War between Canada and the US. The >UK burns the white house. >> > >To my knowledge the Canadians were pretty cooperative in stopping booze >smuggling across their border. In OTL, perhaps not in this TL. Perhaps Canada is making lots of money out of illicit booze sales to the USA, and lots of Canadian MPs are in on the act -- they're not going to weant to stop. > Anyway I doubt a war in the 1920s would see a >replay of 1812. If the US Navy isn't as big as the RN (or bigger) then its >darn close and the US can outproduce Britain in a warship race. WI Japan comes in on the british side? As does Mexico, fed up with US interference in their country? Who would win then? -- *****[ Phil Hunt ***** philh@comuno.freeserve.co.uk ]***** "Mommy, make the nasty penguin go away." -- Jim Allchin, MS head of OS development, regarding open source software (paraphrased). Subject: Re: AH Challenge: UK vs USA Date: 20 Apr 2001 03:39:17 GMT From: prestorjon@aol.com (Prestorjon) Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 <<>To my knowledge the Canadians were pretty cooperative in stopping booze >smuggling across their border. In OTL, perhaps not in this TL. Perhaps Canada is making lots of money out of illicit booze sales to the USA, and lots of Canadian MPs are in on the act -- they're not going to weant to sto>> I don't know how rampant corruption was in the Canadian polcie authorities but someone in Canada has got to realize that they've got more to lose by ticking off the US than they could possibly gain from smuggling booze. If the US is crazy enoguh to go to war over booze (which I'm sure is too plausible, after all we aren't invading Mexico to stop drug smuggling and that would a cake walk compared to a war with Britain) then the Canadians are going to want to prevent it. Hell even if they win its coing to cost them at least tens of thousands of lives and the destruction of territory and materiel. ----------------- He had been our Destroyer, the doer of things We dreamed of doing but could not bring ourselves to do, The fears of years, like a biting whip, Had cut deep bloody grooves Across our backs. -Etheridge Knight Subject: Re: AH Challenge: UK vs USA Date: 20 Apr 2001 14:20:43 -0400 From: jdnicoll@panix.com (James Nicoll) Organization: PANIX -- Public Access Networks Corp. Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 In article <20010419233917.24551.00000250@ng-cf1.aol.com>, Prestorjon wrote: ><<>To my knowledge the Canadians were pretty cooperative in stopping booze >>smuggling across their border. > >In OTL, perhaps not in this TL. > >Perhaps Canada is making lots of money out of illicit booze sales to >the USA, and lots of Canadian MPs are in on the act -- they're not >going to weant to sto>> > >I don't know how rampant corruption was in the Canadian polcie authorities but >someone in Canada has got to realize that they've got more to lose by ticking >off the US than they could possibly gain from smuggling booze. If the US is >crazy enoguh to go to war over booze (which I'm sure is too plausible, after >all we aren't invading Mexico to stop drug smuggling and that would a cake walk >compared to a war with Britain) then the Canadians are going to want to prevent >it. Hell even if they win its coing to cost them at least tens of thousands of >lives and the destruction of territory and materiel. Once the booze leaves Canada by legal means, where it ends up is not our concern. I actually asked an LCBO fellow about this and his recollection was that the predessor to the LCBO was quite happy to ignore or even to encourage booze production intended to be sold south during Prohibition. We took runaway slaves in, after all, and that was much more of a hot button with parts of the US than drink was. -- "Somehow I managed to get a job as an apprentice structural engineering draughtsman, where I was supposed to design buildings which people would sit in and the roof would not fall down and kill them. A big responsibility for someone whose total education had come from PLANET STORIES." Bob Shaw Subject: Re: AH Challenge: UK vs USA Date: 21 Apr 2001 02:12:02 GMT From: prestorjon@aol.com (Prestorjon) Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 <> Try to follow my logic here. You've got a neighbor who doesn't want booze imported into their country. Sadi neighbor is larger and more powerful than you and has invaded you on two seperate occaisions. Now if you think they might go to war over the smuggling of booze then it might make sense to make some efforts to stop the flow of booze from your country into theirs. By your logic if the Canadians stook artillery and shot rounds that just HAPPENED to land across the US border it shouldn't be a problem. ----------------- He had been our Destroyer, the doer of things We dreamed of doing but could not bring ourselves to do, The fears of years, like a biting whip, Had cut deep bloody grooves Across our backs. -Etheridge Knight Subject: Re: AH Challenge: UK vs USA Date: 23 Apr 2001 09:52:56 GMT From: cassiusmaxim@aol.com (Emperor) Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 >Subject: Re: AH Challenge: UK vs USA >From: prestorjon@aol.com (Prestorjon) >Date: 4/20/2001 7:12 PM Pacific Daylight Time >Message-id: <20010420221202.25354.00000098@ng-ce1.aol.com> > ><is not our concern.>> > >Try to follow my logic here. You've got a neighbor who doesn't want booze >imported into their country. Sadi neighbor is larger and more powerful than >you and has invaded you on two seperate occaisions. Now if you think they >might go to war over the smuggling of booze then it might make sense to make >some efforts to stop the flow of booze from your country into theirs Problem is, would the U.S. be willing to go to war over something like Prohibition, which is far from universally popular among the electorate? Especially so soon after the horrors of World War I too. Subject: Re: AH Challenge: UK vs USA Date: 24 Apr 2001 16:00:12 GMT From: akup@loc.gov (Aaron Kuperman) Organization: Library of Congress Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 That's why my scenario is better. Have Canada find a reason to declare independence from Britain, and for Britain to oppose it. If the US sympathized with Canada, it would go to war in support of Canada. Emperor (cassiusmaxim@aol.com) wrote: : Problem is, would the U.S. be willing to go to war over something like : Prohibition, which is far from universally popular among the electorate? : Especially so soon after the horrors of World War I too. Subject: Re: AH Challenge: UK vs USA Date: 24 Apr 2001 03:04:26 GMT From: prestorjon@aol.com (Prestorjon) Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 <> No I don't think so either. ----------------- He had been our Destroyer, the doer of things We dreamed of doing but could not bring ourselves to do, The fears of years, like a biting whip, Had cut deep bloody grooves Across our backs. -Etheridge Knight Subject: Re: AH Challenge: UK vs USA Date: 20 Apr 2001 03:41:20 GMT From: prestorjon@aol.com (Prestorjon) Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 <> What does Japan have to gain? Mexico might join in. They certainly had enough greivances against us but their general policy in that period seems to have been to do just about anything they could to keep from antagonizing the US. ----------------- He had been our Destroyer, the doer of things We dreamed of doing but could not bring ourselves to do, The fears of years, like a biting whip, Had cut deep bloody grooves Across our backs. -Etheridge Knight Subject: Re: AH Challenge: UK vs USA Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 06:24:34 GMT From: rgorman@telusplanet.net (David Johnston) Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 On 20 Apr 2001 03:41:20 GMT, prestorjon@aol.com (Prestorjon) wrote: ><interference in their country? > >Who would win then?>> > >What does Japan have to gain? Hawaii and the Phillipines. And they used to have an alliance with the British. Subject: Re: AH Challenge: UK vs USA Date: 21 Apr 2001 02:16:41 GMT From: prestorjon@aol.com (Prestorjon) Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 <<>What does Japan have to gain? Hawaii and the Phillipines. And they used to have an alliance with the British.>> Yeah but Japans policy till this point has been not to torque off major powers. They allied against Germany but then they knew they would win because the Germans had no real navy to challenge them. After WWI they spent their time taking on weaker powers who couldn't challenge them. The US could win a war with Japan. WHy wopuld they risk that when they can be gobbling up other prime pieces of Asian real estate that aren't being gaurded by a large and modern navy? ----------------- He had been our Destroyer, the doer of things We dreamed of doing but could not bring ourselves to do, The fears of years, like a biting whip, Had cut deep bloody grooves Across our backs. -Etheridge Knight Subject: Re: AH Challenge: UK vs USA Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 08:06:27 GMT From: rgorman@telusplanet.net (David Johnston) Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 On 21 Apr 2001 02:16:41 GMT, prestorjon@aol.com (Prestorjon) wrote: ><<>What does Japan have to gain? > >Hawaii and the Phillipines. And they used to have an alliance with >the British.>> > >Yeah but Japans policy till this point has been not to torque off major powers. > They allied against Germany but then they knew they would win because the >Germans had no real navy to challenge them. After WWI they spent their time >taking on weaker powers who couldn't challenge them. The US could win a war >with Japan. But the question is, could the U.S. win a war with Japan and the British Empire at the same time? And would the Japanese realise it might? After all, the British would be a far more valuable ally in a war against the United States than the Germans could ever hope to be. WHy wopuld they risk that when they can be gobbling up other prime >pieces of Asian real estate that aren't being gaurded by a large and modern >navy? If they won and got a solid alliance with the British out of the deal, they'd have a much freer hand in the rest of Asia. Subject: Re: AH Challenge: UK vs USA Date: 27 Apr 2001 02:34:36 GMT From: prestorjon@aol.com (Prestorjon) Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 <> Possibly. The US is the largest industrial power in the world, has a larger population (yes the British EMPIRE has a larger population but they can only mobilize a small fraction of their imperial population), they've got the largest and most modern Navy on the seas, and while the Army is fairly small the Japanese have to realize that the US was able to mobilize an army of two million men within a year during WWI. Would the US win? Maybe not. Could they win? Certainly. Why take on America when they can spend that time and those resources seizing power in China. >If they won and got a solid alliance with the British out of the deal, >they'd have a much freer hand in the rest of Asia. More likely they'd simply take the opportunity of British and American distraction to gobble up what they can in the far east and consolidate their powers. ----------------- He had been our Destroyer, the doer of things We dreamed of doing but could not bring ourselves to do, The fears of years, like a biting whip, Had cut deep bloody grooves Across our backs. -Etheridge Knight Subject: Re: AH Challenge: UK vs USA Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 19:07:09 GMT From: nospam@jumpgate.net (mike ) Organization: JumpGate Networks - Mason City Iowa Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 On Thu, 26 Apr 2001 08:06:27 GMT, rgorman@telusplanet.net (David Johnston) wrote: >But the question is, could the U.S. win a war with Japan and the >British Empire at the same time? Handwave the insanity that would allow as US/UK conflict, note that the US did very well with its Sub campaign vs Japan, and would have all kinds of excess shipyard space to make more, as Liberty/Victory Ships would not be needed in large numbers. ** mike ** Subject: Re: AH Challenge: UK vs USA Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 16:10:01 GMT From: dave@mr.dave (David Turnbull) Organization: OzEmail Ltd, Australia Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 In article <20010420221641.25354.00000101@ng-ce1.aol.com>, Prestorjon wrote: > <<>What does Japan have to gain? > > Hawaii and the Phillipines. And they used to have an alliance with > the British.