Discussion:
WWI or WWII end with Germany dominating half or more of Europe, do British and Frence colonial empires....
Add Reply
Rob
2017-09-26 02:48:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
a) end before they did in OTL ?
b) end later than they did in OTL ?
c) end around the same time the did in OTL ?
SolomonW
2017-09-26 10:11:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rob
a) end before they did in OTL ?
b) end later than they did in OTL ?
c) end around the same time the did in OTL ?
The rate may change but the end result is the same for the British. The
white areas Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc werer already independent
and the desire for self rule was spreading to non-whites.

We can see that British rule in India the Jewel of the Empire was already
in decline before WW1. Possibly WW2, slowed down the process somewhat



http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/modern-world-history-1918-to-1980/india-1900-to-1947/
kenney@ cix.co.uk (Kenneth Young)
2017-09-26 10:22:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by SolomonW
We can see that British rule in India the Jewel of the Empire was already
in decline before WW1. Possibly WW2, slowed down the process
somewhat
India was due to get Dominium status in the 1940s WW2 stopped this.
The Horny Goat
2017-09-26 22:41:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by SolomonW
Post by Rob
a) end before they did in OTL ?
b) end later than they did in OTL ?
c) end around the same time the did in OTL ?
The rate may change but the end result is the same for the British. The
white areas Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc werer already independent
and the desire for self rule was spreading to non-whites.
We can see that British rule in India the Jewel of the Empire was already
in decline before WW1. Possibly WW2, slowed down the process somewhat
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/modern-world-history-1918-to-1980/india-1900-to-1947/
Well none were functionally independent in 1914-18 but all were by
1939-45. I say functionally since the 1931 Statute of Westminster
didn't apply to Australia in 1939 for reasons that had more to do with
the Aussies than the Brits.

None of this was controversial in Britain as 'the White Commonwealth'
was considered to be politically advanced and able to run their own
affairs. Canada's war declaration in 1939 was in fact the ONLY
declaration the Canadian parliament has ever made even though our
troops have been almost everywhere. Korea and Suez were not declared
wars as well as all the various UN peacekeeping roles (at least so far
as Canada itself was concerned). I believe the situation was the same
for Australia (Phil could correct me on this) though they were in
Vietnam while we weren't.

I don't think there was any serious move for independence in 1914 nor
do I think a German WW1 victory would have influenced these countries'
relation to the UK nor do I see that changing unless the UK were
physically occupied.

Again in WW2 the diplomatic relationship of Canada/Oz/NZ to Britain
would only change if Britain itself (or less likely Australia by the
Japanese) were actually occupied in which both the remainder would
move much closer to the US even if the United States was not actually
at war (which would have been the case if Britain had been occupied
after the fall of France).

Similiarly even if Britain had surrendered and was occupied (which I
think most unlikely) I don't see the Kriegsmarine having the ability
to control the Empire logistically and see various colonial governors
especially those in the Caribbean placing themselves under the
"protection" of the United States (rather than Canada).
SolomonW
2017-09-27 12:17:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by SolomonW
Post by Rob
a) end before they did in OTL ?
b) end later than they did in OTL ?
c) end around the same time the did in OTL ?
The rate may change but the end result is the same for the British. The
white areas Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc werer already independent
and the desire for self rule was spreading to non-whites.
We can see that British rule in India the Jewel of the Empire was already
in decline before WW1. Possibly WW2, slowed down the process somewhat
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/modern-world-history-1918-to-1980/india-1900-to-1947/
Well none were functionally independent in 1914-18 but all were by
1939-45. I say functionally since the 1931 Statute of Westminster
didn't apply to Australia in 1939 for reasons that had more to do with
the Aussies than the Brits.
True in 1939, Australia had not yet ratified the 1931 Westminster Statute,
but this only affected her little except in her having an independent
foreign policy something that Australia rarely has. Internally for almost
all practical purposes, Australia was independent in the late 1800s.
Post by The Horny Goat
None of this was controversial in Britain as 'the White Commonwealth'
was considered to be politically advanced and able to run their own
affairs. Canada's war declaration in 1939 was in fact the ONLY
declaration the Canadian parliament has ever made even though our
troops have been almost everywhere. Korea and Suez were not declared
wars as well as all the various UN peacekeeping roles (at least so far
as Canada itself was concerned). I believe the situation was the same
for Australia (Phil could correct me on this) though they were in
Vietnam while we weren't.
Decision about the use of troops for any purpose is in Australia made by
the Prime Minister as he does not have the formal legal powers to do he
must either go to the Governor General or usually the Defence minister to
authorise this. The parliament does not need to be consulted and rarely is
till after the event.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/factcheck/2014-09-08/julie-bishop-correct-on-australia-history-at-war/5710696
Post by The Horny Goat
I don't think there was any serious move for independence in 1914 nor
do I think a German WW1 victory would have influenced these countries'
relation to the UK nor do I see that changing unless the UK were
physically occupied.
If it is shown that the British militaries are incompetent, this would show
much.
Post by The Horny Goat
Again in WW2 the diplomatic relationship of Canada/Oz/NZ to Britain
would only change if Britain itself (or less likely Australia by the
Japanese) were actually occupied in which both the remainder would
move much closer to the US even if the United States was not actually
at war (which would have been the case if Britain had been occupied
after the fall of France).
Similiarly even if Britain had surrendered and was occupied (which I
think most unlikely) I don't see the Kriegsmarine having the ability
to control the Empire logistically and see various colonial governors
especially those in the Caribbean placing themselves under the
"protection" of the United States (rather than Canada).
The governor General of Grenada did not ask Canada but the US.
The Horny Goat
2017-09-27 18:25:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by SolomonW
Post by The Horny Goat
Well none were functionally independent in 1914-18 but all were by
1939-45. I say functionally since the 1931 Statute of Westminster
didn't apply to Australia in 1939 for reasons that had more to do with
the Aussies than the Brits.
True in 1939, Australia had not yet ratified the 1931 Westminster Statute,
but this only affected her little except in her having an independent
foreign policy something that Australia rarely has. Internally for almost
all practical purposes, Australia was independent in the late 1800s.
I'm pretty sure in 1914 Australia came into the war as part of the
British Empire just as Canada did.

