Jump to content


Alternate History Discussion: The Death of Churchill


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
92 replies to this topic

Sqn Ldr B #41 Posted 11 March 2016 - 09:20 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 6141 battles
  • 18,352
  • Member since:
    02-14-2014

View PostNavyman8390, on 11 March 2016 - 09:17 PM, said:

So Britain considered India more valuable real estate than North America?  Why then did Britain choose to waste resources in 1812 knowing the logistical hurdles were still the same?  Knowing that Napoleon next door had "little man's complex"? Was George III off his royal rocker?

 

George III off his rocker? Understatement of the year my man! Seriously, George III was actually declared permanently insane in 1811. George IV took over in a period known as "The Regency". Yes, he really was mad.

View PostGingerNinjaMax, on 11 March 2016 - 09:18 PM, said:

 

bang on sir but not just strip of desert but a jungle or small / large island and all climates in between

 

Yeah. I had Aden in mind with the desert, but big lump of jungle for India or crappy little islands full of angry insects for Malaya or whatever would work.

"Remember that you are an Englishman, and have consequently won first prize in the lottery of life" ~ Cecil Rhodes

Click For a Compilation of My Ideas


GingerNinjaMax #42 Posted 11 March 2016 - 09:32 PM

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Tester
  • 6523 battles
  • 510
  • Member since:
    12-14-2013

View PostNavyman8390, on 11 March 2016 - 09:17 PM, said:

So Britain considered India more valuable real estate than North America?  Why then did Britain choose to waste resources in 1812 knowing the logistical hurdles were still the same?  Knowing that Napoleon next door had "little man's complex"? Was George III off his royal rocker?

 

Yes he was treated for insanity. never heard of the phrase The Madness of King George . they even made a film of it!

I said that at that time (1760 -1780) India was considered a better bet and the East India company had got itself a nice little foot hold in India whereas America was still agricultural and a small colony of settlers with enemies all around. too much hard work whereas India was rich and thanks to the Moghuls fairly well developed.

By the time of the war of 1812 Britain thought of the Americas as a nice little prospect and thanks to it being close to its Canadian territories an easy target to aquire which  with its newly developed wealth could help with the main prize which was defeating Napoleon. It was never really going to be successful. Just  look at the size of the forces used to invade America in 1812. nowhere near enough. Britain was very presumptuous thinking the Yanks would just roll over. I know India or America hmm hmm....?  Hind sight is a wonderful thing



Matthew J35U5 #43 Posted 12 March 2016 - 02:38 AM

    Major

  • Players
  • 14028 battles
  • 12,033
  • [GIRLS]
  • Member since:
    09-09-2013

View PostNavyman8390, on 11 March 2016 - 04:17 PM, said:

So Britain considered India more valuable real estate than North America?  Why then did Britain choose to waste resources in 1812 knowing the logistical hurdles were still the same?  Knowing that Napoleon next door had "little man's complex"? Was George III off his royal rocker?

India was more valuable than North America.

 

America started the war of 1812, not Britain, why would they just give up without a fight?

View PostSqn Ldr B, on 11 March 2016 - 04:11 PM, said:

Yes, after WW1 the Empire was at its strongest. After WW2 Britain had to repay her war debts. Lend Lease, debts to production companies, all the equipment they had bought on credit, all the loans they had taken out to buy things for the war. Britain simply couldn't afford an Empire any more, and the British people were tired. After two world wars they simply weren't in the mood for a colonial conflict. What, really, was the point in bloodshed over a strip of desert full of people who didn't want you to rule them and that cost more than you could afford?

I mean, it was largest after WWI. But the Empire had been declining (in relative power) since 1870 or so.


KeystoneCops, on 14 June 2015 - 12:51 PM, said:


NSW Mntd Rifles #44 Posted 12 March 2016 - 06:01 AM

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 39457 battles
  • 595
  • Member since:
    02-15-2014
The British Empire reached its zenith under Queen Victoria and had actually gone from strength to strength after that little scrap in the restive American colonies. My contention is that the empire was struggling before World War II. The independence movementsthatbecame so strident in the late 1940s had their origins in the early 20th century. After the war Britain became so obsessed with Europe that it lost the will to keep an empire. In my view it was the dominions that fought hardest to build the Commonwealth and maintain the strength of the Sterling block. Britain joining the Common Market was a betrayal of that loyalty.