>> > > Yeah but Japans policy till this point has been not to torque off major powers. what about the 1905 russo-japanese war? japan was revelling in it's newfound power, it wanted to prove to the world that it was a major power. > They allied against Germany but then they knew they would win because the > Germans had no real navy to challenge them. After WWI they spent their time > taking on weaker powers who couldn't challenge them. The US could win a war > with Japan. WHy wopuld they risk that when they can be gobbling up other prime > pieces of Asian real estate that aren't being gaurded by a large and modern > navy? > > ----------------- > He had been our Destroyer, the doer of things > We dreamed of doing but could not bring ourselves to do, > The fears of years, like a biting whip, > Had cut deep bloody grooves > Across our backs. > -Etheridge Knight Subject: Re: AH Challenge: UK vs USA Date: 26 Apr 2001 02:50:14 GMT From: prestorjon@aol.com (Prestorjon) Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 <> I was thinking about after that when they started getting seats at the big boys tables. ----------------- He had been our Destroyer, the doer of things We dreamed of doing but could not bring ourselves to do, The fears of years, like a biting whip, Had cut deep bloody grooves Across our backs. -Etheridge Knight Subject: Re: AH Challenge: UK vs USA Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 12:30:50 +0100 From: philh@comuno.freeserve.co.uk (phil hunt) Organization: Comuno Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 On 20 Apr 2001 03:41:20 GMT, Prestorjon wrote: ><interference in their country? > >Who would win then?>> > >What does Japan have to gain? The Phillipines? Hawaii? Control of the Pacific? Defeat of a dangerous competitor? -- *****[ Phil Hunt ***** philh@comuno.freeserve.co.uk ]***** "Mommy, make the nasty penguin go away." -- Jim Allchin, MS head of OS development, regarding open source software (paraphrased). Subject: Re: AH Challenge: UK vs USA Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 20:44:46 GMT From: rgorman@telusplanet.net (David Johnston) Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 On Fri, 20 Apr 2001 12:30:50 +0100, philh@comuno.freeserve.co.uk (phil hunt) wrote: >On 20 Apr 2001 03:41:20 GMT, Prestorjon wrote: >><>interference in their country? >> >>Who would win then?>> >> >>What does Japan have to gain? > >The Phillipines? Hawaii? Control of the Pacific? Defeat of a >dangerous competitor? A closer alliance with the British Empire? Subject: Re: AH Challenge: UK vs USA Date: 20 Apr 2001 11:13:46 GMT From: kenney@cix.compulink.co.uk Organization: CIX - Compulink Information eXchange Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 In article , philh@comuno.freeserve.co.uk (phil hunt) wrote: > In OTL, perhaps not in this TL. Canadian booze was not run across the frontier because it was easier to sell it to 'rum runners' who shipped it by sea. This was perfectly legal by both US and Canadian law. The booze was sold in Canada and what happened to it after that was not a matter of Canadian jurisdiction. Ken Young kenney@cix.co.uk Maternity is a matter of fact Paternity is a matter of opinion Subject: Re: AH Challenge: UK vs USA Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 13:55:59 +0100 From: "Huw G" Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 Ed Thomas wrote in message <2clD6.29992$I5.125253@stones>... >I was watching a program charting the development of battleships on the TV, >and a Naval expert said: 'People say that the treaty of Washington was a >faliure, as it didn't stop Pearl Harbour, or prevent WWII. However I think >perhaps the treaty may just have prevented the great Anglo-American war of >1928'. Apparently until the treaty both the UK and the USA considered each >other as likely future enemies, and both sides used the other as the enemy >when planning Naval excerises etc. > >The challenge is: With a POD no earlier then 1919, cause an Anglo-American >war in the 1920s or 30s. > It would take an awful lot to cause relations to deteriorate to that point, but here goes: 1920 - Lloyd George coalition government falls. After a lot of failed attempts, Balfour becomes PM in a coalition with Edward Carson's die-hard Unionists. 1922 - Half-hearted negotiations between British government and Sinn Fein break down. Collins, De Valera and other SF leaders arrested, in breach of armistice. De Valera and others are hanged after a travesty of a trial. Woodrow Wilson (or Mrs. Woodrow Wilson ?) protests. Told to mind own business. Ireland the scene of bitter low-level guerilla war, USA not pleased. 1924 - Britain defaults on repayment of US War loans. USA displeased. 1926 - Great Depression. Britain closes markets to US (and other) imports to protect own economy. US even more displeased. Orders dominions and colonies to do the same. Various Commonwealth states don't agree. Balfour / Carson coalition remains in power in UK by passing emergency legislation, claiming desperate economic situation requires extraordinary measures. Lloyd George and Ramsay Macdonald protest but cannot form a working partnership to oppose unconstitutional government. 1927 - Australia, New Zealand together, and Canada separately, declare that their membership of the Commonwealth is suspended until Britain behaves more reasonably. Try to form a new loose association of former dominions. US gives new group support. 1928 - (By now totally irrational) Britain orders Canada back into the fold. Sends troops (led by veteran Auxiliaries and Black-and-Tan officers) to Halifax and Quebec. Resistance, esp. in Quebec, put down violently. Canadian government decamps to Toronto (or even further west), asks League of Nations for moral support and US for assistance. 1929 - US public opinion by now somewhere on the scale between outraged and rabid, especially among those of Irish (and German) ancestry. Some armed clashes between US "Fenian" volunteers, and British troops occur on Canadian territory. Royal Navy starts stopping and searching US ships claiming that they are running guns to Ireland. Some ships refuse to stop, are shot at and sunk. Doesn't look too ASB, though I don't expect many to agree. Note that I have painted Britain as the bad guy. Weak spot - I cannot see a reactionary coalition remaining in power in Britain during the 1920's unless all the voices of reason went silent for some reason). Subject: Re: AH Challenge: UK vs USA Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 14:31:54 +0100 From: charlie@nospam.antipope.org (Charlie Stross) Reply-To: charlie@antipope.org Organization: foobar quux Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 Stoned koala bears drooled eucalyptus spittle in awe as declared: >1922 - Half-hearted negotiations between British government and Sinn Fein >break down. Collins, De Valera and other SF leaders arrested, in breach of >armistice. De Valera and others are hanged after a travesty of a trial. >Woodrow Wilson (or Mrs. Woodrow Wilson ?) protests. Told to mind own >business. Ireland the scene of bitter low-level guerilla war, USA not >pleased. At this point, we have postulated a British government so barkingly insane that words fail me. We've also postulated that the judicial system has been corrupted to the point of handing out death sentences at show trials -- in just two years. Remember that the only reason Irish independence didn't occur by 1915 was the first world war getting in the way: *everyone* in the UK knew that it was just a matter of time and that the consequences of trying to hang on to Eire would be Bad, verging on Civil War. >1927 - Australia, New Zealand together, and Canada separately, declare that >their membership of the Commonwealth is suspended until Britain behaves more >reasonably. At this point I suspect a number of governors-general do what the PM tells them to do and dismisses the colonial governments. Provoking a constitutional mess that makes the Australian business of OTL in the mid-seventies look minor. >1928 - (By now totally irrational) Britain I think to get this effect you need to come up with rather more than a mad Unionist government; we've been through a couple of elections, haven't we? Including one that in OTL was a Labour victory. I think we need an abdication or two (possibly at gunpoint), guys in black uniforms marching on Westminster, King Eddie the Eighth in jack boots, Labour MPs being arrested and sent to the concentration camps on Dartmoor, and a British Imperial Destiny Party or something similar (outrageously insane fascists) to justify this level of reality distortion. Maybe events conspire to make Mosely go the fascist route a few years earlier than OTL? Maybe in conjunction with Fuller? -- Charlie I are sigfile disease!! All your quote are belong to us. Copy us every "sig"! Subject: Re: AH Challenge: UK vs USA Date: 24 Apr 2001 15:58:38 GMT From: akup@loc.gov (Aaron Kuperman) Organization: Library of Congress Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 1. Not so insance. It wouldn't have been a huge "gap" to go from the Blacks and Tans to official repression. The same logic that led to hanging the leaders of te Easter Rebellion might lead to greater repression. There was a minority (in OTL) view that the British Empire should be more authoritarian in Ireland and elsewhere. 