Discussion:
Decades of Darkness Interlude #5: On A Night Like This
(too old to reply)
Kaiser Wilhelm III
2005-06-18 01:36:30 UTC
Permalink
Decades of Darkness Interlude #5: On A Night Like This

I'm currently rewriting the Battle of Long Island part of post #117, which
will take me a few days to get right. In the meantime, I've finished off an
interlude which shows a bit more about life in New York in 1950...

* * *

"New York: the city that never sleeps. But that might be food poisoning."
- Arthur Mondey, Australian travel columnist, Liverpool Star, 1949

* * *

14 July 1950
New York City, Long Island
Republic of New England

Andrew Kelvin walks unsteadily through Manhattan. He thinks that he should
not feel drunk; he is only on his tenth - or is it eleventh? - schooner of
the yellow water that the New Yorkers call beer. It should not affect him,
really. Maybe it is the noise - the streets around him are so full he
wonders if the dead have risen to join the celebration. Or maybe it is the
sky-lag from the long flight across the Atlantic. Or maybe it is the
alcohol and the noise and the sky-lag.

There is meant to be a parade; men in strange costumes and on floats or
autocycles should be going through the streets. If they are, they have a
slow path, since the men and women on the streets are too busy celebrating
on their own to let the parade through. Andrew supposes that it would have
been simpler to declare this road - Fifth Avenue, he thinks it is called,
but his memories are somewhat foggy by now - to be an open-air dance floor
rather than holding a parade, but it matters little.

"Páselo!" someone says, and hands Andrew a jug of some dark liquid. He
takes a long swig; it is some flavour of rum. At least some Yankees know
how to mix a decent drink. Or is it a visitor to the city? Andrew can't
begin to guess, but he passes the now rather lighter jug onto another random
stranger and shouts, "Cheers!"

He would like another drink, but every pub in the city has queues pushing
out into the streets anyway. Andrew settles for good-naturedly pushing his
way across the road toward the big expanse of trees called Grand Park
[Central Park]. He has been here before on his one previous visit to New
York, and while that time he was only interested in finding a private spot,
here he just wants somewhere slightly less noisy and where there is a
quarter of an inch or so between the people.

As Andrew crosses Fifth Avenue, he works his way through men and women of
every race and colour and creed, or so it seems to him. Lots of Yankees, of
course, including what looks like all of New York's large Dominican
community out on the streets, ready to dance until dawn. Besides them, he
hears an innumerable variety of accents he places without thinking: Hellene,
Russian, Italian, Hungarian, Scots, Liberian, Nipponese, Dutch and Austrian
and several other varieties of German, something guttural he belatedly
recognises as Cymrese, and one or two accents which might be English. Some
of the people on the streets are clearly of Chinese descent too, although he
wouldn't care to guess their nationality without hearing their voices more
closely. They might even be Australians like himself, for all he knows, but
he has not heard many of his countrymen's accents tonight that he can
remember, and usually he would pick them out of even the loudest crowd.

The road crossed, Andrew finds the crowds thin only slightly as he edges
into Grand Park. The New Yorkers call this event Carnival, even if it falls
at the wrong time for when the rest of the world celebrates it. Well, it's
too cold to celebrate properly on the streets in New York winter, he
supposes. They can't spend their whole lives cooped up inside the
cloudscrapers that he has seen so many of in the few hours since his
arrival- enough to match Liverpool [Melbourne, Australia] or maybe even
Sydney, it seems like. The New Yorkers like to build things, that is for
sure.

Slowly, Andrew wanders further into Grand Park, only barely aware that he is
doing it. "I didn't drink that much of that rum," he mutters, feeling his
stomach heave for a moment. Ten or eleven schooners of no-alcohol beer
should not make that much difference, but he feels like a moment to clear
his head, away from the crowds packed even amongst the trees here.

He drifts further into Grand Park, away from the worst of the noise, and
where the street lamps are further apart. This place is quite secluded,
really, and most of the people he sees here are couples hurrying past or
trying to find their own quiet corners. His only half-planned footsteps
take him away from most of the people, until he finds himself standing
beside a marble pillar, with a long list of names on its side and an
inscription at its base that he struggles to read in the semi-darkness.

"In memory of those New Yorkers fallen for freedom in the First American
Revolution," Andrew reads, and the concentration lifts some of the haze from
his mind. Of course. The Avenue of the Fallen, through the centre of Grand
Park. Sure enough, looking up he can make out other statues and pillars
along both sides of the road.

"Too sombre for tonight," Andrew says to himself, but keeps along the avenue
anyway. The walk should clear his head, and it is quieter here than
elsewhere. The statues and columns on either side show those who fought and
died - or just died - in the many wars New York has seen. One statue of a
particularly sad-looking gentlemen catches his eye long enough for him to
read: RUFUS KING, MARTYR OF THE SECOND AMERICAN REVOLUTION. The name means
nothing to Andrew, but the man must have been someone important [1].

The monuments to the fallen, and the lists of their names, grow longer as he
lurches on. The First and Second American Revolutions. The War of 1833.
The Russian War. The Second Napoleonic Wars. The North American War. The
Great War. No more recent monuments than the Great War, but then these days
nations usually don't bother calling their conflicts 'wars' anymore. "Now
we just have incidents," Andrew mutters, quoting a certain lady whom he has
become acquainted with recently. She has an astonishing knowledge of
history, amongst much else, and some things seem to have rubbed off.

The crowds begin to grow thicker as Andrew draws near the other side of
Grand Park. There is no Carnival parade down this street that he knows of,
but it is still full of people and alcohol and celebrations. Better. His
wooziness has faded with the walk, and after the monuments he has just seen,
another drink would be most welcome.

He hurries through this street in search of a pub where he can find
something resembling alcohol to drink. The crowds are thinner here, and he
finds what he wants after only a few minutes' pushing. This pub has a man
out the front only slightly smaller than the Colossus of New York, but who
just nods as Andrew walks in. Quite what dress standards the man is meant
to enforce, he can only guess, since Andrew is wearing a collarless T-shirt
which would be unacceptable back in Liverpool. Maybe the dress standard for
Carnival is simply wearing clothes.

The pub is filled with Yankee accents, much more than anything else, as
Andrew slowly works his way to the bar. The pub has far more men than
women, something which would have annoyed him far more a few months than it
does now. As it is, he just shrugs mentally and orders a rum and cola. The
barman gives him a slightly odd look, but mixes the drink. Andrew thinks
little of that, until he notices that several men on both sides are staring
at him too.

Unsure what to do about the stares, he waits for the barman to hand him the
glass, then takes a slow sip.

At length, one of the Yankees says, "You a... gringo?" He did not say
"Jackal", perhaps, but it would be a brave New Englander who uses that name
for one of their southern neighbours in their hearing.

Andrew curses himself. He had not even realised he had spoken in an
American accent. A bad habit, that, but he cannot travel openly in the USA
these days. No Australian can, not even under a diplomatic passport.
Hearing the Yankee accents all around him... well, they were not gringo
drawls, but close enough that he must have spoken like an American without
thinking.

Quickly, Andrew says, "No, I'm from Sweden." That lie should pass easily
enough. His ancestry is mixed enough that he can pass for a native of any
European country north of the Pyrenees. "But I learned English from an
American." Half true, that; Andrew did learn the American dialect of
English from one of the foremost American defectors, working in the employ
of the CRB [2].

"Ah." The Yankee relaxes, and so do the other men around him. "Here for
Carnival?"

"Business too; just tidying up a few loose ends," Andrew says. "But this
parade of yours is amazing." He has not seen any of the parade itself, but
this Carnival is a very fine celebration.

"Aye, this is a time for joy," the Yankee says. He looks into nothingness
for a moment, as if he is seeing something large and ominous somewhere. To
the south, unless Andrew misses his guess. "Not everything in life is as
perfect as we wish it to be. But we are here, and we are happy."

"I'll drink to that!" Andrew says, and there is a chorus of agreement from
the New Englanders around him, as they do, and keep drinking long into
Carnival night.

* * *

19 July 1950
Longwood, South Bronx
New York City, Long Island
Republic of New England

A non-descript house in a non-descript neighbourhood in the Bronx; the
perfect place for anonymity. So far, that has worked for Deputy Director
Richard Burton's quarry. Longwood is a neighbourhood of transient settlers.
Transients come here to live in the cheap housing near to the shipyards and
rail terminal, and often to find work in the same places. Burton has seen
signs in two dozen languages while he was walking here. Almost anyone can
walk in Longwood and not draw notice, except someone who looks rich. Thus
his target could conceal himself for so long... and now that the hunters
draw near, they can use that same anonymity to conceal themselves while they
stalk in.

And the beauty of it is, Burton need only wait. Others are doing the
necessary deed, those beyond the reach of New England law. While Burton
knows that his director at the DFS [3] would approve of what he has done,
the fewer who officially know that transpires today, the better it will be
for all concerned.

There is one other man in the room with Burton: Andrew Kelvin, an
aristocratic Australian who is ostensibly present in New England on a
commercial visit. Well, this is business too. Kelvin has introduced
himself as a liaison officer, albeit an unofficial one. They can hardly
meet in Burton's office, after all.

