A Note on the Timeline and Contributions
Hullo all,
Just wanted to say a few things. First of all, thank you all for your often actually quite heartfelt and positive feedback. Having dabbled over whether to get this going for so long, it was very nice to see so much positivity, support and celebration of my efforts. I really appreciate it, and it has certainly motivated me to deliver more.
I do think I need to address the fact that unfortunately the last few pages of posts have often been quite argumentative and occasionally 'shouty' though. While I genuinely appreciated the advice about the potential for a German Naval sortie, I think the comments that followed led to unneccessary arguments and divisiveness, so I want to iron out why I have the rules in the original post, and why I think being respectful in this timeline is important.
Bu there is no such thing as "unnecessary" arguments! It's simple case of mistaken intention... You can agree with me or you can be wrong, purely your choice of course
(KIDDING! Oh dear Lord-n-Lady I joke!
)
First of all, Im sorry if it seems like the first rule essentially says "if you disagree with me, I'll just ignore you". This is a misunderstanding of the reason for the rule.
No problem it's just that some of us, (me likely in particular) don't 'explain' ourselves well initially and then spend FAR to many posts 'ret-conning' ourselves to where we want to be in the fist place. Your timeline so your rules and while it's great to get deeper into the authors thoughts, (internet validation by disagreement squeee!
) in the end we're hoping to help and ride your coat-tails a bit but in the end it is YOUR story so feel free to ignore us. (We're used to it by now
)
I suffer from anxiety that is easily triggered, and can quite literally ruin me for days to the point where I cant do any work and I barely even can motivate myself to shower. Unfortunately, while I am very good atg handling that, when I invest myself heavily into a project and I get criticism for it, I find that quite stressful - as I think anyone would.
I sincerely apologize if I've done so, it was not my intent. As for stress... I've been married for over 30 years so at this point being 'wrong' is well understood and comfortable pillow for me
Others, not so much. I again apologize.
The problem I find is not the criticism itself, it is the response to that criticsm. As you can see, in my responses to several users on this thread I genuinely try to explain my rationale, justify my points and be friendly doing so. I want advice and suggestions, and if I've got something just factually incorrect then I'd rather know about it than not.
The problem I found in the last few discussions though, unlike the naval sortie one, is that I cant seem to satisfy the individuals asking, and I think this is because of a misunderstanding of the timeline's aim and focus.
Again apologies as some of us, (again me specifically I'm sure
) have inflated opinions about our opinions. Never mind us, we'll sort ourselves out eventually. YOU take care of YOU and if we don't listen, it's likely we don't understand how your opinion could possibly differ from ours
So, to remove all doubt, I will make it very very clear here:
This is not a 'german wank' timeline, and the central powers winning does not mean they will dominate the world unquestionably
Called it! Greater Grand Fenwick wank! All Hail the Mighty Mouse! NO not that one...
In my view, this if anything is why I find my PoD so interesting. Such a late German victory, under limiting conditions, creates not a german dominated world, but a deeply multipolar one. One where the British Empire still very much exists, and still very much exerts influence, but is checked by a growing continental power without any serious continental challengers. This goes counter to every geopolitical goal the British have ever had, and thus it presents a truly unique possibility for a truly revolutionary interwar period that would be very different to the attempts at stability we saw in OTL.
Which I will admit I finally see after a re-read and I admit that I fell into the usual "Germany wins at any point means KaiserReich TL(tm)" thinking but in context given the POD I don't see that anymore and I can't wait to see where this goes.
The Versailles conference was, in essence, in OTL an attempt at a new Congress of Vienna. Wilson in particular sought to build a new world order and retain the peace - and that set the world up for WW2 when it inevitably (in my view) failed. What is fascinating here I think is that the war, in effect, does not resolve the question of what bloc governs the world. Britain as world hegemon is still the top dog, but has been deeply harmed by the war and still now faces a rival that will only grow over time and press trhe boundaries more. This allows me to explore and demonstrate my academic history in Strategic Studies, and that's something I'm really excited to explain and display. There too is the United States, whatever we end up with in Russia, Japan and others to consider - and that I think will create a really fresh and interesting lore.
Greater Gran Fenwick... I'm telling you it's inevitable
More seriously you had my interest and now you definitely have my attention...
I have invested literally hundreds of hours into the project. Some of these books I have referenced in the first post are up to 44 hours long. So when I am presented with questions that throw doubt on my conclusions, I naturally find it confusing when I try to explain my train of thought, provide evidence, and then it gets seemingly ignored.
Well there's your problem! You used books and facts when the INTERNET is right there!
Keep going, we'll try and keep ourselves to a dull roar in the background
Randy