Disaster at Leuthen TL - Frederick the Great dies in battle

Given how many of you voted Conservative and UKIP this year, I don't think it's very easy nowadays to see Wales as a communist hive mind. Unless, I suppose, we're going by American standards, in which case not only Wales but the whole of Great Britain qualifies as Stalin 2.0.

I think the idea of a Red Wales is more a cultural artefact than an actual fallacy - between 1966 and 1974, Ceredigion had a Labour MP! Plus south Wales, which very much fits the stereotype of Red Wales, and the north, are so different to be basically different countries. It is a shame that Welsh timelines are so rare on this board...

I've got a bad feeling that the Nationalists are going to win this war.

teg
 
Whom would Denmark be more inclined to support? or would they be most inclined to stay out of the melee, picking up some of the smaller british dependencies for 'their own protection'

Probably the "loyalists". The extent of control the Nationalists have over the right is not well known outside of the country, and this is a very important fact. The rest of the world sees the Conservative PM and the monarch as the face of the 'loyalists' and believe them to be the defenders of civilization from the Collec menace. Whether or not that is true of course...

But no Denmark won't intervene directly, more focused on the near abroad. Unless France launched a full scale invasion of Britain, in which case the Danes might think 'hold on a minute'

The so-callled "loyalists" (the people who rebelled against the legitimately democratically elected British government, whom the King, to his shame, supported) are *fascists. Anyone who supports the loyalists is supporting the *fascist side in the war. Look up who the Nationalists are.

I don't like socialism but I'll take it over fascism any day. Then again, that's probably got something to do with the fact that fascists are prone to mass-murdering people like me, whereas under socialist regimes we're merely as oppressed as everyone else.

^ The best definition of communism ever.

In reality neither of these are very nice people. The Solidarists have been usurped by the hardline Collecs and the right by the Nationalists. Choosing sides is a decision of the lesser of two evils. Most regular people are just keeing their heads down.

I think the idea of a Red Wales is more a cultural artefact than an actual fallacy - between 1966 and 1974, Ceredigion had a Labour MP! Plus south Wales, which very much fits the stereotype of Red Wales, and the north, are so different to be basically different countries. It is a shame that Welsh timelines are so rare on this board...

I've got a bad feeling that the Nationalists are going to win this war.

teg

Well I did have Wales reach the semi-finals of the 1915 Rugby World Cup. And the final of the 1919 one. I wrote something on the 1919 cup though now I think about it Im not sure if I ever posted it.
 
Given that they tried to unite Germany, then had their national aspirations crushed by the Prussians, were annexed into Prussia and gained a marvellous first impression of their new lives inside Prussia by having their new, already authoritarian government almost immediately go far-right ultranationalist and try to turn them all into good obedient serfs?

I'm guessing about as Prussian as your average IRA member felt British in OTL.
 
How "Prussian" do the people of Mecklenburg, Hanover and post-Great War acquisitions in Germany feel?

Well for the first two , i guess there was some kind of assimilation after a lot of time. For the recent gain it seems Berlin want to bond them (remember the railway). Kreuzism doesn't seem the major force of Prussia. For now this is perhaps time to redifine a little the prussian identity. The fact is these territory are mostly protestant. But does religion is still a factor at that time? Rememeber , this is not otl , far right ittl is probably different in some way.
 
Given that they tried to unite Germany, then had their national aspirations crushed by the Prussians, were annexed into Prussia and gained a marvellous first impression of their new lives inside Prussia by having their new, already authoritarian government almost immediately go far-right ultranationalist and try to turn them all into good obedient serfs?

I'm guessing about as Prussian as your average IRA member felt British in OTL.

Well said.
 
It varies from person to person.

A few will see themselves as Prussian, some as German. Most now will think of themselves as Hanoverian or Saxon etc. Local German identities are now how most people see themselves now. With the failure of Brandtism in the 19th Century and the Great War serving as death blows to pan-German nationalism.
 
