WW1 related question. . .

To bring this Bengal Famine tangent back to what the OP asked, if the CP won WW1 there would be no WW2 in the form of OTL so there would be no Bengal Famine in the form it took IOTL. What problems that naturally occurred like drought or flood or whatever would be more easily dealt with as a result of no global war, so for the Bengal people of 1942 a CP victory would be better than OTL.
 
To bring this Bengal Famine tangent back to what the OP asked, if the CP won WW1 there would be no WW2 in the form of OTL so there would be no Bengal Famine in the form it took IOTL. What problems that naturally occurred like drought or flood or whatever would be more easily dealt with as a result of no global war, so for the Bengal people of 1942 a CP victory would be better than OTL.
There is no guarantee of no global war in a CP victory. There might be other issues, there might be a different war ongoing in Bengal at the time, you never know.
 
There is no guarantee of no global war in a CP victory. There might be other issues, there might be a different war ongoing in Bengal at the time, you never know.

Saying there might be another war that affects Bengal is a pretty long bow to draw, the butterflies from a CP victory are so huge that it's just as likely that the natural disasters in Bengal at the time are dealt with by turbine powered heavy lift helicopters flying from nuclear powered ships.
 
Saying there might be another war that affects Bengal is a pretty long bow to draw, the butterflies from a CP victory are so huge that it's just as likely that the natural disasters in Bengal at the time are dealt with by turbine powered heavy lift helicopters flying from nuclear powered ships.
It's not too unlikely. No matter who wins, it's unlikely that a CP victory will usher in an era of peace, prosperity and technological advancement comparable to the 50s and 60s IOTL.
The underlying conflicts would not be resolved. A CP victory is about as likely to be a durable peace as Versailles.
 
It's not too unlikely. No matter who wins, it's unlikely that a CP victory will usher in an era of peace, prosperity and technological advancement comparable to the 50s and 60s IOTL.
The underlying conflicts would not be resolved. A CP victory is about as likely to be a durable peace as Versailles.

On the contrary, the ToV resulted in a pair of weaker powers trying to hold down a stronger power. In a CP victory Greater German MittelEuropa would be individually more powerful than the Soviet Union, Britain or France, likely more powerful than any pair of them and powerful enough to deter a renewed Triple Entente even if the peace treaties broke down. Eastern Europe would be far calmer in the wake of WW1 as most of it would be under victorious CP control rather than leaderless, lawless and revolutionary and Germany would have far less motivation to keep France, Britain and Russia down because compared to Greater Germany they already would be down.

This is not to say there wouldn't be a Pacific War in 1941, only that it would be VASTLY different from OTL so the perfect storm of OTL circumstances would be unlikely to occur.
 
A CP victory is about as likely to be a durable peace as Versailles.


Though much of the trouble abt the ToV is that it simply took more effort to enforce than the victor powers were prepared to make. I don't see the German leadership being so unwilling to enforce *their* terms..

Also, given Germany's size and location in the middle of Europe, enforcement will probably be a lot easier for her than for the Entente.
 
There is no guarantee of no global war in a CP victory. There might be other issues, there might be a different war ongoing in Bengal at the time, you never know.

At some time, quite possibly, but why should it be at the *same* time as OTL? For all we know, by the time it happens, the British may not even be *ruling* India any more.
 
With a CP Victory in WW 1 the entire Colonial map could change, as could de-colonisation. Untold horrors could be unleashed in a cloud of butterflies flying on the wind of unintended consequences.
 
Any particular reason why it should be any better than OTL? It is worth considering what the Alt History of the Indian Sub continent might have been without the British Raj, it might have been better or equally it could have been a horror story. IMVHO far to much of our world history is over politicalised and as lost subjectivity.
 
Why would the Raj be much if any different in CP victory? I grant that maybe it gets dominion status in the 30s or something, but it's not as if the Germans will take it over.
 
Why would the Raj be much if any difent in CP victory? I grant that maybe it gets dominion status in the 30s or something, but it's not as if the Germans will take it over.

“England must have the mask of Christian peaceableness [peacefulness] torn publicly from her face… Our consuls in Turkey and India, agents, etc. must inflame the whole Muslim world to wild revolt against this hateful, lying, conscienceless people of hagglers. For even if we are to be bled to death, at least England shall lose India.”
Wilhelm II, German Kaiser, July 30th 1914

Note that this was before the British declared war on Germany.
 
Why would the Raj be much if any different in CP victory? I grant that maybe it gets dominion status in the 30s or something, but it's not as if the Germans will take it over.
As one diplomat put it before the war, British rule was based on 'prestige and bluff'. If Britain lost the war in 1918, the results for the empire would be catastrophic. Not least because the thousands of brave Indian soldiers (if you read some of their letters, their belief in King, Empire and the cause during this period is really quite moving) will in many cases feel they have fought for nothing.

Of course the Germans wont conquer India, but the British Army, the finest in the world in 1918, would have been defeated. The prestige that largely maintained the Raj would be shattered, like it was at Singapore 25 years later (albeit perhaps more crushingly with it being an Asiatic power rather than European).
 
“England must have the mask of Christian peaceableness [peacefulness] torn publicly from her face… Our consuls in Turkey and India, agents, etc. must inflame the whole Muslim world to wild revolt against this hateful, lying, conscienceless people of hagglers. For even if we are to be bled to death, at least England shall lose India.”
Wilhelm II, German Kaiser, July 30th 1914

Note that this was before the British declared war on Germany.

From a man best known for his sound judgement?