A knock sounds, and Kelvin excuses himself while he goes to meet with his
fellow Australians who have conducted the operation. It would hardly do for
Kelvin to be seen doing such work himself; he is a person of stature back in
his home country. And a lucky country it is too, luckier than many
Australians themselves realise, Burton suspects. Australia has wide oceans
and thousands of miles to separate itself from its rivals' heartlands. New
England lacks that luxury.

"It's done," Kelvin says when he returns, extending a gloved hand holding a
briefcase.

"Thank you," Burton says, as he takes the case. He can feel the weight,
jewellery as well as cash, unless he misses his guess. "There'll be no
loose ends?'

Kelvin shrugs. "It's disguised well. On first glance, like a robbery which
went wrong, leading to an unfortunate death. If your police dig a bit, they
won't find much. If they dig very well, they'll find the name of a couple
of Russians who've unfortunately left New England... in about twenty minutes
from now."

"Excellent," Burton says, and smiles.

"Waste of time, I think," Kelvin replies. "The US has plenty of other eyes
in your country. What will losing this one cost them?"

"The United States has plenty of legals here," Burton answers. "But we know
where they are, mostly, and can do a lot to keep them from finding out
anything useful. Illegals like these are best... kept quiet, one way or the
other." He hates having to use extra-legal means to do so, but some things
are necessary.

"I suppose," Kelvin said. Clearly, he disagrees, but is uninterested in
pursing the argument. "Have a good evening." The Australian slips out into
the night.

"It's a better one now," Burton says, and waits a few minutes for the
Australian and his confederates to leave the area before he departs himself.

* * *

19 July 1950

My dear Michelle,

So, here I stand, in New York, New York. You were quite right; this is a
marvel of a city. Full of people and laughter and life. Carnival was
amazing, and while I've been busy working here and there to take much notice
of the rest of the city, what I've seen, I like. I think you should visit
here sometime, and I'd certainly like to see it again with you. Perhaps
when university finishes at the end of the year?

Work has been... well, what I can say about work [4]? I've tidied up a few
business matters which were threatening to run loose. My boss won't have
any reason to complain. There's still one or two small communication issues
I need to fix, but they won't be too bad.

Anyway, this is just a quick note written now I have a moment to myself.
Work has been keeping me much too busy to write until now. I promise to
write a longer letter when I finish here, or when I get back to Dublin.
Give my regards to your parents and brother, and I hope to see you again
soon.

(Signed)
Andrew

* * *

[1] Rufus King was a leading New York Federalist shot in rather suspicious
circumstances during the War of 1811. See post #9.

[2] Communications Review Board, the euphemistic name for one of Australia's
leading intelligence agencies.

[3] Department of Foreign Security, one of the two chief New England
intelligence agencies. (The other being the Technical Classification
Board).

[4] In other words, what can Andrew say when others might read his letter
before it arrives at its destination.

* * *

Thoughts?

Kaiser Wilhelm III
http://alternatehistory.com/decadesofdarkness/
http://decadesofdarkness.blogspot.com/
Mark Edelstein
2005-06-18 01:59:12 UTC
Permalink
All very good-though it has a Drakaesque feel to it (perhaps it is the
*New York setting)

How does a lordly type become a spy? Or is Australia British that way?

Is Liberian a portuguese dialect or odd English?

No street crime in this NYC? Or are the all owned by various
intelligence agencies (there sure seem to be a bunch).
Kaiser Wilhelm III
2005-06-18 02:25:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Edelstein
All very good-though it has a Drakaesque feel to it (perhaps it is the
*New York setting)
Hmm, do you mean New England feels like Drakadom or the Australians sound
like Drakas? It wasn't meant to feel Drakesque in particular, more to show
that while life in New England isn't entirely ideal, it's not all bad news,
either.
Post by Mark Edelstein
How does a lordly type become a spy? Or is Australia British that way?
Andrew Kelvin is a man of many talents. He only became Baron a couple of
years before, and he's also been a member of (imperial) parliament, among
other things. Although since becoming a lord he mostly does liaison rather
than hands-on work, not least because the chances of people recognising him
went up a notch - not the general public, but people who might have reason
to be familiar with him.
Post by Mark Edelstein
Is Liberian a portuguese dialect or odd English?
Liberian is English, with some French and Spanish and local African
loan-words. Its closest equivalent would be OTL's AAVE, although they're
not particularly close.
Post by Mark Edelstein
No street crime in this NYC?
A bunch of it, but not in differing neighbourhoods.
Post by Mark Edelstein
Or are the all owned by various
intelligence agencies (there sure seem to be a bunch).
Not really owned, although there's various connections there. And yes,
there's all sorts of espionage agencies out there ITTL's 1950s. Think a
three-sided Cold War with several of the second-rank powers also having
significant intelligence agencies of their own.

Cheers,
Kaiser Wilhelm III
http://alternatehistory.com/decadesofdarkness/
http://decadesofdarkness.blogspot.com/
Mark Edelstein
2005-06-18 02:40:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III
Post by Mark Edelstein
All very good-though it has a Drakaesque feel to it (perhaps it is the
*New York setting)
Hmm, do you mean New England feels like Drakadom or the Australians sound
like Drakas? It wasn't meant to feel Drakesque in particular, more to show
that while life in New England isn't entirely ideal, it's not all bad news,
either.
It isn't such a bad thing: there's a few scenes in the stone dogs of
Alliance New York, and this has a similar "bastion of good with an
overlay of oppressive feel" to it, as it were. Not that New England is
AfDlike (because THAT was an implausible state if there ever was one)
but I think the atmospherics would be somewhat similar.
Kaiser Wilhelm III
2005-06-18 02:53:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Edelstein
Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III
Post by Mark Edelstein
All very good-though it has a Drakaesque feel to it (perhaps it is the
*New York setting)
Hmm, do you mean New England feels like Drakadom or the Australians sound
like Drakas? It wasn't meant to feel Drakesque in particular, more to show
that while life in New England isn't entirely ideal, it's not all bad news,
either.
It isn't such a bad thing: there's a few scenes in the stone dogs of
Alliance New York
Ah, gotcha. I skimmed most of the Stone Dogs, to be honest, so I hadn't
really picked up on that. If this episode had any deliberate inspiration
from OTL authors, it was actually more a combination of Terry Pratchett, Guy
Gavriel Kay and Frederick Forsyth. Not necessarily in that order.
Post by Mark Edelstein
and this has a similar "bastion of good with an
overlay of oppressive feel" to it, as it were. Not that New England is
AfDlike (because THAT was an implausible state if there ever was one)
but I think the atmospherics would be somewhat similar.
Quite a bit of that. New England in the 1950s is still an attractive place
to live, in many ways, but there is this relatively nearby neighbour...

Cheers,
Kaiser Wilhelm III
http://alternatehistory.com/decadesofdarkness/
http://decadesofdarkness.blogspot.com/
birdboy2000
2005-06-18 04:39:32 UTC
Permalink
Yeah, but they have to deal with Canada in OTL too...

OBChallenge: Plausible canadian draka.
Kaiser Wilhelm III
2005-06-18 22:22:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by birdboy2000
Yeah, but they have to deal with Canada in OTL too...
A distinct point. Although Canada's ATL status has not yet been made
entirely clear.
Post by birdboy2000
OBChallenge: Plausible canadian draka.
Hmm. Something triggers global cooling early (severe volcanic eruption?)
and Canadians move south to enslave everyone, after being made so
cold-blooded by living near the advancing glaciers?

Cheers,
Kaiser Wilhelm III
Gene Wirchenko
2005-06-20 05:12:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III
Post by birdboy2000
Yeah, but they have to deal with Canada in OTL too...
A distinct point. Although Canada's ATL status has not yet been made
entirely clear.
Post by birdboy2000
OBChallenge: Plausible canadian draka.
Hmm. Something triggers global cooling early (severe volcanic eruption?)
and Canadians move south to enslave everyone, after being made so
cold-blooded by living near the advancing glaciers?
I got transferred to Bellingham, WA from Kamloops, BC. But this
would be a future WI, so my plans will remain secret.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

Computerese Irregular Verb Conjugation:
I have preferences.
You have biases.
He/She has prejudices.
Kaiser Wilhelm III
2005-06-18 02:50:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III
Post by Mark Edelstein
No street crime in this NYC?
A bunch of it, but not in differing neighbourhoods.
Hmm, bad typo there. Should have read 'A bunch of it, but in differing
neighbourhoods'. The areas which are regarded as unsafe in *New York are
somewhat different to OTL.

Cheers,
Kaiser Wilhelm III
http://alternatehistory.com/decadesofdarkness/
http://decadesofdarkness.blogspot.com/
Noel
2005-06-19 05:29:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III
Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III
Post by Mark Edelstein
No street crime in this NYC?
A bunch of it, but not in differing neighbourhoods.
Hmm, bad typo there. Should have read 'A bunch of it, but in differing
neighbourhoods'. The areas which are regarded as unsafe in *New York are
somewhat different to OTL.
---Assuming that Longwood is Longwood, then the
area in OTL was quite a bit nicer in 1950 than
the place that you describe. It was almost en-
tirely abandoned during the 1970s. In the early
1990s it was reconstructed with dinky townhouses,
one of which I am currently thinking about pur-
chasing. (For reasons utterly beyond me, the
"Bronx" name seems to have caused the housing
bubble currently afflicting the rest of the
Northeast to pass right by the borough.)

