Glen
Moderator
Its off to a good start though.
as are most new nations
Yes, the question is not whether it is off to a good start or not, but whether it can last.
Its off to a good start though.
as are most new nations
Even more so, Iceland did okay with Norway as they had stuff northern Norway really needed in any amount (fish and wool) so there was always a marginal market. Denmark didn't need those things, and America needs them even less. Being part of america means being behind the american tariff wall which makes goods from europe very expensive, whilst goods from the US have a long and costly journey.
NZ is bigger than the UK in terms of land area and is also roughly 2000km from Australia. I don't think it too likely, or indeed necessarily a good idea that the two be run closely together. Maybe some sort of loose confederation might work though
Maybe throw in British Paupa new Guiena and make a Pacific Dominion. Then we got the French in the western part of Austrailia. A loose Dominion? self autonomus states in the dominion?
British Paupa New Guinea Wasn't formed till after WW1 when the British merged British Paupa, with German New Guinea.
I've long liked the idea of a loose confederation of British states in the Pacific, where the State or Province governments are a bit more effective and the Confederation government runs things like Defence, Foreign Affairs, some policing, a central bank etc. Something that remains quite loose even in modern times, despite centralising tendencies.
I think you'd need to focus just on the including the Australian states and making the North & South Island of NZ though, at least until post war.
I don't see it likely that a settler colony/province/electorate would allow any large area with a substantial non White majority to become a state/province until post WW2. They tended to be pretty fiercely Anglo Saxon up till about that point.
Well considering the only reason Pan-Scandinavianism didn't happen IOTL was that Sweden was a-scared of losing influence (even though it would dominate Scandinavia), I think it'll last.
Map update! Did the best I could.
I don't see it likely that a settler colony/province/electorate would allow any large area with a substantial non White majority to become a state/province until post WW2. They tended to be pretty fiercely Anglo Saxon up till about that point.
I don't know about a non-White majority being the issue, so much as a non-White majority in power. I assure you, for example, that whites are not the majority in the DSA, but they most certainly are in power.
I don't know about a non-White majority being the issue, so much as a non-White majority in power. I assure you, for example, that whites are not the majority in the DSA, but they most certainly are in power.
What are the Demographics of the DSA?
Obviously the Carribean elements have a non-white majority and the West is probably still American Indian plurality at this point. However the South was white majority (though narrow 3 million out of 7.5 million in 1850), only 2 slave states were black majority (Mississippi and South Carolina) in OTL and the OTL US South still contains the vast majority of the population of the DSA at this point.
Also as the DSA has received more white immigration than in OTL while a similar (very low) importation of Slaves I would guess that that pushes the white majority in the OTL US South up meaning that the DSA has a very slight white majority at this point, that will probably grow with strong immigration from Europe.
This map is very useful though obviously things have changed but it shows you where slavery was practical
Glen-
Reading this TL continues to be a wonderful treat. I have but one minor point: the map still seems to show Sudentenland as Czech/Austrian, despite the text claiming it is now German. That might be me simply still seeing the 'base' Czechia shape though, since sans the Sudentens it still looks similar.
Otherwise, a German Empire WITHOUT Austria or Prussia in it, plausibly so? Amazing! Keep up the excellent work!
Why James Cook named the east coast of New Holland New South Wales is a mystery to the ages. However, this is the name it was given when it was claimed by right of exploration for the British in 1770. But this is the name it came to be known by when a convict settlement was started there after the American Revolutionary War made it politically untenable to continue transporting convicts to America. The Colonization Fleet found the originally selected site for colonization, Botany Bay, too sandy for easy agriculture, and instead moved to Port Jackson, which would become the first and arguably most important settlement along the west coast.
While natives were present on along the shore when the first English penal colonists arrived, they were soon decimated by small pox and other diseases for which they had no acquired immunites.
And the liberal war comes to a close!
A though occured to me: Since the British still had Georgia at the end of this worlds ARW, would they even coloinize Australia?