2. Except for Canada and Ireland, the rest of the EMpire is irrelevant. Bad behavior by the Brits in against the Irish would turn the Americans against them, and combine it with something to make the Canadians outraged you'ld get a situation leading to Canada leaving the Empire. If Britain decided to use force to preserve the Empire, it would lead to a UK-US war in the 1920s or 1930s. Charlie Stross (charlie@nospam.antipope.org) wrote: : Stoned koala bears drooled eucalyptus spittle in awe : as declared: : >1922 - Half-hearted negotiations between British government and Sinn Fein : >break down. Collins, De Valera and other SF leaders arrested, in breach of : >armistice. De Valera and others are hanged after a travesty of a trial. : >Woodrow Wilson (or Mrs. Woodrow Wilson ?) protests. Told to mind own : >business. Ireland the scene of bitter low-level guerilla war, USA not : >pleased. : At this point, we have postulated a British government so barkingly : insane that words fail me. We've also postulated that the judicial : system has been corrupted to the point of handing out death sentences : at show trials -- in just two years. : Remember that the only reason Irish independence didn't occur by 1915 : was the first world war getting in the way: *everyone* in the UK knew : that it was just a matter of time and that the consequences of trying : to hang on to Eire would be Bad, verging on Civil War. : >1927 - Australia, New Zealand together, and Canada separately, declare that : >their membership of the Commonwealth is suspended until Britain behaves more : >reasonably. : At this point I suspect a number of governors-general do what the PM : tells them to do and dismisses the colonial governments. Provoking a : constitutional mess that makes the Australian business of OTL in the : mid-seventies look minor. : >1928 - (By now totally irrational) Britain : I think to get this effect you need to come up with rather more than : a mad Unionist government; we've been through a couple of elections, : haven't we? Including one that in OTL was a Labour victory. : I think we need an abdication or two (possibly at gunpoint), guys in : black uniforms marching on Westminster, King Eddie the Eighth in jack : boots, Labour MPs being arrested and sent to the concentration camps on : Dartmoor, and a British Imperial Destiny Party or something similar : (outrageously insane fascists) to justify this level of reality : distortion. : Maybe events conspire to make Mosely go the fascist route a few years : earlier than OTL? Maybe in conjunction with Fuller? : -- Charlie : I are sigfile disease!! : All your quote are belong to us. : Copy us every "sig"! Subject: Re: AH Challenge: UK vs USA Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 14:10:10 +0100 From: "Huw G" Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 Aaron Kuperman wrote in message <9c47re$9a6u$2@rs7.loc.gov>... > >2. Except for Canada and Ireland, the rest of the EMpire is >irrelevant. Bad behavior by the Brits in against the Irish would turn the >Americans against them, and combine it with something to make the >Canadians outraged you'ld get a situation leading to Canada leaving the >Empire. If Britain decided to use force to preserve the Empire, it would >lead to a UK-US war in the 1920s or 1930s. > > OK, having set Britain and the US at each other's throats, with Ireland as the POD and Canada leaving the Commonwealth as the immediate cause, which way do hostilities go ? [Please - no references back to 1812 in replies] The balance of forces is: Politically: Britain is very much the villain of the piece, so US has the advantage. Unless they do something silly, like unilaterally annexing Canada themselves. More likely, they would give all support to "Free Canada", but insist only that post-war, Canada should hold a referendum on her political future, with incorporation into the US as one or more states or territories as an option. Britain will get no help from the rest of the Empire, or anyone else. On Land: US Army is tiny, National Guard is large but not really prepared for war. Britain has tiny regular army, but large Territorial Army. However, Britain may not be able to rely fully on TA (if British government sectarian and undemocratic), and has to ship these troops across the Atlantic. Long-term (from 12 - 18 months after mobilisation), US advantage in manpower and industrial output will become overwhelming. In Air: Neither US nor Britain has air force (USAAF, RAF) capable of smashing enemy cities, nor of decisively affecting land battle, to begin with anyway. (Only Britain would want to go city-busting). As with land forces, US industrial advantage will be overwhelming after a year or so, On Sea: Evenly balanced. I assume that there has been no Washington Naval Treaty, and both USN and RN have been building battleships like mad. Both fleet commanders would be well aware that they could lose the war in an afternoon, so full-scale fleet clashes will occur only by accident. RN can concentrate on maintaining sea lanes from Britain to Halifax, NS; USN (and US National Guard) may be forced to provide some sort of protection to coastal cities in case Britain goes for them as a nuisance tactic. Britain may have one fleeting advantage; without Washington Treaty, Saratoga and Lexington aren't completed as carriers, so Britain's trio (Furious, Courageous and Glorious) can be an important asset. US industrial advantage not so important here; as Admiral Cunningham once observed, it takes three years to build a ship (and three hundred to build a tradition. Geographically: The US can capture Winnipeg with ludicrous ease, and thereby cut Canada in two. They would find it scarcely more difficult to occupy Vancouver, and Ontario. Lower down the St. Lawrence, the configuration of the terrain and communications give the advantage to the British, trying to hold a US advance from west. Halifax and NS even more difficult for the US to get at, unless they go for an amphibious operation (which is a frightening prospect for them unless they have already established naval superiority). So overall; unless a decisive naval battle occurs by chance or mismanagement, US occupies all of Canada, less Quebec (city and province), and the Maritime provinces, early on. Stalemate for a year or so, then inevitable US victory. Japan will probably sit on the sidelines, and pick up the colonies of the losers (Malaya or Philippines); will build her own Navy and armed forces without restraint. Subject: Re: AH Challenge: UK vs USA Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 14:54:58 GMT From: Ben Brothers Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 "Huw G" writes: >OK, having set Britain and the US at each other's throats, with Ireland as >the POD and Canada leaving the Commonwealth as the immediate cause, which >way do hostilities go ? It'd be a tough war to fight through to the end, since everybody has a lot more to lose than to gain. I suspect the US would only go to war if they thought they could get Canada outright, regardless of the "Free Canada" propaganda they'll no doubt use. It's not 1898 and Britain is not Spain. And in the 20s, support for liberation crusades is going to be at a low ebb. After a few minor naval skirmishes, people realize it's serious, and quickly agree to hold the Canadian referendum. What about Quebec? Is there a strong Francophone movement back then? Would the British War exacerbate it? Let's say France bullies and bluffs her way into the negotiations -- now is not the time for the UK to irritate the French. So Quebec votes for independence, union with the UK, or union with France. And the rest of Canada can choose statehood instead of union with France. I suspect independence would win by a landslide. But the US/France option is much more interesting to run with. How do we get there? >Japan will probably sit on the sidelines, and pick up the colonies of the >losers (Malaya or Philippines); Unlikely if this is a short war. There are less risky targets in the 20s. Maybe a move on China a little earlier, and almost certainly a less constrained military buildup, like you said. -- Ben Brothers - (bjb@crhc.uiuc.edu) - www.crhc.uiuc.edu/~bjb/ Subject: Re: AH Challenge: UK vs USA Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 10:11:23 -0500 From: Carlos Th Organization: - Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 Ben Brothers wrote: > > "Huw G" writes: > > >OK, having set Britain and the US at each other's throats, with Ireland as > >the POD and Canada leaving the Commonwealth as the immediate cause, which > >way do hostilities go ? > > It'd be a tough war to fight through to the end, since everybody > has a lot more to lose than to gain. I suspect the US would only > go to war if they thought they could get Canada outright, regardless > of the "Free Canada" propaganda they'll no doubt use. > > It's not 1898 and Britain is not Spain. And in the 20s, support > for liberation crusades is going to be at a low ebb. > > After a few minor naval skirmishes, people realize it's serious, > and quickly agree to hold the Canadian referendum. What about > Quebec? Is there a strong Francophone movement back then? Would > the British War exacerbate it? I wonder which would be the situation in the rest of Europe. In this scenario France had become involved but I see little butterfies flapping. Much less butterflies in Germany so chances are that Hitler comes to power. Now. How would post UK-US war Britain react in the presence of Nazi Germany. I imagine the UK less willing to deal with Germans in Easter Europe, and France would hesitate without British support as OTL. Would we see Germany and SU anexing Poland without France or Britain declaring war? OTOH, Britain compiting with US would be even better prepared, military, to a war with Germany unless they had collapsed in the defeat (I don't see USA occuping England and India to get Britain to capitulate). -- Carlos Th Subject: Re: AH Challenge: UK vs USA Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 16:25:48 GMT From: Ben Brothers Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 Carlos Th writes: >Now. How would post UK-US war Britain react in the presence of Nazi >Germany. I imagine the UK less willing to deal with Germans in Easter >Europe, and France would hesitate without British support as OTL. On the other hand, France comes out of this pretty well. They're more confident, and having fun a playing a Great Power again. Let's say they turn back the Germans in the Rhineland, and buy themselves a few more years of breathing room. I was also trying to come up with a way to make this timeline a little more plausible. If Quebec declares itself independent of Canada and aligns itself with France at the start, then an indepedent Canada looks weaker and less of a good deal. Maybe this tips some votes in favor of statehood. With this in motion, Quebec's union with France can easily follow at a later date. >OTOH, Britain compiting with US would be even better prepared, military, >to a war with Germany unless they had collapsed in the defeat (I don't >see USA occuping England and India to get Britain to capitulate). If you think Sealion is impossible, try getting an American landing force across the pond. -- Ben Brothers - (bjb@crhc.uiuc.edu) - www.crhc.uiuc.edu/~bjb/ Subject: Re: AH Challenge: UK vs USA Date: 27 Apr 2001 17:24:24 GMT From: akup@loc.gov (Aaron Kuperman) Organization: Library of Congress Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 But the post-war (that is after the US intervention supporting Canadian independence) would have turned the world upside down. The "Anti-imperialistic" forces would probably win bringing the British Empire down very forcefully (the Brits never had much of a land army and usually relied on local troops). The policies that provoked the war would have been repudiated. Defeated Britain might go radically right or left, or perhaps would have quickly said "oops" (would British public opinion immediately reject the idea of shooting Canadians or fighting the US). I'ld suggest a very short UK-US war ending in reconcillation. The US would be a single superpower 75 years earlier, and before nuclear weapons. With the Roosevelt