The Empire Parnell Built
- Thread starter Rattigan
- Start date
Ukraine, Belarus, and Livonia were presumably annexed into Tukhachevsky's Russia while Poland was probably spun off as an independent ally/puppet state.
All good points but a couple of things to say in response:
- TTL's USA is much more isolationist, owing to the stronger Progressive party. As we'll see in an upcoming update on the 1944 US election, isolationists had been working cross-party to prevent US intervention before 1944.
- The British intervention in Latin America was confined to places (Argentina and Uruguay) which were under Brazilian occupation and where a limited RN and RM intervention had been specifically requested by the occupied countries. They weren't leading the charge into Brazil in the style of the OTL USA after D-Day.
- US State Department officials and the White House had been (confidentially, of course) given advanced warning of the British intervention.
- The foreign policy position of most US elites since Nicholas Butler has been to hug Britain very close (TTL the US doesn't overtake the Empire's GDP in 1916 as in OTL because Britain stays out of the Whilelmite Wars and instead sells arms to both sides) to encourage continued inward investment. As a result there isn't really a constituency in the US for starting a shooting war with the British Empire in 1944.
As @Whiteshore says, the first three were absorbed into Russia while Poland became an independent, Russian-friendly, country including territories gained from Germany and Belarus. I'll put up a map of Europe in a bit which will show borders at 1950, when things will have become more settled.
Isolationism isn't the matter though, it's the fact that even the most ardent ones OTL during BOTH wars all had the caveat of "unless they start messing around in our hemisphere". The reason being is that the US couldn't be left alone if Europe started to mess about in the hemisphere. So if the Isolationist's want the US out they'd have never let Brazil and Argentine join a side because at that point it does become a problem of the US.
If I had a nickel for every time a Rattigan Britwank had Claus von Stauffenburg specifically be responsible for atrocities against the Poles specifically, I'd have two nickels. Which isn't a lot, but it's weird that it happened twice.
It's also interesting that China would make Manchuria a tributary state; I would think they'd annex it outright, especially as it's the homeland of their monarchy.
It's also interesting that China would make Manchuria a tributary state; I would think they'd annex it outright, especially as it's the homeland of their monarchy.
During which time it started off as a tributary, and eventually got annexed.
So, to explain what I mean by 'Tributary State' TTL, there are 6 of them by this point in TTL's China (Tibet, Mongolia, Dzungar, Ryuku, Manchuria and Korea) and they all form part of China. They have a great deal of internal self-government (not up to the point of having any politicians that Peking doesn't like, of course) but cannot conduct foreign relations and every year have to make 'tribute' in the form of a pre-agreed contribution to the Chinese military budget.
The difference is a bit like the distinction between territories and provinces in OTL Canada - i.e. they're both parts of Canada but just governed slightly differently.
Ah, so they're sort of a continuation of earlier Qing governance of the imperial periphery, I see.
Yes, exactly. It's important to distinguish that from the situation in Japan too, which is still technically it's own country but under a much more serious Sino-British occupation akin to the OTL Warsaw Pact countries.
One point that I found a bit confusing - the wikibox doesn't match some of the text.
It mentions the United Nations as one of the alliances where the text uses Allied Powers, and lists the result as an Allied victory when it is the League that was victorious.
I'm always sceptical of decisions to nuke capitals in alternate history, as Tokyo was not on the list of targets for the atomic bombing of Japan.
I would have thought a different major industrial centre would be preferred, such as Lille, or was it more targeted at the Boulogne-Billancourt part of Paris, which was OTL a major centre for aircraft and tank manufacturing?
On your first point, those are typos, thanks for catching them - I'll get them fixed.
On the decision to bomb Paris rather than other targets, I would say two things: firstly, the atomic bombing comes at the end of a longer aerial campaign, which would have included more traditional industrial targets; and, secondly, the decision to bomb Paris was taken in direct response to an attack on London so it seemed appropriate to me. (Also, as you noted, it's not as if Paris is totally without industrial/military targets...)
Man what did Arthur Harris do ? I mean it must be terrible if the winning side wants to go after him unless its a different guy than the British commander
That's a really good question. I think the important thing to have in mind is quite how controversial the Continuation War is TTL. Basically you have an ally (France) who does something you disagree with (rejecting the proposed peace) so you embark on a full-scale bombing of civilians and then nuke their political and cultural capital, crippling the country for decades. Put in that light, it comes off as a bit harsh. Basically, what happens by the 1960s and '70s is a greater attempt to reckon with the awful things the League did during the Nine Years War and Harris becomes something of a sacrificial lamb from that point of view.
Legally, how did they justify going after just Harris? Surely the PM at least would also be on the hook for anything that he did.
Not just the PM but anyone above Harris that could've countered that order. I honestly don't see how they can justify it TBH. Looked upon more distasteful then OTL but it was a legitimate tactic before smart bombs became a thing.
Can't wait to see what happens with America, Huey Long's New party has strong Oswald Mosley vibes...
Speaking of, is he a potential Social Democrat leader?
Speaking of, is he a potential Social Democrat leader?
I think these are all fair enough points and, to be clear, reflect how controversial both the Continuation War and the prosecution of Harris was within the Empire. Not to give anything away but the party in power in the late60s and early 70s will be the same one which oversaw the Continuation War and Harris proved a useful sacrificial lamb.
America is going to get it's Napoleon but it won't be Long, I'm afraid...