You're the author, so the choice is yours, but I really really disagree that Germany losing the war would put an end to pan-German nationalism. By that definition, the end of the Revolutions of 1848 should have ended German nationalism in OTL, as well as many other nationalisms that later prospered and succeeded. People's minds simply don't work like that. It's not as though German nationalism will have been discredited among the German people by some great act of barbarity followed up with effective demonising propaganda, as National Socialism was in OTL; the German people will surely see Prussia and Austria as the villains of the story, and just because they lost the war doesn't mean that they won't consider themselves German any more.

Let's give you an exaple closer to home. If England and Scotland didn't unite when they did in OTL, but when they did unite they faced a coalition of hostile powers which defeated Great Britain, annexed large amounts of indisputably British territory into themselves with no real historical claim or justification other than 'might makes right', and tried to kill British nationalism for good, do you think that British nationalism would disappear, just like that? Or do you think that the people would hate those who defeated and oppressed them?

I'll continue to read regardless; I just don't think that that view of Germany is realistic. It's not quite true to say that one can't kill an idea, but one definitely can't kill an idea so easily.
 
You're the author, so the choice is yours, but I really really disagree that Germany losing the war would put an end to pan-German nationalism. By that definition, the end of the Revolutions of 1848 should have ended German nationalism in OTL, as well as many other nationalisms that later prospered and succeeded. People's minds simply don't work like that. It's not as though German nationalism will have been discredited among the German people by some great act of barbarity followed up with effective demonising propaganda, as National Socialism was in OTL; the German people will surely see Prussia and Austria as the villains of the story, and just because they lost the war doesn't mean that they won't consider themselves German any more.

Let's give you an exaple closer to home. If England and Scotland didn't unite when they did in OTL, but when they did unite they faced a coalition of hostile powers which defeated Great Britain, annexed large amounts of indisputably British territory into themselves with no real historical claim or justification other than 'might makes right', and tried to kill British nationalism for good, do you think that British nationalism would disappear, just like that? Or do you think that the people would hate those who defeated and oppressed them?

I'll continue to read regardless; I just don't think that that view of Germany is realistic. It's not quite true to say that one can't kill an idea, but one definitely can't kill an idea so easily.

I do see your points. To clarify when I said "serving as death blows to pan-German nationalism", I meant that it was a death blow politically. There will be no united Germany after those events. People may still embrace pan-German ideas on an individual basis, but there is no longer a unified political force behind it.

For example, Swabia. It's been an independent state now for a century or so. The only time it wasn't was for four years from 1899-1903, in which all it experienced was war, turmoil and upheavel. If you asked someone from there what their nationality was I'd imagine they'd say Swabian not German.

Plus with it not being too popular in the FRR and vigorously suppressed in Prussia I think the mass German nationalist movements of the 19th Century are consigned to history. So I think you're right some people may indeed still think of themselves as part of a larger German family, but no longer as a "primary" identity.

Edit: And additionally almost none of them feel Prussian or Austrian that's for sure.
 
Last edited:
Makes me wonder if tribal identities will be bought up and the German nationalism will settle into Germanic commonality - a la the Romance countries acknowledging they're different but come from a common Latin origin.

And from there, that is to say, the Austro-Bavarians stress their origins with the Bavarii tribe and the OTL Bavarian dialect, already so different from Standard/Central German, will be considered into a different language.

Swabia identifies with the Suevi.

Switzerland (already independent in all but name in terms of language) identifies with the Alemannic tribe... yada yada.

The Rhineland was settled by the Ripurian Franks and as a historical (perhaps the) real-world center for Germanism stress not only their Frankish heritage but it was they who civilized their fellow Germanics via the Frankish Empire. Sorta like Italy being home of the Latins in the first place. :p

'Course, the Saxons of OTL Lower Saxony and Thuringians within Prussia may have bones to pick if this happens.
 
I do see your points. To clarify when I said "serving as death blows to pan-German nationalism", I meant that it was a death blow politically. There will be no united Germany after those events. People may still embrace pan-German ideas on an individual basis, but there is no longer a unified political force behind it.[/QUOTE

I agree that there's no longer a state promoting pan-Germanism (though the French will begin to do so as a means of targeting the main obvious weakness of Prussia's informal empire if they have any sense).

