Constantinople
Banned
Also something else not really mentioned is: what is the status of the social democracy, the welfare state and all that?
Um, how is Tokyo?
Um, how is Tokyo?
Rule Britannia!
- Thread starter Anaxagoras
- Start date
- Status
Sorry to dig up old threads (again) but i found this on the Alt-hist wikipedia. It appears that someone had liked Anaxagoras timeline so much that they have decided to take it, claim it as their own, bastardise it and post it online. It's not very good (other than what was already written). Some events have been changed but few and the TL has been continued beyond 2000 - mostly drivel.
http://althistory.wikia.com/wiki/Rule_Britannia
http://althistory.wikia.com/wiki/Rule_Britannia
Anaxagoras
Banned
This matter was brought to my attention, thanks to Paulo the Limey. I did NOT give anyone permission to use this material, nor was I even aware of it until today. I deleted i from the main page and (I think) sent a message to Wikia asking them to remove it entirely. I also sent a message to the person who took the material, telling him that he had no right to use it.
Im not much of a reader, in all honesty, so forgive me if this has been addressed at some point in the timeline. But in the 1990's and up until today Scotland has a very large independence ideology (maybe not so much in government rather than in public opinion). They only recently got self-governance, but I figured with so many of the colonies in your timeline remaining as part of the empire, eventually Scotland would try its hand in gaining more autonomy than just being part of the United Kingdom as such.
Again, sorry if it has been addressed.
Again, sorry if it has been addressed.
Anaxagoras, I was writing an AH timeline about the survival of British Empire, starting from Gallipoli… and then I found your timeline of 2006! Thank you
I think that the necessary 3 PODs for a long survival of the British Empire, as you stated, are: a victory in the Dardanelles, a great naval victory on Germans and a general victory of WW1 in 1916. A victory in the Dardanelles is necessary to expand British Empire in the Middle East; a clear victory against the German navy is necessary to keep the prestige of the Royal Navy intact one century after Trafalgar; a shorter WW1 leaves British Empire huge economic and human resources and provide high morale in order to continue the imperial mission.
I think that the main problem of your ATL is: Russia. In your ATL, Russia doesn’t go communist, but tzarism survives. Tzar was not an ideological enemy of British Empire (as communists were), but, in any case, he could have been a harsh rival of London for imperial reasons. There were many point of attritions between the two Empires in Asia: Dardanelles, Middle East (even Palestine, because of Jerusalem, protected by Russian Orthodox Church), Persia, Afghanistan, India… Imperial Russian forces can recover quickly after a two year long Great War. You describe a Russia involved in internal political and ethnic turmoils (especially in Poland). Well, this could have boosted a Russian war against Britain, because, usually, an authocracy reacts to internal problems with international wars. A British-Russian war could have been total, less violent then the WW2, but no less costly for London. It could be inevitable in the decade after the Great War (and Kitchner was thinking about this when he planned the first partition of Middle East in 1915).
I think that if you want the British Empire survive the XX Century, you have to avoid a global enemy. A war against a global enemy, after the Great War, could have overstretched British resources, as many as a Second World War. Imperial Russia could have been that global enemy.
There is only one solution: Russia become a stable democracy and loses its European dominions (Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Belarus, possibly also Ukraine). A democratic Russia led by liberal-minded politicians like Miljukov or Kerenskij could have been a stable friend of Great Britain. The birth of independent nation states in Eastern Europe is fundamental to avoid eventual German or Russian imperial revanchism (both very dangerous for British interests). Both things (democracy in Russia and independent nation states in Eastern Europe) could happen in your ATL of WW1.
Just think this:
January 1916: OberOst (Hindemburg and Ludendorff) won over Falkenheyn. The massive Entente’s menace in the Balkans and the survival of Russia (in your ATL) posed a challenge too great for German’s Eastern Front. (in the OTL, Verdun plan was approuved only after the collapse of Serbia and the defeat of Russia in Polish and Baltic regions). The Kaiser endorses OberOst plan: Germany turns East again.
March 1916: after a period of stalemate on all fronts, Germany launch its offensive against Russia (and not against Verdun); A-H launch its offensive against Italy through the Alps
March-June 1916: German and A-H troops invade Ukraine and Estonia; a German landing force invade Finland; after those great defeats, Russians generals and the Duma accuse Nicholas II of high treason; a democratic revolution, lead by Pavel Milyukov’s KD Party (and supported by the army), break out in Russia and Republic is established; Kitchner sends weapons and equipments in Odessa to halt the CPs offensive in Russia and many more divisions up to the Danube.
June-August 1916: the CPs offensive in Russia is halted; the A-H offensive in Italy is halted; Entente launch a major offensive on the Danube front; after a quick land-river campaign (using monitors and light ships to support troops, like in Mesopotamia), Entente can provoke the collapse of Austria-Hungary (Italy is also counter-attacking it) and save the new Russian Republic from a total defeat
September: a concerted offensive against a lonely Germany (from Western and Southern fronts, while Russians hold their lines) can overcome its forces; if Churchill becomes more influent after his success in Dardanelles, we can imagine an upgraded tank program (which was endorsed by Churchill), even a better use of tanks in the offensive in France. Finally, a decisive naval battle in the North Sea can bring Berlin to heels, despite its victories in the East.
