Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Mr. Burning wrote:If we want a good what if the we would do worse than to read Philip K Dicks - Man In a High Castle.

It deals with post occupation USA after a war where Churchill never came to power.

I've read something like this, but it was Britain, not the US, that was occupied. Churchill not coming to power wouldn't mean the occupation of the US by Germany. I don't think they would have the manpower.

In an alliance with Germany what autonomy would the UK and France have?
I cannot see long term plans for strong independent nations outside of a German sphere of influence.

Hitler at one point demonstrated an admiration for the British Empire. Apart from their handling of India, which of course should have involved more death and nastiness.

An alliance doesn't mean they would become slaves of Germany, but there would probably be an increase of nationalist party movements.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Mr. Burning wrote:If we want a good what if the we would do worse than to read Philip K Dicks - Man In a High Castle.

It deals with post occupation USA after a war where Churchill never came to power.

I've read something like this, but it was Britain, not the US, that was occupied. Churchill not coming to power wouldn't mean the occupation of the US by Germany. I don't think they would have the manpower.

In an alliance with Germany what autonomy would the UK and France have?
I cannot see long term plans for strong independent nations outside of a German sphere of influence.

Hitler at one point demonstrated an admiration for the British Empire. Apart from their handling of India, which of course should have involved more death and nastiness.

An alliance doesn't mean they would become slaves of Germany, but there would probably be an increase of nationalist party movements.

Both Germany and Japan have invaded, they hold both east and west coast, and people are people........

I don't think slaves, think vassals with Germany becoming 'Rome'. With Hitlers ideology and history it wouldn't be a stretch to consider that the UK and France could find themselves invaded at some point and aborbed within a greater Reich. After the pacification of the East.

I wouldn't bet against a full scle Indian mutinity, along with some of the other colonies.

I could well see South Africa totally embracing Nazi ideals and possibly becoming the first known genocidal country.

Mr. Burning wrote:I don't think slaves, think vassals with Germany becoming 'Rome'. With Hitlers ideology and history it wouldn't be a stretch to consider that the UK and France could find themselves invaded at some point and aborbed within a greater Reich. After the pacification of the East.

Hitler repeatedly demonstrated that he was adverse to executing a war with Western Europe from an ideal point of war. He always stated that Germany's future lay in pacifying the East. Which is a process that would take years and very likely exhuast Germany. There's little reason to turn against you allies. Despite the aggressive stance of the Nazi Party, I can't see them attempting to start a war with Western Europe just for the heck of it, especially when they already had the mas allies.

I wouldn't bet against a full scle Indian mutinity, along with some of the other colonies.

They already tried that.

I could well see South Africa totally embracing Nazi ideals and possibly becoming the first known genocidal country.

Wait, what? I thought that was the Israelites.

Wait, what? I thought that was the Israelites.

you know what I mean, I could have been clear though 'me no typy thoughts out welly'.

Mr. Burning wrote:

Wait, what? I thought that was the Israelites.

you know what I mean, I could have been clear though 'me no typy thoughts out welly'.

Israel jokes aside, I'm not sure what you mean regarding South Africa.

I am assuming that in our what if world South Africa may decide on an exercise of more wide ethnic cleansing.

From apartheid to something more sinister.

A more pro right wing Great Britain could lead to some grevious thinking across the pink parts of the map.

Less rights for aboriginal people in Australia too.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
What about the continent of Africa as a whole?
What about South America? What role would they play, would the US have more issues with Mexico?

Spain and Portugal where would they fit in?

Mr. Burning wrote:I am assuming that in our what if world South Africa may decide on an exercise of more wide ethnic cleansing.

From apartheid to something more sinister.

That still wouldn't make them the first country to commit genocide, but even so it's would be a momentous struggle to exterminate the majority of the population, even if in complete control of the army.

A more pro right wing Great Britain could lead to some grevious thinking across the pink parts of the map.

Less rights for aboriginal people in Australia too.

Likely wouldn't have much effect. At that point things weren't too great in any case.

What about the continent of Africa as a whole?

Germany would be interested in reclaiming/rebuilding colonies that had been lost previously.

What about South America? What role would they play, would the US have more issues with Mexico?

Spain and Portugal where would they fit in?

lol dunno. These questions hurt. (Spain and Portugal probably jump on the bandwagon, Spain having lost it's authority as a major European power many years before)

SilverMK2 wrote:

Amaya wrote:Unless you did a freaking amazing alpha strike against the US's industrial complex, you'd have to deal with a long, drawn out, and very bloody war. The US was still warming up by the time the war ended.