In other words, the ares which are regarded as
unsafe in New York in 2005 were somewhat differ-
ent in 1950.

Best,

Noel
Kaiser Wilhelm III
2005-06-19 22:45:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Noel
Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III
Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III
Post by Mark Edelstein
No street crime in this NYC?
A bunch of it, but not in differing neighbourhoods.
Hmm, bad typo there. Should have read 'A bunch of it, but in differing
neighbourhoods'. The areas which are regarded as unsafe in *New York are
somewhat different to OTL.
---Assuming that Longwood is Longwood, then the
area in OTL was quite a bit nicer in 1950 than
the place that you describe.
It's meant to be the same location, yes.
Post by Noel
It was almost en-
tirely abandoned during the 1970s. In the early
1990s it was reconstructed with dinky townhouses,
one of which I am currently thinking about pur-
chasing. (For reasons utterly beyond me, the
"Bronx" name seems to have caused the housing
bubble currently afflicting the rest of the
Northeast to pass right by the borough.)
In other words, the ares which are regarded as
unsafe in New York in 2005 were somewhat differ-
ent in 1950.
I was intending them to be different; some better, some worse. *Longwood
falls somewhere in the middle - ITTL, it's meant to be a place of relatively
cheap housing and a mixture of immigrants from many nations. Not dramatic
street crime, but not entirely free of it either. If it's implausible that
*Longwood would be like this, I can easily relocate it somewhere else,
although my knowledge of New York's geography is rather limited.

Cheers,
Kaiser Wilhelm III
http://alternatehistory.com/decadesofdarkness/
http://decadesofdarkness.blogspot.com/
Noel
2005-06-20 15:02:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III
Post by Noel
Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III
Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III
Post by Mark Edelstein
No street crime in this NYC?
A bunch of it, but not in differing neighbourhoods.
Hmm, bad typo there. Should have read 'A bunch of it, but in differing
neighbourhoods'. The areas which are regarded as unsafe in *New York are
somewhat different to OTL.
---Assuming that Longwood is Longwood, then the
area in OTL was quite a bit nicer in 1950 than
the place that you describe.
It's meant to be the same location, yes.
Post by Noel
It was almost en-
tirely abandoned during the 1970s. In the early
1990s it was reconstructed with dinky townhouses,
one of which I am currently thinking about pur-
chasing. (For reasons utterly beyond me, the
"Bronx" name seems to have caused the housing
bubble currently afflicting the rest of the
Northeast to pass right by the borough.)
In other words, the ares which are regarded as
unsafe in New York in 2005 were somewhat differ-
ent in 1950.
I was intending them to be different; some better, some worse. *Longwood
falls somewhere in the middle - ITTL, it's meant to be a place of relatively
cheap housing and a mixture of immigrants from many nations. Not dramatic
street crime, but not entirely free of it either. If it's implausible that
*Longwood would be like this, I can easily relocate it somewhere else,
although my knowledge of New York's geography is rather limited.
---Longwood is perfectly plausible as you describe it.

Best,

Noel
Tony Bailey
2005-06-18 03:59:33 UTC
Permalink
"Kaiser Wilhelm III" <***@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message >
Andrew Kelvin walks unsteadily through Manhattan. He thinks that he should
Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III
not feel drunk; he is only on his tenth - or is it eleventh? - schooner of
the yellow water that the New Yorkers call beer. It should not affect him
Schooner? - What strange movement of the Butterflies Wings has brought
Schooner glasses to NYC? (And WHICH schooner?)

(In the words of the great George Wallace-

I'm glad the strikes over - and now I'm off!

Are we goin' down the wharf to load a Collier George?

No- Down the pub to sink a Schooner!)
--
Tony Bailey
Mercury Travel Books
,
c***@hotmail.com
2005-06-18 06:28:01 UTC
Permalink
Are you sure that the yanks would have bad beer in this TL? It seems
likely that with Prohabition occuring earlier than in OTL, the brewing
industry would have had time to recover. Also, since the market of
Yankee beer would be smaller than American beer in OTL, there would be
less of a 'need' to water it down for higher profits. It seems likely
that New England would actually have quiet a thriving beer scene,
perhaps with one or two companies ahead of the pack, but with several
other 'micro breweries' nipping at their heels.

Oh well, as long as American beer is still doing well out of
Schoolcraft. My legacy of a good American Weizen must still hold :)
Mike Ralls
2005-06-18 06:52:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by c***@hotmail.com
Are you sure that the yanks would have bad beer in this TL?
One possibility might be Hard Cider instead of beer. In OTL Hard Cider
was the traditional drink instead of beer for most of the early years of
the republic. But as transportation improved and the US grew so large,
it got harder to have the same type of hard cider in different locals.
With a more geographically compact New England, perhaps some national
brand(s) of hard cider could come up on top and become the drink of
choice for New Englanders.
--
Mike Ralls
http://mikesbooknotes.blogspot.com/
"I tell you, the sperm whale will stand no nonsense."
--H. Melville
c***@hotmail.com
2005-06-18 15:31:37 UTC
Permalink
Hmm, that sounds reasonable I suppose. Who can turn their nose up at
Hard Cider after all :)
groton
2005-06-18 18:23:59 UTC
Permalink
yah
i see Hard Ciders and Stouts not many Pilsners
which would make this a somewhat better New England to live in.
Kaiser Wilhelm III
2005-06-18 22:40:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by groton
yah
i see Hard Ciders and Stouts not many Pilsners
which would make this a somewhat better New England to live in.
I'm now leaning this way... Hard cider is the drink of choice, at least in
most of eastern New England. Which probably means the bad beer is for the
tourists only. A bit like Fosters is theoretically Australian, but mostly
exported overseas rather than drunk at home.

Cheers,
Kaiser Wilhelm III
http://alternatehistory.com/decadesofdarkness/
http://decadesofdarkness.blogspot.com/
c***@hotmail.com
2005-06-19 05:47:46 UTC
Permalink
Poor Austrials, hooked up with the Fosters thing. The same thing
being, is that Fosters is BETTER than most American beers(at least the
mass marketed kinds)
Tony Bailey
2005-06-19 05:51:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III
tourists only. A bit like Fosters is theoretically Australian, but mostly
exported overseas rather than drunk at home.
No Kaiser,

Most of it is manufactured overseas under licence - and has no real
resemblance (apart from packaging) to the real thing - many could very well
say that this is probably just as well for the consumers - I merely say
"Another Schooner of Toohey's Old Squire?"

BTW - I'm still trying to fathom out those Schooner glasses in NY and
exactly which Schooners they are!
--
Tony Bailey
Mercury Travel Books
Kaiser Wilhelm III
2005-06-19 22:49:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony Bailey
Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III
tourists only. A bit like Fosters is theoretically Australian, but
mostly exported overseas rather than drunk at home.
No Kaiser,
Most of it is manufactured overseas under licence - and has no real
resemblance (apart from packaging) to the real thing - many could very
well say that this is probably just as well for the consumers - I merely
say "Another Schooner of Toohey's Old Squire?"
Couldn't speak much for comparison of Fosters either overseas or in
Australia, since I don't really drink it in either place, but that's another
story...
Post by Tony Bailey
BTW - I'm still trying to fathom out those Schooner glasses in NY and
exactly which Schooners they are!
Just meant to be a generic large glass of beer. I could just call them
glasses instead, or possibly pints - I'm still not sure if NE has gone
metric ITTL. The USA hasn't, though.

Cheers,
Kaiser Wilhelm III
http://alternatehistory.com/decadesofdarkness/
http://decadesofdarkness.blogspot.com/
Kaiser Wilhelm III
2005-06-18 22:39:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Ralls
Post by c***@hotmail.com
Are you sure that the yanks would have bad beer in this TL?
One possibility might be Hard Cider instead of beer. In OTL Hard Cider
was the traditional drink instead of beer for most of the early years of
the republic. But as transportation improved and the US grew so large, it
got harder to have the same type of hard cider in different locals. With a
more geographically compact New England, perhaps some national brand(s) of
hard cider could come up on top and become the drink of choice for New
Englanders.
Sounds quite likely, actually. I may have to amend this episode a bit -
most of the Yankees are drinking cider, not beer, and look a bit strange at
someone who would want to drink beer, perhaps.

