TL-191: The fate of Britain post-SGW

In a word? 'Irrelevance' (though after the better part of fifty years spent in freefall, finally hitting rock bottom might be something of a relief for Great Britain).

Put simply the Dominions are almost certainly going to go their own way (probably cursing Mother Britain for wasting their young manhood in two losing wars on an apocalyptic scale); Ireland is going to be The Republic from now on (and probably the USA's preferred 'Landing Strip One' in Europe should Germany & the US fail to see eye-to-eye); the Empire is over and done with, whether it's dismembered by the Japanese & Germans or simply let go by a Government that probably has trouble keeping Birmingham from running away screaming, never mind India.

It's even entirely possible that the United Kingdom of Great Britain is over and done with - whether because Scotland & England go their separate ways or because the United States insists that the Crown is done.


I've seen it suggested that Great Britain might make a Japan-style comeback, without the burden of trying to hold the Empire together and help police the planet, but given that London is a radioactive crater and that the biggest economy on the planet hates GB's guts, I'm not sure this is a very real possibility (At least not in the near or even the medium-term future).

On the other hand, who knows; maybe Great Britain & France will be desperate enough to try that Anglo-French Union Churchill suggested during World War II and lucky enough not to be obliterated by Germany for their presumption? (Though it seems more likely that Germany will keep occupation forces in both, until either money or interest run out).


Basically? It sucks to be British in Timeline-191 (and it will probably continue to do so for a generation or more).
 
Pretty bad. At least until the 60s. I fully expect the sun to set on the British Empire. Maybe they can hold on to some minor colonies but I doubt it. Economically, things will be bad too. All in all, Britain at the end of the SGW is screwed for a while.
 

MaxGerke01

Kicked
Banned
In a word? 'Irrelevance' (though after the better part of fifty years spent in freefall, finally hitting rock bottom might be something of a relief for Great Britain).

Put simply the Dominions are almost certainly going to go their own way (probably cursing Mother Britain for wasting their young manhood in two losing wars on an apocalyptic scale); Ireland is going to be The Republic from now on (and probably the USA's preferred 'Landing Strip One' in Europe should Germany & the US fail to see eye-to-eye); the Empire is over and done with, whether it's dismembered by the Japanese & Germans or simply let go by a Government that probably has trouble keeping Birmingham from running away screaming, never mind India.

It's even entirely possible that the United Kingdom of Great Britain is over and done with - whether because Scotland & England go their separate ways or because the United States insists that the Crown is done.


I've seen it suggested that Great Britain might make a Japan-style comeback, without the burden of trying to hold the Empire together and help police the planet, but given that London is a radioactive crater and that the biggest economy on the planet hates GB's guts, I'm not sure this is a very real possibility (At least not in the near or even the medium-term future).

On the other hand, who knows; maybe Great Britain & France will be desperate enough to try that Anglo-French Union Churchill suggested during World War II and lucky enough not to be obliterated by Germany for their presumption? (Though it seems more likely that Germany will keep occupation forces in both, until either money or interest run out).


Basically? It sucks to be British in Timeline-191 (and it will probably continue to do so for a generation or more).
This is all very possible of course but then again Britain could come back mainly because it got the superbomb and isnt likely to be occupied by Germany or the USA. I dont think Germany would allow an Anglo French union but the question is just how much do they do to stop Britain from bouncing back when they have their hands full in Western Europe .Russia,Africa and elsewhere as does the USA in Canada and the former CSA ? Britain would still despise Germany and the USA and isnt totally defeated and at least partially occupied like France and they have the superbomb unlike Russia or France.I just dont think they are a non threat and a non issue to Germany and the USA in quite the same way unless they choose to be because Germany and the US have kind of left them a way out. It would be some time before they could try and openly oppose and actually get into a conflict with Germany or the USA but if they bided their time who knows ? To me this is as likely or more likely to happen than the USA and Germany being at odds.
 