Sqn Ldr B #45 Posted 12 March 2016 - 10:07 AM

    Major

  • Players
  • 6141 battles
  • 18,352
  • Member since:
    02-14-2014
India was quite clearly a lot more valuable. In terms of what is naturally produced, America hasn't got a whole lot. America only becomes an economic power house when industrialisation happens.

"Remember that you are an Englishman, and have consequently won first prize in the lottery of life" ~ Cecil Rhodes

Click For a Compilation of My Ideas


Matthew J35U5 #46 Posted 13 March 2016 - 05:16 AM

    Major

  • Players
  • 14028 battles
  • 12,033
  • [GIRLS]
  • Member since:
    09-09-2013

View PostSqn Ldr B, on 12 March 2016 - 05:07 AM, said:

India was quite clearly a lot more valuable. In terms of what is naturally produced, America hasn't got a whole lot. America only becomes an economic power house when industrialisation happens.

 

Well, the whole, "Empire with 1/5th of the world's population", with like 80% of that being India. The British Empire was basically India, and places that led to India. The dominions weren't even worth continuing to govern directly. 

KeystoneCops, on 14 June 2015 - 12:51 PM, said:


Sqn Ldr B #47 Posted 13 March 2016 - 10:00 AM

    Major

  • Players
  • 6141 battles
  • 18,352
  • Member since:
    02-14-2014

View PostMatthew J35U5, on 13 March 2016 - 05:16 AM, said:

 

Well, the whole, "Empire with 1/5th of the world's population", with like 80% of that being India. The British Empire was basically India, and places that led to India. The dominions weren't even worth continuing to govern directly. 

 

Not economically. Politically though, the Empire had an outpost in most places. Singapore and Malaya in the Pacific, Hong Kong in China, British Guyana in South America, Bermuda, Ascension and the Falklands in the Atlantic, Newfoundland in North America, Jamaica in the Caribbean, Egypt, Benin, Somaliland, Kenya, Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Rhodesia in Africa, Malta, Gibraltar and Cyprus in the Mediterranean. The British Empire was practically everywhere.

"Remember that you are an Englishman, and have consequently won first prize in the lottery of life" ~ Cecil Rhodes

Click For a Compilation of My Ideas


Matthew J35U5 #48 Posted 13 March 2016 - 05:17 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 14028 battles
  • 12,033
  • [GIRLS]
  • Member since:
    09-09-2013

View PostSqn Ldr B, on 13 March 2016 - 05:00 AM, said:

 

Not economically. Politically though, the Empire had an outpost in most places. Singapore and Malaya in the Pacific, Hong Kong in China, British Guyana in South America, Bermuda, Ascension and the Falklands in the Atlantic, Newfoundland in North America, Jamaica in the Caribbean, Egypt, Benin, Somaliland, Kenya, Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Rhodesia in Africa, Malta, Gibraltar and Cyprus in the Mediterranean. The British Empire was practically everywhere.

 

Yes, I understand that, but most of those places were barely worth the cost of governing. Important parts of the Empire other than India would be Gibralter and Suez (as well as other mediterranean spots) to protect their route to India, and prior to the building of the Suez canal, South Africa.

KeystoneCops, on 14 June 2015 - 12:51 PM, said:


GingerNinjaMax #49 Posted 14 March 2016 - 12:52 AM

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Tester
  • 6523 battles
  • 510
  • Member since:
    12-14-2013

View PostSqn Ldr B, on 13 March 2016 - 10:00 AM, said:

 

Not economically. Politically though, the Empire had an outpost in most places. Singapore and Malaya in the Pacific, Hong Kong in China, British Guyana in South America, Bermuda, Ascension and the Falklands in the Atlantic, Newfoundland in North America, Jamaica in the Caribbean, Egypt, Benin, Somaliland, Kenya, Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Rhodesia in Africa, Malta, Gibraltar and Cyprus in the Mediterranean. The British Empire was practically everywhere.

 

View PostMatthew J35U5, on 13 March 2016 - 05:17 PM, said:

 

Yes, I understand that, but most of those places were barely worth the cost of governing. Important parts of the Empire other than India would be Gibralter and Suez (as well as other mediterranean spots) to protect their route to India, and prior to the building of the Suez canal, South Africa.