rather than Stalin being the leading "anti-colonialist", the third world would have gravitated towards the US. Germany, Italy and Japan might have stayed democratic. Ben Brothers (bjb@crhc.uiuc.edu) wrote: : Carlos Th writes: : >Now. How would post UK-US war Britain react in the presence of Nazi : >Germany. I imagine the UK less willing to deal with Germans in Easter : >Europe, and France would hesitate without British support as OTL. : On the other hand, France comes out of this pretty well. They're : more confident, and having fun a playing a Great Power again. : Let's say they turn back the Germans in the Rhineland, and buy : themselves a few more years of breathing room. [...] Subject: Re: AH Challenge: UK vs USA Date: Tue, 1 May 2001 13:21:10 +0100 From: "Huw G" Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 Aaron Kuperman wrote in message <9cca08$8eke$1@rs7.loc.gov>... >But the post-war (that is after the US intervention supporting Canadian >independence) would have turned the world upside down. The >"Anti-imperialistic" forces would probably win bringing the British Empire >down very forcefully My original idea was that Britain went to war to preserve the Empire. Certainly, it would be finished. It may reform as a voluntary association of states, with a contrite Britain as an ordinary member. The US may have to become involved in the transition of India and Britain's African colonies into independent states. >been repudiated. Defeated Britain might go radically right or left, or >perhaps would have quickly said "oops" (would British public opinion >immediately reject the idea of shooting Canadians or fighting the >US). I'ld suggest a very short UK-US war ending in reconcillation. > Whichever way it might happen, the closest parallel I can come up with is Portugal in 1975. Here, the Salazar regime fell, bankrupted by fighting colonial wars in Africa. There were four years of political uncertainty and attempted coups. Eventually, things settled down and since then, Portugal has had moderate left or right governments. Hopefully, this happens to Britain. A violent swing to the far left is possible, but IMO, unlikely. A sullen, vengeful far-right government remaining in charge is not a nice thing to contemplate. >The US would be a single superpower 75 years earlier, and before nuclear >weapons. With the Roosevelt rather than Stalin being the leading >"anti-colonialist", the third world would have gravitated towards the US. > >Germany, Italy and Japan might have stayed democratic. If the US intervened with France (and perhaps Poland) to undo some of the terms of Versailles, and to prop up Germany's economy, that might work. Mussolini was already in power in Italy, but could probably have been bought at this stage. I cannot class Japan as being democratic at this point, and almost certainly Japan and the US are on a collision course. > > >Ben Brothers (bjb@crhc.uiuc.edu) wrote: >: Carlos Th writes: > >: >Now. How would post UK-US war Britain react in the presence of Nazi >: >Germany. I imagine the UK less willing to deal with Germans in Easter >: >Europe, and France would hesitate without British support as OTL. > >: On the other hand, France comes out of this pretty well. They're >: more confident, and having fun a playing a Great Power again. >: Let's say they turn back the Germans in the Rhineland, and buy >: themselves a few more years of breathing room. > [...] Subject: Re: AH Challenge: UK vs USA Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 05:00:02 +0000 From: Derrick Reeves Organization: BBS InterBulletin.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 Having read through this thread, I have but one plausible explanation for the seemingly insane actions of the postulated British government - they are the pawns of an eeevil mastermind whose genius is so vast as to be incomprehensible! His plan: to re-incorporate the United States into the British Empire... "Huw G" wrote in article <3aeeadac_2@nnrp1.news.uk.psi.net> : > >Aaron Kuperman wrote in message <9cca08$8eke$1@rs7.loc.gov>... >>But the post-war (that is after the US intervention supporting Canadian >>independence) would have turned the world upside down. The >>"Anti-imperialistic" forces would probably win bringing the British Empire >>down very forcefully > >My original idea was that Britain went to war to preserve the Empire. >Certainly, it would be finished. It may reform as a voluntary association of >states, with a contrite Britain as an ordinary member. The US may have to >become involved in the transition of India and Britain's African colonies >into independent states. Makes sense. Indeed, with a suitably conciliatory UK government and properly grateful ex-Dominion governments, the US might even be moved to join this successor association as the leading member. >>been repudiated. Defeated Britain might go radically right or left, or >>perhaps would have quickly said "oops" (would British public opinion >>immediately reject the idea of shooting Canadians or fighting the >>US). I'ld suggest a very short UK-US war ending in reconcillation. Note: Swinging radically right seems to have been the PoD, so I have my doubts about the continuation of this regime post-war. >>The US would be a single superpower 75 years earlier, and before nuclear >>weapons. With the Roosevelt rather than Stalin being the leading >>"anti-colonialist", the third world would have gravitated towards the US. I doubt that the US would be prepared to alienate European powers by taking a global anti-colonialist stance - the war with the UK is started in North America, after all. >>Germany, Italy and Japan might have stayed democratic. > >If the US intervened with France (and perhaps Poland) to undo some of the >terms of Versailles, and to prop up Germany's economy, that might work. I can't see why the US would do so. They undoubtedly have damage to their own country to repair, not to mention a war-torn Canada. >Mussolini was already in power in Italy, but could probably have been bought >at this stage. Bought? Well, Mussolini's Italy may be the leading power in Europe in this TL, with Britain out of the picture. I can't see the LoN irritating Benny without British leadership, after all. >I cannot class Japan as being democratic at this point, and almost certainly >Japan and the US are on a collision course. Quite. What this means in the context of an "Anglophone association" is quite interesting. - Derrick _______________________________________________ Submitted via WebNewsReader of http://www.interbulletin.com Subject: Re: AH Challenge: UK vs USA Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 13:37:00 +0100 From: "Huw G" Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 Aaron Kuperman wrote in message <9cca08$8eke$1@rs7.loc.gov>... >But the post-war (that is after the US intervention supporting Canadian >independence) would have turned the world upside down. The The policies that provoked the war would have >been repudiated. Defeated Britain might go radically right or left, or >perhaps would have quickly said "oops" (would British public opinion >immediately reject the idea of shooting Canadians or fighting the >US). I'ld suggest a very short UK-US war ending in reconcillation. > Quite possibly. Whether the war was long or short, Britain would probably have had to have been pretty far to the right in order to provoke it. If open repression is not used or fails to maintain the government of the day, the backlash either sends Britain far to the left, or back to representative democracy. The closest parallel I can think of is Portugal post-1975. Here an authoritarian regime collapsed because of the economic cost of fighting colonial wars and there was much political confusion for three or four years. Since then, things have settled down and Portugal's governments have been moderate conservative or moderate socialist in nature. The British Empire is certainly dead, unless some of the previous members regroup as a new association. The US and / or Commonwealth and / or League of Nations would have to try and manage the transition of India and Britain's colonies in Africa into independent states. Subject: Re: AH Challenge: UK vs USA Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 18:23:53 GMT From: Ben Brothers Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 akup@loc.gov (Aaron Kuperman) writes: >But the post-war (that is after the US intervention supporting Canadian >independence) would have turned the world upside down. Would we see that much of an impact? This was a war decided very quickly with diplomacy. Britain comes out the big loser, but is hardly defeated. She's lost Canada and maybe the rest of the Dominions, but that was only a matter of time anyways. And she's lost (for a little while, at least), US friendship. On the other hand, the US has tended to be a fairly magnanimous winner (Germany, Japan) and a fairly poor loser (Cuba, Vietnam). So I see relations improving quickly again, especially if the Nazi threat is as great as OTL. >The US would be a single superpower 75 years earlier, and before nuclear >weapons. But the US still has no significant army, no significant overseas interests (except the Philippines) and now, less of an interest in European allies. And the interwar US was pretty isolationist to begin with. Other questions: how does this affect the crash of 1929? What happens in Australia/NZ and India, and how to the British respond? -- Ben Brothers - (bjb@crhc.uiuc.edu) - www.crhc.uiuc.edu/~bjb/ Subject: Re: AH Challenge: UK vs USA Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 13:30:18 -0500 From: weaire gavin allen Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 On 24 Apr 2001, Aaron Kuperman wrote: > 1. Not so insance. It wouldn't have been a huge "gap" to go from the > Blacks and Tans to official repression. The same logic that led to hanging > the leaders of te Easter Rebellion might lead to greater repression. There > was a minority (in OTL) view that the British Empire should be more > authoritarian in Ireland and elsewhere. > > > Charlie Stross (charlie@nospam.antipope.org) wrote: > : Stoned koala bears drooled eucalyptus spittle in awe > : as declared: > > : >1922 - Half-hearted negotiations between British government and Sinn Fein > : >break down. Collins, De Valera and other SF leaders arrested, in breach of > : >armistice. De Valera and others are hanged after a travesty of a trial. > : >Woodrow Wilson (or Mrs. Woodrow Wilson ?) protests. Told to mind own > : >business. Ireland the scene of bitter low-level guerilla war, USA not > : >pleased. > > : At this point, we have postulated a British government so barkingly > : insane that words fail me. We've also postulated that the judicial > : system has been corrupted to the point of handing out death sentences > : at show trials -- in just two years. > What show trial? As far as I know, "I did it for national independence!" wasn't a legitimate defence against charges of treason and murder in British law. Collins and De Valera are quite guilty, as rebels tend to be if they fail. Actually, if the Treaty negotiations fail, Westminster has no option but to go for more extreme repressive tactics in Ireland - and they were pretty extreme in OTL to begin with. Gavin Weaire. Subject: Re: AH Challenge: UK vs USA Date: 26 Apr 2001 03:11:36 GMT From: prestorjon@aol.com (Prestorjon) Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 << What show trial? As far as I know, "I did it for national independence!" wasn't a legitimate defence against charges of treason and murder in British law. Collins and De Valera are quite guilty, as rebels tend to be if they fail>> Didn't Valera only escape execution because he was an American? ----------------- He had been our Destroyer, the doer of things We dreamed of doing but could not bring ourselves to do, The fears of years, like a biting whip, Had cut deep bloody grooves Across our backs. -Etheridge Knight Subject: Re: AH Challenge: UK vs USA Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 13:49:22 +0100 From: "Huw G" Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 weaire gavin allen wrote in message ... > > >On 24 Apr 2001, Aaron Kuperman wrote: > >> 1. Not so insance. It wouldn't have been a huge "gap" to go from the >> Blacks and Tans to official repression. The same logic that led to hanging >> the leaders of te Easter Rebellion might lead to greater repression. There >> was a minority (in OTL) view that the British Empire should be more >> authoritarian in Ireland and elsewhere. >> >> >> Charlie Stross (charlie@nospam.antipope.org) wrote: >> >> : At this point, we have postulated a British government so barkingly >> : insane that words fail me. We've also postulated that the judicial >> : system has been corrupted to the point of handing out death sentences >> : at show trials -- in just two years. >> > > What show trial? As far as I know, "I did it for national >independence!" wasn't a legitimate defence against charges of treason and >murder in British law. Collins and De Valera are quite guilty, as rebels >tend to be if they fail. > The organisers and leaders of the Easter Rising (who incidentally, were shot, rather than hanged), might have defended themselves under certain terms of the Geneva Convention, had they had the chance. I don't know the details of the Convention, but the Volunteers' defence might be: That they were an organised armed force, representing a lawful political entity; That they had declared war against Britain in proper form; That they themselves held to the terms of the Convention; That they wore uniform, or at least "distinguishing national mark"; [In WW2, a tricolour armband or similar was held to be sufficient to class a resistance fighter as a legitimate combatant in allied eyes]; There could be lots of argument about these points, but their thrust would have been that they were defeated armed forces rather than terrorists, and therefore should have become prisoners of war. The Sinn Fein leadership in 1919 were all properly elected members of the House of Commons, although they refused to take their seats. My (rather far-fetched) sequence of events involves a government with built-in pro-Unionist and anti-Irish prejudice. While I don't pretend that the extreme shades of Irish Republicanism are at all saintly, I can't deny that such anti-Irish prejudice still exists, can lead to large or small injustices, and can be used unethically to stir up political passions (as can other varieties of bigotry and racism, and Britain is far from being the only country where this can occur nowadays). That said, Britain's voters generally act far more sensibly than in my scenario. Extreme candidates whether of right or left, or Black or White are very rarely elected to Parliament, and extreme governments are effectively impossible. To produce a British government arrogant or mad enough to clash with the US would require constitutional change, and a stupefied "Most loyal opposition to His/Her Majesty's Government"). > Actually, if the Treaty negotiations fail, Westminster has no >option but to go for more extreme repressive tactics in Ireland - and they >were pretty extreme in OTL to begin with. > > Gavin Weaire. Subject: Re: AH Challenge: UK vs USA Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 16:08:12 -0500 From: weaire gavin allen Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 On Wed, 25 Apr 2001, Huw G wrote: > > weaire gavin allen wrote in message ... > > > > > >On 24 Apr 2001, Aaron Kuperman wrote: > > > >> 1. Not so insance. It wouldn't have been a huge "gap" to go from the > >> Blacks and Tans to official repression. The same logic that led to > hanging > >> the leaders of te Easter Rebellion might lead to greater repression. > There > >> was a minority (in OTL) view that the British Empire should be more > >> authoritarian in Ireland and elsewhere. > >> > >> > >> Charlie Stross (charlie@nospam.antipope.org) wrote: > >> > > > >> : At this point, we have postulated a British government so barkingly > >> : insane that words fail me. We've also postulated that the judicial > >> : system has been corrupted to the point of handing out death sentences > >> : at show trials -- in just two years. > >> > > > > What show trial? As far as I know, "I did it for national > >independence!" wasn't a legitimate defence against charges of treason and > >murder in British law. Collins and De Valera are quite guilty, as rebels > >tend to be if they fail. > > > > The organisers and leaders of the Easter Rising (who incidentally, were > shot, rather than hanged), might have defended themselves under certain > terms of the Geneva Convention, had they had the chance. I don't know the > details of the Convention, but the Volunteers' defence might be: > > That they were an organised armed force, representing a lawful political > entity; > That they had declared war against Britain in proper form; > That they themselves held to the terms of the Convention; > That they wore uniform, or at least "distinguishing national mark"; [In WW2, > a tricolour armband or similar was held to be sufficient to class a > resistance fighter as a legitimate combatant in allied eyes]; > > There could be lots of argument about these points, but their thrust would > have been that they were defeated armed forces rather than terrorists, and > therefore should have become prisoners of war. This is more-or-less the argument that's always been used by the PIRA in OTL. It hasn't stopped IRA members being sent to prison in perfectly fair trials. I still don't see the need for a "show trial" on these grounds. A fair trial could still lead to the execution of Collins and De Valera even if they offered this defence IMO. > > The Sinn Fein leadership in 1919 were all properly elected members of the > House of Commons, although they refused to take their seats. This, on the other hand, is an important point. What is the legal situation regarding trying an MP? Gavin Weaire. Subject: Re: AH Challenge: UK vs USA Date: 26 Apr 2001 15:11:03 GMT From: akup@loc.gov (Aaron Kuperman) Organization: Library of Congress Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 But the two AH scenarios to consider are: 1) a pardon or being tried for vandalising the postoffice and interfering with postal service, rather than treason (possible result: Ireland becomes either a devolved province of the UK, or a loyal dominion - and you might have created a ATL with the British Empire surviving though in a more less Anglo-centric form) 2) a serious effort to wipe out the increasingly disloyal Irish through a return to anti-Catholic penal laws (of the previous century), perhaps with concentration camps (used the previous generation in South Africa), and mass executions of anyone participating in anti-British activities -- leading to a situation which could result in an increase in Anglo-American tensions (and through in a strong Canadian reaction, to US intervention to support Canadian anti-Imperialists). [posted on lunch time] : This is more-or-less the argument that's always been used by the : PIRA in OTL. It hasn't stopped IRA members being sent to prison in : perfectly fair trials. I still don't see the need for a "show trial" on : these grounds. A fair trial could still lead to the execution of Collins : and De Valera even if they offered this defence IMO. Subject: Re: AH Challenge: UK vs USA Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 13:14:32 -0500 From: weaire gavin allen Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 On 26 Apr 2001, Aaron Kuperman wrote: > But the two AH scenarios to consider are: > > > 2) a serious effort to wipe out the increasingly disloyal Irish through a > return to anti-Catholic penal laws (of the previous century), This isn't going to happen in the early C20th. The penal laws are long gone at this point - the Church of Ireland isn't even the established church any more. This *would* be insane. > perhaps with > concentration camps (used the previous generation in South Africa), and > mass executions of anyone participating in anti-British activities -- This on the other hand is IMO quite feasible. Small scale reprisal killings of innocents (let alone the guilty) by the Black and Tans took place in OTL - just kick it up a notch. This isn't a situation where the British are necessarily the villains of the piece. Every one of ours that dies, we kill X more of theirs; this is how all sides were prone to think in OTL's War of Independence: the army, IRA, UVF. It was a vicious circle of tit-for-tat in OTL; I have no difficulty envisaging further escalation of terror producing something really ugly. Gavin Weaire Subject: Re: AH Challenge: UK vs USA Date: 26 Apr 2001 20:44:28 GMT From: akup@loc.gov (Aaron Kuperman) Organization: Library of Congress Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 The anti-Catholic laws in Britain were just as "ancient" as the anti-Jewish laws that Germany revived. Going "back" to a legal system that existed in living memory is almost be definition reasonable (especially for an AH newsgroup). Furthermore, Germany's reactionary policies were directed against Jews who were loyal patriotic Germans, whereas the POD assumes Britain would be acting primarily against rebels and traitors. weaire gavin allen (weaire@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu) wrote: : On 26 Apr 2001, Aaron Kuperman wrote: : > But the two AH scenarios to consider are: : > : > : > 2) a serious effort to wipe out the increasingly disloyal Irish through a : > return to anti-Catholic penal laws (of the previous century), : This isn't going to happen in the early C20th. The penal laws are : long gone at this point - the Church of Ireland isn't even the established : church any more. This *would* be insane. Subject: Re: AH Challenge: UK vs USA Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 01:05:01 +0100 From: Brett Paul Dunbar Organization: Minimal Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 In message <9ca1bc$8vou$1@rs7.loc.gov>, Aaron Kuperman writes >weaire gavin allen (weaire@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu) wrote: > > >: On 26 Apr 2001, Aaron Kuperman wrote: : > But the two AH scenarios to >consider are: : > : > : > 2) a serious effort to wipe out the increasingly >disloyal Irish through a : > return to anti-Catholic penal laws (of the >previous century), > >: This isn't going to happen in the early C20th. The penal laws are >: long gone at this point - the Church of Ireland isn't even the established >: church any more. This *would* be insane. >The anti-Catholic laws in Britain were just as "ancient" as the >anti-Jewish laws that Germany revived. Going "back" to a legal system