Last edited:

bguy

Donor
I've seen it suggested that Great Britain might make a Japan-style comeback, without the burden of trying to hold the Empire together and help police the planet, but given that London is a radioactive crater and that the biggest economy on the planet hates GB's guts, I'm not sure this is a very real possibility (At least not in the near or even the medium-term future).

I don't know. Japan IOTL had the biggest economy on the planet hating their guts in 1945, and they still managed to recover, so there might be hope for Britain as well. I would also expect London to recover since first generation atomic weapons aren't powerful enough to permanently wreck a city. (Hiroshima has more than a million people living in it today.)

Probably a lot will depend on how US-German relations are in the aftermath of the SGW. If the US and Germany stay friendly then Britain may be in for a rough few decades, but if US-German relations chill then the Germans might be willing to help Britain at least economically recover so as to strengthen the German bloc against the US.

(If Britain can actually avoid German occupation then they might even have some ability to leverage the US and Germany against each other, though as described below I don't think it's that likely that Britain would be able to avoid being occupied by the Germans.)

This is all very possible of course but then again Britain could come back mainly because it got the superbomb and isnt likely to be occupied by Germany or the USA.

Would Britain be able to avoid occupation? I know the Germans have a lot on their plate post-SGW, but I would think the fact that the British developed superbomb capability (and actually nuked a German city) would make them the Germany's top priority to occupy since the British have proven themselves to be a much greater threat than the French or Russians. And it's not like the British can realistically prevent a German occupation, since if they refuse the Germans (and probably the Americans also) will just keep nuking them until they do unconditionally surrender.
 

MaxGerke01

Kicked
Banned
I don't know. Japan IOTL had the biggest economy on the planet hating their guts in 1945, and they still managed to recover, so there might be hope for Britain as well. I would also expect London to recover since first generation atomic weapons aren't powerful enough to permanently wreck a city. (Hiroshima has more than a million people living in it today.)

Probably a lot will depend on how US-German relations are in the aftermath of the SGW. If the US and Germany stay friendly then Britain may be in for a rough few decades, but if US-German relations chill then the Germans might be willing to help Britain at least economically recover so as to strengthen the German bloc against the US.

(If Britain can actually avoid German occupation then they might even have some ability to leverage the US and Germany against each other, though as described below I don't think it's that likely that Britain would be able to avoid being occupied by the Germans.)



Would Britain be able to avoid occupation? I know the Germans have a lot on their plate post-SGW, but I would think the fact that the British developed superbomb capability (and actually nuked a German city) would make them the Germany's top priority to occupy since the British have proven themselves to be a much greater threat than the French or Russians. And it's not like the British can realistically prevent a German occupation, since if they refuse the Germans (and probably the Americans also) will just keep nuking them until they do unconditionally surrender.
This is also very possible but again it depends. To me there is little chance the USA would occupy Britain if its holding down Canada and the former CSA. As for Germany Im not sure.Occupying Britain would be much harder than France and Russia.For one thing who is to say that the British wouldnt try and fight them off despite their superbombs .Maybe Britain has another 1 or 2 squirreled away ? The situation is most analogous to Japan OTL but Im not sure after being nuked if Britain would role over for an occupation or if they would maybe Germany doesnt think so and decides to err on the side of caution? Or maybe Britain goes for broke and says we do have superbombs left and if you try and occupy us we use them even if we get hit again ? Germany says we will deal with them again if we have to and Britian lucks out and avoids occupation ? Its hard to believe this would happen ittl but then again people ittl seems to repeat past mistakes maybe a little more often than OTL.
 
Last edited:
On that note, what about what British politics would look like post-SGW? How likely do you see an abolition of the British Monarchy much like how the House of Savoy didn't survive Victor Emmanuel III and his relationship with the Fascist Regime?
 