For example, Swabia. It's been an independent state now for a century or so. The only time it wasn't was for four years from 1899-1903, in which all it experienced was war, turmoil and upheavel. If you asked someone from there what their nationality was I'd imagine they'd say Swabian not German.

War, turmoil and upheaval which, from their perspective, were inflicted upon them as an unprovoked attack by their hated enemies even though the new united Germany had never done anything to harm Prussia, Austria et cetera. That's hardly going to persuade them that they were wrong to unite. On the contrary, the perceived oppression (and, for those under Prussia, the actual and cruel oppression) will make them rally around the flag as a backlash against it. Nationalism is not based on a cold-hearted calculation of interest. Often modern nationalists in the post-Natinal Socialist world try to pretend that it is, because open nationalist sentiment is often (though not always) frowned upon due to the particular historical circumstances of OTL: e.g. both British nationalists and Scottish nationalists claiming that Scotland would be wealthier in their preferred status, even though no-one with half a brain seriously believes that your average SNP member wants Scotland to independent because of financial calculations.

You and I have different opinions on this, clearly. So be it.
 
Oh don't think too much of it. So yes, I disagree wth the author on one aspect of the plot of an incredibly long and complicated work. Clearly the world is ending!
 
As far as I can see perfidious Albion and direwolf are not at all in conflict. Direwolf is just saying that politically, Germany is dead for now, and perfidious Albion that it will rise again even stronger.

The TL;dr version

------

German nationalism is dead because even if many people still support it personally, there is no mass movement at the moment because it was destroyed. Nearly all will be disheartened and wary (esp the ordinary person) since the last pangerman effort led to millions of deaths and a lost war. Losing the war means the German movement practically lost all legitimacy, it did nothing but provoke suffering and failed to achieve any of its objectives or promises. It didn't bring self determination or a better life, and only shovelled the Germans further under foreign influence and proved the Prussians and Austrians were superior. Germany's dissecting and dissolution OTL after the Second World War didn't result in waves of German revanchist even though Germans were being oppressed in the east. The occupiers convinced the Germans that their nationalism/ideology was bad and they mostly abandoned it.

If the Prussians oppress the Germans it may mean that German consciousness will reawaken stronger than before, but it will take time. After all, the end of the napoleonic wars in 1848 'killed' German nationalism, but it took 23 years before Germany unified. I do think overall pangermanism is a much weaker force ITTL, large chunks of Germany are not in it, weakening its credibility and the individual nations have had much longer to forge their own identities.

I think this is what direwolf means when he says that people in Swabia would call themselves Swabian. They feel German, but it is a secondary identity. Consider Scotland. Apparently 61% of Scottish citizens call Scottish their only national identity and 83% their primary national identity, yet 55% voted to remain British. British is a secondary identity. Though the majority want to be part of Britain, how many would resist if the SNP magically reversed the result? Though it's pushing the analogy, I'd imagine it's a similar situation here. The German people want to be in one state, but they have strong individual identities. It's not like they feel stateless right now while not part of Germany and have nothing else to cling to. They are content with what they have, especially since the German identity failed to prove itself worthy.

The German identity can quite easily pick up speed as oppression forges it into existence, but currently no German identity exists. Unlike in the uk, there is no cohesive German nation. People have not lived it, experienced it, grown up in it. People might want it to exist, and even believe it exists, but no German society has ever existed. There may be German nationalism, and people may belong to the German identity, but that is mostly fanatics and diehards. Until the society is forged and ordinary people really think they belong to it, they won't fight for it.

'Germans' will live out under the identity they already have. There isn't a need for them to fight to create Germany or liberate themselves, only a distant and failed desire to. But German nationalism can cause problems for Prussia and to a lesser extent Austria in the future if they tighten the thumbscrews, as it forces the oppressed people into one group, where they rely on and fight for each other. They will rally around the flag eventually (unless direwold goes totally ASB on us), but at the moment there isn't any need for the orindary person to do so, nor is anyone in the mood to.