However, before the war began America was still in the grips of the depression. During the initial stages of the War (as is in real history), American began to build up arms, material and soldiers/etc (a lot of which was sent to the UK).

Without that market and indeed, without WW2 actually taking place, would America have even started preparing? Or would they have started preparing later on (such as if Axis forces had invaded Russia)?

Without the European theater sapping the majority of US production, Japan would have been utterly annihilated by the full power of the US. Instead of 22 carriers the US eventually produced in WWII, how many would they have made-and all aimed at the Rising Sun.

Imagine how many people in Asia would have survived if a fast track defeat of Japan had occurred?

Of course, if the US had been preparing for war in the way it did during WWII but used all the men and materials to face off against Japan, it would have taken very little time to defeat them.

However, the point was that since there would be no market in the situation that is currently being talked about (a united Europe, either with or without France) and America very much wanting to not get involved in Europe, would they have started ramping up production at all?

Wouldn't matter. We weren't ramping up aircraft carriers at the time.

However, you still need ground forces, munitions, etc. As mentioned earlier, the USA had very few troops (I seem to remember ~170,000ish soldiers in 1939).

SilverMK2 wrote:However, you still need ground forces, munitions, etc. As mentioned earlier, the USA had very few troops (I seem to remember ~170,000ish soldiers in 1939).

No you don't. You just need the US Navy. Give them two years two create ten marine divisions and it would not be pretty...for the Japanese.
Again we've not really specified the timeline. Do the Japanese really pull the SouthEast Asia thing at that point? It switches the tables. Instead of Germany facing a united Allies its Japan getting its arse kicked by the US, UK, France (Indochine don't forget), Australia, and the military power house of the...er..Dutch (ok maybe not them).

I'm visualizing bad day at Black Rock for the Japanese fleet facing Halsey with US aircraft carriers and the 5 British carriers. Yerp.

If the UK had joined with the Nazi cause:

Europe would have fallen completely to this joint force.

Russia would have had a very difficult time, and probably ended up capitulating.

Japan would have successfully conquered most of the Pacific (without the British resistance, the French couldn't really stop them).

But, then, the US would have said " these guys" and beaten down the rest of you.

London and Berlin would have been nuked, possibly quite a few more targets.

Current world conditions would be that Communism is completely wiped out, no Korean War, no Vietnam. A joint US/China capitalist empire holds all the world's wealth, but is fighting off a full-scale Islamic Jihad. Without the military buildup from the cold war, it's a much more destructive war. But, China is nearing the point of launching a full-scale nuclear assault on the entire Middle East.

Europe is 50% poor slums and 50% nuclear wasteland, ruled by local warlords and subject to the rather often coup. Most Europeans struggle to get visas so they can move to the rich African countries of Sudan and Ethiopia.

I could see a "Imperialist Britain" siding with the Axis. But with Japan attacking Pearl Harbor and Hitler breaking his truce with the USSR. I am not sure how much better they would fare.

However if the Axis did win what ever would a bright haired bright eyed teenager do!!?!

After Zhukov the Japanese had no plans to attack the USSR. without a second front the Germans still see T34s in Berlin, just later.

The Brits might have stayed out of it, until Germany attacked France or Italy went after Africa.

Frazzled wrote:

SilverMK2 wrote:However, you still need ground forces, munitions, etc. As mentioned earlier, the USA had very few troops (I seem to remember ~170,000ish soldiers in 1939).

No you don't. You just need the US Navy. Give them two years two create ten marine divisions and it would not be pretty...for the Japanese.

2 years is a very long time when you're at war. And the US armament would likely have been even slower given that they weren't producing or supplying Britian with anything. Of course, the US may have simply decided to supply Russia with the equipment instead, though the transportation of such materials would have been very difficult.

And remember, even though the US wouldn't likely be at war with the countries of Europe, they would definitely be keeping a sizeable portion (likely the majority) of their Navy in the Atlantic. To draw too many away into a war with Japan would leave the entire East Coast, including your capital, open to a seaborne invasion. It's unlikely that the European powers would pursue that goal during or immediately after the war with Russia, but the US would never be foolish enough to ignore the possibility.

Grakmar wrote:If the UK had joined with the Nazi cause:

Europe would have fallen completely to this joint force.

Russia would have had a very difficult time, and probably ended up capitulating.