MaxGerke01

Kicked
Banned
On that note, what about what British politics would look like post-SGW? How likely do you see an abolition of the British Monarchy much like how the House of Savoy didn't survive Victor Emmanuel III and his relationship with the Fascist Regime?
Unless Germany and /or the USA occupy the country and force such a change by perhaps making Britain a republic that may not happen.If there isnt an occupation perhaps there is a civil war ?
 
Unless Germany and /or the USA occupy the country and force such a change by perhaps making Britain a republic that may not happen.If there isnt an occupation perhaps there is a civil war ?
Wel, was thinking that Labour, radicalized by the Churchill-Mosley coalition, ends up having a strong republican contingent and many in Britain end up turning against the monarchy owing to its enabling of the regime.
 

MaxGerke01

Kicked
Banned
Wel, was thinking that Labour, radicalized by the Churchill-Mosley coalition, ends up having a strong republican contingent and many in Britain end up turning against the monarchy owing to its enabling of the regime.
Very possible especially if Edward VIII also survived the London nuke ? His abdication would be demanded at the very least. Perhaps he does it willingly as in OTL but for a much different reason here-to try and insure the monarchy isnt abolished ?
 
I don't know. Japan IOTL had the biggest economy on the planet hating their guts in 1945, and they still managed to recover, so there might be hope for Britain as well.

In fairness there is some hope, though (given how well Great Britain fared generally in the course of Timeline-191 ) I'm horribly inclined to suspect it, per Tolkien, "only a fool's hope"*); this is partly because, unlike the relatively recent grudge conceived against Japan on 7th December 1941 in our own history, the United States has hated Great Britain since AD 1775 and been offered precious few opportunities to stop doing so since SOUTHERN VICTORY in the 1860s.

There's enough bad blood between these two to run the Thames red; possibly even enough to fill Lake Ontario.

*Which is to say possible, but only just (Rather than genuinely foolish).


I would also expect London to recover since first generation atomic weapons aren't powerful enough to permanently wreck a city. (Hiroshima has more than a million people living in it today.)

In terms of a physical recovery, I agree; the problem is that Hiroshima was deliberately chosen because it was a provincial city more comparable to Birmingham or Coventry than to London - which is not only a National capital but a World City. The social, economic & political consequences (not to mention the cultural consequences) of London's loss would almost certainly be without a close parallel in our own timeline - which, in fact, helps to make it an especially fascinating study for an Alternate City (If one can cope with the hideous, hideous keystone of this particular mental exercise).

Hence my fears that while the city might recover, it might not come anywhere near it's former glories.


Probably a lot will depend on how US-German relations are in the aftermath of the SGW. If the US and Germany stay friendly then Britain may be in for a rough few decades, but if US-German relations chill then the Germans might be willing to help Britain at least economically recover so as to strengthen the German bloc against the US.

That is, I agree, the key aspect of any answer to this thread's core question: are German and the US worried enough about each other to sponsor Great Britain as a counterbalance to their rival? (As mentioned above, I suspect that even if the USA is worried about keeping Germany on the east bank of the Atlantic, the Republic of Ireland makes a far more logical proxy & base of operations - given the Irish actually like and have consistently worked as an ally with the USA and are NOT a nuked out wreck - so it might well come down to a question of whether the Germans can afford to sponsor a British recovery).

One key problem facing Great Britain in Timeline-191 (heck, facing the wider world to boot) is that there's no Uncle Sugar - home territories 99.9% intact and untroubled - to fund a Marshall plan; with the possible exception of Brazil, every single Great Power has been worked over and none of them are feeling especially charitable towards their old rivals.

Would Britain be able to avoid occupation?

I sincerely doubt it; it also bears pointing out that, even if the Central Powers don't let loose another super-bomb, they can still keep up a conventional bombing campaign against Great Britain that would also wreck the country (Albeit more slowly) and the British Government, almost certainly a nearly-complete wreck itself, is going to be in a horribly weak position to counter any such campaign.


Very possible especially if Edward VIII also survived the London nuke ? His abdication would be demanded at the very least. Perhaps he does it willingly as in OTL but for a much different reason here-to try and insure the monarchy isnt abolished ?

