8mm to the Left: If Hitler Died in 1923

Reader mode
GrimmJow007

GrimmJow007

Controversy

Am I the only one who thinks the British Empire is overrated? They were only so dominant in the 19th century because France, their great rival, stagnated demographically. If France were still the demographic monster of the time of Louis XIV, the Revolutionary Wars and the Napoleonic Wars, I doubt the British would have had as much free rein over the world.

In fact, when more populous nations like Germany, the USA and the USSR industrialized, they left the British in the dust in total industrial production.
 

KaiserKatze

GrimmJow007 said:
Controversy

Am I the only one who thinks the British Empire is overrated? They were only so dominant in the 19th century because France, their great rival, stagnated demographically. If France were still the demographic monster of the time of Louis XIV, the Revolutionary Wars and the Napoleonic Wars, I doubt the British would have had as much free rein over the world.

In fact, when more populous nations like Germany, the USA and the USSR industrialized, they left the British in the dust in total industrial production.
Click to expand...
They are, but the fact that their rule is so recent (relatively speaking) and the influence of English is still so big, I get why people hone in on it.

As for Edward, he will not be keeping the throne, I have already confirmed that. Honestly, I feel like Edward has become a bit of a meme at this point and I want to do something different that isn't just another "King Edward" story
 
Kosaki_MacTavish

Kosaki_MacTavish

GrimmJow007 said:
Controversy

Am I the only one who thinks the British Empire is overrated? They were only so dominant in the 19th century because France, their great rival, stagnated demographically. If France were still the demographic monster of the time of Louis XIV, the Revolutionary Wars and the Napoleonic Wars, I doubt the British would have had as much free rein over the world.

In fact, when more populous nations like Germany, the USA and the USSR industrialized, they left the British in the dust in total industrial production.
Click to expand...
Yes, but Churchill is Churchill.
 

JamesHunter

Dragonboy said:
I still hope so, wanna see try to regain some power for the throne with the public on his side
Click to expand...
He's entirely the worst person for that, and the fact he doesn't actually care about the job will become obvious shortly.

Notably OTL he buried himself when he ditched on opening a hospital to play with Simpson and he's likely to be that stupid here.

If his brother or Niece had tried to regain royal power they'd probably have succeeded (and Liz could have been elected God Empress of the universe) but Eddie will always mess it up.
 
Last edited:

JamesHunter

KaiserKatze said:
True, and I could not resist the urge to have him be... well, himself
Click to expand...
Yeah and he was the Empire's strongest supporter. Certainly a slimmed down democratised Empire could have been saved, but it's was never more than "Best of a very bad lot," (no Congo's and America's crimes were mostly after 1776) and it shouldn't be held up as a truly good thing. After all saying "We stopped slavery first," rather involved admitting we'd spent a century doing it before hand, just as an example.
 

KaiserKatze

JamesHunter said:
He's entirely the worst person for that, and the fact he doesn't actually care about the job will become obvious shortly.

Notably OTL he buried himself when he ditched on opening a hospital to play with Simpson and he's likely to be that stupid here.

If his brother or Niece had tried to regain royal power they'd probably have succeeded (and Liz could have been elected God Empress of the universe) but Eddie will always mess it up.
Click to expand...
Precisely, Edward as any kind of more absolutist ruler would have been truly awful at the job. Also I see no reason to upend the generally stable and positive British democratic institutions for a terrible king, compared to other nations where a benevolent ruler would be better than whatever they have going now.

JamesHunter said:
Yeah and he was the Empire's strongest supporter. Certainly a slimmed down democratised Empire could have been saved, but it's was never more than "Best of a very bad lot," (no Congo's and America's crimes were mostly after 1776) and it shouldn't be held up as a truly good thing. After all saying "We stopped slavery first," rather involved admitting we'd spent a century doing it before hand, just as an example.
Click to expand...
Exactly, and he will wholly oppose attempts to form a more Commonwealth/Federation because he sees all these countries as "owing" Britain.