that >existed in living memory is almost be definition reasonable (especially >for an AH newsgroup). Furthermore, Germany's reactionary policies were >directed against Jews who were loyal patriotic Germans, whereas the POD >assumes Britain would be acting primarily against rebels and traitors. Catholic emancipation had been passed (which granted Roman Catholics the right to sit in parliament and hold most public offices) in 1829, this really wasn't within living memory by 1918. It should be noted that the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829 marked the culmination of the process of granting civil rights to Roman Catholics most civil rights had been restored in Ireland by acts passed by the Irish Parliament, in 1778 (rights to buy, inherit and sell land subject to an oath of allegiance) and much more importantly, 1793 (the vote, right to practice law, open Religious Schools, serve in the military, worship openly &c. excluding only the right to sit in parliament and hold public office). -- Great Internet Mersenne Prime Search http://www.mersenne.org/prime.htm Brett Paul Dunbar Subject: Re: AH Challenge: UK vs USA Date: 25 Apr 2001 15:21:52 GMT From: akup@loc.gov (Aaron Kuperman) Organization: Library of Congress Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 In OTL the British government was mad enough to use massive military force against the Easter Rebellion, and to treat them as traitors. They could have treated them as comic fools, sued them for damage to the post office, and Ireland would probably be a united dominion to this very day (and one could argue that Britain might still be an Empire at least in name). Britain routinely attempted to start inter-ethnic wars as a device to preserve the Empire (e.g. Ireland, Palestine, India), and massacres were hardly unknown. Civil rights were one aspect of British culture that wasn't for export to the Empire. Britain of the pre-WWII era was not known for its friendliness to Catholics (who are still under some minor disabilities under British law). The issue is whether it is reasonable to come up with a Britain that will try to have a tightly run Empire, and adopt an imperial policy that will make the Canadians angry enough to declare unilateral independence. If so, you have a scenario in the 1920s or 1930s for a US-UK war. The best "scenario" would be to have more forceful opposition in Britain to Irish home rule (treating the Irish the way the South Asians were often treated), which in the increasing cycle of violence would lead to greater anti-Catholic feelings in Britain. This leads to Canadian alienation for Britain, and leads to Candada declaring independence in an era when Canada's goernment existed at the pleasure of Westminster. Huw G (hgallon@openlinksw.co.uk) wrote: Subject: Re: AH Challenge: UK vs USA Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 18:42:47 +0100 From: "Huw G" Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 Aaron Kuperman wrote in message <9c6q2g$688s$1@rs7.loc.gov>... >or 1930s for a US-UK war. The best "scenario" would be to have more >forceful opposition in Britain to Irish home rule (treating the Irish the >way the South Asians were often treated), which in the increasing cycle of >violence would lead to greater anti-Catholic feelings in Britain. This >leads to Canadian alienation for Britain, and leads to Candada declaring >independence in an era when Canada's goernment existed at the pleasure of >Westminster. It had a Governor-General appointed by the crown; but internally, Canada was fully self-governing. > My scenario was: First, a repressive policy towards Ireland turning all shades of public opinion in the US (and presumably also Australia, Canada and NZ) against Britain; Then, a draconian economic policy as a reaction to the Depression, leading to Canada and other dominions deciding to cut various ties with Britain to protect their own economies; Which is strictly speaking two POD's, unless you assume that the government awarded itself emergency powers as a result of the Irish crisis and developed megalomaniac tendencies. Other than India (dragooned), and African countries which had very limited political development before WW2 (not relevant to this issue), about the only part of the Commonwealth which *might* stay close to my "mad cow" Whitehall government, would be South Africa. (If only because of the inequalities between South Africa's peoples, which wouldn't leave Smuts or Herzog or whoever much of a leg to stand on, were he to protest about Ireland). OTOH, South Africa would be unlikely to contribute much to any aggressive war effort. Subject: Re: AH Challenge: UK vs USA Date: 26 Apr 2001 13:33:53 GMT From: kenney@cix.compulink.co.uk Organization: CIX - Compulink Information eXchange Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 In article <9c6q2g$688s$1@rs7.loc.gov>, akup@loc.gov (Aaron Kuperman) wrote: > and Ireland would probably be a united dominion to this very day I very much doubt that. Talks about granting Ireland dominion status at least and probably complete home rule were underway in 1913. They stalled over the Ulster question. Casemont and the Unionists were totally opposed to coming under the rule of Catholics. They had been buying arms. The only force available to put down a rebellion in Ulster at the time would have been the British army. The British government had major doubts about the army doing this. IIRC the entire officer corps in Ireland resigned at one point though these resignations were later withdrawn. another problem was that neither the British government or those working for Irish independence were prepared to consider partition prior to WW1. Some historians have suggested that the problems Britain was having with Ireland led to the Germans assuming that Britain would not interfere in a european war. Ken Young kenney@cix.co.uk Maternity is a matter of fact Paternity is a matter of opinion Subject: Re: AH Challenge: UK vs USA Date: 26 Apr 2001 15:17:56 GMT From: akup@loc.gov (Aaron Kuperman) Organization: Library of Congress Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 But the demonstrated loyalty of the Irish in WWI (which the OTL the Brits threw away by turning fringe-nationalists into heroes) and the overwhelming permanence of the British Empire-- would have made a devolved (to use a modern term) Ireland more palatable to the nationalists. Similarly, if the militant anti-Catholic elements got the upper hand, they would have turned the balance the otherway and in their efforts to defeat the Catholics would have provoked a US-UK confrontation. Thus one could argue that the British reaction to the Easter rebellion was a pivotal event. kenney@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote: : In article <9c6q2g$688s$1@rs7.loc.gov>, akup@loc.gov (Aaron Kuperman) : wrote: : > and Ireland would probably be a united dominion to this very day : I very much doubt that. Talks about granting Ireland dominion status : at least and probably complete home rule were underway in 1913. They : stalled over the Ulster question. Casemont and the Unionists were : totally opposed to coming under the rule of Catholics. They had been : buying arms. The only force available to put down a rebellion in : Ulster at the time would have been the British army. The British : government had major doubts about the army doing this. IIRC the entire : officer corps in Ireland resigned at one point though these : resignations were later withdrawn. another problem was that neither : the British government or those working for Irish independence were : prepared to consider partition prior to WW1. : Some historians have suggested that the problems Britain was having : with Ireland led to the Germans assuming that Britain would not : interfere in a european war. : Ken Young : kenney@cix.co.uk : Maternity is a matter of fact : Paternity is a matter of opinion Subject: Re: AH Challenge: UK vs USA Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 12:59:55 -0500 From: weaire gavin allen Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 On 26 Apr 2001, Aaron Kuperman wrote: > But the demonstrated loyalty of the Irish in WWI (which the OTL the > Brits threw away by turning fringe-nationalists into heroes) and the > overwhelming permanence of the British Empire-- would have made a devolved > (to use a modern term) Ireland more palatable to the nationalists. Certainly - Home Rule is the majority nationalist position at this point, and has been for ages. But Unionists had violent objections (literally) to being coerced into a devolved Ireland without partition. By 1916, partition was inevitable IMO, although the exact border certainly was not. > > Similarly, if the militant anti-Catholic elements got the upper hand, The Ulster Volunteers were already in existence - they were armed and were completely open about their intentions to resist Home Rule by force. They didn't represent a militant fringe - their feelings were shared by the majority of Ulster Protestants. (Southern Unionists are another matter - they were often more anti-partition than anti-Home Rule.) >they > would have turned the balance the otherway and in their efforts to defeat > the Catholics would have provoked a US-UK confrontation. > > Thus one could argue that the British reaction to the Easter rebellion was > a pivotal event. > > That is not in doubt - it ended decades of dominance of the constitutional nationalist tradition and swung nationalism towards the use of violence once again, with effects that reverberate to this day. But a more sensible reaction would IMO still have led to partition - just a partition consisting of two devolved Home Rule governments rather than one Home Rule government and a "Free State." But it's still one of the great missed opportunities of Irish history - there's a lot of bloodshed that could have been avoided. > > > > kenney@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote: > : In article <9c6q2g$688s$1@rs7.loc.gov>, akup@loc.gov (Aaron Kuperman) > : wrote: > > : > and Ireland would probably be a united dominion to this very day > : I very much doubt that. Talks about granting Ireland dominion status > : at least and probably complete home rule were underway in 1913. They > : stalled over the Ulster question. Casemont and the Unionists were > : totally opposed to coming under the rule of Catholics. They had been > : buying arms. The only force available to put down a rebellion in > : Ulster at the time would have been the British army. The British > : government had major doubts about the army doing this. IIRC the entire > : officer corps in Ireland resigned at one point though these > : resignations were later withdrawn. The Curragh mutiny - the last POD IMO to avoid partition. >another problem was that neither > : the British government or those working for Irish independence were > : prepared to consider partition prior to WW1. This may be incorrect, depending on how it is to be parsed. The UK govt. was prepared to and did consider partition prior to WWI - they were not prepared to consider a partition that would take effect before the war was over, and shelved the issue for later consideration. But they were thinking in terms of partition as the eventual solution. Nationalists, on the other hand, hadn't yet quite wrapped their minds around it, and saw it as a first step