Japan would have successfully conquered most of the Pacific (without the British resistance, the French couldn't really stop them).

But, then, the US would have said " these guys" and beaten down the rest of you.

London and Berlin would have been nuked, possibly quite a few more targets.

Current world conditions would be that Communism is completely wiped out, no Korean War, no Vietnam. A joint US/China capitalist empire holds all the world's wealth, but is fighting off a full-scale Islamic Jihad. Without the military buildup from the cold war, it's a much more destructive war. But, China is nearing the point of launching a full-scale nuclear assault on the entire Middle East.

Europe is 50% poor slums and 50% nuclear wasteland, ruled by local warlords and subject to the rather often coup. Most Europeans struggle to get visas so they can move to the rich African countries of Sudan and Ethiopia.

I can't tell if you're really this ignorant or just trolling. Most people would be aware that Nukes were created at the end of World War II, and that they weren't launched from missiles.

Frazzled wrote:After Zhukov the Japanese had no plans to attack the USSR. without a second front the Germans still see T34s in Berlin, just later.

The Brits might have stayed out of it, until Germany attacked France or Italy went after Africa.

Without Britain as an ally France would have probably have hopped on board. And really, the US had little reason to actively explore hostile relations with even a Nazified Europe.

Emperors Faithful wrote:
I can't tell if you're really this ignorant or just trolling. Most people would be aware that Nukes were created at the end of World War II, and that they weren't launched from missiles.

It was meant to be a bit tongue-in-cheek. Tone is a little difficult to do over the internet.

Although, I do think it would have ended with a Nuked Berlin and London.

England wasn't nearly as militarily prepared as Germany at the start of WW2. That's one of the major reasons England and France refused to respond to Hitler's early moves with force. If England allied with Nazi Germany, they would have advocated moving much slower than Hitler preferred. It could easily have resulted in the war being delayed a few years, which means the US gets nukes in the middle of the war, rather than at the end.

And, they weren't launched from missiles, but the US would have ended up working much more closely with the Russians, perhaps even giving them nukes.

But, I think this topic is a little silly. Britain wasn't very likely to work with Hitler and wasn't going to stay neutral once Germany invaded Belgium and France.

Grakmar wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:
I can't tell if you're really this ignorant or just trolling. Most people would be aware that Nukes were created at the end of World War II, and that they weren't launched from missiles.

It was meant to be a bit tongue-in-cheek. Tone is a little difficult to do over the internet.

Fair enough.

Although, I do think it would have ended with a Nuked Berlin and London.

England wasn't nearly as militarily prepared as Germany at the start of WW2. That's one of the major reasons England and France refused to respond to Hitler's early moves with force. If England allied with Nazi Germany, they would have advocated moving much slower than Hitler preferred. It could easily have resulted in the war being delayed a few years, which means the US gets nukes in the middle of the war, rather than at the end.

Not really, even if Germany was delayed by British reluctance (which it wouldn't be, Germany wouldn't need Britain to invade Russia) the US still wouldn't be at war and the program for Nuclear Missiles either wouldn't exist or wouldn't be moving along as rapidly as it did in during the war.

And, they weren't launched from missiles, but the US would have ended up working much more closely with the Russians, perhaps even giving them nukes.

There are three problems with this line of thinking.
1) The US wouldn't necessarily take a side either way, they have little interest in seeing Russia win the war.
2) The idea that the US would entrust the USSR with Nuclear weapons is laughable.
3) The Russian Airforce would still have to fly through the German Luftwaffe and British RAF with a very dangerous weapon. When the US bombed Japan the Japanese airforce had long been neuatralized.

But, I think this topic is a little silly. Britain wasn't very likely to work with Hitler and wasn't going to stay neutral once Germany invaded Belgium and France.

If Britain (and therfore France) hadn't declared war on Germany following the invasion of Poland then there was no reason for Hitler to seek a war with them. He always maintained the Germany's future lay in conquering the east.

I don't see America ever getting involved, Japan has no need to press into the European colonies it can just keep taking bits of China and eastern Russia with inpunity. While ever it has no need to attack the European colonies the US navy (and therefore the US) is of no interest or threat to the Japanese. While Britain, France and Germany are in alliance Japan would never threaten their South East Asian colonies.

Of course Germany needs to invade Poland to invade the Soviet Union, otherwise they don't have a common border. Germany invading Poland is a deal breaker for the whole alliance. I don't see it working.

