1789-1914

Redbeard

Banned
I agree up to the British reaction- which i take utter offence to. :mad:Of course, you may be taking your example from the actions of General Dyer at Amritsar. Dyer was one hot headed reactionary who deserved to be shot for what he did- his action is the only example of such action in the Empire. And a British blockade? Your simply twisting irrelevent WW1 events to suit your own ludicrous view of the British Empire. You forget the influence of the major parties, Conservative, Liberal and Labour in the British body politic. Of course, there was uneasyness about the whole concept of Empire from the time of the premiership of Balfour- note the novel by Conan-Doyle "Tragedy of the Korosko" and so forth. But British people actually taking such an interest in what German politics has to say? Of course the Labour party had already exponated such ideas, but not such on a radical scale as you purport.

BRITAIN IN 1915 WAS NOT READY TO GIVE UP ITS EMPIRE

The independence movements in Africa were in part ignited from the views of African soldiers returning from the trenches and seeing what inequality they had back home in comparison to the minority whites (inequality on such a scale being one of the great failings of the British Empire). Without the World War you would not see such a flowering of independence movements without active sponsorship from the German government- which you so fail to mention because your post is simply a Communist diatribe.

And what about India? Gandhi and the other independence groups were at this time merely asking for autonomy- full blown independence at this time was far too radical. And Canada? Already a dominion. South Africa- a disassociated but still an Imperial Dominion. You see in your utterly stupid diatribe you both expose you lack of general knowledge of the greatest Empire the world has ever seen and seem to want to express political opinions that otherwise would never have been needed.

:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:


LOL

If you think the British would not be able to act stupidly or brutal - well that is your problem :p

Empire wise this ATL only start the heavy divergence from OTL when the German socialdemocratic "paradise" not only show impressive results for its citizens, but also increasingly agitate against imperialism etc.

With socialdemocrats gradually being identified as the most prominent enemies of the empire, I imagine the political fronts in GB between Labour and the political establishment being drawn much harder. After all we in OTL did have widespread strikes and military being prepared to combat them.

In a TL, where the RN, despite its great cost, has proved useless, and the Empire is suffering from increasing pressure, not at least from within, I could easily see (even) British leaders acting desperately and stupid.

Finally, go back and revise your rethorics - I'm not impressed with people calling me stupid or unknowing - without showing they are different themselves.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard
 

Redbeard

Banned
OK then. Last time we had tanks on the streets was in the 30s- after WW1 during the General Strike. And no-one was seriously there thinking of pulling the trigger- they were for show, to show the governments authority.

You in OTL? Sure, in Britain we had strikes. We put out the tanks once, and that was Churchill in that case. We never fired on demonstrators, and i know that for a fact.

I dont even know what your on about with the Royal Navy. And perhaps, and its a long perhaps the British Army would be asked to fire on demonstrators. Perhaps. But the sort of unrest your envisonaging from a Social Democratic Party in another COUNTRY that couldnt have a hand in stirring native feelings in the Empire. And i dont believe it would, for it would take an unbelievably stupid German leader to do that, with an Austria Hungary thats crumbling, a Russia thats by now resurgant and a France that is poised to defend its borders to the last man (coming from common consensus if WW1 had been delayed). Moreover they would risk war with the prime power, Great Britain, when Germany has no allies and a military expenditure that is by now crippling.

What the hell are "rethorics"? If you mean rhetorics, then i am implicitly right, for the reasons i have laid out before and now. Stupid? Anyone with a knowledge of WI's concerning an avoidance of WW1 would know these arguments naturally. You of course dont, clearly evident in how you right in a generalising and diatribic manner.

Without showing they are not themselves? Ok, if the above hasnt at all convinced you, then look at my prior posts. I of course am willing to delegate- i ask questions on issues and reach a consensus, and will not go on a diatribe. Of course, i have constructed a TL before which didnt give any consensus, but i have learned from that with my willingness now. Moreover i have read numerous articles by eminent authors on the positing of the avoidance of WW1- judging from your prior threads you seem to only have a respectable interest in events after, military mainly. And in some cases Anti-British.

You fail to understand the basics of AH. After 1914 (no Sarajevo murder) and especially after 1917 (SD gov. in Germany) things go along a very different path - a socalled ATL.

So what we basically debate is whether the British society, culture etc. had the elements that could provide a development as in my ATL. You don't think so, I do.

I base that on a British society having one thing on top of the agenda until WWII - defending the Empire. Historically that had been done mainly by keeping a very strong navy. When a situation arise, where the main instrument for the main issue proves worthless you of course get desperate.