Cheers,
Kaiser Wilhelm III
http://alternatehistory.com/decadesofdarkness/
http://decadesofdarkness.blogspot.com/
Kaiser Wilhelm III
2005-06-18 22:38:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by c***@hotmail.com
Are you sure that the yanks would have bad beer in this TL? It seems
likely that with Prohabition occuring earlier than in OTL, the brewing
industry would have had time to recover.
The brewing industry has started to recover somewhat by now, but not
entirely. It took about 50 years to do so in OTL, if memory serves (from
roughly the early 1930s to the early 1980s). There's been a slightly
smaller timeframe here - ~45 years since the end of Prohibition. So I think
it would be getting better, but still not entirely recovered.
Post by c***@hotmail.com
Also, since the market of Yankee beer would be smaller than American beer
in OTL, there would be less of a 'need' to water it down for higher
profits.
Remember that this is Kelvin, personally, who thinks it's bad; he might just
possibly be biased. Or he may just prefer a different flavour which he's
more used to (Irish and Australian beers, in this case).
Post by c***@hotmail.com
It seems likely that New England would actually have quiet a thriving beer
scene,
perhaps with one or two companies ahead of the pack, but with several
other 'micro breweries' nipping at their heels.
Micro breweries are starting up again, but they're not quite there yet, in
large numbers. At least in New York, it's dominated by one or two large
breweries.
Post by c***@hotmail.com
Oh well, as long as American beer is still doing well out of
Schoolcraft. My legacy of a good American Weizen must still hold :)
Not sure about Wisconsin beer, or indeed about Wisconsin, but that's
something I'll take up with you offlist, if you like - there's things afoot
in post-war Canada which could stand to be described.

Cheers,
Kaiser Wilhelm III
http://alternatehistory.com/decadesofdarkness/
http://decadesofdarkness.blogspot.com/
Michael G. Koerner
2005-06-19 02:32:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III
Post by c***@hotmail.com
Oh well, as long as American beer is still doing well out of
Schoolcraft. My legacy of a good American Weizen must still hold :)
Not sure about Wisconsin beer, or indeed about Wisconsin, but that's
something I'll take up with you offlist, if you like - there's things afoot
in post-war Canada which could stand to be described.
That depends on how many Germans immigrate to DoD Wisconsin. In OTL's
late 19th century, there were so many German immigrants in Wisconsin
that there was a strong, legitimate push to make German the state's
official language. For that reason, OTL Wisconsin has a strong beer
culture such that the state was a pioneer in the late 20th century small
brewery revival.
--
___________________________________________ ____ _______________
Regards, | |\ ____
| | | | |\
Michael G. Koerner May they | | | | | | rise again!
Appleton, Wisconsin USA | | | | | |
___________________________________________ | | | | | | _______________
c***@hotmail.com
2005-06-19 05:52:16 UTC
Permalink
In TTL, Germans still move to Wisconsin in large numbers, but the Irish
are the largest culture group in the state; largely centered around
Deaborn(Chicago) and Belfast (Milwaukee). I'm expecting Wisconsin to
have a good beer industry, but good Whiskey as well. Its not as known
for beer in the DoD TL. Wilkinson, on the other hand, has a really
nice brewing industry centered around the capital of Shoolcraft(St.
Paul).
Kaiser Wilhelm III
2005-06-19 22:55:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by c***@hotmail.com
In TTL, Germans still move to Wisconsin in large numbers, but the Irish
are the largest culture group in the state; largely centered around
Deaborn(Chicago) and Belfast (Milwaukee). I'm expecting Wisconsin to
have a good beer industry, but good Whiskey as well.
It probably has better beer than TTL's east coast of New England, which
(based on other posts in this thread) I now suspect saw a revival of hard
cider, rather than beer.
Post by c***@hotmail.com
Its not as known
for beer in the DoD TL. Wilkinson, on the other hand, has a really
nice brewing industry centered around the capital of Shoolcraft(St.
Paul).
Quite a flourishing industry; TTL's USA hasn't really seen prohibition of
any alcohol (or pretty much any drugs, come to that). Which has various
knock-on effects, such as lots of good Virginian wines, among other things.

Cheers,
Kaiser Wilhelm III
http://alternatehistory.com/decadesofdarkness/
http://decadesofdarkness.blogspot.com/
c***@hotmail.com
2005-06-19 06:01:16 UTC
Permalink
Drop me an e-mail then, I'd be more than happy to do another post or
two covering Wilkinson and Wisconsin. As my last post stated though,
the American beer of choice is a nice brewery out of Schoolcraft which
drews a Heffe Wiezen. I figured that if America has to be dystopic,
the least I could do is give them a GOOD beer :)
Gene Wirchenko
2005-06-20 05:32:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by c***@hotmail.com
Drop me an e-mail then, I'd be more than happy to do another post or
two covering Wilkinson and Wisconsin. As my last post stated though,
the American beer of choice is a nice brewery out of Schoolcraft which
drews a Heffe Wiezen. I figured that if America has to be dystopic,
the least I could do is give them a GOOD beer :)
I enjoy one ad that I have seen in "The Stranger" a free
tabloid-size newspaper published in Seattle and distributed in
Bellingham (among other places).

CHOOSE WIDMER HEFEWEIZEN.
Because other hefeweizens might have wet kittens in them.

You can download it at <http://www.widmer.com/games/ads.asp> (4.8
MB).

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

Computerese Irregular Verb Conjugation:
I have preferences.
You have biases.
He/She has prejudices.
Kaiser Wilhelm III
2005-06-18 22:32:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III
Andrew Kelvin walks unsteadily through Manhattan. He thinks that he should
Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III
not feel drunk; he is only on his tenth - or is it eleventh? - schooner
of the yellow water that the New Yorkers call beer. It should not affect
him
Schooner? - What strange movement of the Butterflies Wings has brought
Schooner glasses to NYC? (And WHICH schooner?)
Well, remember that the viewpoint character for this scene is Australian, so
he thinks of them as schooners, even if that's not what the New Yorkers call
them [1]. It just means that he's been drinking beer from some reasonably
large glass, that's all.

Cheers,
Kaiser Wilhelm III
http://alternatehistory.com/decadesofdarkness/
http://decadesofdarkness.blogspot.com/

[1] And not having been to New York, I'm not entirely sure what OTL New
Yorkers would call them, either.
Tony Bailey
2005-06-19 05:55:57 UTC
Permalink
"Kaiser Wilhelm III" <***@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message >
Well, remember that the viewpoint character for this scene is Australian, so
Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III
he thinks of them as schooners, even if that's not what the New Yorkers
call them [1]. It just means that he's been drinking beer from some
reasonably large glass, that's all.
Ah! So in this TL he would come from NSW!

BTW - Unless your NY has gone metric, wouldn't a pint and half pint glass be
more likely? Any good Aussie lad who comes from the right area and has been
in Ireland would recognise a pint if he saw it!
--
Tony Bailey
Mercury Travel Books
Kaiser Wilhelm III
2005-06-19 22:51:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III
Well, remember that the viewpoint character for this scene is Australian, so
Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III
he thinks of them as schooners, even if that's not what the New Yorkers
call them [1]. It just means that he's been drinking beer from some
reasonably large glass, that's all.
Ah! So in this TL he would come from NSW!
He's lived in both NSW and *Victoria in roughly equal amounts.
Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III
BTW - Unless your NY has gone metric, wouldn't a pint and half pint glass
be more likely? Any good Aussie lad who comes from the right area and has
been in Ireland would recognise a pint if he saw it!
I'm thinking of calling them pint and a half glasses, unless there's a
shorter word which can cover that.

Cheers,
Kaiser Wilhelm III
http://alternatehistory.com/decadesofdarkness/
http://decadesofdarkness.blogspot.com/
Mike Ralls
2005-06-18 06:54:06 UTC
Permalink
Killing spies is a rather unusual breech of edict in espionage actually.
Not only does it encourage the enemy to do the same thing to yours,
but captured spies are usually much more valuable as bargaining chips
than as dead slabs of meat.
--
Mike Ralls
http://mikesbooknotes.blogspot.com/
"I tell you, the sperm whale will stand no nonsense."
--H. Melville
Mark Edelstein
2005-06-18 10:33:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Ralls
Killing spies is a rather unusual breech of edict in espionage actually.
Not only does it encourage the enemy to do the same thing to yours,
but captured spies are usually much more valuable as bargaining chips
than as dead slabs of meat.
--
Mike Ralls
http://mikesbooknotes.blogspot.com/
"I tell you, the sperm whale will stand no nonsense."
--H. Melville
But don't illegals often get ill-treated? I understand killing is bad
form, but if the spies are of the "We deny their existence" type...

Also given the nature of this "cold war" life in intelligence agencies
may rather unpleasant.
Kaiser Wilhelm III
2005-06-18 22:48:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Edelstein
Post by Mike Ralls
Killing spies is a rather unusual breech of edict in espionage actually.
Not only does it encourage the enemy to do the same thing to yours,
but captured spies are usually much more valuable as bargaining chips
than as dead slabs of meat.
But don't illegals often get ill-treated?
Roughed up perhaps (or grilled severely), but not killed, usually.
Post by Mark Edelstein
I understand killing is bad
form, but if the spies are of the "We deny their existence" type...
Also given the nature of this "cold war" life in intelligence agencies
may rather unpleasant.
One of the incidental effects of having a multi-polar cold war is that it's
a lot harder to say who the other side was doing the killing. In OTL, it
was a fair bet that the Big Enemy would be the one behind it, one way or
another. Here, it's not that clear. Was it the New Englanders, the
Australians, the Russians, or the Germans? Yes, the USA can make a fair
guess that a New England group, or at least one person within a NE
intelligence agency knew of it, but were other parties involved as well?