There is also Italy (the wild card) Nothing stated so far prevents Italy invading other European colonies in Africa. War between Italy and Britain and or France is inevitable. Hitler would be a fool (bigger fool) to break the Anglo-Franco-German alliance over a few colonies so would stay neutral. Naturally the ensuing war would be a disaster for the Italians.

Emperors Faithful wrote:When I said defeated I more or less meant France, which was in little state to react to the Japanese expansions. You were right to correct me regarding Britain though. That said, there's little reason to prevent Japan from pulling off another stunning victory at Singapore like they did in the real thing.

It's still possible, I guess. There would have been far greater numbers of ships to defend Singapore, which might have made a landing impossible. But then, when you consider how completely incompetent the defence of Singapore was, I'm not sure any increase in resources would have made a difference.

Would that still force them into conflict with the US? After all, with Britain (and likely the Commonwealth) siding with Germany the US may not have any reason to deny it to them.

Dunno, thing is we're basically in crazy land here with our hypothetical, where the horrible nature of the Nazis doesn't seem to be a factor in the UK allying with them. At which point we wonder if the same sociopathic amorality has infected the US, and they suddenly stop caring about what the Japanese have doing in China, and keep their oil shipments flowing.

If that's the case, then there's no need for a Pearl Harbour.

I'd be interested to see the capability of the US Navy pitted against that of the UK and Germany in the Atlantic.

Yeah, especially if you kick the opening of the conflit back a few years, and you get carrier launched Spitfires.

Interesting, after their victory over the Russian fleet early in the century I was not aware that they had been defeated on land.

In addition to the Russian defeat at Port Arthur, they were also handed an embaressing defeat on land by the Japanese. Which was likely part of the reasons that a few decades later the Japanese tested the defences of the now Soviet Russians, but this time the result was very different.

My man Zhukov was the hero; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Khalkhin_Gol


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SilverMK2 wrote:However, you still need ground forces, munitions, etc. As mentioned earlier, the USA had very few troops (I seem to remember ~170,000ish soldiers in 1939).

The US handily and entirely defeated the Japanese, while still committing 80% of their fighting capacity to the destruction of the Nazis. That early boost in production is nice and all, but just doesn't measure compared to the resources the US threw at Germany, which in this hypothetical would have all been committed towards defeat of Japan.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Emperors Faithful wrote:And remember, even though the US wouldn't likely be at war with the countries of Europe, they would definitely be keeping a sizeable portion (likely the majority) of their Navy in the Atlantic. To draw too many away into a war with Japan would leave the entire East Coast, including your capital, open to a seaborne invasion. It's unlikely that the European powers would pursue that goal during or immediately after the war with Russia, but the US would never be foolish enough to ignore the possibility.

Attempting such an invasion would be almost impossible. You saw the planning that went into D-day, and that was to cross the channel. The resources needed to cross the Atlantic and deliver troops onto the East Coast of the US would be a hundred times greater, and beyond even the whole of continental Europe to manage by itself. They certainly couldn't have handled such an operation in secret - the US would have known about such planning years in advance.

The US could certainly have committed the overwhelming majority of their forces to fighting the Japanese.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Grakmar wrote:It was meant to be a bit tongue-in-cheek. Tone is a little difficult to do over the internet.

Very much so, yes. I'd wrote a fairly curt reply to your last post, and then saw your were joking.

Although, I do think it would have ended with a Nuked Berlin and London.

It would have been very difficult to put bombers in range of one city or the other. There's also still no reason for the US to engage itself in the war.

England wasn't nearly as militarily prepared as Germany at the start of WW2. That's one of the major reasons England and France refused to respond to Hitler's early moves with force. If England allied with Nazi Germany, they would have advocated moving much slower than Hitler preferred. It could easily have resulted in the war being delayed a few years, which means the US gets nukes in the middle of the war, rather than at the end.

Close, but not quite. The UK was certainly unprepared (a funny thing about the much villified Chamberlain was that he made his deal with Hitler, declared peace in our time, then immediately doubled the defence budget - he knew what was coming, he just needed time). But the UK and France completely overestimated Germany's capabilities, had they taken the initiative when Poland was invaded they could have marched straight to Berlin. Even during the defeat of France the seemingly overwhelming strength of the Germans was actually very brittle, there were very few reserves available for any setback.

And, they weren't launched from missiles, but the US would have ended up working much more closely with the Russians, perhaps even giving them nukes.

I think the history of the US is that they're not willing to give any nuclear capabilities, let alone actual nukes. And certainly not commies.