Just wait till he gets involved with India in the 40's. That won't end well for anyone involved.
 
Knightmare

Knightmare

JamesHunter said:
Yeah and he was the Empire's strongest supporter. Certainly a slimmed down democratised Empire could have been saved, but it's was never more than "Best of a very bad lot," (no Congo's and America's crimes were mostly after 1776) and it shouldn't be held up as a truly good thing. After all saying "We stopped slavery first," rather involved admitting we'd spent a century doing it before hand, just as an example.
Click to expand...
Yeah, slim it down, make it more of a federation, maybe it could've been saved, but well, two massive and expensive wars ruined that option.
 

Starkforlufe

KaiserKatze said:
Precisely, Edward as any kind of more absolutist ruler would have been truly awful at the job. Also I see no reason to upend the generally stable and positive British democratic institutions for a terrible king, compared to other nations where a benevolent ruler would be better than whatever they have going now.


Exactly, and he will wholly oppose attempts to form a more Commonwealth/Federation because he sees all these countries as "owing" Britain.

Just wait till he gets involved with India in the 40's. That won't end well for anyone involved.
Click to expand...
What sort of nations would had been better of in OTL with an absolutist ruler?
 

KaiserKatze

Starkforlufe said:
What sort of nations would had been better of in OTL with an absolutist ruler?
Click to expand...
Not fully absolutist, but for especially unstable nations, strong monarchies sometimes add a needed stability, like Belgium today. Portugal could have benefited from one if it meant opposing Salazar, Germany if it would prevent the Nazis, and Romania to keep the balance between the various groups and Great Powers.

Personally, though, I think that monarchies are only useful as a sort of historical/cultural link and a fallback in absolute worst case scenarios.
 
King of Danes

King of Danes

KaiserKatze said:
As for Edward, he will not be keeping the throne, I have already confirmed that. Honestly, I feel like Edward has become a bit of a meme at this point and I want to do something different that isn't just another "King Edward" story
Click to expand...
KaiserKatze said:
Precisely, Edward as any kind of more absolutist ruler would have been truly awful at the job. Also I see no reason to upend the generally stable and positive British democratic institutions for a terrible king, compared to other nations where a benevolent ruler would be better than whatever they have going now.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Edward was a weak and spoiled man with no sense of duty and sacrifice. He would have destroyed the dynasty had he not been so selfish to give it all up for a woman. Good riddance and long live George VI and Elizabeth II
 

KaiserKatze

Issei Uzumaki said:
awesome chapter but the cost of that bottle of wine just wont leave my mind, thats insane! haha
Click to expand...
I wish it was purely fictional, but I know a guy who works with catering and food prep for parties for the ultra-rich in Düsseldorf. He said that one time they had a wine and cheese affair where entry cost several hundred euros and they auctioned off wine, and the most expensive bottle went for 20,000+ Euros. Apparently the cost was based on how old it was but also because it was a gift from a king to a noble, but I just remember how horrible I found the idea of spending that much on wine, especially since I just drink water
 

Ramontxo

Donor
Once upon a time I was about to buy a, very expensive, collection Monopoly as a present for my brother. In the end it was too expensive and I told the seller how sad I was (well over fifty at the time) not to be able to play with it. He looked at me as If I had grow an second head and asked, Were you going to open it??
I can understand someone expending 20000 euros, or dollars, pounds etc..., in wine. It's entirely alien to me to expend so much money in an wine bottle no one will ever drink...
 

Iraiva

JamesHunter said:
Possibly but it's very late in the day and hindu nationalism is going to emerge, that will see the Muslim opposite and...trouble...to say the least.
Click to expand...
It's the other way around - Hindu nationalism was very much a reaction to Muslim nationalism.

And yes, at this stage, undivided India is just not very feasible - the proponents of Pakistan were too vehement, and the British too were only happy to satisfy said vehemence, when they knew that they would have to leave India. They figured that it was a useful way to weaken Independent India, and gain a grateful ally in the region.
 
Last edited:
Reader mode
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top