------

In summary:
It seems pan germanism is dead because it has lost all legitimacy due to the war, and its supporters will be disheartened. All political structures and movements have been dismantled.
No powerful German national identity has formed, and with the powerful local national identities, there is no immediate need for any ordinary person to fight to the death for a German nation.
Prussian oppression could reawaken and strengthen German nationalism, but it will take time.

I hope that sorts everything out. Anyway, I think direwolf has already suggested that Germany plays a role in the next war anyway.

Great updates by the way. Worth the wait.p

(Sniped by Perfidious Albion, but I put to much work into this so I'm posting it anyway)
 
This is it ! If the Prussian don't go dumber and shift identity to something more like "east or baltic german" , well the state will remain stable and strong. Here we can see germany in three part , West Germany for F.R.R , South Germany for Austria-Hungary and East Germany for Prussia. That scenario doesn't seems absurd to me. There will probably somes issues to solve but it's up to the author , who to me have quite the good job.
 

^ Well explained, that is what I was trying to say, thanks.

Regardless one of the most rewarding things about writing this timeline and creating the world it inhabits is debates like this. For people to spend time debating, thinking and imagining various aspects of this world is what makes doing this worth the time. For Perfidious and Calculus to devote so much thought and well reasoned argument and ideas to this world is why I continue to write, so thanks for that.

Also there has been many an occasion when feedback and input from readers has significantly shaped or affected the writing and I believe this has improved DaL.

On another note I hope to get the next part (on the Empire) up tonight/tomorrow morning. I'm tweaking and rewriting parts of the first draft this morning (though technically I am at work..)

- Direwolf
 
Stranger things have had happened.


[FONT=&quot]The Empire: Fragmentation or Federalisation?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The Second British Civil War: Part III[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](1922-1927)[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The outbreak of the Civil War sent shockwaves throughout the British Empire and its Dominions (not to mention the rest of the world). The Empire too suffered its fair share of domestic crises. The Dominions of Canada and Columbia both suffered severe industrial action, protest and violent civil disorder in some of the major cities: specifically including Newcastle, [FONT=&quot]Stratford [/FONT]and Fort James. This was on a far lower scale however than the events in Britain, and most violence had been suppressed by[FONT=&quot] early 1923[/FONT]. Similar low levels of disruption occurred in the Dominion of Australia. Though here overly ambitious Collectivists attempted a coup in the capital, but were ruthlessly suppressed. Australia as a whole was more [FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]Conservative[/FONT] than [FONT=&quot]the rest of the Empire, and Collectivism had never[FONT=&quot] been strong here. [/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]To pre-empt further incidents or wide spread panic over the outbreak of Civil War in Britain, Canada (soon followed by the other Dominions and Newfoundland) enacted emergency measures and put troops out to secure major cities. They were now however in a bind, how do they react to the developments in the mother country? The Collec-Solidarist pact had apparently won the General Election, but the vast, vast majority of populations in the Dominions remained loyal to the king and the so-named “Loyalist” faction. It was the [FONT=&quot]since dubbed[/FONT] Cain Telegram that helped immensely in this regard. Albert Cain, a former soldier and diplomat now serving as de facto Foreign Minister for the Loyalist government in Oxford, sent a telegram to Newcastle, informing the Canadian government of widespread electoral fraud and contesting the election results, and “proof” was dispatched to Canada. The claim was false and the information forged. Cain knew that. The government in Canada knew that. Most people who read about it in the following weeks in the media also probably suspected it was all fake. But it was enough, and it would shape the outcome of the Charlotte Conference of[FONT=&quot] August 1923[/FONT].
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] The Conference was held in Charlotte, capital city of the Dominion of Columbia, sitting on the Pacific Coast. Held at the request of the Canadian and Columbian governments, the conference was attended by representatives from the Dominion governments of Australia, Canada, Columbia and Indiana, a delegation from Newfoundland, Albert Cain himself (though he notably arrived a few days late due to the distance and trouble of getting out of Britain), delegates from British India, the Caribbean territories, and scattered attendees from colonies in Africa and Asia. The Conference was initially dominated by three men: the First Ministers of Canada, Columbia and Australia (Matth[FONT=&quot]ew Caldwe[FONT=&quot]ll, [/FONT]Richard Green[/FONT], and [FONT=&quot]James Evans [/FONT]respectively). As heads of the three main Dominions they led and steered the conference throughout the several days of its duration. There were three primary goals to the Charlotte Conference: who should the Empire declare for in the Civil War (if anyone), what their response/aid should be to the fighting and how does the Empire and the colonies govern/manage themselves in the absence of direct British rule. It was very clear from the offset that no one of any credible rank had any interest in declaring for Carr and the Collectivists. Hostility to that ideological faction, compounded by violence not only in Britain, but the Dominions and in neighbouring New England (who had a representative at the Conference, as an allied observer and its worth mentioning that the Commonwealth still had the British monarch as nominal Head of State) as well as of course fear of the Collectivist armies massing in Tejas and California, meant that sympathies lay with the “loyalist” regime in Oxford. Hesitations over whether not to declare openly for the Oxford government over the democratically elected government were brushed aside by the arrival of Albert Cain and the “Cain Telegram”. With overwhelming support the Conference declared for the Oxford government and the monarchists.