In 1939 Australia declared war on Germany a week before Canada mostly
because the Australian parliament was then in session while the
Canadian parliament had to be hastily reconvened and this was before
the era where MPs routinely flew to the national capital.
Ned Latham
2017-09-27 22:24:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by SolomonW
Post by The Horny Goat
Well none were functionally independent in 1914-18 but all were by
1939-45. I say functionally since the 1931 Statute of Westminster
didn't apply to Australia in 1939 for reasons that had more to do
with the Aussies than the Brits.
True in 1939, Australia had not yet ratified the 1931 Westminster
Statute, but this only affected her little except in her having
an independent foreign policy something that Australia rarely
has. Internally for almost all practical purposes, Australia was
independent in the late 1800s.
I'm pretty sure in 1914 Australia came into the war as part of the
British Empire just as Canada did.
I'm pretty sure Australia entered it as a member of the Commonwealth.
Post by The Horny Goat
In 1939 Australia declared war on Germany a week before Canada mostly
because the Australian parliament was then in session while the
Canadian parliament had to be hastily reconvened and this was before
the era where MPs routinely flew to the national capital.
Australia accepted British command of its troops at first, but late
in the ware (not sure exactly when, but it was before the 1918
offensive by Germany) Australia's troops were put under Australian
command. At Australian insistence.

And from the start, Australia disallowed the imposition of the death
penalty on Australian soldiers.
The Horny Goat
2017-09-28 03:55:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 27 Sep 2017 17:24:09 -0500, Ned Latham
Post by Ned Latham
Post by The Horny Goat
I'm pretty sure in 1914 Australia came into the war as part of the
British Empire just as Canada did.
I'm pretty sure Australia entered it as a member of the Commonwealth.
Well in 1914 the term "British Commonwealth of Nations" wasn't in use
yet - even in 1954 the games that were held in Vancouver were the
British Empire games, not the current Commonwealth games.
Post by Ned Latham
Post by The Horny Goat
In 1939 Australia declared war on Germany a week before Canada mostly
because the Australian parliament was then in session while the
Canadian parliament had to be hastily reconvened and this was before
the era where MPs routinely flew to the national capital.
Australia accepted British command of its troops at first, but late
in the ware (not sure exactly when, but it was before the 1918
offensive by Germany) Australia's troops were put under Australian
command. At Australian insistence.
Not to mention that Canadian troops had already been under Canadian
command (at least at the divisional and corps level - army level
wasn't until WW2 when they were part of the 21st Army Group) for more
than a year at that point. Presumably the Aussie attitude was that
they wanted whatever Canada got. (Canada was and remains the largest
member of the "White Dominions" - not the currently accepted term
obviously - and many political agreements between Canada and the UK
were extended to the other dominions)
Post by Ned Latham
And from the start, Australia disallowed the imposition of the death
penalty on Australian soldiers.
You left off the last phrase ".... by British courts or officers".
Australia was fine with death sentences imposed by Australian court
martials.