at most. > : Some historians have suggested that the problems Britain was having > : with Ireland led to the Germans assuming that Britain would not > : interfere in a european war. Interesting. This I didn't know. ObWI? Gavin Weaire. Subject: Re: AH Challenge: UK vs USA Date: 26 Apr 2001 18:48:17 GMT From: akup@loc.gov (Aaron Kuperman) Organization: Library of Congress Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 Of course if it went the other way, the original challenge, the US would have led an anti-imperialism alliance against the British Empire. Beyond defending Canadian independence (how this ATL gets the US and UK shooting), the US would probably decide to liberate the rest of the Empire. Thus by the mid-20th century the US is perceived in most of the world as the great anti-imperialist. How would this have affected Germany and Japan? With everyone else being forced out of the empire-business, would Japan have steered his imperialist tendancies into something other than conquest? Would seeing national self-determination sweeping the world have made the Germans less annoyed at having lost their colonies? Would the communist "blossom" that lasted 50 years never have been more than a quirky Russian movement that wasn't exportable? weaire gavin allen (weaire@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu) wrote: : missed opportunities of Irish history - there's a lot of bloodshed that : could have been avoided. Subject: Re: AH Challenge: UK vs USA Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 10:16:35 -0400 From: "Robert J. Kolker" Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 Huw G wrote: > > Doesn't look too ASB, though I don't expect many to agree. Note that I have > painted Britain as the bad guy. Weak spot - I cannot see a reactionary > coalition remaining in power in Britain during the 1920's unless all the > voices of reason went silent for some reason). You are right. You scenario does not postulate ISOTs, ASBs or Fairey Demons. It does, however, assume that the Brits have gone raving mad. While this is possible, is it likely? Would the people of Britain permit the kind of m'shugas you have postulated? Is there any rational gain to be had? Bob Kolker Subject: Re: AH Challenge: UK vs USA Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 06:26:46 GMT From: rgorman@telusplanet.net (David Johnston) Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 On Thu, 19 Apr 2001 10:16:35 -0400, "Robert J. Kolker" wrote: > > >Huw G wrote: > >> >> Doesn't look too ASB, though I don't expect many to agree. Note that I have >> painted Britain as the bad guy. Weak spot - I cannot see a reactionary >> coalition remaining in power in Britain during the 1920's unless all the >> voices of reason went silent for some reason). > >You are right. You scenario does not >postulate ISOTs, ASBs or Fairey Demons. >It does, however, assume that the Brits have >gone raving mad. While this is possible, is it >likely? Not everything in history is rational. Would the people of Britain permit the >kind of m'shugas you have postulated? > >Is there any rational gain to be had? You mean apart from retaining their empire? Not that they have a hope. I like the "U.S. invades Canada over Prohibition" idea better just because it provides somewhat more balanced sides. Subject: Re: AH Challenge: UK vs USA Date: 20 Apr 2001 15:11:04 GMT From: akup@loc.gov (Aaron Kuperman) Organization: Library of Congress Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 1. US invaded Canada to prevent them from undermining "prohibition" (not likely) 2. US and UK move to DIFFERENT radical political extremes, e.g. 2a): Radical socialist Britain and radical fascist US - but this isn't likely to lead to war unless the socialist Brits infect the Canadians, whose acts lead to the US invading Canada. Possible sore points might be "Red Canada" opposing "Fascist American" attempts to reimpose slavery. The problem with this theory is while Britain flirted with socialism, and while the US had some quasi-fascists, it is hard to come up with a British Lenin to go to war with an American Hitler. 2b) Right-wing Britain vs. radically leftwing US. A Britain that allies or leads the fascists in WWII might end up at war with the US, but getting the US involved in a European war might be hard (but what if the US were intervening in the Canadian war of independence). It might be possible for the US to become "gung-ho" anti-imperialists (less unthinkable, the US was never too thrilled with other people's empires), and start trying to undermine the British Empire. [posted on lunch time] Ed Thomas (ed@thequarryhouse.com) wrote: : I was watching a program charting the development of battleships on the TV, : and a Naval expert said: 'People say that the treaty of Washington was a : faliure, as it didn't stop Pearl Harbour, or prevent WWII. However I think : perhaps the treaty may just have prevented the great Anglo-American war of : 1928'. Apparently until the treaty both the UK and the USA considered each : other as likely future enemies, and both sides used the other as the enemy : when planning Naval excerises etc. : The challenge is: With a POD no earlier then 1919, cause an Anglo-American : war in the 1920s or 30s. Subject: Re: AH Challenge: UK vs USA Date: 20 Apr 2001 19:05:46 GMT From: akup@loc.gov (Aaron Kuperman) Organization: Library of Congress Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 On re-reading my own post, I propose the following: UK moves slightly to the right. Reactionary tories attempt to keep strict control over the entrie Empire, including Ireland and Canada. Britain becomes increasingly anti-Catholic and anti-Jewish. Policies towards independence and home rule movements turn to severe repression. Following mssacres in Ireland carried out by regulars (e.g the RAF levels Dublin - no "Blacks and tans" in this scenario), and imperial legislation requiring all dominions to support the Church of England while restricting Catholics, Canada declares independence and the US goes to war in their support. All this requires is a somewhat more successful right-wing of the Conservative party to stay in control of both their party and the country, which would be a lot more likely than a world war over booze (as in, who in the US would bomb their favorite liquor store??). Aaron Kuperman (akup@loc.gov) wrote: : 1. US invaded Canada to prevent them from undermining "prohibition" (not : likely) : 2. US and UK move to DIFFERENT radical political extremes, e.g. : 2a): Radical socialist Britain and radical fascist US - but this : isn't likely to lead to war unless the socialist Brits infect the : Canadians, whose acts lead to the US invading Canada. Possible sore points : might be "Red Canada" opposing "Fascist American" attempts to reimpose : slavery. The problem with this theory is while Britain flirted with : socialism, and while the US had some quasi-fascists, it is hard to come up : with a British Lenin to go to war with an American Hitler. : 2b) Right-wing Britain vs. radically leftwing US. A Britain that : allies or leads the fascists in WWII might end up at war with the US, but : getting the US involved in a European war might be hard (but what if the : US were intervening in the Canadian war of independence). It might be : possible for the US to become "gung-ho" anti-imperialists (less : unthinkable, the US was never too thrilled with other people's empires), : and start trying to undermine the British Empire. : [posted on lunch time] : Ed Thomas (ed@thequarryhouse.com) wrote: : : I was watching a program charting the development of battleships on the TV, : : and a Naval expert said: 'People say that the treaty of Washington was a : : faliure, as it didn't stop Pearl Harbour, or prevent WWII. However I think : : perhaps the treaty may just have prevented the great Anglo-American war of : : 1928'. Apparently until the treaty both the UK and the USA considered each : : other as likely future enemies, and both sides used the other as the enemy : : when planning Naval excerises etc. : : The challenge is: With a POD no earlier then 1919, cause an Anglo-American : : war in the 1920s or 30s. Subject: Re: AH Challenge: UK vs USA Date: 1 May 2001 14:46:58 -0400 From: jdnicoll@panix.com (James Nicoll) Organization: PANIX -- Public Access Networks Corp. Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 Just spitballing here... POD: The US does not enter WWI because in this TL, the Germans are just a tad smarter wrt PR [A real German blind spot in both wars[1]] and nothing like the Zimmerman telegraph happens. The Germans manage to destabilize Russia as in OTL but because they are just that much better at persuading people than in OTL they manage to do the same to France, skillfully using PR to cause the mutinies in the French to destabilize France and thus the Allied offensive. The Great War ends with Russia Communist, France is Red-Monarchist [A Bourbon rabblerouser turns up who is charismatic] and Britain gets bupkiss for millions of dead soldiers. Home Rule for Ireland goes less well than in our timeline. A soldier who otherwise would have languished in obscurity manages to survive the war and get promoted because he is, while quite mad on the subject of keeping the lesser races of the Empire In Their Place, also quite brave and in this TL, lucky. General "Involuntary Buggery for All Lawbreakers" Argent is sadly persuasive enough sway the British Army over to his side when it becomes obvious to him that the politicians plan to betray the Empire by letting the scurvy Irish have their so-called Free State, just another example of how they stabbed the military in the back. Various bits of violence result and by 1925, IBAL Argent is the new Lord Protector of the British Empire, with the King and royal family sequestered away lest Irish terrorists attempt to hurt them. In 1976, the mass grave into which Argent has the bodies of the Royal family dumped when he realises they too are Irish sympathisers is found by a archaeological dig in Scotland. Proof that it was the Lord Protector who killed them and not Irish infiltrators is also found, rather too late to take back the headlines Fleet Street issued in 1928. Argent's model for Ireland is "Copy Cromwell but be more thorough". The extent to which famine trims the Irish population in the 1920s is matched only by the deaths from disease and mis- treatment in Argent's Camps. Needless to say, the Dominions are less than thrilled. When Argent demands troops to help supress Ireland and the anarchist terrorists attempting to reinstate elections in the UK, they refuse. Argent, being mad, declares -them- rebels as well, claims that he has dissolved their Dominion status and that they are all to surrender to the British Navy, which he then dispatches. At this point, Canada swallows its pride and appeals to the US for help. There's a three sided skirmish off NFLD involving a US ship [sent to the bottom] and by 1929, The UK/US war is on. James Nicoll 1: _Bodyguard of Lies_ has a cute anecdote about how when Allied planes dropped leaflets over German lines accusing a German officer of stealing his men's money, the Germans replied by dropping leaflets on the Allied lines proving the officer was innocent. -- "Somehow I managed to get a job as an apprentice structural engineering draughtsman, where I was supposed