But, I think this topic is a little silly. Britain wasn't very likely to work with Hitler and wasn't going to stay neutral once Germany invaded Belgium and France.

Yes, very much so.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

George Spiggott wrote:I don't see America ever getting involved, Japan has no need to press into the European colonies it can just keep taking bits of China and eastern Russia with inpunity. While ever it has no need to attack the European colonies the US navy (and therefore the US) is of no interest or threat to the Japanese. While Britain, France and Germany are in alliance Japan would never threaten their South East Asian colonies.

Japan needed resources and markets. When European powers cranked up their tariffs it no longer had markets for its industry. When the US cut off oil in the wake of Japanese actions in China, it lost key resources. Their answer was to bring all of Asia under its fold, and key to this was the Phillipines, and that meant making the US give it up. War with the US was inevitable.

And no, Japan couldn't just take bits of Russia with impunity. It tried that in 1938 and was utterly spanked. At which point Northern expansion was abandoned in favour of Southern expansion.

sebster wrote:
Dunno, thing is we're basically in crazy land here with our hypothetical, where the horrible nature of the Nazis doesn't seem to be a factor in the UK allying with them. At which point we wonder if the same sociopathic amorality has infected the US, and they suddenly stop caring about what the Japanese have doing in China, and keep their oil shipments flowing.

If that's the case, then there's no need for a Pearl Harbour.

I don't think it's the distasteful nature of the Nazi party that made a UK alliance difficult, but rather the aggresive expansion. And really, the idea that Britain would go back on one promise (Poland) or possibly direct their hostility towards the Soviets instead (rather than Germany) for the invasion, this idea is far fetched, but not completely random.

Yeah, especially if you kick the opening of the conflit back a few years, and you get carrier launched Spitfires.

Want. Very do want.

In addition to the Russian defeat at Port Arthur, they were also handed an embaressing defeat on land by the Japanese. Which was likely part of the reasons that a few decades later the Japanese tested the defences of the now Soviet Russians, but this time the result was very different.

My man Zhukov was the hero; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Khalkhin_Gol

Conversations with sebster always come with useful Historic tidbits!

Emperors Faithful wrote:Attempting such an invasion would be almost impossible. You saw the planning that went into D-day, and that was to cross the channel. The resources needed to cross the Atlantic and deliver troops onto the East Coast of the US would be a hundred times greater, and beyond even the whole of continental Europe to manage by itself. They certainly couldn't have handled such an operation in secret - the US would have known about such planning years in advance.

The US could certainly have committed the overwhelming majority of their forces to fighting the Japanese.

It wouldn't really have to be an invasion, or even a landing force of any sort. Leaving an alien/hostile fleet in complete control of the Atlantic is not anyone's idea of a great plan. Imagine the consequences of a European navy bombarding any of the heavily populated West Coast cities while the US sent their entire fleet to combat the Japanese. The US would have to leave at significant portion of their Navy just to safeguard against this possiblity, even if the European powers showed no inclination to give it a try.

Japan needed resources and markets. When European powers cranked up their tariffs it no longer had markets for its industry. When the US cut off oil in the wake of Japanese actions in China, it lost key resources. Their answer was to bring all of Asia under its fold, and key to this was the Phillipines, and that meant making the US give it up. War with the US was inevitable.

And no, Japan couldn't just take bits of Russia with impunity. It tried that in 1938 and was utterly spanked. At which point Northern expansion was abandoned in favour of Southern expansion.

This does of course depend on how the US reacts to the affairs in Europe. Would they back Britain (and therefore Germany) in the war against the Soviets? Or do the exact opposite? If it's the former than they would be free to engage in a war with Japan at their whim, if it's the latter they may be more willing to strengthen ties with an ally in Asia and ignore the atrocities being committed by the Japanese. (The poor relations between Japan and Russia would be an issue though).

And then there's the possibility of the US choosing to become as isolationist as possible, which would still likely lead to a war between Japan and the US.

Emperors Faithful wrote:I don't think it's the distasteful nature of the Nazi party that made a UK alliance difficult, but rather the aggresive expansion. And really, the idea that Britain would go back on one promise (Poland) or possibly direct their hostility towards the Soviets instead (rather than Germany) for the invasion, this idea is far fetched, but not completely random.

Except there was a very strong moral distaste for Hitler, to the point where the more respectable nations just wouldn't have worked with the guy. Tolerated or ignored him, sure, but not actively engaged in military operations with him.