That's a very real possibility, though the unanswered question here is what King Edward VIII's position towards the United States & Germany was prior to the Second Great War; given he was very outspokenly in favour of a rapprochement with Germany in our timeline, I wouldn't be surprised if he was a leading voice in efforts to patch up a detente between the Wars (probably advocating an "America First" policy at the very least - and possibly even arguing, discretely, for a German alliance).

If Edward VIII was in favour of peace but cheerfully ignored by His Majesty's Government (or at least not too loud about his appreciation for the Yanks & the Boche getting a right good kicking) then it's possible there would be no great difficulty retaining him on the throne in the interests of constitutional continuity (at least not on the part of Germany or the United States; his subjects might have other ideas).


Well, was thinking that Labour, radicalized by the Churchill-Mosley coalition, ends up having a strong republican contingent and many in Britain end up turning against the monarchy owing to its enabling of the regime.

It's also quite possible that a Republican movement would claim that the United States of America is more likely to favour a British Commonwealth, run as a republic, than it is to support the heirs of old King George; they might well advocate a Republic as the best way to avoid becoming a Puppet state of the very Reich that immolated three British cities.

Whether they carry the day or not very much depends on how closely the Royal family as a whole was associated with the Regime; if there's a branch of the Royal Family associated with a Democratic response to the Silver Shirts (and assuming it survives the war), then it's possible the Royal Family may be retained (at least for a time).

I think we can safely say that, whether the Crown is retained or a Republic is imposed, the era of British history following the beginning of it's proper recovery from the Second Great War (i.e. by the point a war-weary, radiation-sickened population recovers enough energy to be proper Angry) will be known as 'The Troubles'.
 
You know, the scenario suggested above - with the Royalists & the Republicans vying for charge of the reconstruction under the distant, watchful scrutiny of the United States & the German Reich, with Ireland & Great Britain eyeing each other without the slightest particle of friendship (and possibly employed as proxies by the USA & Germany respectively), with some very angry colonials presumably headed home as the British Empire finishes going to pieces, would be a fairly excellent setting for a rather bleak Spy Thriller (I'd bet some nations would be very, very pleased to trade Great Britain's nuclear secrets for a consideration to the one willing to trade them, which the USA & the Germans are explicitly & understandably keen to prevent).
 
In terms of a physical recovery, I agree; the problem is that Hiroshima was deliberately chosen because it was a provincial city more comparable to Birmingham or Coventry than to London - which is not only a National capital but a World City. The social, economic & political consequences (not to mention the cultural consequences) of London's loss would almost certainly be without a close parallel in our own timeline - which, in fact, helps to make it an especially fascinating study for an Alternate City (If one can cope with the hideous, hideous keystone of this particular mental exercise).

Hence my fears that while the city might recover, it might not come anywhere near it's former glories.
Especially if the Brits ITTL might decide to built a new capital (maybe Milton Keynes (or more accurately, the city built on its OTL location) ITTL ends up being built as a Very British version of Brasilia or Islamabad) or move it to another city?
 
Ah! One key question facing Timeline-191 after the Second Great War is just how willing the United States will be to do business with the British Empire as the price of giving Japan a seriously good kicking (Also, how far the USA is willing to push things in the Pacific right after being worked over back home); I'd bet cash money that a major reason for the Blackford & Hoover Administration's failure to land a telling blow during the Pacific War of the 1920s (Arguably a crucial precondition for the South to think it has a snowball's chance in Hell against the Northern Colossus) is that the British Empire & Dominions very politely insisted on their neutrality in the conflict (and quite possibly employed that neutrality with malice aforethought to make life as difficult as possible for the USA).

