"Fight and be Right"
- Thread starter EdT
- Start date
I certainly did at some point, but to be honest it’s been a long while. I reckoned that about 250,000 Britons fled the UK after the revolution, which probably means that Australia, Westralia and New Zealand collectively get something in the region of 70-80,000.This isn’t much, compared to OTL’s flood of immigrants; South Africa and Canada are both easier to for the émigrés to get to, so I imagine they get the lion’s share.
However, this is balanced by the fact that emigration from Britain was considerably higher ITTL in the period between 1910 and 1935; this is not only thanks to the rather more threatening political situation, but also because the Unionist Government was keen on developing the Empire. I expect there would be a much more effective assisted passage scheme in place; there is also the impact of Jewish emigration to the Kimberley, which has a huge impact on Westralia as mentioned in the Alisa Rosenbaum interview.
IOTL in 1940, there were just over 7 million Australians. ITTL, I could see Australia and Westralia collectively topping 8 million inhabitants by this point, perhaps even more, but without the prospect of the massive wave of European immigration that came IOTL after 1945. The arrival of 250,000 Jews beginning in 1919 plus higher increased British immigration will probably mean that Western Australia is half as large again in population terms compared with the same point IOTL.
I haven’t yet- really need to actually! I’ll definitely include it in my updated version of “World of Fight and Be Right” when I get round to sorting that out, if you don’t mind…
I finished this Timeline a few days ago, as well as the World of Fight and be Right sequel, and I have to say, this may be my favorite timeline on this site! 
To put in briefly; I love how you paid the closest of details when writing this, I love the historical ironies, I loved the writing (in general and including the Prologue and Epilogue), I loved all the new facts about real history I learned, amongst others. What can I say, I really enjoyed it.
I read this by downloading the PDF's on to my Ipad mini BTW. I'm also reading "The British Revolution." Of course, I'm also reading a Greater Britain, which I am really enjoying. Great for allot of the same reasons FaBR was great, and its just amazing how you turned the Worst Briton of the 20th century into the Best Briton of the 20th century.
Sounds great and I await for you to add more to this world, when your finished with your other works like the Bloody Man, which looks excellent. Your novel sounds great as well. Is it that spy story idea you mentioned earlier.
I see. I totally understand why you kinda want to keep it as your own thing for now. I actually have quite allot of ideas I'd like to PM you If you don't mind. One thing I also enjoyed is who you went against so many historical cliches. Speaking of a Greater Britain, reading it almost makes me feel a little sorry that Mr. Oswald didn't stay in Labour party and that he became the lunatic fascist we all know and hate.
Cool. In terms of the FWR, I'm still not sure whether its more good or more bad yet. You mentioned it was more democratic locally and more authoritarian regionally. Yet its system of government has its drawbacks and its advantages. I may be more sure once I read the last FWR related update.
Thanks. I actually have a fixed up 1940 map, as well as a completed 1936 map. I've made mostly finished maps of 1894, 1895, 1905, 1915, 1925 and 1932 as well, but I still need to fix the errors.
To put in briefly; I love how you paid the closest of details when writing this, I love the historical ironies, I loved the writing (in general and including the Prologue and Epilogue), I loved all the new facts about real history I learned, amongst others. What can I say, I really enjoyed it.
I read this by downloading the PDF's on to my Ipad mini BTW. I'm also reading "The British Revolution." Of course, I'm also reading a Greater Britain, which I am really enjoying. Great for allot of the same reasons FaBR was great, and its just amazing how you turned the Worst Briton of the 20th century into the Best Briton of the 20th century.
Sounds great and I await for you to add more to this world, when your finished with your other works like the Bloody Man, which looks excellent. Your novel sounds great as well. Is it that spy story idea you mentioned earlier.
I see. I totally understand why you kinda want to keep it as your own thing for now. I actually have quite allot of ideas I'd like to PM you If you don't mind. One thing I also enjoyed is who you went against so many historical cliches. Speaking of a Greater Britain, reading it almost makes me feel a little sorry that Mr. Oswald didn't stay in Labour party and that he became the lunatic fascist we all know and hate.
Cool. In terms of the FWR, I'm still not sure whether its more good or more bad yet. You mentioned it was more democratic locally and more authoritarian regionally. Yet its system of government has its drawbacks and its advantages. I may be more sure once I read the last FWR related update.
Thanks.
I actually have a fixed up 1940 map, as well as a completed 1936 map. I've made mostly finished maps of 1894, 1895, 1905, 1915, 1925 and 1932 as well, but I still need to fix the errors.