[/FONT]
signing-versailles.jpg

[FONT=&quot]Delegates at the [FONT=&quot]First C[FONT=&quot]harlotte Conference, 1923

[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]​
[FONT=&quot] Second to address was the issue of aid and support. Canada and Newfoundland immediately announced they would accept exiles, as well as inviting those elements of the monarchy and political establishment that hadn’t already fled to Canada to do so. The Dominions also began making plans to deploy troops to colonial regions in the Caribbean, Africa and elsewhere to allow British Army units to be sent back to Britain. The Commonwealth of New England also offered to provide troops for garrison duties as well as pledging financial and material aid. A welcome addition was the arrival of the Portuguese ambassador in Charlotte who, with instructions from Lisbon, promised the support of the Porto-Brasilian Empire in aiding the loyalist faction and their country’s oldest ally. In fact though there was talk of expeditionary forces to aid the Civil War fighting, it was Portugal that was the most bellicose. Wary of the Palma Pact in Europe and with Collectivist Peru a threat to Portugal, as well as of course the increasing tensions in East Asia, Lisbon was terrified of a British collapse. It would prove to be the Portuguese who would be most influential in convincing the Empire to adopt a more aggressive response to the outbreak of the fighting. An expeditionary force was ordered to be assembled under Canadian control immediately. Finally upon how to govern the Empire: for now it was agreed that whilst under nominal rule from Oxford effective governance was divided with the Canadian First Minister to take effective control of the Western Hemisphere and the Australian the Eastern. A more permanent solution to Imperial governance and talks of a full political transition for the Empire were mooted and warmly received, but were postponed for now to a second conference to be held at a later date.