Cheers,
Kaiser Wilhelm III
http://alternatehistory.com/decadesofdarkness/
http://decadesofdarkness.blogspot.com/
Kaiser Wilhelm III
2005-06-18 22:44:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Ralls
Killing spies is a rather unusual breech of edict in espionage actually.
It is extreme, which is why it was disguised as a crime killing gone awry,
but happens somewhat more ITTL for a variety of reasons. What is in place
is a version of the same gentleman's rules which (mostly) applied to the USA
vs Soviet Union in OTL - the CIA didn't kill people in the Soviet Union, the
KGB didn't (usually) kill Americans in the USA.
Post by Mike Ralls
Not only does it encourage the enemy to do the same thing to yours,
It does, which is the reason ITTL why it's rare but not unheard of.
Post by Mike Ralls
but captured spies are usually much more valuable as bargaining chips than
as dead slabs of meat.
They would be, if the USA would acknowledge their existence. Which they
wouldn't, in this case, at least officially. Possibly they might bargain
unofficially, but they are unlikely to do so - plausible deniability is
alive and well here.

Cheers,
Kaiser Wilhelm III
http://alternatehistory.com/decadesofdarkness/
http://decadesofdarkness.blogspot.com/
Good Habit
2005-06-18 20:00:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III
Decades of Darkness Interlude #5: On A Night Like This
.
Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III
The monuments to the fallen, and the lists of their names, grow longer as he
lurches on. The First and Second American Revolutions. The War of 1833.
The Russian War. The Second Napoleonic Wars. The North American War. The
Great War. No more recent monuments than the Great War
Ah - New England fought in "the Great War"!?!?.

[So they either win the North American War, and this is the rematch,
with a European theater, ending in a draw in North America..]
Because, as we know from the "Frankfurt" interlude, the War in Europe
(probably the Great war?) was won by Germany against several European
powers, and Britain isn't a big power anymore in 1950../So the Britons
probably lost against Germany?
So, in the Great war, Germany and the US fight on the same side...[1]
Or, the US and Britain fight on the same side [2]
or its a multi-cornered struggle - really ugly [3]

[1] This seems the most likely combination, IMO, but if New England did
loose the earlier war, had to accept military restrictions after the
peace conference, and still goes to war against the US, just to loose
again, it should be toast now (not annexed, but under military
occupation with a puppet government in place - wouldn't fit the
description above, of course.)
[And that's why I could see NE remain neutral in such a Great War].

[2] In that case, New England would likely fight on the same side as
Britain and the US (probably against at least Germany AND Russia.)
This should lead to rather better relations to the US than depicted, for
the Australians (probably on the same side) as well - so the Great
Alliance of the Anglosphere..)

[3] that's probably to difficult..
-- but may be the US remain neutral in the Great War, and New England,
as a loyal 'Dominion', fights on Britains side. (This wouldn't be
welcome in the US, probably, and seen as a violation of the earlier
peace agreement by the US government, so a somewhat careful New England
government would likely not dare..)
Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III
A bad habit, that, but he cannot travel openly in the USA
these days. No Australian can, not even under a diplomatic passport.
This is because? The US-Australian relations are REALLY bad? or the US
has become more or less a police state with real paranoia against all
foreigners?

Cheers
Good Habit
Kaiser Wilhelm III
2005-06-18 23:02:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Good Habit
Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III
Decades of Darkness Interlude #5: On A Night Like This
.
Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III
The monuments to the fallen, and the lists of their names, grow longer as
he lurches on. The First and Second American Revolutions. The War of
1833. The Russian War. The Second Napoleonic Wars. The North American
War. The Great War. No more recent monuments than the Great War
Ah - New England fought in "the Great War"!?!?.
Yes, they did, as did most other nations in the world, although the war was
considerably less bloody than OTL's WW2.
Post by Good Habit
[So they either win the North American War, and this is the rematch, with
a European theater, ending in a draw in North America..]
Because, as we know from the "Frankfurt" interlude, the War in Europe
(probably the Great war?) was won by Germany against several European
powers, and Britain isn't a big power anymore in 1950../So the Britons
probably lost against Germany?
So, in the Great war, Germany and the US fight on the same side...[1]
Or, the US and Britain fight on the same side [2]
or its a multi-cornered struggle - really ugly [3]
[1] This seems the most likely combination, IMO, but if New England did
loose the earlier war, had to accept military restrictions after the peace
conference, and still goes to war against the US, just to loose again, it
should be toast now (not annexed, but under military occupation with a
puppet government in place - wouldn't fit the description above, of
course.)
It would be toast, in such circumstances.
Post by Good Habit
[And that's why I could see NE remain neutral in such a Great War].
NE and the USA don't fight each other during the Great War; it's safe to say
that much.
Post by Good Habit
[2] In that case, New England would likely fight on the same side as
Britain and the US (probably against at least Germany AND Russia.)
This is the likeliest option, given the above, but there are varying degrees
of cooperation. There's the USA as a kind of friendly neutral (selling
grain and munitions to New England and Britain but not Germany, for
example), to picking on German allies but not fighting with Britain et al,
to being a 'co-belligerant' like they were in TTL's 2nd Napoleonic Wars, to
being a Soviet-like ally to the Western powers in WW2 (common enemy, but
quite different objectives - see Soviet neutrality against Japan for most of
WW2).
Post by Good Habit
This should lead to rather better relations to the US than depicted, for
the Australians (probably on the same side) as well - so the Great
Alliance of the Anglosphere..)
No more so than fighting on the same side during WW2 lead to such close
post-war relations between the United States and the Soviet Union.
Post by Good Habit
[3] that's probably to difficult.
A straight multi-sided war is rather difficult, but two wars mostly separate
in origin which are later merged is a possibility. For example, the
European war and the Pacific War during WW2.
Post by Good Habit
-- but may be the US remain neutral in the Great War, and New England, as
a loyal 'Dominion', fights on Britains side. (This wouldn't be welcome in
the US, probably, and seen as a violation of the earlier peace agreement
by the US government, so a somewhat careful New England government would
likely not dare..)
It would need at least the tacit agreement of the USA to do so, yes.
Post by Good Habit
Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III
A bad habit, that, but he cannot travel openly in the USA these days. No
Australian can, not even under a diplomatic passport.
This is because? The US-Australian relations are REALLY bad?
Really, really bad. It was mentioned in passing in one of the interludes
that the USA and Australia broke off diplomatic relations in 1947, and
haven't resumed them. This is rather a large step between major powers.
Post by Good Habit
or the US has become more or less a police state with real
paranoia against all foreigners?
They are wary of foreigners, but particularly mistrustful of Australians.

Cheers,
Kaiser Wilhelm III
http://alternatehistory.com/decadesofdarkness/
http://decadesofdarkness.blogspot.com/
Good Habit
2005-06-19 18:53:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III
Post by Good Habit
Ah - New England fought in "the Great War"!?!?.
Yes, they did, as did most other nations in the world, although the war was
considerably less bloody than OTL's WW2.
<snip>
Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III
NE and the USA don't fight each other during the Great War; it's safe to say
that much.
Post by Good Habit
[2] In that case, New England would likely fight on the same side as
Britain and the US (probably against at least Germany AND Russia.)
This is the likeliest option, given the above, but there are varying degrees
of cooperation. There's the USA as a kind of friendly neutral (selling
grain and munitions to New England and Britain but not Germany, for
example), to picking on German allies but not fighting with Britain et al,
to being a 'co-belligerant' like they were in TTL's 2nd Napoleonic Wars, to
being a Soviet-like ally to the Western powers in WW2 (common enemy, but
quite different objectives - see Soviet neutrality against Japan for most of
WW2).
Post by Good Habit
This should lead to rather better relations to the US than depicted, for
the Australians (probably on the same side) as well - so the Great
Alliance of the Anglosphere..)
No more so than fighting on the same side during WW2 lead to such close
post-war relations between the United States and the Soviet Union.
I didn't argue against that example, because the differences seemed to
be to obvious...

In OTL, the US and the USSR fought on the same side until their main
common enemy(Germany) was beaten - just a BIT longer. After victory,
they hadned a common foe, and thus no common goals anymore.

But in this ATL, victory seems in short supply for this 'alliance'. So
the conclusion, that with the enemy still around, the smaller partners
would rally around the largest and seek his protection, seemed not that
far fetched. (And the largest 'partner' would likely be the US.)

But maybe, when the war goes bad for Britain et Al, the US dont come to
their rescue, but let them hang. This:
a) because they have no ressources to spare, as they are busy elsewhere
- or
b) the memory of the North-American war is still strong, the US don't
really want to rescue their former enemy, they just leaned to their side
(assuming that they are the weaker party) to prolongate the war, so that
both sides have the chance to bleed each other white, leaving the US
stronger than ever...
And so, when the war goes bad in Europe (and probably the middle east as
well - some day Constantinopel has to become Russian), the US dont
really commit themselves to the cause of the other Anglophone countries.