I'm pretty sure most of us have seen the movie Breaker Morant.
SolomonW
2017-09-28 12:20:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Horny Goat
On Wed, 27 Sep 2017 17:24:09 -0500, Ned Latham
Post by Ned Latham
Post by The Horny Goat
I'm pretty sure in 1914 Australia came into the war as part of the
British Empire just as Canada did.
I'm pretty sure Australia entered it as a member of the Commonwealth.
Well in 1914 the term "British Commonwealth of Nations" wasn't in use
yet - even in 1954 the games that were held in Vancouver were the
British Empire games, not the current Commonwealth games.
Post by Ned Latham
Post by The Horny Goat
In 1939 Australia declared war on Germany a week before Canada mostly
because the Australian parliament was then in session while the
Canadian parliament had to be hastily reconvened and this was before
the era where MPs routinely flew to the national capital.
Australia accepted British command of its troops at first, but late
in the ware (not sure exactly when, but it was before the 1918
offensive by Germany) Australia's troops were put under Australian
command. At Australian insistence.
Not to mention that Canadian troops had already been under Canadian
command (at least at the divisional and corps level - army level
wasn't until WW2 when they were part of the 21st Army Group) for more
than a year at that point.
The same views that the Canadians felt in WW2, Australia did too. Like the
Canadians, the Australian people felt that the British offices in WW1 had
been too ready to lose Australian so costing them too many deaths and
Australians did not want these British officers to do it again in WW2.
Post by The Horny Goat
Presumably the Aussie attitude was that
they wanted whatever Canada got.
Very much so, if Canada got it, Australia demanded it too.
Post by The Horny Goat
(Canada was and remains the largest
member of the "White Dominions" - not the currently accepted term
obviously - and many political agreements between Canada and the UK
were extended to the other dominions)
Mmmm

One point about Australian stuck in the middle of nowhere unlike Canada,
are we have an inflated view of our own importance. We see ourselves as
lessor then Canada.
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by Ned Latham
And from the start, Australia disallowed the imposition of the death
penalty on Australian soldiers.
You left off the last phrase ".... by British courts or officers".
Australia was fine with death sentences imposed by Australian court
martials.
Australians courts never carried out such death sentences for military
failures. They did carry them out for civilian crimes, e.g. murder, rape,
etc.
Post by The Horny Goat
I'm pretty sure most of us have seen the movie Breaker Morant.
This was a British court also these guys although led by an Australian were
in the British army.
The Horny Goat
2017-09-28 15:16:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by SolomonW
The same views that the Canadians felt in WW2, Australia did too. Like the
Canadians, the Australian people felt that the British offices in WW1 had
been too ready to lose Australian so costing them too many deaths and
Australians did not want these British officers to do it again in WW2.
It was frequently said in WW2 (mostly in the context of N Africa) that
"Mr Churchill is ready to fight to the last Australian"

I've not read that concerning Canadians but there were definitely some
quite hostile things said by Canadians about Montgomery during the
campaign for the Antwerp approaches along the lines that their orders
were incompetent as the approaches should have been ordered to be
taken as part of the drive that took Antwerp but that by the time the
orders were given the Germans were dug in with the results that many
Canadian lives were lost opening the port.

(Both Australia and Canada routinely said things like that in WW1 and
part of our national myth is that "Vimy demonstrates what Canadians
could do when led by Canadians" as opposed to the Somme, Passchendaele
and other such battles)
Don Phillipson
2017-09-30 19:08:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Horny Goat
On Wed, 27 Sep 2017 17:24:09 -0500, Ned Latham
Post by Ned Latham
Post by The Horny Goat
I'm pretty sure in 1914 Australia came into the war as part of the
British Empire just as Canada did.
I'm pretty sure Australia entered it as a member of the Commonwealth.
Well in 1914 the term "British Commonwealth of Nations" wasn't in use
yet - even in 1954 the games that were held in Vancouver were the
British Empire games, not the current Commonwealth games.
Post by Ned Latham
Post by The Horny Goat
In 1939 Australia declared war on Germany a week before Canada mostly
because the Australian parliament was then in session while the
Canadian parliament had to be hastily reconvened and this was before
the era where MPs routinely flew to the national capital.
Australia accepted British command of its troops at first, but late
in the ware (not sure exactly when, but it was before the 1918
offensive by Germany) Australia's troops were put under Australian
command. At Australian insistence.
Not to mention that Canadian troops had already been under Canadian
command (at least at the divisional and corps level - army level
wasn't until WW2 when they were part of the 21st Army Group) for more
than a year at that point. Presumably the Aussie attitude was that
they wanted whatever Canada got.
Not quite:
1. In WW1 Canada and Australia initially accepted without question
their armed forces' subordination to British command -- but were by
1916 vocally critical because of costly battles (notably Gallipoli, Loos
and the Somme) thus demanded a voice at the top strategic level.
What they got was seats in the Imperial War Cabinet, thus in
practice contingent on their prime ministers' being physically
in London.
2. In WW2 Canada and Australia (as in WW1) placed their
overseas forces under British control. Australia withdrew its
army units from North Africa after sundry retreats and the
Japanese threat to the Australian homeland. Canada continued
to accept British operational control but High Commissioner
Vincent Massey frequently spoke up in London to protect
Canadian interests however currently understood. This was
a mixed blessing, since it contributed to the Dieppe debacle
and the supply of aircrew to Bomber Command. By Xmas
1944 the Canadian Corps in NW Europe was for practical
purposes an independent allied army, and the RCN had taken
over supreme naval responsibility for the NW Atlantic. After the
Scheldt battles the Canadian army executed no more bright ideas.
The Australians were years earlier used to fighting their
own war, notably in New Guinea.
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)
SolomonW
2017-10-01 05:57:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Don Phillipson
2. In WW2 Canada and Australia (as in WW1) placed their
overseas forces under British control.
After Greece, the Australian government and its senior military officer
General Blamey were extremely critical of the British handling which they
considered the British were lying to them, and they were militarily
incompetent and from then on refused to simply follow British control.