Last edited:
I wouldn't say there that weak thought, but you do have a point. I guess they'd be to busy trying to keep their far reaching federation in one piece rather than butting in other countries business. Though they may have supported some Syndicalist rebels in some African countries.
Ayup. Entertaining, aesthetically pleasing, awkward, and threatened with extinction. Not a little like a panda.
I've been thinking for a long time on how it might be anything more than "interesting" in the long run. The big weaknesses, obviously, are the bipolar power structure between Britain and India and the impending loss of Egypt. The greatest potential strengths are the possibility of coopting pan-Africanism and the genuine multinational structure (a far cry from the nature of our USSR). The former suggests an eventual split down the center of Africa followed by an awkward re-decolonization. The latter, though....
To my mind the best case scenario would be the assassination of the king of Mesopotamia before the end of 1941, and ideally by a Shiite. That'd force Rashidi Arabia into a war with Persia for the foreseeable future. That in turn would make the Italians properly cautious and probably avoid a Suez Crisis. So three to five years down the road Italy and the FWR come to an understanding for tacit cooperation in pacifying/liberating their Arab subjects/colleagues. Assuming no outside intervention the insurgency on the Lower Nile doesn't stand a chance and Egypt remains Syndicalist.
Having a third major economy in the FWR would kick the Anglo-Indian power plays a good bit further down the road. Equally important, it both secures the other African Workers Republics and dramatically increases the feasibility of exporting the revolution. That said, the Ethiopians are likely to be carefully ignored given the aforementioned Anglo-Italian arrangements. Otherwise though, East Africa is very likely to end up Syndicalist, Liberia could as well barring American intervention, and the French will have constant work keeping la Francophonie intact even as strong as their neutrality has made them. And since nothing succeeds like success, further down the road other opportunities could well open up as the FWR becomes less centralized and decolonization becomes a thing.
Even that much wouldn't go much farther than maintaining the Federation's relevance. It still wouldn't be a player on the scale of the Soviets unless something else were to go their way. Maybe Japan goes Syndicalist, the Chinese try to use the disruption to encourage the Taiwan Chinese, and Japan panics enough to commit to a close relationship?
Yeah having read through the TL fairly recently, the FWR just doesn't seem long to the world. I could see a lot of its components hanging on but I just don't see the ex-UK being able to keep control over the former colonies nor the ex-UK be willing to take orders from India. The whole thing make the United Arab Republic seem easy...
Personally, I kinda lament that South Africa isn't part of FWR.
Why? As a dominion and not a colony, becoming a part of the FWR during the British Civil War was pretty impossible.
Last edited:
All those oppressed peoples....
But I understand why EdT didn't include them. A colonial administration could switch purpose by London's order and be coopted by a native elite. A society of white colonists dominating their country by a near monopoly on force, well, that is a different matter.
That is a very good point, but at least Ed mentioned that things for Blacks in SA are a little better than OTL. At least I think he mentioned, I remember him more clearly saying laws on Race varied by province.
Now that I think about it, some of the black population of South Africa could be syndicalist or Kimbanguist sympathizers.
You make a good point on why South Africa did not join the FWR, but more importantly it was a self governing dominion. It joining the FWR makes about as much sense as Australia, New Zeleand, Westralia or Canada joining. With the colonies the was direct control.
On another subject, I think the FWR will probably collapse by the 1980's. Some Worker's Republics might break off at a different points, so it could be a more gradual collapse that with OTL's USSR. Remember the China article and Chou's comments on India? Something along those lines could very well happen.
Now if its one country that wont last long in the short term, its Portugal-Angola. With an exiled monarchy ruling over a restive native population, shits gonna hit the fan within a decade or so's time.
I actually hope that someone assassinates Luis and someone a bit more clear-headed comes to the throne. I root for East Africa and Portugal-Angola, because East Africa sounds cool as hell and Portugal-Angola sounds interesting (although if Luis sticks around then that's gonna be bad. Perhaps a Portugal-Timor or Portugal-Macau is in the cards?)
As for the FWR- Katanga and Equatoria are probably the first to go by virtue of the fact that they are isolated by other powers, although if Egypt is secured Equatoria could stay in. The populist energies of places like the Congo and even Angola have been absorbed by Kimbanguism, and that is easier to export than Syndicalism is.