And then, in 1916, you have: a victorious British Empire, a defeated (but already stable) Germany, a republican and British-friendly Russia, a neutral Usa, a defeated and reformed Austria-Hungary (the idea of its partition became effective only in 1917-1918), a British controlled Middle East, a lot of new independent states in Eastern Europe: Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Finland, Belarus, Ukraine. A democratic government in Russia (led by KD, Kerenskij’s Labour and SR) can recognize their independence. Once independent, they can work as an “air-bag” against continental powers of Russia (in case of imperial revival), Germany and Austria-Hungary (in case of revanchism). In this scenario, British Empire has no more enemies in the short run and only regional enemies (like Japan) in the long run. Other European colonial empires (France, Portugal and Italy) could pose challenges, but a new Anglo-French rivalry is less plausible after the Great War. Italy and Portugal never posed a real threat to London. United States are not natural friends of England, but the true American spirit is isolationist.
In this case you have a British Empire virtually immortal!
I think that the necessary 3 PODs for a long survival of the British Empire, as you stated, are: a victory in the Dardanelles, a great naval victory on Germans and a general victory of WW1 in 1916. A victory in the Dardanelles is necessary to expand British Empire in the Middle East; a clear victory against the German navy is necessary to keep the prestige of the Royal Navy intact one century after Trafalgar; a shorter WW1 leaves British Empire huge economic and human resources and provide high morale in order to continue the imperial mission.
I think that the main problem of your ATL is: Russia. In your ATL, Russia doesn’t go communist, but tzarism survives. Tzar was not an ideological enemy of British Empire (as communists were), but, in any case, he could have been a harsh rival of London for imperial reasons. There were many point of attritions between the two Empires in Asia: Dardanelles, Middle East (even Palestine, because of Jerusalem, protected by Russian Orthodox Church), Persia, Afghanistan, India… Imperial Russian forces can recover quickly after a two year long Great War. You describe a Russia involved in internal political and ethnic turmoils (especially in Poland). Well, this could have boosted a Russian war against Britain, because, usually, an authocracy reacts to internal problems with international wars. A British-Russian war could have been total, less violent then the WW2, but no less costly for London. It could be inevitable in the decade after the Great War (and Kitchner was thinking about this when he planned the first partition of Middle East in 1915).
I think that if you want the British Empire survive the XX Century, you have to avoid a global enemy. A war against a global enemy, after the Great War, could have overstretched British resources, as many as a Second World War. Imperial Russia could have been that global enemy.
There is only one solution: Russia become a stable democracy and loses its European dominions (Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Belarus, possibly also Ukraine). A democratic Russia led by liberal-minded politicians like Miljukov or Kerenskij could have been a stable friend of Great Britain. The birth of independent nation states in Eastern Europe is fundamental to avoid eventual German or Russian imperial revanchism (both very dangerous for British interests). Both things (democracy in Russia and independent nation states in Eastern Europe) could happen in your ATL of WW1.
Just think this:
January 1916: OberOst (Hindemburg and Ludendorff) won over Falkenheyn. The massive Entente’s menace in the Balkans and the survival of Russia (in your ATL) posed a challenge too great for German’s Eastern Front. (in the OTL, Verdun plan was approuved only after the collapse of Serbia and the defeat of Russia in Polish and Baltic regions). The Kaiser endorses OberOst plan: Germany turns East again.
March 1916: after a period of stalemate on all fronts, Germany launch its offensive against Russia (and not against Verdun); A-H launch its offensive against Italy through the Alps
March-June 1916: German and A-H troops invade Ukraine and Estonia; a German landing force invade Finland; after those great defeats, Russians generals and the Duma accuse Nicholas II of high treason; a democratic revolution, lead by Pavel Milyukov’s KD Party (and supported by the army), break out in Russia and Republic is established; Kitchner sends weapons and equipments in Odessa to halt the CPs offensive in Russia and many more divisions up to the Danube.
June-August 1916: the CPs offensive in Russia is halted; the A-H offensive in Italy is halted; Entente launch a major offensive on the Danube front; after a quick land-river campaign (using monitors and light ships to support troops, like in Mesopotamia), Entente can provoke the collapse of Austria-Hungary (Italy is also counter-attacking it) and save the new Russian Republic from a total defeat
September: a concerted offensive against a lonely Germany (from Western and Southern fronts, while Russians hold their lines) can overcome its forces; if Churchill becomes more influent after his success in Dardanelles, we can imagine an upgraded tank program (which was endorsed by Churchill), even a better use of tanks in the offensive in France. Finally, a decisive naval battle in the North Sea can bring Berlin to heels, despite its victories in the East.