[/FONT] [FONT=&quot] Two groups of representatives were fairly quiet throughout the Conference; both would take very different directions than the rest of the Charlotte Conference attendees in the coming period. The first was British India. For a while, decades even, the British Empire, its governments and citizens, had all knowingly played along with the idea that India was a true part of the Empire. In fact it was anything but. By the turn of century, India enjoyed a sense of autonomy unlike any other part of the Empire. By 1922 and the outbreak of the Civil War India was independent in all but name. The Governor-General oversaw India directly from the regional capital in Calcutta. Also under his gaze were the British vassal states on the subcontinent, Orissa and the states of the former Delhi Sultanate. The Governor-General was a royal appointment, based on a recommendation by the Indian Assembly, comprised of local Indian elite, high ranking British officials and the members of the increasing number of important offspring of the Anglo-Indian intermarried classes. Though this in theory made the Indian Assembly subject to the crown, in reality the British government simply had been rubberstamping the Assembly’s recommendations for half a century. The Governor-General at the time of the Civil War was the well-respected but ambitious Lord Thomas Hyde. Hyde was representative of the Anglo-Indian elite now running India. The son of a respected English aristocratic family, whose mother and wife were both native Indian nobility (from families with ties to the old Maratha rulers), he had been educated at university in England as well as at the prestigious Calcutta University. Not only did he speak fluent English, but French and several Indian languages, had made every effort to integrate himself and his family into Indian traditions and had extensive ties amongst the British and Indian power centres on the subcontinent, as well as importantly enough after his service in the Great War, with the Indian Army (by now a near totally autonomous military force of 200,000 men, with most of the “British” elements already sent back to Britain for the fighting). In other words he was the right man in the right time for what followed and in hindsight it is likely Hyde was planning on such a move anyway and was given the opportunity by the outbreak of the Civil War in 1922. The declaration of the Commonwealth of India on [FONT=&quot]November 10th 192[FONT=&quot]4[/FONT] [/FONT]was as perfectly executed as it was shocking. Meeting in an extraordinary session the Indian Assembly passed almost unanimously (with a few [FONT=&quot]skeptic[/FONT] members apparently not informed of the vote till after the fact) the new Constitution of the Commonwealth of India. Heavily modelled on that of New England, the Commonwealth was a federal state comprising all of British India. In addition after promises of guarantees to the rulers, Orissa and [FONT=&quot]one or [FONT=&quot]two of the[/FONT][/FONT] former Delhi states were absorbed as constituent federal states[FONT=&quot]. [FONT=&quot]T[FONT=&quot]he other (heavi[FONT=&quot]ly Muslim) states were not [FONT=&quot]added as sectarian tensions between Hindu and Muslim had been inflamed by the acts of the Delhi [FONT=&quot]Sultanate in the Great War[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]. These Musli[FONT=&quot]m states rose up [FONT=&quot]in rebellion against [FONT=&quot]British rule, and for the most part Calcutta let them leave, though blo[FONT=&quot]ody border skirmis[FONT=&quot]hes were endemic.[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Back in Calcutta, [/FONT]Hyde was made Lord Chancellor, with his long term ally the Nawab (local princely ruler) of Dhaka made Deputy Minister and Chairman of the Assembly. India was now an independent state with the British Monarch remaining ceremonial head of state (this was [FONT=&quot]an empty gesture[FONT=&quot] aimed only at somewhat placating the British)[/FONT][/FONT]. New plans to expand suffrage to the Indian upper and parts of the middle class were laid, the Army was removed of any officers whose loyalty was suspect (a few scattered cases of skirmishing occurred), declarations of a “unified, independent and free India” were read across the subcontinent and the move was effectively unchallenged. What could Britain and its Empire do? Very little in fact. With Britain itself consumed by Civil War, Australia fixated on Japan and Canada leading efforts to help the monarchy, the Empire was left with no choice but to accept the new state of affairs. The maintenance of the Monarch as Head of State continued the polite fiction of respective loyalty to Britain, but for all intents and purposes India had declared its independence from Britain, with barely a shot being fired.

[/FONT] [FONT=&quot] The other part of the Empire to take a different road was the Dominion of Indiana. A small representative team was at Charlotte, but they contributed little and kept to themselves. Indiana had been drifting for years, with resentment towards Imperial control growing in the population, and pan-native nationalism emerging as not only a unifying force amongst the various tribes of the Dominion but as the focal point for the emergence of a two party system in Tanka Wicoti, between Nationalist and Unionist parties. Dominated by the Sioux[FONT=&quot],[/FONT] the Nationalist elements in Indiana had increasingly been inspired by Collectivism, and it was under this pan-native Collectivist ideology that Indiana would go its own way. As calls for Indiana to commit troops to the expeditionary force for Britain came, the government in Tanka Wicoti refused to send more of its sons to die in another “White Man’s War”. The government fell, and the opposition took power. Quickly moving to secure the country and with suspiciously large and pre-prepared stockpiles of weapons (it is now clear that to quite a great extent Mexico City’s hand was in play here) the new government abolished all ties to Britain. The independent First People’s Collective was declared. Around a fifth of the political and military establishment remained loyal to the Crown. And whereas India and Calcutta were a world away, Indiana was not. As the loyalists made a fighting stand, Canadian troops, those few not already occupied, entered in their support to put down the ‘rebellion’.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
flag_of_the_first_people_s_collective_by_22direwolf-d9j9q6o.png