And when Britain is out, and the chance to regain a foothold in Europe
reallistically nonexistant, Hartford, Kingston (if Canada is still
around) Retif and Canberra (if this are the ATL capitals of South-Africa
and Australia) might reasset their alliances and come to the conclusion
that the US dominance in the Americas, (and may be part of the pacific)
is worse than German dominance in Europe (and may be part of Africa?)
and Russian dominance in much the interior of Eurasia, including big
parts of East [and probably west) Asia, and thus end the war...
<snip>
Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III
Post by Good Habit
-- but may be the US remain neutral in the Great War, and New England, as
a loyal 'Dominion', fights on Britains side. (This wouldn't be welcome in
the US, probably, and seen as a violation of the earlier peace agreement
by the US government, so a somewhat careful New England government would
likely not dare..)
It would need at least the tacit agreement of the USA to do so, yes.
They [the US in 1950] are wary of foreigners, but particularly mistrustful of Australians.
Will we be able to learn - some day - which grave incident lead to such
a grave fallout?
Mark Edelstein
2005-06-19 19:18:43 UTC
Permalink
Isn't the real problem that an "Anglosphere" alliance (the "Empire)
exists to allow Britain's former colonies (and so it seems New England,
at least informally) to punch out of their weight. And if the U.S gets
imperialist it is the Commenwealth they'll go for first (either that or
the Southern Cone).
Kaiser Wilhelm III
2005-06-19 23:28:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Edelstein
Isn't the real problem that an "Anglosphere" alliance (the "Empire)
exists to allow Britain's former colonies (and so it seems New England,
at least informally) to punch out of their weight.
New England's relations with the Restored Empire are complex. Reasons for
friendship, also reasons for antagonism and envy. Generally speaking they
cooperate (see, common enemy), but don't have anything equalling a formal or
even informal alliance.

Also, the Restored Empire, even combined, doesn't come close to a match of
any of the superpowers, the USA included. As a rough comparison,
Australia's power in 1950 is roughly equal to that of the United Kingdom,
alone (sans the rest of the Empire) versus OTL's 1950 USA. The other
members of the Empire will certainly help, but even combined they don't add
up to match the USA.
Post by Mark Edelstein
And if the U.S gets imperialist it is the Commenwealth they'll go
for first (either that or the Southern Cone).
If the USA gets imperialist, New England's status is... precarious. Not
doomed, by any means, but in a situation where it needs to call in lots of
favours very fast.

Cheers,
Kaiser Wilhelm III
http://alternatehistory.com/decadesofdarkness/
http://decadesofdarkness.blogspot.com/
Kaiser Wilhelm III
2005-06-19 23:22:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III
Post by Good Habit
[2] In that case, New England would likely fight on the same side as
Britain and the US (probably against at least Germany AND Russia.)
This is the likeliest option, given the above, but there are varying
degrees of cooperation. There's the USA as a kind of friendly neutral
(selling grain and munitions to New England and Britain but not Germany,
for example), to picking on German allies but not fighting with Britain
et al, to being a 'co-belligerant' like they were in TTL's 2nd Napoleonic
Wars, to being a Soviet-like ally to the Western powers in WW2 (common
enemy, but quite different objectives - see Soviet neutrality against
Japan for most of WW2).
Post by Good Habit
This should lead to rather better relations to the US than depicted, for
the Australians (probably on the same side) as well - so the Great
Alliance of the Anglosphere..)
No more so than fighting on the same side during WW2 lead to such close
post-war relations between the United States and the Soviet Union.
I didn't argue against that example, because the differences seemed to be
to obvious...
The situations aren't closely comparable, it was just to illustrate the
general point that alliances of convenience (which is what any form of
alliance or other cooperation between New England and the USA would be) can
shift quite quickly once it is no longer convenient. Just as the alliance
of convenience between the SU and the western Allies shifted very quickly
after the end of WW2.
In OTL, the US and the USSR fought on the same side until their main
common enemy(Germany) was beaten - just a BIT longer. After victory, they
hadned a common foe, and thus no common goals anymore.
But in this ATL, victory seems in short supply for this 'alliance'. So the
conclusion, that with the enemy still around, the smaller partners would
rally around the largest and seek his protection, seemed not that far
fetched. (And the largest 'partner' would likely be the US.)
Diplomacy is a strange business at times. Without going too much into the
details of the Great War, suffice it to say that even if New England is
friendly/seeking protection to the USA for the first few years after such a
war, then it wouldn't take them too long to start seeking rapprochment
elsewhere as well.
But maybe, when the war goes bad for Britain et Al, the US dont come to
a) because they have no ressources to spare, as they are busy elsewhere
A distinct possibility.
- or
b) the memory of the North-American war is still strong, the US don't
really want to rescue their former enemy, they just leaned to their side
(assuming that they are the weaker party) to prolongate the war, so that
both sides have the chance to bleed each other white, leaving the US
stronger than ever...
Also quite likely, especially if US support consists mostly of selling lots
of grain and munitions to Britain et al, while fighting on other fronts for
other interests.
And so, when the war goes bad in Europe (and probably the middle east as
well - some day Constantinopel has to become Russian), the US dont really
commit themselves to the cause of the other Anglophone countries.
And, come to that, the other Anglophone countries would never feel entirely
comfortable with the USA as an ally anyway.
And when Britain is out, and the chance to regain a foothold in Europe
reallistically nonexistant, Hartford, Kingston (if Canada is still around)
Retif and Canberra (if this are the ATL capitals of South-Africa and
Australia) might reasset their alliances and come to the conclusion that
the US dominance in the Americas, (and may be part of the pacific) is
worse than German dominance in Europe (and may be part of Africa?) and
Russian dominance in much the interior of Eurasia, including big parts of
East [and probably west) Asia, and thus end the war...
The circumstances which end the Great War will be complicated. Again, I
don't want to give too many details yet, but there are multiple fronts on
multiple continents, and not all of them will end at the same time or in the
same way.
Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III
They [the US in 1950] are wary of foreigners, but particularly
mistrustful of Australians.
Will we be able to learn - some day - which grave incident lead to such a
grave fallout?
Yes, although not immediately. Revealing what the "incident" was would give
too much else away, at this stage.

Cheers,
Kaiser Wilhelm III
http://alternatehistory.com/decadesofdarkness/
http://decadesofdarkness.blogspot.com/
c***@hotmail.com
2005-06-19 19:26:31 UTC
Permalink
Hmm. Its been pretty much stated that France ceases to exist as an
independant political entity following the Great War. I assume that
this means that it is either directly annexed into the German Reich or,
more likely, it is broken up into a number of smaller states each of
which is dominated by the Reich: perhaps joined to it in some form of
economic/military organization.

It further seemes likely that France would be the aggressor in this
war: it has been hinted that Napoleon V might managed to come to power,
or else another faction within the French government which demands
retribution for the Second Napoleonic Wars. This means that Germany
will be on the defensive end, at least at the start of the conflict.
Russia will most likely try to strike at Germany as well: if they lose
bad enough, it might well give the Duma the iniative to derive greater
power from the Czar.

I'm guessing that Britain has already begun to unravel by this point,
or that the stresses of the war manage to rip the UK apart. I really
can't see Britain turn away from their long time ally, Germany,
(although that alliance will be stretched, as Germany is becoming the
major partner within it). I am beginning to believe that the Collapse
does not have to do with outside invasion, so much as interneral
rebellion and dissent.

So this Great War is currently lined up as follows: France and
Russia Vs Germany, Britain, New England

Now, this leaves the question as to what is going on with America.
It seems evident that they are either on the side of Germany/Britain or
else they are largely Neutral. Now, you've said that nearly every
power within the World fights at one time or another. This leads me to
believe that the US IS in the war which means as a co-belligerent with
the 'Allies'. I don't know exaclty what could draw them into a war
with France: perhaps Napoleon V is trying to expand into their sphere
of influence? Maybe of France/Russia's lesser allies is threatening
America in their sphere? I'm thinking of possibly Brazil here, if
their Alliance with the US falls apart and ends badly.

Either way, it would seem likely that Canada also exists in 1950 by
this point, or else has merged with New England(not sure if the United
States would like this of course, but...you never know).
Good Habit
2005-06-19 20:07:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by c***@hotmail.com
It further seemes likely that France would be the aggressor in this
Again? are they never going to learn from defeat, they lost against
Germany at least three times already, getting weaker every time (and
Germany stronger). So France, on it's own, should be vastly outclassed
by Germany.

So France would need allies, and in an alliance with Russia it would
likely be just the junior partner (oh, and Russia would likely know this
and not give to much on the military value of its partner..).
Post by c***@hotmail.com
This means that Germany
will be on the defensive end, at least at the start of the conflict.
Russia will most likely try to strike at Germany as well: if they lose
bad enough, it might well give the Duma the iniative to derive greater
power from the Czar.
AFAIK, there have been some hints about the Tsar falling earlier..

..and then there is the issue of Russian Constantinople and Beijing (ok
- in the 1970's, but there is no hint that this all are very recent
acquisitions, so I wouldn't think that Russia is among the losers of the
Great War.

But Britains policy in OTL - and partly as well in ATL - was to secure
that no power becomes to dominant in Europe. With his aggressive
behavior, Napoleon IV might barely made it to the most threatening force
in Europe in the 1880's.