The internal problems Ed layed out- competing Syndicates within Republics, etc- along with the overall external weakness leads me to believe that we may have multiple Syndicalist post-FWR states. I'd love to at least see Bhagwanji remain in some capacity, and perhaps Mosley as well- although I could even see an internal British rebellion from places like Ulster or Glasgow. The FWR is a paper tiger at best, and although I hope for things like Syndie Japan, I don't see them becoming a Warsaw Pact kind of opponent, more of a global oddity.
Germany has gotten the best out of this- dominant on the continent, freed of all that colonial baggage, with its best borders, a neutral France, and a Zollverein.
I also want to see if the Rashidis manage to consolidate the other Arab lands into a more united Arabia or not. Lot of potential for zaniness there. What if the anti-Syndicalist revolts came to Yemen as well, helped by both the Rashidis and the Italians across the Bab al-Mandeb? I could see Muslim revolts even spreading to the Somalis- if India is cut off, than India either goes independent or is screwed. That's probably the easiest split- India, and then Britain + West African Workers Republics.
If I were looking to "export the revolution", I'd go for the territorially contiguous French West Africa, which would connect all of Britains African territory (Khartoum-Dakar railroad, with distaff lines to the coast!) and would allow for the creation of a more unified infrastructure. As it stands, Britain exists on its navy alone, and if powers can usurp that Navy, than Britain is not going to do well. I could see the Americans, who are happily neutral here (I love me my neutral United States) stirring up trouble in the American parts of the FWR.
As for the FWR- Katanga and Equatoria are probably the first to go by virtue of the fact that they are isolated by other powers, although if Egypt is secured Equatoria could stay in. The populist energies of places like the Congo and even Angola have been absorbed by Kimbanguism, and that is easier to export than Syndicalism is.
The internal problems Ed layed out- competing Syndicates within Republics, etc- along with the overall external weakness leads me to believe that we may have multiple Syndicalist post-FWR states. I'd love to at least see Bhagwanji remain in some capacity, and perhaps Mosley as well- although I could even see an internal British rebellion from places like Ulster or Glasgow. The FWR is a paper tiger at best, and although I hope for things like Syndie Japan, I don't see them becoming a Warsaw Pact kind of opponent, more of a global oddity.
Germany has gotten the best out of this- dominant on the continent, freed of all that colonial baggage, with its best borders, a neutral France, and a Zollverein.
I also want to see if the Rashidis manage to consolidate the other Arab lands into a more united Arabia or not. Lot of potential for zaniness there. What if the anti-Syndicalist revolts came to Yemen as well, helped by both the Rashidis and the Italians across the Bab al-Mandeb? I could see Muslim revolts even spreading to the Somalis- if India is cut off, than India either goes independent or is screwed. That's probably the easiest split- India, and then Britain + West African Workers Republics.
If I were looking to "export the revolution", I'd go for the territorially contiguous French West Africa, which would connect all of Britains African territory (Khartoum-Dakar railroad, with distaff lines to the coast!) and would allow for the creation of a more unified infrastructure. As it stands, Britain exists on its navy alone, and if powers can usurp that Navy, than Britain is not going to do well. I could see the Americans, who are happily neutral here (I love me my neutral United States) stirring up trouble in the American parts of the FWR.
Vivisfugue
Banned
Hong Kong and Postwar Asia
Dunno if Ed's still answering questions on this magnificent TL, but one thing I've wondered about is the ongoing status of Hong Kong and the other European concessions and treaty ports in China (Tientsin, Shanggai International Settlement, Portuguese Macao, British Amoy, Shamian, etc.) as China rises in the early 20th Century. Presumably the British or the Japanese would take over all the French concessions in the War of the Dual Alliance, but what happens between then and 1932? If the foreigners manage to hang on through the 20s, I could see the concessions providing an early flashpoint and distraction to the Chinese in the first year of the Great War, diverting vital Chinese military resources from the decisive northern fronts against the Japanese and the Russians. I can imagine a four-sided street fight in Tientsin between the British, Japanese, Germans and Russians, before the Chinese swoop in, and perhaps a J.G. Ballard-analogue emerging from a British-German-American-Japanese (but not French) Shanghai International Settlement.
Also, could any light that can be shed on postwar SE Asia (broad outlines of who is in what alliance, if any.) Looking at the map, it appears the Chinese broke through the Himalayas in Northern Burma and Kashmir, and established independent states there, but some mystery remains regarding what happened in Vietnam (was there fighting between British Tonkin and German Annam, and did the Germans ever ask for their ex-colony back from their "ally"?), whether Burma is a Chinese satellite, an unincorporated hanger-on of the FWR, a member of the Manila Pact, or completely non-aligned-same questions about Malaya and Sarawak, Papua, Singapore, and how long can the Dutch hang on in Indonesia (did the Dutch join in the war at all?)