[FONT=&quot]Flag of the Fi[FONT=&quot]rst People's Collective[/FONT][/FONT]
[/FONT]​
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]This period would also see the loss of one of Britain’s most important overseas territories. Seized from France in 1902 and briefly run in co-operation with Turkey, Egypt was a semi-independent part of the British Empire. As British forces were withdrawn during the 1920s it was only a matter of time before the Egyptians rose up. The trigger was the news of the developments in India. Emboldened by this news and working on the (accurate) assumption that Britain was far too pre-occupied to intervene, the Egyptian army (an autonomous force) seized control of Egypt. Securing Cairo, the Suez Canal and other major bases the Egyptians, under the overall command of General Maguid, soon had almost total control of the country. Maguid however wisely ordered his forces not to attack the British. Remaining British garrisons were surrounded but not shot at, high ranking British officials and tourists were arrested and detained but broadly well treated and the border with British Syria was secured but not crossed. This was a[FONT=&quot] smart [/FONT]policy. Acting effectively independently the British Governor of Syria, Lord Alden, began negotiations with Maguid. In return for the transfer of British soldiers and civilians and a guarantee of British access through the Suez Canal, Alden recognised the new Egyptian regime. Some in Damascus argued for intervention to restore British control, to which Alden is reported to have said “you are welcome to try and conquer Egypt my friends, but even if each of you was to personally kill 10,000 Egyptian soldiers we would still be outnumbered”. Cameron and the Loyalist government were furious at this decision and it was a blow to the Empire as a whole, but in reality there is little they could have done differently. As Maguid, effectively now dictator began securing control of Egypt in the name of the King (Ismail II), the question arose about what to do with the other parts of the British Empire in Africa and the Middle East. The Protectorate of Mecca, remained under Turkish protection as Britain regrouped in Syria (a rising here incidentally was defeated by the British Army which proved it could still fight when needed), but British rule in Sudan and central Africa (always rather tenuous) collapsed. Though the coastal territories were for the most part secured, Britain lost the will or means to retain influence in the interior. Instead a new scramble for the centre of Africa began, as Egypt joined the European powers (principally Portugal, Spain and Italy but also Denmark) and Mysore in rushing to secure this new vacuum as local African elites also sought their chance to liberate themselves. From the Niger River to the Red Sea, there was chaos and anarchy.