 

It is more than just Gibraltar and Suez. Places such as Ascension, the Falklands, Hong Kong and Malaya and others you mention are staging posts and resupply posts to protect all the trade routes to and from the big dominions India, South Africa and Australia. The only reason most of them are still British today is their strategic value. In the modern age that is not so important but in the days when ships and planes needed refuelling etc these were just as important as more profitable colonies

Edited by GingerNinjaMax, 14 March 2016 - 12:54 AM.


GingerNinjaMax #50 Posted 14 March 2016 - 12:59 AM

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Tester
  • 6523 battles
  • 510
  • Member since:
    12-14-2013

View PostNSW Mntd Rifles, on 12 March 2016 - 06:01 AM, said:

The British Empire reached its zenith under Queen Victoria and had actually gone from strength to strength after that little scrap in the restive American colonies. My contention is that the empire was struggling before World War II. The independence movementsthatbecame so strident in the late 1940s had their origins in the early 20th century. After the war Britain became so obsessed with Europe that it lost the will to keep an empire. In my view it was the dominions that fought hardest to build the Commonwealth and maintain the strength of the Sterling block. Britain joining the Common Market was a betrayal of that loyalty.

 

On behalf of an Ungrateful Nation I apologise for this gross insult to our dominions and their peoples including the many thousands who gave their lives for King/Queen and Britain

Matthew J35U5 #51 Posted 14 March 2016 - 03:38 AM

    Major

  • Players
  • 14028 battles
  • 12,033
  • [GIRLS]
  • Member since:
    09-09-2013

View PostGingerNinjaMax, on 13 March 2016 - 07:52 PM, said:

 

 

It is more than just Gibraltar and Suez. Places such as Ascension, the Falklands, Hong Kong and Malaya and others you mention are staging posts and resupply posts to protect all the trade routes to and from the big dominions India, South Africa and Australia. The only reason most of them are still British today is their strategic value. In the modern age that is not so important but in the days when ships and planes needed refuelling etc these were just as important as more profitable colonies

Sure, but what I'm trying to say is that while there were lots of colonial powers; France, Germany, the Netherlands, etc, what made Britain's colonial Empire different was that it controlled India. 


KeystoneCops, on 14 June 2015 - 12:51 PM, said:


NSW Mntd Rifles #52 Posted 15 March 2016 - 07:58 AM

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 39457 battles
  • 595
  • Member since:
    02-15-2014

View PostGingerNinjaMax, on 14 March 2016 - 10:59 AM, said:

 

On behalf of an Ungrateful Nation I apologise for this gross insult to our dominions and their peoples including the many thousands who gave their lives for King/Queen and Britain

I guessI only said what I said because I am old enough to remember the real sense of sadness in Australia when Britain withdrew from east of Aden in the 1960s. And I've never believed that the European Union was the right fit for Britain.



Banshee Bear #53 Posted 26 March 2016 - 04:26 PM

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 5880 battles
  • 213
  • Member since:
    02-15-2014

View PostMatthew J35U5, on 14 March 2016 - 03:38 AM, said:

Sure, but what I'm trying to say is that while there were lots of colonial powers; France, Germany, the Netherlands, etc, what made Britain's colonial Empire different was that it controlled India. 

 

and that for large periods of time the economic activity of the Empire was internal, to generalise: raw materials flowed into Britain and finished goods poured out. in a world that was pre-panama and pre-suez, the india market could not be reliably and exclusively serviced without those 'lesser' colonies and protected routes.

"Woe to him whom they should smite, woe to him at whom they shall be flung, against whom they shall be cast; they will be instruments of oppression.

Death is in their mighty blows, destruction in but one descent of them; wounds are their hard plying; overwhelming is the horror of them." From The First Battle of Magh Turedh

-

"When I and these are dead, We should be carried to some windy hill, To lie there with uncovered face awhile, That mankind and that leper there may know, Dead faces laugh. King! King! Dead faces laugh." W.B Yeats. 'The Kings Threshold'


May0r McCheez #54 Posted 26 March 2016 - 05:23 PM

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 12850 battles
  • 281
  • Member since:
    09-26-2015

EDIT: actually just fully read the title and saw death of Churchill. sorry to post absolutely nothing of value, but here ya go anyway.

