I'm sure the cotton-mill workers of 19th-Century Lancashire would be astounded to be considered 'Liberal Establishment figures and Socialist Intellectuals'.
Could the British Empire be Reformed? if so how?
- Thread starter Churchill
- Start date
I'm sure the cotton-mill workers of 19th-Century Lancashire would be astounded to be considered 'Liberal Establishment figures and Socialist Intellectuals'.
Am I actually seeing someone defend the hypothetical usage of mass murder to keep the Imperial populace in line, and furthermore stating that nobody would care?
Good god, that man is not worthy of the name Churchill. Conservatives, rally behind me in patriotism. Liberals, hesitate for a moment, check your textbooks on the Churchillian disasters, then rally behind me in outrage.
Good god, that man is not worthy of the name Churchill. Conservatives, rally behind me in patriotism. Liberals, hesitate for a moment, check your textbooks on the Churchillian disasters, then rally behind me in outrage.
Thirded.
...What exactly is the psychofascist view of the Opium wars, anyways? "We thrashed those gooks and then let then keep their independance? What were we, a bunch of sissies?"
Last edited:
boredatwork
Banned
first time anyone, anywhere, has ever called me leftist.
cynical, rightwinger, libertarian - sure, leftist - that's a first.
right. So the fact that China (communist) USSR (communist) and Japan (expansionist, anti-western) were all expanding in the area wouldn't lead to any of them even remotely considering supporting insurrections. Of course not, not like they did any of that in OTL.
And Japan - which wanted to push the BE out of Asia, and Germany - which would have used any means at hand to weaken the UK during WW2 and the lead up. And China - which was all about anti-imperialism from the get-go.
What? The Nazis and Fascists were just as racist as the proposed WBE, but they were looking to carve out their own Lebensraum - and the UK stood in the way, unless your new WBE plans to cede Europe, the Med, Africa, and the Middle East to the Axis, the two sides still end up at loggerheads, in which case the point stands.
As for japan not daring to - they sure dared to slaughter their way through BE possessions in WW2, the only thing you've managed to change is to worsen the WBE manpower shortage and insurrection problems. Don't see how that is going to deter anyone.
If they were so popular, then why were the two colonies released?
Canadians and Australians aren't going to convert overnight into Draka clones to keep together a bankrupting empire.
The UK government's had problems after the WW1 blood bath and after WW2, why increasing the toll and widening the conflict are somehow going to encourage folks on the other side of the world to keep sending their sons off to be slaughtered on behalf of the Empire? You'll just have an earlier, british version of the Vietnam Syndrome.
Pride is well and good, but only goes so far in the face of deprivation and progressive depopulation.
The voters love fights that they look to win easily - they're not going to be so gung ho for unending guerrilla warfare so soon after (or during) WW1 & 2.
As for the arms - China, Japan, Russia, Germany, Italy, quite possibly France and even the US as things progress.
1. Why would Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany ally themselves with the biggest obstacle to their dominance of their target zones, against a willing ally?
2. German and Italian forces can't reach the battle zone - the Brits might be able to, but were only able to win in OTL thanks to massive US & Native assistance. The natives aren't going to fight and die for a Nazi clone, and the US is going to be doing anything but helping.
Britain is only going to become an Axis power if it knuckles under to the Nazis, who were very clear about their priorities. If they're going to knuckle under to the germans, who are going to demand vast chunks of their empire as their due, what is the point in the first place?
The WBE lacks the manpower, production capability, and fleet to take on the US separately, much less while trying to maintain it's position against the Axis.
The british aren't the Draka, and the Queen's last name isn't Von Shrakenberg.
Last edited:
first time anyone, anywhere, has ever called me leftist.
cynical, rightwinger, libertarian - sure, leftist - that's a first.
You've finally found someone more right-wing than you. *sniff* My little boredatwork... all grown up...
Joking aside, when someone calls you a leftist, I think that's a sign that rational discourse has departed and it's time to move on to greener fields, like deciding who should win the upcoming election.
boredatwork
Banned
You've finally found someone more right-wing than you. *sniff* My little boredatwork... all grown up...
Joking aside, when someone calls you a leftist, I think that's a sign that rational discourse has departed and it's time to move on to greener fields, like deciding who should win the upcoming election.
I must have gone soft somewhere along the line.
Y'know, I don't think I've recommended vaporizing any rogue nations for whole quarter two - the joys of marriage, pet ownership, and the distractions of real life must be mellowing me out.
As for who should win, well, ME, of course. The bit that I'm not actually running is a tad tricky, I grant you. But it is certainly nothing a suitably well trained flock of butterflies can't deal with.
Churchill
Banned
Is this a serious post?
Do you think the Irish and Scottish would care what the Empire does to Blacks and Asians let alone what Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy or Colonial France would think.
And what ws that? Wiping out entire populations just so a victory flag could be placed upon a mountain of corpses from both sides? There'd be no victory in Britain trying to forcefully to keep it's colonies using such methods. They'd be bled white and destroyed by the revolts and outside powers manipulating the situation. Wake up lad.
