The Germans bombed London a few times in 1917 by aeroplane. Let us say that one of them, during a night raid in June, 1917, manages to strike Buckingham Palace, killing King George V. What effect does this have on the war? Does it significantly alter the course, or merely get Germany punished worse at Versailles?
George V killed in World War I
- Thread starter Polish Eagle
- Start date
Edward will have just come of age, and even if he did oppose LG on the issue he wouldn't have his father's dexterity in preventing LG from hanging the Kaiser.
Thande
Donor
Bombing will be viewed with even more horror as an ultimate weapon than in OTL: maybe the Germans are barred from having any aircraft at all at Versailles and Germany is declared a permanent no-fly zone?
If this is an aeroplane attack it will also focus attention on that--at the time (though it was already shifting by 1917) the main bombing threat from Germany was thought to be zeppelins, at least by the public.
If this is an aeroplane attack it will also focus attention on that--at the time (though it was already shifting by 1917) the main bombing threat from Germany was thought to be zeppelins, at least by the public.
I don't think a no-fly zone would be a possibility at the time. For a start, the idea didn't exist at the time, and second it would have been unenforceable without subsequent technological developments. No planes after Versailles is probable though, as is increased bomber panic.
I agree its not really enforceable, but its not a very complicated idea so it might get put on paper
any ways King George V becomes a martyred saint, maybe the second Saint the Church of England has, I'd guess a lot of War monuments would be of him, WWI is in a lot of ways the birth of New Zealand and Australia nationalism, if the war is now nationally tied in the mind to the Death of a loved king we may see New Zealand and Australia a lot closer to the UK
King Edward VIII had a lot of daddy issues, Daddy dies a Saint hard to say what happens, ether David is driven to live up to his father or what he did in OTL keep rebelling against dad even when he's died
Ireland! oh man, King George V was a key force in forcing the Government to the table with the IRA, I'm unsure what Edward VIII would do, if he tries will the PM will listen to the young King, and if he does will the King be able to call on General Jan Smuts the way his Father would have? also in OTL Edward was more popular with the Irish, if he takes the wrong tone at the wrong movement could set off the Unionists in the worst way.
Thande
Donor
Not exactly. I think the idea of a united Commonwealth will be stronger, but New Zealand and Australian nationalism is already born in fire in Gallipoli--it's more "we love the king more than OTL, but we still see ourselves as separate and equal countries under his reign rather than British dependencies".
Thande
Donor
I would guess so although that's not as well known in the UK, probably because it blends into the whole Tommy Atkins Western Front Muck and Bullets thing whereas Gallipoli is an incident that strongly stands out because it was in a very different setting.
a love of the Monarchy (with King George V the face of every one who died in the war) might make them move slower on moving away from the UK, maybe not, but it might kill the strong Republicanism in New Zealand and Australia today before it was born, you see them acting far far more like Canada than in OTL and speaking of Canada it wasn't till 1982 that the UK Parliament was fully out of Canada's life, a more popular Monarchy and warmer fuzzier feelings toward the UK would lead to them never pass that act
oh just looked the Australia act passed in 1986, and the Constitution Act 1986, so till 1986 the British Parliament had a say over the Australian and New Zealand Parliaments
Thande
Donor
Those Acts didn't really have much to do with public feeling, it was just a tidying-up exercise in recognition of how priorities had drifted apart and the old dominions had been fully acknowledged as equals for years (look at how Canada had played the tail wagging the dog on African decolonisation since the sixties, for instance). I think that's pretty much inevitable, unless perhaps someone manages to pull off Imperial Federation (which is possible, although less likely than some Britwank fanboys seem to think).
BA, while I don't pretend to knwo about Oz and NZ, I can tell you that the repatriation itself (leaving out the politics behind it or the Charter) meant absolutely nothing in practical terms. It will still be severed as an anachronism, just that until 1982 we didn't have a PM brassy enough to ignore the provinces and go ahead unilaterally.
I know just saying it wouldn't lead to light years worth of difference in governments, but maybe slow the drift apart by 20-30 years, maybe not.
I think King George V's role in Ireland is a bigger deal.
Thande
Donor
Actually that is a very good point, although this could potentially butterfly events in Ireland anyway. Could be better or worse, not sure--worse would be "the Germans are clearly such inhuman monsters that, in having worked with them, the IRB should be crushed even more bloodily than OTL", better would be "broader Irish public opinion is swayed by sympathy towards the King and in consequence there's less of a crackdown there".
So if the Kaiser is hanged, what effect can this have on German revanchism in the aftermath? Perhaps a more monarchist-oriented one? Or would it be more leftist, in reaction to the failure of the monarchy?
Thande
Donor
German monarchism will be much more mainstream not only out of outrage but because with the Kaiser's death the pretender will be his son Frederick William, who was considered a much more mainstream and acceptable restorable monarch by monarchists in the Weimar Republic OTL, but refused to take the throne as his father still lived.
Would he be?
He's still in Holland. Does GV's death make the Dutch any more willing to surrender him?