While the US does have some bases in the Pacific, they're mostly a long way from the Western shores of that ocean (and, if memory serves, almost all the powers who could put the US Navy in a better position for a telling blow are former members of the Entente; while Russia probably bears no grudges, they don't really owe the US - especially a Socialist Administration - any favours; the British Empire most assuredly does bear a grudge; the Japanese are, of course, hostile; the only major neutral in the area is the Netherlands, who might support the US against the Japanese as a way of taking the wind out of their most aggressive neighbour's sails, but who might also prefer not to attract the hostile attention of the Japanese and risking the British Empire's displeasure*).

*Some have suggested that Germany would demand the return of German Samoa et all at the negotiating table after the Great War; I feel that, while it's possible they would demand the return of these territories there's not a hope in Hell the Japanese will hand them back for the asking (and I suspect the Reich would happily trade it's rights to these puny little islands in return for concessions elsewhere, possibly in China).
 
Especially if the Brits ITTL might decide to built a new capital (maybe Milton Keynes (or more accurately, the city built on its OTL location) ITTL ends up being built as a Very British version of Brasilia or Islamabad) or move it to another city?

I'd suspect this would be most likely in the event of a Republic taking charge ("New nation, new capital"); while there has to be an acting capital, I'm not sure the British Government will have enough money to build up a whole new city, as opposed to upgrading an existing historic city or just muddling through until London can be made liveable again - though the Atom bombing may well persuade future British governments to favour a site much, much farther away from the coast of Europe for it's capital.

I'm not sure where the acting capital would be: Oxford suggests itself, with all that lovely civic architecture and Civil War record as capital of the Royalist cause (though that may be more a negative than a positive); Birmingham is safely at the heart of Great Britain, but might be a little too workday for the British Government (though a Republican government might embrace that); Manchester could be a plausible 'Dark Horse' candidate, geographically speaking, though it might be a little too close to the Irish Sea if the USA sets up shop on the Emerald Isle.

I'm not sure a Scottish city would get the nod - if nothing else because they're so far north of England & Wales and far less centrally located (admittedly London is at the hub of transport links only because she's been the capital since James I & VI, rather than because of it's central location, but no other British city benefits from that 'Grandfather clause').
 

MaxGerke01

Kicked
Banned
That's a very real possibility, though the unanswered question here is what King Edward VIII's position towards the United States & Germany was prior to the Second Great War; given he was very outspokenly in favour of a rapprochement with Germany in our timeline, I wouldn't be surprised if he was a leading voice in efforts to patch up a detente between the Wars (probably advocating an "America First" policy at the very least - and possibly even arguing, discretely, for a German alliance).

If Edward VIII was in favour of peace but cheerfully ignored by His Majesty's Government (or at least not too loud about his appreciation for the Yanks & the Boche getting a right good kicking) then it's possible there would be no great difficulty retaining him on the throne in the interests of constitutional continuity (at least not on the part of Germany or the United States; his subjects might have other ideas).
Interesting question is alternate Edward VIII more pro Britains enemies which means hes pro American and/or German or is he more pro fascist which means he supports Churchill/Moseley,France ,Russia and the CSA ?
 
I don't honestly know; I do not believe the novels ever give any particularly close look at His Majesty, much less a clear insight into his attitudes towards the 'Silver Shirts' and the various Great Powers (But then the focus of Timeline-191 has always been very much on North America, logically-enough; pointing out that the Confederate States of America was not a Good idea is quite possibly the novels' biggest selling point and giving a detailed look at all the many, many reasons this should be the case is a sensible reason for all the PoV characters to be Americans - albeit not necessarily US citizens).
 

bguy

Donor
This is also very possible but again it depends. To me there is little chance the USA would occupy Britain if its holding down Canada and the former CSA. As for Germany Im not sure.Occupying Britain would be much harder than France and Russia.For one thing who is to say that the British wouldnt try and fight them off despite their superbombs .Maybe Britain has another 1 or 2 squirreled away ?