Churchill
Banned
"I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas. We have definitely adopted the position at the Peace Conference of arguing in favour of the retention of gas as a permanent method of warfare. It is sheer affectation to lacerate a man with the poisonous fragment of a bursting shell and to boggle at making his eyes water by means of lachrymatory gas. I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes"
Winston Churchill on the use of poison gas on rebelious Kurdish tribesmen.
Tear gas and similar others actually. Not deadly gas. Hear is the actual quote in full. From the context, we can see he did not mean poisoned as in mustard gas.
Churchill
Banned
first time anyone, anywhere, has ever called me leftist.
cynical, rightwinger, libertarian - sure, leftist - that's a first.
Libertarians being the original left of course.
right. So the fact that China (communist) USSR (communist) and Japan (expansionist, anti-western) were all expanding in the area wouldn't lead to any of them even remotely considering supporting insurrections. Of course not, not like they did any of that in OTL.
China wasnt Communist till the late 40's.
The rest would struggle against a neutral British Empire.
And Japan - which wanted to push the BE out of Asia, and Germany - which would have used any means at hand to weaken the UK during WW2 and the lead up. And China - which was all about anti-imperialism from the get-go.
Germany wouldnt have been at war with the British Empire.
So China and Japan would have had no chance.
What? The Nazis and Fascists were just as racist as the proposed WBE, but they were looking to carve out their own Lebensraum - and the UK stood in the way, unless your new WBE plans to cede Europe, the Med, Africa, and the Middle East to the Axis, the two sides still end up at loggerheads, in which case the point stands.
All the Western Nations where racist then it wasnt seen as a bad thing just normal.
The UK didnt stand in the way of German Lebensraum in anyway,
Hitler offered to use troops to defend Englands Empire too.
As for japan not daring to - they sure dared to slaughter their way through BE possessions in WW2, the only thing you've managed to change is to worsen the WBE manpower shortage and insurrection problems. Don't see how that is going to deter anyone.
Lets see how Japan does against a 900 ship Royal Navy, 2500 RAP planes and the entire British Empire Army.
If they were so popular, then why were the two colonies released?
both released against the public will.
Canadians and Australians aren't going to convert overnight into Draka clones to keep together a bankrupting empire.
Lets live in the real world.
The British Partiots of these lands would fight hard as they did for a very well off Empire.
The UK government's had problems after the WW1 blood bath and after WW2, why increasing the toll and widening the conflict are somehow going to encourage folks on the other side of the world to keep sending their sons off to be slaughtered on behalf of the Empire? You'll just have an earlier, british version of the Vietnam Syndrome.
If after WW1 the Aussies and Canadians are still proudly British and Imperialist any colonial war is going to be a walk in the park.
Pride is well and good, but only goes so far in the face of deprivation and progressive depopulation.
We arnt fighting the Marsians.
The voters love fights that they look to win easily - they're not going to be so gung ho for unending guerrilla warfare so soon after (or during) WW1 & 2.
All the way the public love a good war,
As for the arms - China, Japan, Russia, Germany, Italy, quite possibly France and even the US as things progress.
Only the Soviets and Japs may try.
The other colonial powers are in the same boat.
China would be in civil war till it went communist.
1. Why would Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany ally themselves with the biggest obstacle to their dominance of their target zones, against a willing ally?
2. German and Italian forces can't reach the battle zone - the Brits might be able to, but were only able to win in OTL thanks to massive US & Native assistance. The natives aren't going to fight and die for a Nazi clone, and the US is going to be doing anything but helping.
Hitler wanted an alliance with England.
Mussolini just wanted fair play from England with Ethiopia.
The USA is an anti-British colonial power and always has been we should have finished it in 1812 or 1861.
Britain is only going to become an Axis power if it knuckles under to the Nazis, who were very clear about their priorities. If they're going to knuckle under to the germans, who are going to demand vast chunks of their empire as their due, what is the point in the first place?
If you Yankees chanced your arm in Canada again after the last disaster we may have taken Hitler up on his offer to defend the Empire with German troops.
Would have been a good addition to our forces in wipeing you out of existence.
The WBE lacks the manpower, production capability, and fleet to take on the US separately, much less while trying to maintain it's position against the Axis.
No possition against the Axis only the anti-colonial USA.
The british aren't the Draka, and the Queen's last name isn't Von Shrakenberg.
Stop reading fairytales and start on some real history.
You honestly think rival powers wouldn't leap at the chance to bring Britain down if they had the opportunity? Let's say for instance, there's millions of people rising up against the British in Africa from Botswana all the way north to Egypt. You'll have supplies coming in from the USSR which can out produce Britain, aid coming in from Japan to India and Burma to destabalise their position in Asia, even the US could easily join in with supplying indepence for many British colonies if they so wished. Hitler would really be sympathetic at best but so long as Britain's keeping out of his hair, why should he get involved? As soon as you've got several million Africans, Indians and multiple other nationailities telling the British to bugger off and are willing to take up arms for it, the Empire hasn't got a chance against that bloodbath. And don't think Canada and Australia or New Zealand are going to get involved. The colonies are none of their business and any British Government which enforces genocide is quickly going to find itself without any friends.