 

 

Harry Turtledove

 

World War / Colonization series. 8 books

-and-

Great War / American Empire / Settling Accounts series. 11 books

 

Forgive my ignorance for just skimming, all I saw was "alternate history" and had to share these gems for anyone interested in the genre. Forget 'The Man in the High Castle' - if they made either one of those series a show or movie, it would be amazing.

 

The World War / Colonization series is sci fi / alternate history. WWII, 1942 I think the book starts, krauts are on top of their game then aliens invade the earth. These aliens are like lizards, think a 4 foot tall Geico gecko. The technology they have have is the technology we have today, except they use hydrogen instead of fossil fuels. So it starts out with a British bombing raid, the bombers start to come under attack from the germans then out of nowhere everyone starts getting blown to hell, because the aliens just arrived in F-16 style fighter jets. The tanks they use are the equivalent to an M1 Abrams. They start dropping nukes on cities. Now in the middle of the german death machine, humanity must band together to fight the aliens, WWII is put on pause with all the policies and battle lines drawn....

 

 

The Great War series is pure alternate history. What a joy to read those books. The south wins the civil war, the US is now two countries, USA and CSA. Lincoln never gets assassinated, becomes disdainful of the Republican party.. meets a guy named Karl Marx and becomes inspired by him, goes on the create the US Communist party, so it's Communists and Democrats. Events unfold in a way where WWI is fought in North America, with north and south against eachother again. The Allies (the USA and co.) win WWI - there's a very, very disgruntled WWI vet who feels his country got the shaft, and it's because of black people.. WWII happens. Utah is also an issue in this series, the Mormons have to actively be pacified by the US government. The USA occupies Canada and has to deal with Canadian partisans..

 

What this guy does with actual people that existed and real events, it's amazing. Truly a joy to read.

 

He has another on about the south winning the civil war that is stand alone, in this one, South African white supremacists go back in time and give General Lee AK-47's and MRE's....

 

You can never, ever thank yourself enough for reading these books.


Edited by Proletarian1917, 26 March 2016 - 05:26 PM.


Niles Y93 #55 Posted 27 March 2016 - 11:22 AM

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 10040 battles
  • 801
  • Member since:
    02-15-2014

View PostProletarian1917, on 26 March 2016 - 12:23 PM, said:

EDIT: actually just fully read the title and saw death of Churchill. sorry to post absolutely nothing of value, but here ya go anyway.

 

 

Harry Turtledove

 

World War / Colonization series. 8 books

-and-

Great War / American Empire / Settling Accounts series. 11 books

 

Forgive my ignorance for just skimming, all I saw was "alternate history" and had to share these gems for anyone interested in the genre. Forget 'The Man in the High Castle' - if they made either one of those series a show or movie, it would be amazing.

 

The World War / Colonization series is sci fi / alternate history. WWII, 1942 I think the book starts, krauts are on top of their game then aliens invade the earth. These aliens are like lizards, think a 4 foot tall Geico gecko. The technology they have have is the technology we have today, except they use hydrogen instead of fossil fuels. So it starts out with a British bombing raid, the bombers start to come under attack from the germans then out of nowhere everyone starts getting blown to hell, because the aliens just arrived in F-16 style fighter jets. The tanks they use are the equivalent to an M1 Abrams. They start dropping nukes on cities. Now in the middle of the german death machine, humanity must band together to fight the aliens, WWII is put on pause with all the policies and battle lines drawn....

 

 

The Great War series is pure alternate history. What a joy to read those books. The south wins the civil war, the US is now two countries, USA and CSA. Lincoln never gets assassinated, becomes disdainful of the Republican party.. meets a guy named Karl Marx and becomes inspired by him, goes on the create the US Communist party, so it's Communists and Democrats. Events unfold in a way where WWI is fought in North America, with north and south against eachother again. The Allies (the USA and co.) win WWI - there's a very, very disgruntled WWI vet who feels his country got the shaft, and it's because of black people.. WWII happens. Utah is also an issue in this series, the Mormons have to actively be pacified by the US government. The USA occupies Canada and has to deal with Canadian partisans..

 

What this guy does with actual people that existed and real events, it's amazing. Truly a joy to read.