As one diplomat put it before the war, British rule was based on 'prestige and bluff'. If Britain lost the war in 1918, the results for the empire would be catastrophic. Not least because the thousands of brave Indian soldiers (if you read some of their letters, their belief in King, Empire and the cause during this period is really quite moving) will in many cases feel they have fought for nothing.

Of course the Germans wont conquer India, but the British Army, the finest in the world in 1918, would have been defeated. The prestige that largely maintained the Raj would be shattered, like it was at Singapore 25 years later (albeit perhaps more crushingly with it being an Asiatic power rather than European).

IIRC in WW1 most of the Indian Army fought in colonial campaigns in Mesopotamia and Africa where Britain was victorious, while the defeat occurred in Europe out of sight of the Indian Army and in a large way out of mind for the vast majority of people in India. In addition in 1918 there would be plenty of people with first and second hand knowledge of the Indian Mutiny 60 years earlier which would be a sobering influence.

In contrast WW2 bought the enemy to the door of India and therefore to front of mind for a huge number of Indians, to the extent that there was a real possibility that eastern India would be invaded and large numbers of people would join with the Japanese. This is a much different scenario to that of 1918, and by 1945 knowledge of the 1857-58 mutiny would be only 2nd and 3rd hand sources so would not put a brake on any rebellion.
 
The first Indian army soldiers arrived in France September 1914, They were fighting in the Ypres Salient in October. The last Indian Army Units were withdrawn from France in March 1918. Over 130,000 men from the Indian had served on the western front by then. So to say that war in Europe OTL was out of sight to the Indian Army is I think incorrect and does a disservice to those brave men who fought so far from home.
 
The first Indian army soldiers arrived in France September 1914, They were fighting in the Ypres Salient in October. The last Indian Army Units were withdrawn from France in March 1918. Over 130,000 men from the Indian had served on the western front by then. So to say that war in Europe OTL was out of sight to the Indian Army is I think incorrect and does a disservice to those brave men who fought so far from home.

I'm aware of that, which is why I specifically said 'most', indeed those initial 2 Indian divisions were a direct swap for 2 British territorial divisions sent to India to take over defensive duties. The infantry divisions were rotated to the Dardanelles in 1915 so for the last 3 years of the war on the Western Front there were 2 Indian Cavalry divisions as far as I can tell.

While 130,000 Indian soldiers served on the Western front 700,000 men in 9 divisions served in the Mesopotamian campaign, 4 divisions in the Sinai and Palestine campaigns and there were another 4 Indian Army Expeditionary Forces in WW1 and something like 1.7 million people volunteered for the Indian Army in WW1, with 1 million serving overseas.

In any case how does saying most of the Indian Army didn't serve on the Western Front do a disservice to those who did? That's a pretty odd conclusion to draw.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
As long there are clowns and cowards who spread the lies that people should just have submitted the the mighty German (and to a wider degree,Imperialist)overlords.
Then there need to be someone who fight against such lies.
Let me be really clear here:

DO NOT pick fights. Just don't even think about starting something a Mod will need to clean up.

The results will be sub-optimal.
 
It Might seem a nit-pick but i was disappointed by the implication in this sentence: 'large way out of mind for the vast majority of people in India' to me that seemed to mean that the Indian people would and did not care about the fate of their countrymen in Europe as their service and sacrifice was in your opinion was insignificant to people of that continent.
Historical interpretation is so often about nuance and the perception of both writer and reader of the events being described, perhaps I am reading into your writing something that is not there, if so ignore me.
 
If enlightened politicians and statesmen arose in the aftermath of the war, however it ended, a proto EU would form, with Germany presiding, by the end of the 1920s. If many of the participants remained insular and bitter, WW2 would not have occurred but many insurrections and revolts, most ethnic or nationalistic in nature, would occur beginning toward the end of the 1920s and continuing into the 1950s. All of the European powers containing minority ethnicities would spend huge amounts of blood and treasure combating these uprisings. The ultimate outcome of this would leave Europe having many small countries, think Holland in size and population, unless totalitarian fronts countered this fragmenting with far right ideologies forcibly gluing together disparate groups of people into larger nations.

Though Germany wd still be a colossus even if it held only territories inhabited by Germans - and in practice I doubt if its Polish minority in Posen and WP would ever be strong enough to secede.
 
Last edited:
IIRC in WW1 most of the Indian Army fought in colonial campaigns in Mesopotamia and Africa where Britain was victorious, while the defeat occurred in Europe out of sight of the Indian Army and in a large way out of mind for the vast majority of people in India. In addition in 1918 there would be plenty of people with first and second hand knowledge of the Indian Mutiny 60 years earlier which would be a sobering influence.

In contrast WW2 bought the enemy to the door of India and therefore to front of mind for a huge number of Indians, to the extent that there was a real possibility that eastern India would be invaded and large numbers of people would join with the Japanese. This is a much different scenario to that of 1918, and by 1945 knowledge of the 1857-58 mutiny would be only 2nd and 3rd hand sources so would not put a brake on any rebellion.
Oh for certain, the scenario is different. However, I think you underestimate just what damage Britain's defeat and near bankruptcy would do to the empire's prestige. I wouldn't predict that British rule would collapse immediately, but the perception of near invincibility and stability the empire once had would be gone. He's not a military historian, but Robert Tombs in The English and Their History sums it up best I think when he says Britain had to win the Great War. The consequences of it not doing were unthinkable in regards to the country and the empire.

Ultimately, we don't know. Perhaps as you say by giving India dominion status their loyalty could have been maintained. But I'm skeptical to say the least of areas Britain wouldn't be able to militarily crush with ease, continuing to pin their flag to what would have been a humiliated and vastly indebted nation.
 
Top