Want. Very do want.

There's never been a prettier plane.

It wouldn't really have to be an invasion, or even a landing force of any sort. Leaving an alien/hostile fleet in complete control of the Atlantic is not anyone's idea of a great plan. Imagine the consequences of a European navy bombarding any of the heavily populated West Coast cities while the US sent their entire fleet to combat the Japanese. The US would have to leave at significant portion of their Navy just to safeguard against this possiblity, even if the European powers showed no inclination to give it a try.

They really wouldn't have had to commit much. Running battleships and carriers up and down the coast to bombard the US would have left them highly vulnerable to aircraft. There was also a whole lot of Atlantic to cross to achieve that, so with minimal resources left in the Atlantic you could have had plenty of early warning.

Look at the amount of shipping the US committed to guarding the convoys to the UK, and to preparing for the Normandy landing. Despite that, and all the resources they used to fight in Europe they still trounced the Japanese. I just can't see a scenario where anything could pose a threat to the US to the point where they couldn't defeat the Japanese.

Now, without the UK on their side I doubt the US could have threatened a Nazi Europe either, because posing a threat across the Atlantic is just that hard.

This does of course depend on how the US reacts to the affairs in Europe. Would they back Britain (and therefore Germany) in the war against the Soviets? Or do the exact opposite? If it's the former than they would be free to engage in a war with Japan at their whim, if it's the latter they may be more willing to strengthen ties with an ally in Asia and ignore the atrocities being committed by the Japanese. (The poor relations between Japan and Russia would be an issue though).

It needs to be remembered how much nations and their citizenry really do want to be moral. Democratic countries just didn't buddy up with nations that were slaughtering loads of people.

I guess it might be possible if Stalin's atrocities were more fully reported, while those committed by Japan and Germany were less well known.

And then there's the possibility of the US choosing to become as isolationist as possible, which would still likely lead to a war between Japan and the US.

The US desire to be isolationist is generally overstated. They were keen to keep out of another European bloodbath, but there was never any hesitation to involve themselves in Pacific matters, which they looked to dominate. Even before the Japanese started doing horrible things the US was looking to curb their expansion.

Incidentally, where's JEB these days? He can usually be relied on to provide valuable insight in historical threads.

Frankly I think a better topic would have been, what if Britain stayed out of WWI, which was far more likely. Without British/American shipping being attacked, the US would likely have never entered either.

What would the world have been like?

Still under British control, most likely. Mainland Europe would be mostly German.

Albatross wrote:Still under British control, most likely. Mainland Europe would be mostly German.

I'm thinking it becomes similar to the Franco Prussian War. France loses. Russia loses and maybe has a revolution. Italy is fine-the evil Austrian Hungarians can't get through the mountains to get them. The positive-no Hitler. The negative, all the evil dictatorial monarchies continue to exist.

Interestingly - the Ottooman Empire would have continued.

Frazzled wrote:

Albatross wrote:Still under British control, most likely. Mainland Europe would be mostly German.

I'm thinking it becomes similar to the Franco Prussian War. France loses. Russia loses and maybe has a revolution. Italy is fine-the evil Austrian Hungarians can't get through the mountains to get them. The positive-no Hitler. The negative, all the evil dictatorial monarchies continue to exist.

The UK's political system is virtually identical today to how it was then. Obviously the relevant colonial administrations no longer exist, but the system is virtually a carbon copy.

Albatross wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Albatross wrote:Still under British control, most likely. Mainland Europe would be mostly German.

I'm thinking it becomes similar to the Franco Prussian War. France loses. Russia loses and maybe has a revolution. Italy is fine-the evil Austrian Hungarians can't get through the mountains to get them. The positive-no Hitler. The negative, all the evil dictatorial monarchies continue to exist.

The UK's political system is virtually identical today to how it was then. Obviously the relevant colonial administrations no longer exist, but the system is virtually a carbon copy.

Correcto Alby. Britain and France were democracies. However Germany, Austria Hungarian empire, Ottoman Empire, and mother Russia weren't.

Ah, gotcha. Thought you were making a jab at Britain.

I'm shocked that you weren't, if I'm being honest!

Albatross wrote:Ah, gotcha. Thought you were making a jab at Britain.

I'm shocked that you weren't, if I'm being honest!

Not this time. You don't tweak the nose of the country that views haggis as a delicacy too often! besides, I'm advertising Texas to Australians as the new place to be, now that their island apparently is sinking. So I have to be slightly nice.