 

He has another on about the south winning the civil war that is stand alone, in this one, South African white supremacists go back in time and give General Lee AK-47's and MRE's....

 

You can never, ever thank yourself enough for reading these books.

 

No problem.

 

BTW, the last book you mention is titled "Guns Of The South".



MrWuvems #56 Posted 28 March 2016 - 03:55 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 10629 battles
  • 8,091
  • Member since:
    11-08-2013
Another interesting thing to consider is what would have happened if Churchill's desire to preserve the empire turned into a wedge issue that prevented the FDR+WC bromance? It's actually quite interesting how much their personal relationship bled into war planning, and Eleanor actually found it adorable.

GingerNinjaMax #57 Posted 28 March 2016 - 04:40 PM

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Tester
  • 6523 battles
  • 510
  • Member since:
    12-14-2013

View PostMrWuvems, on 28 March 2016 - 03:55 PM, said:

Another interesting thing to consider is what would have happened if Churchill's desire to preserve the empire turned into a wedge issue that prevented the FDR+WC bromance? It's actually quite interesting how much their personal relationship bled into war planning, and Eleanor actually found it adorable.

 

as most of our Empire was in the east Franklyn Delano knew it was in America's interest to stop these falling in to the hands of the Japanese who knew even before the war that they were a significant threat to the pacific rim so even if Britain had surrendered to Germany I bet there would be a scramble for Britains eastern colonies

Edited by GingerNinjaMax, 28 March 2016 - 04:42 PM.


Sqn Ldr B #58 Posted 31 March 2016 - 03:29 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 6141 battles
  • 18,352
  • Member since:
    02-14-2014

View PostMrWuvems, on 28 March 2016 - 04:55 PM, said:

Another interesting thing to consider is what would have happened if Churchill's desire to preserve the empire turned into a wedge issue that prevented the FDR+WC bromance? It's actually quite interesting how much their personal relationship bled into war planning, and Eleanor actually found it adorable.

 

Fun fact about FDR and Churchill. Churchill once tried to give FDR Magna Carta to show Anglo-American friendship and also once walked around the White House naked because "the British Prime Minister has nothing to hide from the American President". Nearly gave Eleanor a heart attack.

"Remember that you are an Englishman, and have consequently won first prize in the lottery of life" ~ Cecil Rhodes

Click For a Compilation of My Ideas


MrWuvems #59 Posted 31 March 2016 - 03:53 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 10629 battles
  • 8,091
  • Member since:
    11-08-2013

View PostSqn Ldr B, on 31 March 2016 - 09:29 AM, said:

 

Fun fact about FDR and Churchill. Churchill once tried to give FDR Magna Carta to show Anglo-American friendship and also once walked around the White House naked because "the British Prime Minister has nothing to hide from the American President". Nearly gave Eleanor a heart attack.

 

The story as told from the US perspective was the Churchill was taking a bath and FDR barged into his room all excited to talk about war plans, to which Eleanor was slightly amused but generally unapproving of their conduct, which is much more Eleanor. The US legend around her is that in fiction she'd be the type to be sipping tea as everyone else in the room falls over poisoned before making a quip.

 

View PostGingerNinjaMax, on 28 March 2016 - 10:40 AM, said:

 

as most of our Empire was in the east Franklyn Delano knew it was in America's interest to stop these falling in to the hands of the Japanese who knew even before the war that they were a significant threat to the pacific rim so even if Britain had surrendered to Germany I bet there would be a scramble for Britains eastern colonies

 

It would have impacted the US's pre-war conduct possibly extending the cash-and-carry phase, slowing US output to the UK.

Edited by MrWuvems, 31 March 2016 - 03:54 PM.


Niles Y93 #60 Posted 01 April 2016 - 05:35 AM

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 10040 battles
  • 801
  • Member since:
    02-15-2014

View PostMrWuvems, on 31 March 2016 - 10:53 AM, said:

 

The story as told from the US perspective was the Churchill was taking a bath and FDR barged into his room all excited to talk about war plans, to which Eleanor was slightly amused but generally unapproving of their conduct, which is much more Eleanor. The US legend around her is that in fiction she'd be the type to be sipping tea as everyone else in the room falls over poisoned before making a quip.

 

 

Well that's taking it a stretch.....






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users