Dunno if Ed's still answering questions on this magnificent TL, but one thing I've wondered about is the ongoing status of Hong Kong and the other European concessions and treaty ports in China (Tientsin, Shanggai International Settlement, Portuguese Macao, British Amoy, Shamian, etc.) as China rises in the early 20th Century. Presumably the British or the Japanese would take over all the French concessions in the War of the Dual Alliance, but what happens between then and 1932? If the foreigners manage to hang on through the 20s, I could see the concessions providing an early flashpoint and distraction to the Chinese in the first year of the Great War, diverting vital Chinese military resources from the decisive northern fronts against the Japanese and the Russians. I can imagine a four-sided street fight in Tientsin between the British, Japanese, Germans and Russians, before the Chinese swoop in, and perhaps a J.G. Ballard-analogue emerging from a British-German-American-Japanese (but not French) Shanghai International Settlement.
Also, could any light that can be shed on postwar SE Asia (broad outlines of who is in what alliance, if any.) Looking at the map, it appears the Chinese broke through the Himalayas in Northern Burma and Kashmir, and established independent states there, but some mystery remains regarding what happened in Vietnam (was there fighting between British Tonkin and German Annam, and did the Germans ever ask for their ex-colony back from their "ally"?), whether Burma is a Chinese satellite, an unincorporated hanger-on of the FWR, a member of the Manila Pact, or completely non-aligned-same questions about Malaya and Sarawak, Papua, Singapore, and how long can the Dutch hang on in Indonesia (did the Dutch join in the war at all?)
I think Honk Hong may have been annexed by China after its victory the Great War. I may be wrong though.
Hi,
Sorry, yes still answering questions- but haven’t been around for a bit, so only just seen this.
Let’s take China first. I think the most important point to bear in mind is that while you still have the pre-1880 Treaty Ports ITTL, the latter set of international concessions- Port Arthur, Weihaiwei et al- never happen, because there’s no occupation of the Liaodong peninsula after the *Sino-Japanese war. As a result, there’s no Triple Intervention, no Russian interference in Manchuria, no divvying up of Shandong and so on. The lack of a Boxer rebellion and subsequent protocols also gives China more breathing room, which is pretty vital in the Empire’s modernisation ITTL.
This still leaves Tientsin, Shanghai and so on; regaining full sovereignty over these places is a key diplomatic goal of the Empire in the early 20th Century, and while the whole system is swept away by the Treaty of Brussels ending the Great War in 1936, I assumed that China would been fairly successful too in chipping away at the concessions before this date. I figured Peking would use a mixture of carrot (”give up or renegotiate the concessions and we’ll let Studebaker/Krupp/ICI build that factory they’ve been enquiring about”) and stick (“oh dear, have patriotic students from Hankow occupied the Bund again? Shame that, we’ll send the police to evict them, eventually.”) to accomplish this, adhering to the letter of the agreements punctiliously while aggressively asserting sovereignty whenever possible.
I imagine the to-ing and fro-ing between the Shanghai Municipal Government and the International Settlement will be torturous and rather fascinating; I imagine you’d see the same Chinese tactics of boycott and protest as OTL, but more effectively coordinated with diplomatic pressure. I suspect the Chinese won’t occupy Shanghai come the war; it may well suit everyone for a small island of neutrality to persist in the region, as it did IOTL during WW1. It would certainly be great fun; I’m picturing *Ian Fleming playing blackjack in Club Obiwan with his fellow ‘cultural attachés’ Wilhelm Canaris, Mitsuhirato and Laventry Beria, while escaped POWs are smuggled across the Whampoa in one direction, and opium and military secrets in the other. TTL’s version of Casablanca is definitely set here. Hmm... I’m going to have to write something set there, aren’t I?
Hong Kong is swiftly occupied, of course; I think the Chinese will pretty much to the same to Macau, even though it’s the possession of an ally. Doubtless money will change hands and the Lisbon will miraculously (and belatedly) realise that the Chinese interpretation of the sovereignty agreement in the Sino-Portuguese Treaty of 1887 was entirely correct. Funny that! Both become part of China proper come 1936 and the Treaty of Brussels.