They might try to fight on, but that's not a fight that is going to go well for them. Germany appears to be outproducing them on nuclear weapons (since the Germans produced 5 in the same amount of time the British produced 2), and also appears to be better able to deliver its nukes on target (the Germans have a 100% success rate with all 5 of their special weapons hitting their targets whereas the British only have a 50% success rate with their nukes.) And of course with the US having defeated the Confederates, it's free to start sending nuclear capable bombers over to Germany as well and start unleashing its nukes on the British Isles also. Thus if Britain isn't quite in checkmate at that point, it's definitely one or two moves away from it.

In fairness there is some hope, though (given how well Great Britain fared generally in the course of Timeline-191 ) I'm horribly inclined to suspect it, per Tolkien, "only a fool's hope"*); this is partly because, unlike the relatively recent grudge conceived against Japan on 7th December 1941 in our own history, the United States has hated Great Britain since AD 1775 and been offered precious few opportunities to stop doing so since SOUTHERN VICTORY in the 1860s.

There's enough bad blood between these two to run the Thames red; possibly even enough to fill Lake Ontario.

I don't know. In the Settling Accounts books the US POV characters don't seem to particularly hate Churchill. (Indeed a lot of the US characters seem to have a grudging respect for him.) That could represent a softening in the US attitude towards the British where they're an enemy, but not the enemy.

In terms of a physical recovery, I agree; the problem is that Hiroshima was deliberately chosen because it was a provincial city more comparable to Birmingham or Coventry than to London - which is not only a National capital but a World City. The social, economic & political consequences (not to mention the cultural consequences) of London's loss would almost certainly be without a close parallel in our own timeline - which, in fact, helps to make it an especially fascinating study for an Alternate City (If one can cope with the hideous, hideous keystone of this particular mental exercise).

Would London really have been damaged any worse than Tokyo was IOTL though?

That is, I agree, the key aspect of any answer to this thread's core question: are German and the US worried enough about each other to sponsor Great Britain as a counterbalance to their rival? (As mentioned above, I suspect that even if the USA is worried about keeping Germany on the east bank of the Atlantic, the Republic of Ireland makes a far more logical proxy & base of operations - given the Irish actually like and have consistently worked as an ally with the USA and are NOT a nuked out wreck - so it might well come down to a question of whether the Germans can afford to sponsor a British recovery).

I agree the US would prefer Ireland as an ally, but would the Irish be interested in an actual military alliance? Britain is no longer a threat after the SGW, and Ireland doesn't really have any beef with the German Empire, so why let the Americans build military bases in their country and potentially become a target for the Germans.

One key problem facing Great Britain in Timeline-191 (heck, facing the wider world to boot) is that there's no Uncle Sugar - home territories 99.9% intact and untroubled - to fund a Marshall plan; with the possible exception of Brazil, every single Great Power has been worked over and none of them are feeling especially charitable towards their old rivals.

Definitely.

I sincerely doubt it; it also bears pointing out that, even if the Central Powers don't let loose another super-bomb, they can still keep up a conventional bombing campaign against Great Britain that would also wreck the country (Albeit more slowly) and the British Government, almost certainly a nearly-complete wreck itself, is going to be in a horribly weak position to counter any such campaign.

To say nothing of Germany and the U.S. spamming submarines to blockade the British Isles.

That's a very real possibility, though the unanswered question here is what King Edward VIII's position towards the United States & Germany was prior to the Second Great War; given he was very outspokenly in favour of a rapprochement with Germany in our timeline, I wouldn't be surprised if he was a leading voice in efforts to patch up a detente between the Wars (probably advocating an "America First" policy at the very least - and possibly even arguing, discretely, for a German alliance).

That could help explain why Britain declared war on the U.S. (Something that from a purely military perspective didn't make a lot of sense for the British to do.)

It's also quite possible that a Republican movement would claim that the United States of America is more likely to favour a British Commonwealth, run as a republic, than it is to support the heirs of old King George; they might well advocate a Republic as the best way to avoid becoming a Puppet state of the very Reich that immolated three British cities.