As of the internal pressures the British (and also Dominion) society had collossal internal social tensions in the early 20th century - no less than say Germany. That of course give potential for some explosive developments - in GB as well as other places. You might even argue, that the British class society added an extra volatility.

In OTL winning WWI (or at least not loosing) and the relative success of Labour (heavily inspired by the pre WWI German socialdemocrats) took the wind out of social tensions, as happened in most other West European countries. In this ATL however the Socialdemocrats/Labour are the symbol of the threat to the Empire and the calming effect of "socialdemocratism" thus not present, probably with a contrary effect instead. I'm sure the German socialdemocrats would not keep quiet about their views upon colonialism etc. You just have to imagine an Olof Palme like figure put into early 20th century German context. The socialdemocrats in Germany will even to a degree need to publicy point to the evils of colonialism, as they have stopped Germany's role in the race for colonies.

I'm also perfectly aware, that in OTL GB it never came to open vilolence against British citizens (for a moment not counting the Irish), but this is ATL, and the theme is whether the British society had the elements to go into a development as in the ATL. I'll claim that it did, as did most other European countries incl. say Denmark or Sweden. In Denmark it came close to military being deployed against strikers, in Sweden it actually came to an episode of strikers being machinegunned - but that doesn't make the Swedish and Danish societies of the time very different - and likewise your argument about the British Army in OTL is superficial at best.

As allways you are entirely free to disagree, but if you really want to prove that I'm stupid or unknowing, I'll give you a good advice: Don't say it - show it! Just throwing derogatory words at me will tend to say more about you than me.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard
 
Redbeard - if you're not gonna report 037771 to Ian for being a hot-headed, impolite, narrow minded teenager - I will.
That kind of immature outburst is not to be tolerated. If the young man doesn't know how to discuss a subject with grown-ups he should be sent somewhere to cool off.
 

Redbeard

Banned
Redbeard - if you're not gonna report 037771 to Ian for being a hot-headed, impolite, narrow minded teenager - I will.
That kind of immature outburst is not to be tolerated. If the young man doesn't know how to discuss a subject with grown-ups he should be sent somewhere to cool off.

Thanks pal - I basically agree with your analysis and conclusion.

I considered reporting him, but as I in no way felt vulnerable to accusations about being stupid or unknowing and certainly not anti-British, I decided to keep an eye on the ball instead. Not at least as I believe the basic reason for our "brawl" - a shock over someone proposing that we all (even the British) could have been bad guys - is (too) common. And IMHO a very effective way of preventing yourself from becomming a "bad guy" is acknowledging that you have the potential if you are not aware - be it on a personal or national level.

That agenda of mine will of course not be possible (or even visible) if this goes on in the style so far - and then I will too report - if not others/you already have.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard
 
Thanks pal - I basically agree with your analysis and conclusion.

I considered reporting him, but as I in no way felt vulnerable to accusations about being stupid or unknowing and certainly not anti-British, I decided to keep an eye on the ball instead. Not at least as I believe the basic reason for our "brawl" - a shock over someone proposing that we all (even the British) could have been bad guys - is (too) common. And IMHO a very effective way of preventing yourself from becomming a "bad guy" is acknowledging that you have the potential if you are not aware - be it on a personal or national level.

That agenda of mine will of course not be possible (or even visible) if this goes on in the style so far - and then I will too report - if not others/you already have.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard

I thought this was your reason for not reporting it.
I also consider your reasoning in the post not unreasonable, especially in regard to other times the issue have been brought up - the shock those nice, cuddly Scandinavians are if you dig to the bone. ;)
But I'll report the post and Ian must decide what to do. Its not the first time I've noticed the young mans inability to take critique for whats its worth.
 

Ian the Admin

Administrator
Donor
I agree up to the British reaction- which i take utter offence to. :mad:Of course, you may be taking your example from the actions of General Dyer at Amritsar. Dyer was one hot headed reactionary who deserved to be shot for what he did- his action is the only example of such action in the Empire. And a British blockade? Your simply twisting irrelevent WW1 events to suit your own ludicrous view of the British Empire. You forget the influence of the major parties, Conservative, Liberal and Labour in the British body politic. Of course, there was uneasyness about the whole concept of Empire from the time of the premiership of Balfour- note the novel by Conan-Doyle "Tragedy of the Korosko" and so forth. But British people actually taking such an interest in what German politics has to say? Of course the Labour party had already exponated such ideas, but not such on a radical scale as you purport.