But by remaining neutral in the North-American war, Germany is likely to
become the big winner (including the strongest naval power) and Britain
is already somewhat worn out. So, after the conclusion of the N-A-W,
Britain might really get itchy about Germany's position in Europe, and
thus could seek 'une entente' with France?
Post by c***@hotmail.com
So this Great War is currently lined up as follows: France and
Russia Vs Germany, Britain, New England
Or Germany against France, Britain, Italy?, New England - with Russia
following it's own interest in East-Asia and the Middle-East. (And the
former might bring it in conflict with the US?). [depends partly on what
Nippon is doing in East-Asia and the Pacific, of course...].
c***@hotmail.com
2005-06-19 20:35:25 UTC
Permalink
Hmm, that does sound rather plausible actually; although I find it hard
to imagine that Britain and Germany could go from Allies to enemies in
a matter of 20 years, although I suppose it is possible. So then,
what, we get a replay of OTL World War One :)
Britain/France/Russia(possibly)/Italy against the Germany Reich and
associated allies. Hmmm, fun :) It would be interesting to see a war
between Russia and the US I must admit.

Also, a British loss in the Great War might well be the final straw
that breaks the Imperial Camel's back. But, if thats the case, that
New England also goes down in defeat for a second time, which could
well be disasterous to her national identity. And, lord help me, I
like this plucky Yankees :)
Mark Edelstein
2005-06-19 20:55:35 UTC
Permalink
I think Britain is defeated (see DoD 51b)

"Perhaps an even greater challenge is selecting the defining event for
a long-term trend. This book focuses on single events, but often these
events are merely one small part of a major pattern. Take the rise of
Germany, first as a united nation, then to the status of a great power,
and eventually to the status of superpower. This is a historical trend
which deserves at least one, perhaps more events to mark it, but which
moments should we choose? The moment when Germany made the transition
from great power status to superpower status is easy to define - when
her armed forces managed a feat which had not been achieved in over
eight and a half centuries, and abolished another nation's ambitions
to superpower status - and has been given a suitably high ranking.
But there were many steps along that road, starting with the formation
of the German Confederation in 1815, the first successful combined
military operation in 1834, the establishment of a common legislative
structure, the first defeat of another great power, the unification of
the ruling houses, and so on. Selecting which, if any of these events
to include was a difficult choice..."

That sounds about right for defeating Britain.
Good Habit
2005-06-19 21:23:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Edelstein
I think Britain is defeated (see DoD 51b)
<snip>
Post by Mark Edelstein
The moment when Germany made the transition
from great power status to superpower status is easy to define - when
her armed forces managed a feat which had not been achieved in over
eight and a half centuries, and abolished another nation's ambitions
to superpower status - and has been given a suitably high ranking.
<snip>
Post by Mark Edelstein
That sounds about right for defeating Britain.
ah - an earlier, and much better prepared, succesful 'sealion'. (a bit
later than 1916 (as this would be 850 years post Hastings), but not much
more than two decades (because else, the author would have
stated..'which had not been achieved in almost nine centuries.., if this
would have been closer..).

-- didn't remember that it goes that bad for Britain, a revolution after
a succesful blockade / leading to mass starvation might have been
another option to end the United Kingdom...
c***@hotmail.com
2005-06-19 22:53:04 UTC
Permalink
Here is what the Kaiser posted back in 51b about the event:

This is one possibility for the great feat, but there are others within
the
right time period. If you want a more precise time bound, consider
that the
great feat had to occur after 1850 (or it wouldn't be relevant), and
before
1950, when the "book" was published. "More than 850 years" could mean
anywhere from 851 to 899 years. So... 999 to 1149, in other words.
There
are a few things which happened then but not since. Consider, for
example:
when was the last time a Christian army captured Jerusalem? (The First

Crusade, IIRC - it wasn't _captured_ again after that, although it was
traded to Frederick).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Also:
For obvious reasons, I'm not commenting too much on the specifics of
this,
1) There is a United Kingdom (sans Ireland) in 1915


2) There is _no_ United Kingdom by 1949.


3) There is absolutely no mention of France surviving into the 1940s.


4) There is a Russian Federation around in the 1970s, but what form
Russia
took before that date is not mentioned either.
From these points, feel free to draw your own conclusions. :)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And so, I believe that its possible that the event is another
invasion of Britain. However, it could be several other things as
well; it could well be the unification of France and Germany or
something along those lines as well.

Personally, I have trouble seeing an invasion of England fitting
into the context he desribes. The post refered to Germany's thwarting
of another nation's attempt at Super-power status. England, by this
time, is already a Super Power; although one which is beginning to
decline. Furthermore, I don't see Germany's motivation for invading
the United Kingdom and then utterly breaking it up. It seems more
likely that if the Reich invaded, they would strip England of much of
her colonies, instill a pupper monarch and then leave the UK pretty
much intact. Of course, I suppose you could argue that the collapse of
the UK occures due to revolts against the German puppet government.
hmmm, I'm looking forward to seeing this one play out.
Kaiser Wilhelm III
2005-06-20 00:28:56 UTC
Permalink
<***@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:***@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

[snip]
Post by c***@hotmail.com
And so, I believe that its possible that the event is another
invasion of Britain. However, it could be several other things as
well; it could well be the unification of France and Germany or
something along those lines as well.
There are several possibilities. I tend to leave things like this slightly
ambiguous for a reason...
Post by c***@hotmail.com
Personally, I have trouble seeing an invasion of England fitting
into the context he desribes. The post refered to Germany's thwarting
of another nation's attempt at Super-power status. England, by this
time, is already a Super Power; although one which is beginning to
decline.
In the context of the Great War, no nations are yet considered superpowers.
From the period roughly from the end of the First Napoleonic Wars to the
Great War, people spoke of Great Powers. Some were considered more great
than others, and sometimes nations would drop off the list of Great Powers
for various reasons (Spain and the Ottoman Empire, for instance) or were
added to the list (Italy, Nippon). As of 1900, the Great Powers would have
been, roughly, Germany (#1, without a doubt), Britain, Russia and the USA
(seen as roughly equal), with France, Italy and sometimes Nippon and Brazil
also being seen as Great Powers. (Brazil really as more of a regional
power, but sometimes considered a Great Power due to having some
participation in the 2nd Napoleonic Wars). So, this comment could refer to
Britain being stopped becoming a superpower, although it could equally to
another nation being stopped from becoming a superpower (France, to pick
just one example).
Post by c***@hotmail.com
Furthermore, I don't see Germany's motivation for invading
the United Kingdom and then utterly breaking it up. It seems more
likely that if the Reich invaded, they would strip England of much of
her colonies, instill a pupper monarch and then leave the UK pretty
much intact.
This would depend on circumstances. "Divide and rule" is a time-honoured
maxim, but it would also depend on quite a lot.
Post by c***@hotmail.com
Of course, I suppose you could argue that the collapse of
the UK occures due to revolts against the German puppet government.
hmmm, I'm looking forward to seeing this one play out.
Things are coming, but it takes longer to write them than to read them,
alas.

Cheers,
Kaiser Wilhelm III
http://alternatehistory.com/decadesofdarkness/
http://decadesofdarkness.blogspot.com/
Alexey Romanov
2005-06-21 00:31:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III
Post by c***@hotmail.com
Personally, I have trouble seeing an invasion of England fitting
into the context he desribes. The post refered to Germany's thwarting
of another nation's attempt at Super-power status. England, by this
time, is already a Super Power; although one which is beginning to
decline.
In the context of the Great War, no nations are yet considered superpowers.
From the period roughly from the end of the First Napoleonic Wars to the
Great War, people spoke of Great Powers. Some were considered more great
than others, and sometimes nations would drop off the list of Great Powers
for various reasons (Spain and the Ottoman Empire, for instance) or were
added to the list (Italy, Nippon). As of 1900, the Great Powers would have
been, roughly, Germany (#1, without a doubt), Britain, Russia and the USA
(seen as roughly equal), with France, Italy and sometimes Nippon and Brazil
also being seen as Great Powers. (Brazil really as more of a regional
power, but sometimes considered a Great Power due to having some
participation in the 2nd Napoleonic Wars). So, this comment could refer to
Britain being stopped becoming a superpower, although it could equally to
another nation being stopped from becoming a superpower (France, to pick
just one example).
So Brazil is sometimes considered a Great Power, but New England is
not? This seems weird.
Kaiser Wilhelm III
2005-06-21 09:57:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alexey Romanov
Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III
Post by c***@hotmail.com
Personally, I have trouble seeing an invasion of England fitting
into the context he desribes. The post refered to Germany's thwarting
of another nation's attempt at Super-power status. England, by this
time, is already a Super Power; although one which is beginning to
decline.
In the context of the Great War, no nations are yet considered superpowers.
From the period roughly from the end of the First Napoleonic Wars to the
Great War, people spoke of Great Powers. Some were considered more great
than others, and sometimes nations would drop off the list of Great Powers
for various reasons (Spain and the Ottoman Empire, for instance) or were
added to the list (Italy, Nippon). As of 1900, the Great Powers would have
been, roughly, Germany (#1, without a doubt), Britain, Russia and the USA
(seen as roughly equal), with France, Italy and sometimes Nippon and Brazil
also being seen as Great Powers. (Brazil really as more of a regional
power, but sometimes considered a Great Power due to having some
participation in the 2nd Napoleonic Wars). So, this comment could refer to
Britain being stopped becoming a superpower, although it could equally to
another nation being stopped from becoming a superpower (France, to pick
just one example).
So Brazil is sometimes considered a Great Power, but New England is
not? This seems weird.
The reasoning is that New England can't really do much without the approval
of either the UK or USA. Sitting next door to a noticeably more powerful
neighbour has that effect. In foreign policy, New England has essentially
supported Britain most of the time, so it tends to be seen, somewhat
unfairly, as a British dependency. Brazil, on the other hand, is the
biggest nation in South America, and has been known to throw its weight
around (it did have U.S. help, but likely would have won anyway, and people
know it). Strictly speaking, it's a regional power rather than a Great
Power, but it is sometimes seen as stronger than it really is.