That's an interesting thought. And it's not like they would even be wrong as the U.S. almost certainly would be more open to a Republican Britain.

Ah! One key question facing Timeline-191 after the Second Great War is just how willing the United States will be to do business with the British Empire as the price of giving Japan a seriously good kicking (Also, how far the USA is willing to push things in the Pacific right after being worked over back home)

Given how much the US already has on its plate in North America, I doubt they will push things much in the Pacific anytime soon.

I'd bet cash money that a major reason for the Blackford & Hoover Administration's failure to land a telling blow during the Pacific War of the 1920s (Arguably a crucial precondition for the South to think it has a snowball's chance in Hell against the Northern Colossus) is that the British Empire & Dominions very politely insisted on their neutrality in the conflict (and quite possibly employed that neutrality with malice aforethought to make life as difficult as possible for the USA).

Agreed. I always assumed that one of the main reasons Hoover wasn't willing to commit the U.S. to a serious fight against Japan (aside from his humanitarianism) was his concern that Britain might jump the U.S. in the Atlantic if it got too engaged in the Pacific (and also that Germany might not have the U.S.'s back if that happened, since the U.S.-German alliance was looking pretty shaky at that point.)

While the US does have some bases in the Pacific, they're mostly a long way from the Western shores of that ocean (and, if memory serves, almost all the powers who could put the US Navy in a better position for a telling blow are former members of the Entente; while Russia probably bears no grudges, they don't really owe the US - especially a Socialist Administration - any favours; the British Empire most assuredly does bear a grudge; the Japanese are, of course, hostile; the only major neutral in the area is the Netherlands, who might support the US against the Japanese as a way of taking the wind out of their most aggressive neighbour's sails, but who might also prefer not to attract the hostile attention of the Japanese and risking the British Empire's displeasure*).

It's even worse than that since in TL-191 Japan controls the Dutch East Indies.
 
And of course with the US having defeated the Confederates, it's free to start sending nuclear capable bombers over to Germany as well and start unleashing its nukes on the British Isles also.

It also bears keeping in mind that, even before the Super-bombing of London, Bristol & Norwich, the German Air Force would have been plastering those bits of Britain close enough to bomber bases on the Continent: as mentioned above, even without further deployment of atomic weaponry it's extremely doubtful the British government & people could hope to hold on much longer (Especially since the Churchill government explicitly falls after the demolition of London et al).


I don't know. In the Settling Accounts books the US POV characters don't seem to particularly hate Churchill. (Indeed a lot of the US characters seem to have a grudging respect for him.) That could represent a softening in the US attitude towards the British where they're an enemy, but not the enemy.

It's also possible that, as was the case with Rommel, this is a level respect for Churchill as a man not reflecting any admiration for the nation he serves & commands; it would be nice to imagine an Anglo-American reconciliation, but I'm not expecting it any time before 1975 at the earliest.


Would London really have been damaged any worse than Tokyo was IOTL though?

Given that T-191 London suffered both an ongoing Blitz AND an Atomic Bomb, it very possibly was (Which is a truly frightening thought).


I agree the US would prefer Ireland as an ally, but would the Irish be interested in an actual military alliance? Britain is no longer a threat after the SGW, and Ireland doesn't really have any beef with the German Empire, so why let the Americans build military bases in their country and potentially become a target for the Germans.

Firstly, to make damn sure that Great Britain isn't going to be in a position to damage the Emerald Isle any time soon; secondly, because if the United States of America is going to help any European nation back on it's feet after 2GW it's going to be Ireland - but there's almost certainly going to be a price tag attached to that aid, which I'm not sure Ireland can hope to go without.

On the other hand it's a fair point that Ireland wouldn't be keen to make an enemy of Germany; however, neither would Ireland wish to be beholden to the Kaiser et al (and since the Germans are dominating Europe, if Ireland wants to avoid being dominated they need a counterbalance to German might - and the only one available is the United States of America).