to design buildings which people would sit in and the roof would not fall down and kill them. A big responsibility for someone whose total education had come from PLANET STORIES." Bob Shaw Subject: Re: AH Challenge: UK vs USA Date: Tue, 1 May 2001 23:00:29 +0000 (UTC) From: randy@euclid.nmu.edu (Randy Appleton) Organization: Northern Michigan University Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 On 1 May 2001 14:46:58 -0400, James Nicoll wrote: > POD: The US does not enter WWI because in this TL, the >Germans are just a tad smarter wrt PR [A real German blind spot >in both wars[1]] and nothing like the Zimmerman telegraph happens. That might be possible. Not sinking passenger ships would also help, as would declaring war aims more moderate than the Allies. >The Germans manage to destabilize Russia as in OTL but because >they are just that much better at persuading people than in OTL >they manage to do the same to France, skillfully using PR to >cause the mutinies in the French to destabilize France and >thus the Allied offensive. Russia will self-destruct without help. No problem. I really cannot imagine the French Army rebelling because of German propoganda. I understand that they went on "no more offensive" strikes, but they were always willing to defend France. Is there any reasonably relevant example of one nations propoganda effecting having so much effect on the moral of the enemy? > The Great War ends with Russia >Communist, France is Red-Monarchist [A Bourbon rabblerouser turns >up who is charismatic] and Britain gets bupkiss for millions of >dead soldiers. How did France get to be Monarchist? I understand Red, but Monarchist? > Home Rule for Ireland goes less well than in our timeline. >A soldier who otherwise would have languished in obscurity manages >to survive the war and get promoted because he is, while quite >mad on the subject of keeping the lesser races of the Empire In >Their Place, also quite brave and in this TL, lucky. General >"Involuntary Buggery for All Lawbreakers" Argent is sadly persuasive >enough sway the British Army over to his side when it becomes obvious >to him that the politicians plan to betray the Empire by letting the >scurvy Irish have their so-called Free State, just another example of >how they stabbed the military in the back. Various bits of violence >result and by 1925, IBAL Argent is the new Lord Protector of the British >Empire, with the King and royal family sequestered away lest Irish >terrorists attempt to hurt them. I want to say that's unreasonable, but this looks like a mix between what happened to Italy and Germany. And therefore it might be sadly reasonable. > In 1976, the mass grave into which Argent has the bodies of >the Royal family dumped when he realises they too are Irish sympathisers >is found by a archaeological dig in Scotland. Proof that it was the >Lord Protector who killed them and not Irish infiltrators is also >found, rather too late to take back the headlines Fleet Street >issued in 1928. > > Argent's model for Ireland is "Copy Cromwell but be more >thorough". The extent to which famine trims the Irish population >in the 1920s is matched only by the deaths from disease and mis- >treatment in Argent's Camps. Were it not for Hitler's example, I'd say this was impossible. But Hitler did exist. > Needless to say, the Dominions are less than thrilled. When >Argent demands troops to help supress Ireland and the anarchist >terrorists attempting to reinstate elections in the UK, they refuse. >Argent, being mad, declares -them- rebels as well, claims that he >has dissolved their Dominion status and that they are all to surrender >to the British Navy, which he then dispatches. HERE IS ANOTHER BIG PROBELM. OK. So Argus is a litle off his rocker. But that he became and stays the leader of the UK implies that he is effective at his job. This decision is spectacularly and obviously stupid. Hitler and Musolini might have been crazy, but in general their decisions were reasonable given their goals. This decision is unreasonable given Argus's goals. Remember, even crazy dictators need to be sane enough to rule. Someone this crazy could not rule. Or perhaps you can justify it with some impossibly pressing domestic need, Space Bats, something. -Randy -- ======================================================================== || Randy Appleton, Professor of Computer Science at Northern Michigan || || University. And a big fan of Linux! || ================= mailto:randy@euclid.nmu.edu ========================== Subject: Re: AH Challenge: UK vs USA Date: Wed, 2 May 2001 14:46:45 +0100 From: "MikeF" Organization: ACS, The University of Nottingham Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 "Randy Appleton" wrote in message news:slrn9eufjq.ass.randy@euclid.nmu.edu... > > The Great War ends with Russia > >Communist, France is Red-Monarchist [A Bourbon rabblerouser turns > >up who is charismatic] and Britain gets bupkiss for millions of > >dead soldiers. > > How did France get to be Monarchist? I understand Red, but Monarchist? Well, after they were kicked out of France, the French imperial family settled in England, and as a Bonaparte has to be a soldier, the Prince Imperial had to go for being an officer in a British regiment. But just being an officer wasn't enough, he had to fight. Then the Zulu wars come up - ideal, as the French wouldn't care for the Zulus, so the family pulls a few strings to allow him to go out in a sort of not completely official way. The Prince Imperial (due to a series of miscommunications and bungling) ends up effectively leading a small patrol. The patrol is ambushed by Zulus. POD Bonaparte manages to keep a grip on his saddle, and mounts his horse, rather than be killed by the Zulus. How to get from there to a post WWI restoration of the Monarchy in France? I'll let someone else do it. Subject: Re: AH Challenge: UK vs USA Date: 2 May 2001 16:15:49 -0400 From: jdnicoll@panix.com (James Nicoll) Organization: PANIX -- Public Access Networks Corp. Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 In article , Randy Appleton wrote: >On 1 May 2001 14:46:58 -0400, James Nicoll wrote: >> POD: The US does not enter WWI because in this TL, the >>Germans are just a tad smarter wrt PR [A real German blind spot >>in both wars[1]] and nothing like the Zimmerman telegraph happens. > >That might be possible. Not sinking passenger ships would also help, as >would declaring war aims more moderate than the Allies. > >>The Germans manage to destabilize Russia as in OTL but because >>they are just that much better at persuading people than in OTL >>they manage to do the same to France, skillfully using PR to >>cause the mutinies in the French to destabilize France and >>thus the Allied offensive. > >Russia will self-destruct without help. No problem. > >I really cannot imagine the French Army rebelling because of German >propoganda. I understand that they went on "no more offensive" strikes, >but they were always willing to defend France. Is there any reasonably >relevant example of one nations propoganda effecting having so much effect >on the moral of the enemy? > >> The Great War ends with Russia >>Communist, France is Red-Monarchist [A Bourbon rabblerouser turns >>up who is charismatic] and Britain gets bupkiss for millions of >>dead soldiers. > >How did France get to be Monarchist? I understand Red, but Monarchist? Well, it's France. I figured an unsuccessful war would topple the current mode of government [WHat are they on, the 8th Republic?] and that they'd come up with some peculiar, French way of doing things just to make the rest of us scratch our heads trying to figure out what the heck they were doing. Thus a combination of a Restoration _and_ Revolution at the same time. Yeah, stupid but so was the idea of a Communist Revolution in Russia from the POV Karl Marx. > >> Home Rule for Ireland goes less well than in our timeline. >>A soldier who otherwise would have languished in obscurity manages >>to survive the war and get promoted because he is, while quite >>mad on the subject of keeping the lesser races of the Empire In >>Their Place, also quite brave and in this TL, lucky. General >>"Involuntary Buggery for All Lawbreakers" Argent is sadly persuasive >>enough sway the British Army over to his side when it becomes obvious >>to him that the politicians plan to betray the Empire by letting the >>scurvy Irish have their so-called Free State, just another example of >>how they stabbed the military in the back. Various bits of violence >>result and by 1925, IBAL Argent is the new Lord Protector of the British >>Empire, with the King and royal family sequestered away lest Irish >>terrorists attempt to hurt them. > >I want to say that's unreasonable, but this looks like a mix between what >happened to Italy and Germany. And therefore it might be sadly >reasonable. > >> In 1976, the mass grave into which Argent has the bodies of >>the Royal family dumped when he realises they too are Irish sympathisers >>is found by a archaeological dig in Scotland. Proof that it was the >>Lord Protector who killed them and not Irish infiltrators is also >>found, rather too late to take back the headlines Fleet Street >>issued in 1928. >> >> Argent's model for Ireland is "Copy Cromwell but be more >>thorough". The extent to which famine trims the Irish population >>in the 1920s is matched only by the deaths from disease and mis- >>treatment in Argent's Camps. > >Were it not for Hitler's example, I'd say this was impossible. But Hitler >did exist. Argent isn't quite as bad, not having thought of the idea of Final Solution. > >> Needless to say, the Dominions are less than thrilled. When >>Argent demands troops to help supress Ireland and the anarchist >>terrorists attempting to reinstate elections in the UK, they refuse. >>Argent, being mad, declares -them- rebels as well, claims that he >>has dissolved their Dominion status and that they are all to surrender >>to the British Navy, which he then dispatches. > >HERE IS ANOTHER BIG PROBELM. >OK. So Argus is a litle off his rocker. But that he became and stays the >leader of the UK implies that he is effective at his job. This decision >is spectacularly and obviously stupid. Hitler and Musolini might have >been crazy, but in general their decisions were reasonable given their >goals. This decision is unreasonable given Argus's goals. > >Remember, even crazy dictators need to be sane enough to rule. Someone >this crazy could not rule. > >Or perhaps you can justify it with some impossibly pressing domestic need, >Space Bats, something. > Argent thinks of the Empire as this glorious unbreakable unchangable entity. Anyone who disagrees with him is obviously an anarchist or some other form of traitor. The idea that Dominions could say no to Britain was pretty revolutionary back then and Argent couldn't wrap his mind around the concept. Heck, as recently as the 1960s, you could find *Canadian* politicians objecting to a new flag with lines like 'British I was born and British I will die!' Eventually, he gets shot, sure. -- "Somehow I managed to get a job as an apprentice structural engineering draughtsman, where I was supposed to design buildings which people would sit in and the roof would not fall down and kill them. A big responsibility for someone whose total education had come from PLANET STORIES." Bob Shaw