[/FONT] [FONT=&quot] It was against the backdrop of Indian Independence, the declaration of the FPC and rampant Mysorean-Japanese aggression in Asia that the second Charlotte Conference was called in [FONT=&quot]February[/FONT] 1925. With several notable absentees this second edition was attended by high ranking officials from the loyalist government in Britain, Edward Prince of Wales, the Dominions of Canada, Columbia and Australia, representation from the colonies in Africa and the Caribbean, Newfoundland and Ireland as well as leading elements from the Royal Army and Navy. Their choice was an obvious one: closer integration o[FONT=&quot]r do they allo[FONT=&quot]w the [FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]complete[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]fragmentation[/FONT] of the Empire?[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT] It was clear that the Empire risked falling apart and with War in East Asia, Collectivist scares in North America and Britain still in the heart of Civil War, something had to be done. Interestingly with India and the FPC now out of the equation, it made consensus building far easier. And after an impassioned and now world famous speech by Princess Catherine (the second child of King George) and the political skills of Canadian First Minister [/FONT][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]Caldwe[FONT=&quot]ll[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT] the Second Charlotte Conference would announce the formation of the Imperial Federation. A federal full political union aimed at uniting what was left of the Empire. [FONT=&quot]Enthusiastically sup[FONT=&quot]ported by Australia which was already mobilising its forces as Japanese and Mys[FONT=&quot]orean [FONT=&quot]expansionism tore through East Asia and with the Dominion f[FONT=&quot]eeling increasingly isolated and threate[FONT=&quot]ned, ty[FONT=&quot]ing the rest of t[FONT=&quot]he Empire to it seemed like a d[FONT=&quot]amn good idea. [/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]Headed by the monarch and with its capital in London (in theory, but with the Civil War still far from decided the de facto Imperial capital was Charlotte, with the Canadian capital Newcastle seen as too close to the fighting in the FPC), the Imperial Federation was a politically unified super state. There were six federal commonwealths comprising the IF: Canada, Columbia, Newfoundland, Australia, Britain and Ireland. The addition of Ireland as a separate commonwealth was much debated but with the insistence of Irish loyalist attendees and the theory (proved correct) that this level of appreciation for Ireland might win over some of the rebel nationalist elements in that country, it went ahead. Each commonwealth would have a Federal Parliament (not overly dissimilar from the current Dominion governments in three cases), subservient to a new Imperial Parliament to be convened after the Civil War (assuming the loyalists won it). The Imperial Parliament was to be of two houses: a lower which would feature 300 MPs from the commonwealths, with each commonwealth having a number of seats proportional to population, and an upper with 70 members, with each commonwealth being given ten seats, with the rest given over to representatives from the colonial regions, the military and other bodies. The leader of the largest bloc in the lower Imperial Parliament would ser[FONT=&quot]ve as[FONT=&quot] Imperial[FONT=&quot] First Minister (a job Caldwell had his eye on) and serve as Head of Gover[FONT=&quot]nment. The other First Ministers [FONT=&quot]were subservient to the[FONT=&quot]ir Imperial counterpart, this they accepted. The British were mo[FONT=&quot]re resistant[FONT=&quot], not keen on having [FONT=&quot]their Prime M[FONT=&quot]inis[FONT=&quot]ter subservient to this new role. But with the Houses of Parliament under artillery fire and the Empire [FONT=&quot]collapsing[/FONT], they relented (Cameron too now began [FONT=&quot]eyeing this position).

[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]The remaining non commonwealth colonies were now under Imperial (simply a matter of renaming in most cases) control with plans drawn up for gradual integration and granting of commonwealth status depending on progression. Imperial forces moved to secure what [FONT=&quot]they could[/FONT], in alliance with New England and Portugal. Denmar[FONT=&quot]k too had secured British Caribbean and Atlantic territories, which is now turned over to [FONT=&quot]Imperial rule. Danish co-operation was well appreciated in Charlotte, and the government in Copenhagen was [FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]satisfied[/FONT] that its moves had secure British [FONT=&quot]friendship (increasingly important as Europe seemed to be marching once more to war).[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT] [/FONT]The new Imperial Constitution was put to a referendum in the territories. Canada and Newfoundland passed it overwhelmingly. Australia and Columbia (motivated in part by fear of the CSA and Japan respectively) passed it with large majorities also. Britain and Ireland due to the troubles in those countries had the Constitution passed by the rump loyalist assemblies in very hastily organised and conducted votes. While the constitutional and political earthquake of the Imperial Federation was finalising itself, the Expeditionary force comprising Canadian, Columbian and other Imperial forces, supported by detachments from New England (which had quietly following the declaration of the Imperial Federation removed the British monarch as Head of State, completing its part to full independence) and Brasil set off from the Canadian port of Lanville en route to Britain. [/FONT]
 
Last edited:
I highly suspect the Imperial Federation, should it win, will gradually break up as local concerns become paramount - the former Dominions and Colonies will be worried on mother country dominance now that they've had a taste of power, and Britain itself won't want to be run by its former colonies, however beloved it is of them.

I also suspect the First People's Collective will be split up between New England and Canada and at the Lake of the Woods and Red River of the North so it's an all-river boundary from there to the Missouri River/Hamilton State's western frontier for the Yankees. Meanwhile, the Pembina Region/east Dakotas and westward would go to Canada since the Pembina area naturally looks north to Lake Winnipeg via watersheds (see: the boundaries of Lord Selkirk's Assiniboia). Most interesting of all, if this happens, it only took a a century and a half for New England to get to the Lake compared to 1783 for the USA in reality! :p

Also, I wonder who New England will have as its head of state now? I'm sure the First Minister will remain as merely head of government.
 
Top