Here is a good book on the subject.
https://www.amazon.com/High-Command-Australias-Independent-1939-1945/dp/1863733337
Rich Rostrom
2017-10-02 17:04:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by SolomonW
After Greece, the Australian government and its senior military officer
General Blamey were extremely critical of the British handling which they
considered the British were lying to them, and they were militarily
incompetent and from then on refused to simply follow British control.
I think this is badly formed and punctuated. The last part is
as written reads

"the British were lying to them [the Australians], and they [the Australians]
were militarily incompetent and from then on refused to simply follow British
control".

Perhaps it is intended to read
Post by SolomonW
they considered the British were lying to them and were militarily
incompetent, and from then on they refused to simply follow British control.
Subjects and verbs need to be properly grouped and ordered,
or unintended ideas may be conveyed.

The statement is in any case untrue. Australian troops
remained under British command in the Middle East
through Second Alamein in November 1942, a year and a
half after the Greece campaign.
--
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.
SolomonW
2017-10-03 10:19:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by SolomonW
After Greece, the Australian government and its senior military officer
General Blamey were extremely critical of the British handling which they
considered the British were lying to them, and they were militarily
incompetent and from then on refused to simply follow British control.
I think this is badly formed and punctuated. The last part is
as written reads
"the British were lying to them [the Australians], and they [the Australians]
were militarily incompetent and from then on refused to simply follow British
control".
Perhaps it is intended to read
Post by SolomonW
they considered the British were lying to them and were militarily
incompetent, and from then on they refused to simply follow British control.
Subjects and verbs need to be properly grouped and ordered,
or unintended ideas may be conveyed.
This is not a forum for English but your comments are noted.
Post by Rich Rostrom
The statement is in any case untrue. Australian troops
remained under British command in the Middle East
through Second Alamein in November 1942, a year and a
half after the Greece campaign.
Yes, they did but they distanced themselves from it and overtime this
distance grew. Never again would they allow something like Greece to
happen.

SolomonW
2017-09-28 12:05:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by SolomonW
Post by The Horny Goat
Well none were functionally independent in 1914-18 but all were by
1939-45. I say functionally since the 1931 Statute of Westminster
didn't apply to Australia in 1939 for reasons that had more to do with
the Aussies than the Brits.
True in 1939, Australia had not yet ratified the 1931 Westminster Statute,
but this only affected her little except in her having an independent
foreign policy something that Australia rarely has. Internally for almost
all practical purposes, Australia was independent in the late 1800s.
I'm pretty sure in 1914 Australia came into the war as part of the
British Empire just as Canada did.
Yep
Post by The Horny Goat
In 1939 Australia declared war on Germany a week before Canada mostly
because the Australian parliament was then in session while the
Canadian parliament had to be hastily reconvened and this was before
the era where MPs routinely flew to the national capital.
If you had read the reference, <sigh> I supplied you would have read that

"In September 1939, Prime Minister Robert Menzies announced it was his
"melancholy duty" to officially confirm that "Great Britain has declared
war upon [Germany] and that, as a result, Australia is also at war". It was
only in October 1941, that a new Prime Minsiter asked the Australian
parliament to "approved the action"
The Horny Goat
2017-09-28 15:10:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by SolomonW
If you had read the reference, <sigh> I supplied you would have read that
"In September 1939, Prime Minister Robert Menzies announced it was his
"melancholy duty" to officially confirm that "Great Britain has declared
war upon [Germany] and that, as a result, Australia is also at war". It was
only in October 1941, that a new Prime Minsiter asked the Australian
parliament to "approved the action"
The trouble is that strictly speaking it isn't true.