You even read the quote in full? Churchill said gas like tear gas. We have no evidence suggesting he'd use mustard gas or similar sorts on civillian populations.
Fletch
Kicked
Says a prototype Mosleyite(IMO, unless you state that you view none of your scenario a good thing).
Do you think a British-Nazi alliance was a good idea? Why would Britain with a political mindset so far removed from Nazi Germany as possible ally itself with said state?Churchill said:
Utter crap. As for Ireland, here, I have a 1921 article on them from the Guardian.Churchill said:
As for India, I suspect the common, ordinary people couldn't have cared less. If there was a feeling of mass hatred against the idea of Indian independence, Gandhi would not have been as well recieved when he visited England.The Guardian said:
That, sir is blatant Fascist and Nazi apologia that could come straight from either the mouth of Il Duce or the pages of Mein Kampf. I doubt the British people would want, understand, nor accept, such an alliance. For any British government it would be electoral suicide.Churchill said:
Last edited:
Yes, I do think the Irish and Scottish would care - as would the English and Welsh and Canadians and Australians and New Zealanders and any other nationality in the Empire you might care to name, not least because such an atrocity would be commited in their name.
I concede a confusion on my part with the Indian Mutiny. Nevertheless, my other point remains - namely, that condemnation of such an action would not be restricted to some ineffectual, marginalised elite, but would in fact evoke an outcry from all levels and aspects of society.
Am I the only one who finds Churchill disturbing. I mean, WHAT history is he reading from.
As I wanted to make this very clear, I am posting my message in BIG, VERY OBNOXIOUS LETTERS. I say this as a Canadian.
That was to grab attention.
Canada after world war I was moving away from Britain and towards America. That is an unexcapable fact. Even before world war I, Canada deliberated on free trade with the United states.
No Canadian in their right mind would FIGHT a nation ten times their size with so many of their friends, cousins, and familly on the other side of the border.
Also, Churchill has mentioned this kind of "Canadians still considered themselves British and would gladly fight to keep those peskie coloured people down." WHAT A LOAD OF CROCK.
While it is true during world war I, the concept of Canadian Britishness held true for a majority of ENGLISH Canadians, it was not true for the rest. World War I put paid to that sentiment in English Canadians.
In the post war conferences, it was the Canadian and South African PMs who put paid to any real renewed British empire schemes because the Brits had really screwed the pooch.
Why do you think the dominions wanted their own delegates in the post war delegations. That wasn't to give the British empire more votes, it was a decision on the behalf of the dominions so they could have their own say in their future.
During World war II, Canada made a point of showing she was independent by waiting a week to declare war on Nazi Germany and Italy. The Canadian establishement found the entire authoritarian Nazi ideal rather disgusting.
Also, yes the British Empire as many have said, was incredibly expensive. Why do you think the white dominions didn't take part in paying for it. It was because they knew it would cost them an arm and a leg to support the prestige of an empire that didn't even bear their name.
Whatever happens, a fascist Britain going against the United States of America would have no Canada behind it. Canada would ditch the empire faster then you could blink, and if Britain declared war on Canada, well...New Foundland is fair game.
As much as I hate to say this, World War II era, the USN would have sunk the RN to the bottom of the sea.
That was to grab attention.
Canada after world war I was moving away from Britain and towards America. That is an unexcapable fact. Even before world war I, Canada deliberated on free trade with the United states.
No Canadian in their right mind would FIGHT a nation ten times their size with so many of their friends, cousins, and familly on the other side of the border.
Also, Churchill has mentioned this kind of "Canadians still considered themselves British and would gladly fight to keep those peskie coloured people down." WHAT A LOAD OF CROCK
.While it is true during world war I, the concept of Canadian Britishness held true for a majority of ENGLISH Canadians, it was not true for the rest. World War I put paid to that sentiment in English Canadians.
In the post war conferences, it was the Canadian and South African PMs who put paid to any real renewed British empire schemes because the Brits had really screwed the pooch.
Why do you think the dominions wanted their own delegates in the post war delegations. That wasn't to give the British empire more votes, it was a decision on the behalf of the dominions so they could have their own say in their future.
During World war II, Canada made a point of showing she was independent by waiting a week to declare war on Nazi Germany and Italy. The Canadian establishement found the entire authoritarian Nazi ideal rather disgusting.
Also, yes the British Empire as many have said, was incredibly expensive. Why do you think the white dominions didn't take part in paying for it. It was because they knew it would cost them an arm and a leg to support the prestige of an empire that didn't even bear their name.
Whatever happens, a fascist Britain going against the United States of America would have no Canada behind it. Canada would ditch the empire faster then you could blink, and if Britain declared war on Canada, well...New Foundland is fair game.
As much as I hate to say this, World War II era, the USN would have sunk the RN to the bottom of the sea.