Admittedly there is a third possibility, but that sort of neutrality probably requires Ireland to dirt-poor obscurity for the rest of the 20th Century (Given the Emerald Isle has been shot up in the Great War and seen it's lines of supply & commerce from Great Britain rather thoroughly shredded, it's hard to see any means other than US or German aid to get the Irish back to prospering).


To say nothing of Germany and the U.S. spamming submarines to blockade the British Isles.

Submarines at the very least; I'd suspect the US navy would still be in a position to send surface raiders into British waters with some possibility of savaging the coast (especially if the Germans are willing to fly cover for the Americans).



That could help explain why Britain declared war on the U.S. (Something that from a purely military perspective didn't make a lot of sense for the British to do.)

As noted elsewhere the Anglo-American grudge is probably all but pathological in Timeline-191; if they can do each other harm they will (It also bears pointing out that if the Confederate States are left all alone, they're going to get hammered flat by land & sea; my guess is that the Churchill Government wanted to make the most of what might well be the last chance to use the Confederate States as a proxy on land/keep the US from utterly dominating the Americas, while taking advantage of that diversion to snatch back the more strategically useful ex-British holdings in the Western Hemisphere).

It is, I suspect, an act of naked opportunism and considerable desperation.


That's an interesting thought. And it's not like they would even be wrong as the U.S. almost certainly would be more open to a Republican Britain.
Truly the measure of how different the Timeline-191 Democrats are from the version existing in our own timeline!;)


Given how much the US already has on its plate in North America, I doubt they will push things much in the Pacific anytime soon.

"True dat" as the poet says; I would be surprised if the US made no effort to curtail Japanese expansion though (probably by sponsoring the China & the ANZAC powers, going easy on the British Empire in the East and supporting subversive movements in Japanese territories).



Agreed. I always assumed that one of the main reasons Hoover wasn't willing to commit the U.S. to a serious fight against Japan (aside from his humanitarianism) was his concern that Britain might jump the U.S. in the Atlantic if it got too engaged in the Pacific (and also that Germany might not have the U.S.'s back if that happened, since the U.S.-German alliance was looking pretty shaky at that point.)

All true and he also has to worry about Occupied Canada, Houston & Kentucky to boot (probably Baja California as well); while the South is in no position to fight the US in the field, there's a large number of southern fighting men in Mexico who could be brought north for a bit of mischief on the quiet.

I do suspect that Great Britain would be reluctant to press the United States very hard at this point though (perhaps not even diplomatically); the US Navy is doing the Lord's Work keeping the Japanese Empire a little more humble (not to mention too busy to try snapping up the East Indies) and I doubt His Majesty's Government wants to risk being stabbed in the back by the German Reich while trying to snap up the odd Caribbean island (Especially since France & Russia are probably in a much weaker position than they would be in 1941).


It's even worse than that since in TL-191 Japan controls the Dutch East Indies.

Oof, I knew the Japanese acquired the Dutch holdings at some point, but didn't realise they had already done so by the start of the Pacific War; no wonder the US war effort didn't go anywhere useful - their only racing certainty for an ally was China and Chinese ports would simply be too far from the available US bases to be useful (I wonder if Great Britain put pressure on Russia to deny the US navy use of their ports? Or perhaps put pressure on France to put pressure on Russia; It's easy to imagine the Tsar being persuaded to make common cause with the USA to curtail Japanese expansion in the Far East otherwise - possibly through an Alaska purchase?*).

*Though that would probably be a hard sell to the US Congress and, for that matter, to Herbert Hoover (especially if a Russian declaration of war on Japan were out of the question); I can see an FDR having the audacity & stick-with-it ruthlessness to pull that sort of thing off, but not HH (Still, pulling Russia out of the Entente orbit, however briefly, would be something of a coup - especially if such an accommodation were only the thin end of a wedge; on the other hand a US/Russia rapprochement might well give Germany night terrors to such a degree that the Kaiser's men would seriously consider an alignment with the British Empire).
 
Top