So, that’s China. Now SE Asia. I don’t know if you’ve seen this map? It gives a general overview of the area; basically, the Chinese managed to occupy all of mainland Indochina apart from Malaya, and I saw the front stabilising somewhere around the Kra Isthmus by the end of the war. Burma, Annam, Thailand and Kampuchea are all Chinese clients, the Chinese having been rather more sincere about the whole anti-colonial thing the Japanese tried IOTL. At this point the afterglow of liberation means that nobody has quite got round to furiously resenting Chinese influence in the region yet, but it will happen soon enough.
As for what happened in the region, I don’t have much definitive, but I can certainly tell you the broad outline of what I was thinking. Basically the British occupied Annam and Kampuchea in 1932, and were then pushed out by the Chinese in 1934-5. The Chinese proclaimed the reunification of Tonkin and Annam as part of their offensive, and the Germans, while not particularly happy about it, could see the political utility of the move and weren’t in much of a position to dissent; later historians will doubtless single this out as the moment when German power began to decline, much as IOTL the Destroyers for Bases agreement is sometimes seen as the moment when the USA passed Britain in the Great Power stakes. As of 1940, Annam is a parliamentary democracy with an Emperor, much as China is.
Kashmir is a relic of the British Revolution, not the Great War; it, along with Nepal, Bhutan and Sikkim managed to avoid incorporation into the Indian Worker’s Republic, thanks to difficult terrain, Chinese assistance and a fair bit of luck.
Malaya and Sarawak are independent and members of the Manila Pact. Malaya saw some fighting during the British Revolution, but paradoxically this has probably strengthened the state; the Communists and the Chinese nationalists fish in the same demographic pool and don’t like each other very much, so while there are occasional guerrilla raids on the tin mines and rubber plantations, things aren’t at crisis level. Yet.
Indonesia is still Dutch as of 1940, but nobody expects the status quo to last for long. While Dutch neutrality in the Great War prevented anything similar to the experience of OTL, the Indonesian nationalist movement was already growing in the early 1930s, and seeing colonial rule collapse practically everywhere else in the region has bolstered their confidence hugely. I’d expect some sort of home rule be enacted by the mid-1940s, although probably initially only in Java and Sumatra; whether this is sufficient to satisfy the nationalists is another question. I could see the Chinese, Japanese, Australians and FWR all being determined to be the midwives of any new Indonesian state, and I imagine the potential implosion of the Dutch East Indies to be the source of a lot of international tension come the late 1940s or early 1950s, along with all the other ones of course!
Vivisfugue
Banned
Thanks, Ed! Of course one answer only whets the appetite for others! What a fascinating world - modernity without hegemony. I love the Shanghai-set alt-Casablanca idea, perhaps it could be the movie Franco was talking about doing in China...
I've looking at the maps the other day and a few questions occurred to me which don't seem to have been answered before.
What does Russia want in the Middle East? Judging by the alliance map it's up to something, which is not surprising since this is the only area where it can expand its influence. The FWR, Arabia and Italy have been discussed in detail, but I've seen little mention of Russia. Does it have any particular objectives in mind?
And what about the Russo-Chinese fighting during the Great War? Apparently it wasn't very intense despite the gigantic length of that particular front, Russia being mostly occupied in Europe and China concentrating on Japan and Britain, but did anything of note actually take place there?
And a little question about Galicia. I think it's been implied that it was divided into a western (Polish) and eastern (Ukrainian) part before the war, and the final division between Poland and Ukraine was based on the boundary between them. But what about Lvov? Since it was the capital of Galicia, and had a mostly Polish population despite apparently ending up in the Ukrainian sector, did it gain some sort of special status? And if so, did it retain any sort of autonomy after ending up in Ukraine?
What does Russia want in the Middle East? Judging by the alliance map it's up to something, which is not surprising since this is the only area where it can expand its influence. The FWR, Arabia and Italy have been discussed in detail, but I've seen little mention of Russia. Does it have any particular objectives in mind?
And what about the Russo-Chinese fighting during the Great War? Apparently it wasn't very intense despite the gigantic length of that particular front, Russia being mostly occupied in Europe and China concentrating on Japan and Britain, but did anything of note actually take place there?
And a little question about Galicia. I think it's been implied that it was divided into a western (Polish) and eastern (Ukrainian) part before the war, and the final division between Poland and Ukraine was based on the boundary between them. But what about Lvov? Since it was the capital of Galicia, and had a mostly Polish population despite apparently ending up in the Ukrainian sector, did it gain some sort of special status? And if so, did it retain any sort of autonomy after ending up in Ukraine?