And then, in 1916, you have: a victorious British Empire, a defeated (but already stable) Germany, a republican and British-friendly Russia, a neutral Usa, a defeated and reformed Austria-Hungary (the idea of its partition became effective only in 1917-1918), a British controlled Middle East, a lot of new independent states in Eastern Europe: Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Finland, Belarus, Ukraine. A democratic government in Russia (led by KD, Kerenskij’s Labour and SR) can recognize their independence. Once independent, they can work as an “air-bag” against continental powers of Russia (in case of imperial revival), Germany and Austria-Hungary (in case of revanchism). In this scenario, British Empire has no more enemies in the short run and only regional enemies (like Japan) in the long run. Other European colonial empires (France, Portugal and Italy) could pose challenges, but a new Anglo-French rivalry is less plausible after the Great War. Italy and Portugal never posed a real threat to London. United States are not natural friends of England, but the true American spirit is isolationist.
In this case you have a British Empire virtually immortal!
I think you overplay the threat Russia would pose to Britain following the favorable WW I victory in this scenario.
Consider: Russian expansion into every area that you describe that could threaten the British creates more British allies as they are indirectly threatening Britain, but directly threatening the countries in the way of their objectives.
Dardanelles/Constantinople: Greece (in this TL)
the Far East: Japan (still a British ally), China (Russian expansion target)
Middle East: Well to get down here u need to get through the remanants of the Ottomans...which has always hated Russia
Afghanistan to India: running supplies through this area is always shit in a barrel...even today, its terribly inconvenient, in the early/mid 20th century...well whatever tattered army marches through there gets to fight the British Indian army which probably took a nice relaxing rail ride to the border...
Russia alone, even globally can't threaten all the British possessions like WW2 did, and Britain has alot of potential allies in that situation so I dont think a Russian War would break Britain...although the British certainly arent going to be able to threaten Russia proper much themselves, they have the distinct advantage of being able to respond in the colonial war fashion that they always fight so well due to globally interlinked bases of operation. Russia is not capable of winning a logistics war w/Britain and in the case of colonial conflicts, this is a huge disadvantage.
Consider: Russian expansion into every area that you describe that could threaten the British creates more British allies as they are indirectly threatening Britain, but directly threatening the countries in the way of their objectives.
Dardanelles/Constantinople: Greece (in this TL)
the Far East: Japan (still a British ally), China (Russian expansion target)
Middle East: Well to get down here u need to get through the remanants of the Ottomans...which has always hated Russia
Afghanistan to India: running supplies through this area is always shit in a barrel...even today, its terribly inconvenient, in the early/mid 20th century...well whatever tattered army marches through there gets to fight the British Indian army which probably took a nice relaxing rail ride to the border...
Russia alone, even globally can't threaten all the British possessions like WW2 did, and Britain has alot of potential allies in that situation so I dont think a Russian War would break Britain...although the British certainly arent going to be able to threaten Russia proper much themselves, they have the distinct advantage of being able to respond in the colonial war fashion that they always fight so well due to globally interlinked bases of operation. Russia is not capable of winning a logistics war w/Britain and in the case of colonial conflicts, this is a huge disadvantage.
Last edited:
They were much favourable then the Tzar. Both Miljukov and Kerenskij always stressed the importance of national rights. In case of German occupation and de-facto independence of Finland, Poland and western oblasts (regions), maybe they could have recognized them. At least they could have accepted this concept.
The timeline stound interesting, and I look forward to reading it, but in a 'Britain Triumphant' timeline it'll be difficult to make them a serious threat. Since Russia is still dealt all/most the damage from OTL, and Britain left mostly unscathed with the worlds largest empire to develop.
So you need to figure out some allies for Russia, if their puppets then they'll need to spend just as much gaining and keeping control of them, so they need to be actual allies...
How about a communist United States? It opens up the Atlantic theater, means a war over a massive front, and might ever make sense if you write it well enough. E.g. the depression get's nasty and Imperial protectionism is blamed.
There's my two grimy two pounds stirling.
So you need to figure out some allies for Russia, if their puppets then they'll need to spend just as much gaining and keeping control of them, so they need to be actual allies...
How about a communist United States? It opens up the Atlantic theater, means a war over a massive front, and might ever make sense if you write it well enough. E.g. the depression get's nasty and Imperial protectionism is blamed.
There's my two grimy two pounds stirling.
First and foremost, but we've all said how great it is already, and nothing's really happened for a long time, so a few posts about a similar timeline by one of your fans doesn't seem that bad.
Is there ever going to be a map by the way?
you know, showing what happens to famous people from OTL because of the POD. popular ones are Norma Jean, Elvis, and the Beatles.
I did one months ago, it's on the previous page. The second map is the more accurate of the two.
I just read Rule Britannia - Part 1, and I enjoyed it very much. I searched around a bit, but could find no trace of a part 2.
https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=99978&highlight=Rule+Britannia
Also saw that in the searches.
https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=99978&highlight=Rule+Britannia
Also saw that in the searches.
- Status