Britain and Australia declared war on 3 Sept 1939 but because of the
time zones Australia actually declared FIRST. Canada didn't declare
war until Sept 10th for the reasons previously stated but once
convened Parliament took less than 30 minutes to declare war.

If one wants to be silly about it one can argue the US Congress spent
more time (after Pearl Harbor) to declare war even though no one
doubted it would be done or even be a close vote. (Thus guaranteeing
Jeanette Rankin her place in history)
SolomonW
2017-09-29 02:49:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by SolomonW
If you had read the reference, <sigh> I supplied you would have read that
"In September 1939, Prime Minister Robert Menzies announced it was his
"melancholy duty" to officially confirm that "Great Britain has declared
war upon [Germany] and that, as a result, Australia is also at war". It was
only in October 1941, that a new Prime Minsiter asked the Australian
parliament to "approved the action"
The trouble is that strictly speaking it isn't true.
Britain and Australia declared war on 3 Sept 1939 but because of the
time zones Australia actually declared FIRST.
Huh my understanding is that the Australian position was that if Britain
declared war, they were at war too. The Australians did not declare war as
such. New Zealand did declare war but only after Britain.
https://nzhistory.govt.nz/new-zealand-declares-war-on-germany
Post by The Horny Goat
Canada didn't declare
war until Sept 10th for the reasons previously stated but once
convened Parliament took less than 30 minutes to declare war.
If one wants to be silly about it one can argue the US Congress spent
more time (after Pearl Harbor) to declare war even though no one
doubted it would be done or even be a close vote. (Thus guaranteeing
Jeanette Rankin her place in history)
It is not silly as different countries used different procedures to declare
war.
The Horny Goat
2017-09-29 08:57:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by SolomonW
Post by The Horny Goat
If one wants to be silly about it one can argue the US Congress spent
more time (after Pearl Harbor) to declare war even though no one
doubted it would be done or even be a close vote. (Thus guaranteeing
Jeanette Rankin her place in history)
It is not silly as different countries used different procedures to declare
war.
The silliness is in those who might suggest that because America spent
an hour or two more than the other powers in declaring war that they
were somehow less keen on the defeat of Japan.

The fact that Halsey wasn't immediately sacked on 8 Dec 1941 for
saying that when the United States gets finished with Japan the
Japanese language will only be spoken in Hell should say everything
needed since Halsey was known to be extra-bellicose - though US
generals are not supposed to say things suggesting they favor
genocide! In other circumstances (say had he said it a year later) it
would have been a much bigger deal than Patton's slap.

This newsgroup has several times done various iterations on Hitler not
being quite so obliging in declaring war on the United States thus
making FDR's and Churchill's "Germany First" strategy a bit more
difficult to achieve in Congress. Obviously FDR's hands (at least with
respect to Congress) were untied when AH declared war.

At that point there were no more political niceties needed.
Rich Rostrom
2017-10-01 01:47:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
(Thus guaranteeingJeanette Rankin her place in history)
She has a place in history as the first woman
elected to the US House or Senate, regardless
of the declarations of war.
--
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.
Rob
2017-10-01 03:09:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Friday, September 29, 2017 at 4:57:14 AM UTC-4, The Horny Goat wrote:


Fascinating discussion about British-White Dominion relations, but what about British and French relations with their non-white overseas possessions in the scenarioss flowing from the OP?
The Horny Goat
2017-09-26 16:12:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 25 Sep 2017 19:48:49 -0700 (PDT), Rob
Post by Rob
a) end before they did in OTL ?
b) end later than they did in OTL ?
c) end around the same time the did in OTL ?
Probably c at least for Britain. Britain's divesting themselves of the
empire said more of the state of the British economy which in the
event of a WW2 loss (which is what the WW2 version of the above would
be) would surely be badly damaged or at best competing on equal terms
with Germany.

With respect to the WW1 version 'dominating half or more of Europe'
says to me 'gets to keep the boundaries of Brest-Litovsk' which
probably prevents a WW2 since Britain and France combined would have a
problem competing economically. I don't see a victorious Kaiser
seeking Hitlerian ideas of world conquest but for sure there would be
no doubt who called the shots in postwar Europe.
Loading...