BRITAIN IN 1915 WAS NOT READY TO GIVE UP ITS EMPIRE

The independence movements in Africa were in part ignited from the views of African soldiers returning from the trenches and seeing what inequality they had back home in comparison to the minority whites (inequality on such a scale being one of the great failings of the British Empire). Without the World War you would not see such a flowering of independence movements without active sponsorship from the German government- which you so fail to mention because your post is simply a Communist diatribe.

And what about India? Gandhi and the other independence groups were at this time merely asking for autonomy- full blown independence at this time was far too radical. And Canada? Already a dominion. South Africa- a disassociated but still an Imperial Dominion. You see in your utterly stupid diatribe you both expose you lack of general knowledge of the greatest Empire the world has ever seen and seem to want to express political opinions that otherwise would never have been needed.

:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:

Excuse me? This was a perfectly civil discussion and there's no excuse for you referring to someone else's arguments as a "ludicrous view", a "stupid diatribe", a "lack of general knowledge"... oh yes and that their post is a "Communist diatribe" (gotta love that one). And two demerits for throwing in politicized nationalism ("the greatest empire the world has ever seen"). The huge line of mad smilies was the crowning glory.

Don't behave like that. I'm kicking you for a week, during which you will be unable to post, and hopefully you'll cool off a bit. And maybe learn to live with the concept of alternate history, where your knee-jerk nationalism isn't necessarily going to be reflected or respected.
 
I'm seriously taking offense to the conclusion that any kind of WW1 needs a German state to trigger it. I know there is a tendency to blame all of the worlds ills on my country, but this is getting seriously annoying. :mad:

Try being Turkish and then get back to me. But you're right. Everyone knows WWI is the Hapsburgs' fault.
 
Too late for this. You probably need a PoD in the 100 year war to avoid Nationalism

That's not necessarily true. It seems to me that ethnic nationalism is the problem - the early pre-nationalism was more like "patriotism". Getting rid of the French Revolution might go a long way towards avoiding that as it could leave more successful universalist empires lying around as a counterexample to xenophobic ethnic-national statelets.
 
You're right. Without the war the conquered peoples of the British Empire would have been happy to remain under exploitative alien domination indefinitely.:rolleyes:

Indians were willing to countenance autonomy because they thought it was the best they could do at the time, not because it was their first choice. If something radical happened to the metropolis the empire would spin off so fast it would make your head spin.

I agree up to the British reaction- which i take utter offence to. :mad:Of course, you may be taking your example from the actions of General Dyer at Amritsar. Dyer was one hot headed reactionary who deserved to be shot for what he did- his action is the only example of such action in the Empire. And a British blockade? Your simply twisting irrelevent WW1 events to suit your own ludicrous view of the British Empire. You forget the influence of the major parties, Conservative, Liberal and Labour in the British body politic. Of course, there was uneasyness about the whole concept of Empire from the time of the premiership of Balfour- note the novel by Conan-Doyle "Tragedy of the Korosko" and so forth. But British people actually taking such an interest in what German politics has to say? Of course the Labour party had already exponated such ideas, but not such on a radical scale as you purport.

BRITAIN IN 1915 WAS NOT READY TO GIVE UP ITS EMPIRE

The independence movements in Africa were in part ignited from the views of African soldiers returning from the trenches and seeing what inequality they had back home in comparison to the minority whites (inequality on such a scale being one of the great failings of the British Empire). Without the World War you would not see such a flowering of independence movements without active sponsorship from the German government- which you so fail to mention because your post is simply a Communist diatribe.

And what about India? Gandhi and the other independence groups were at this time merely asking for autonomy- full blown independence at this time was far too radical. And Canada? Already a dominion. South Africa- a disassociated but still an Imperial Dominion. You see in your utterly stupid diatribe you both expose you lack of general knowledge of the greatest Empire the world has ever seen and seem to want to express political opinions that otherwise would never have been needed.

:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:
 
I agree up to the British reaction- which i take utter offence to. :mad:Of course, you may be taking your example from the actions of General Dyer at Amritsar. Dyer was one hot headed reactionary who deserved to be shot for what he did- his action is the only example of such action in the Empire.

Umm.

At the Disarmament Conference in 1932, Britain demaned the right to maintain bombers and tanks even if the European nations agreed to disarm in order to police its empire. This suggests that His Majesty's Government knew something you don't.

There's also the famous incident where a British officer ordered his troops to fire on Chinese strikers in the 1920s. And, umm, the way Africa was run.
 
Top