Cheers,
Kaiser Wilhelm III
http://alternatehistory.com/decadesofdarkness/
http://decadesofdarkness.blogspot.com/
n***@hotmail.com
2005-06-21 07:31:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by c***@hotmail.com
Personally, I have trouble seeing an invasion of England fitting
into the context he desribes. The post refered to Germany's thwarting
of another nation's attempt at Super-power status. England, by this
time, is already a Super Power; although one which is beginning to
decline. Furthermore, I don't see Germany's motivation for invading
the United Kingdom and then utterly breaking it up. It seems more
likely that if the Reich invaded, they would strip England of much of
her colonies, instill a pupper monarch and then leave the UK pretty
much intact. Of course, I suppose you could argue that the collapse of
the UK occures due to revolts against the German puppet government.
hmmm, I'm looking forward to seeing this one play out.
Aren't we getting to the point where TTL's version of communism should
Post by c***@hotmail.com
Could well happen, although France is likely to end up a republic
again. As has been indicated, France undergoes several more changes
of government. And Indochina could well be very eventful. TTL's
version of Marxism is going to show up in some odd places. It's
compatible with Christianity... a few judiciously chosen verses and
pointing out that the early Christians lived in a version of communism
before the hierarchy 'corrupted' it .
*Communism (usually called socialism ATL) has quite a different flavour to
OTL; among other things it doesn't veto the idea of private property and is
quite explicity anti-racist. It has the same idea of a class struggle,
though.
I wonder if the UK is one of the odd places where alt-communism is
going to turn up. That would fit in with retaining the idea of private
property and the compatibility with Christianity. Also, given
Britain's moral stance on slavery in the NAW, the explicit anti-racism
would also fit in.

Cheers,
Nigel.
Kaiser Wilhelm III
2005-06-21 10:01:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by n***@hotmail.com
Post by c***@hotmail.com
Personally, I have trouble seeing an invasion of England fitting
into the context he desribes. The post refered to Germany's thwarting
of another nation's attempt at Super-power status. England, by this
time, is already a Super Power; although one which is beginning to
decline. Furthermore, I don't see Germany's motivation for invading
the United Kingdom and then utterly breaking it up. It seems more
likely that if the Reich invaded, they would strip England of much of
her colonies, instill a pupper monarch and then leave the UK pretty
much intact. Of course, I suppose you could argue that the collapse of
the UK occures due to revolts against the German puppet government.
hmmm, I'm looking forward to seeing this one play out.
Aren't we getting to the point where TTL's version of communism should
appear ?
It is coming, to be sure. The anti-racist part of its message tends to get
set aside in the USA, but it will show up in a number of countries in the
twentieth century. (And is already there, in practice if not in name, in
much of what the Radicals do in New England).
Post by n***@hotmail.com
Post by c***@hotmail.com
Could well happen, although France is likely to end up a republic
again. As has been indicated, France undergoes several more changes
of government. And Indochina could well be very eventful. TTL's
version of Marxism is going to show up in some odd places. It's
compatible with Christianity... a few judiciously chosen verses and
pointing out that the early Christians lived in a version of communism
before the hierarchy 'corrupted' it .
*Communism (usually called socialism ATL) has quite a different flavour to
OTL; among other things it doesn't veto the idea of private property and is
quite explicity anti-racist. It has the same idea of a class struggle,
though.
I wonder if the UK is one of the odd places where alt-communism is
going to turn up. That would fit in with retaining the idea of private
property and the compatibility with Christianity. Also, given
Britain's moral stance on slavery in the NAW, the explicit anti-racism
would also fit in.
There will certainly be Socialists showing up in the UK (and in most of
Europe, come to that). But it will also show up in the New World and in
certain colonies.

Cheers,
Kaiser Wilhelm III
http://alternatehistory.com/decadesofdarkness/
http://decadesofdarkness.blogspot.com/
Mike Ralls
2005-06-21 22:07:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III
It is coming, to be sure. The anti-racist part of its message tends to get
set aside in the USA,
"Workers of the World Unite, and Fight for a White USA!"

http://www.google.com/search?hs=KOV&hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&biw=1024&q=%22Workers+of+the+World+Unite%2C+and+Fight+for+a+White+South+Africa%2C%22&btnG=Search
--
Mike Ralls
http://mikesbooknotes.blogspot.com/
"Always bear in mind that your own resolution to succeed is more
important than any other."
- Abraham Lincoln
Mark Edelstein
2005-06-21 22:21:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Ralls
Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III
It is coming, to be sure. The anti-racist part of its message tends to get
set aside in the USA,
"Workers of the World Unite, and Fight for a White USA!"
http://www.google.com/search?hs=KOV&hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&biw=1024&q=%22Workers+of+the+World+Unite%2C+and+Fight+for+a+White+South+Africa%2C%22&btnG=Search
Or for that matter the history of American (not *American, sadly)
Unionism until the New Deal. Though a lot of that was anti-Asian.
Kaiser Wilhelm III
2005-06-23 04:59:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Edelstein
Post by Mike Ralls
Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III
It is coming, to be sure. The anti-racist part of its message tends to get
set aside in the USA,
"Workers of the World Unite, and Fight for a White USA!"
http://www.google.com/search?hs=KOV&hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&biw=1024&q=%22Workers+of+the+World+Unite%2C+and+Fight+for+a+White+South+Africa%2C%22&btnG=Search
Or for that matter the history of American (not *American, sadly)
Unionism until the New Deal. Though a lot of that was anti-Asian.
And anti-Asian prejudice is something which is, oddly enough, slightly less
in the DoD TL, at least in the USA. It's still around, to be sure, but it
is possible for some of them to become citizens, in the right circumstances.

Cheers,
Kaiser Wilhelm III
http://alternatehistory.com/decadesofdarkness/
http://decadesofdarkness.blogspot.com/

Good Habit
2005-06-19 21:32:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by c***@hotmail.com
Hmm, that does sound rather plausible actually; although I find it hard
to imagine that Britain and Germany could go from Allies to enemies in
a matter of 20 years, although I suppose it is possible. So then,
what, we get a replay of OTL World War One :)
Britain/France/Russia(possibly)/Italy against the Germany Reich and
associated allies. Hmmm, fun :)
I'd rather see Russia playing the OTL part of Italy (unfaithful ally..),
remaining non-belligerent - at least in the main theatre - to France and
Britains big disapointement - and starting it's own adventures in Asia
- and the later might bring it in conflict with the US. And then, of
course, participating in the loot, when Britain goes down...

It would be interesting to see a war
Post by c***@hotmail.com
between Russia and the US I must admit.
Also, a British loss in the Great War might well be the final straw
that breaks the Imperial Camel's back. But, if thats the case, that
New England also goes down in defeat for a second time, which could
well be disasterous to her national identity. And, lord help me, I
like this plucky Yankees :)
But as the Kaiser clearly stated, NE and the US arend't fighting each
other in the Great War, so they don't go down big (as beeing invaded and
much of the country turned in to rubble - they just participate in a
unsucessful alliance - still bad, but not THAT much...).
Kaiser Wilhelm III
2005-06-20 00:36:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Good Habit
Post by c***@hotmail.com
Hmm, that does sound rather plausible actually; although I find it hard
to imagine that Britain and Germany could go from Allies to enemies in
a matter of 20 years, although I suppose it is possible. So then,
what, we get a replay of OTL World War One :)
Britain/France/Russia(possibly)/Italy against the Germany Reich and
associated allies. Hmmm, fun :)
I'd rather see Russia playing the OTL part of Italy (unfaithful ally..),
remaining non-belligerent - at least in the main theatre - to France and
Britains big disapointement - and starting it's own adventures in Asia -
and the later might bring it in conflict with the US. And then, of course,
participating in the loot, when Britain goes down...
Regardless of which side the Russians are on to start with, if Britain
collapses during a war, there's a range of nations from Turkey to China who
will need to make new foreign policy arrangements...
Post by Good Habit
It would be interesting to see a war
Post by c***@hotmail.com
between Russia and the US I must admit.
Also, a British loss in the Great War might well be the final straw
that breaks the Imperial Camel's back. But, if thats the case, that
New England also goes down in defeat for a second time, which could
well be disasterous to her national identity. And, lord help me, I
like this plucky Yankees :)
But as the Kaiser clearly stated, NE and the US arend't fighting each
other in the Great War, so they don't go down big (as beeing invaded and
much of the country turned in to rubble - they just participate in a
unsucessful alliance - still bad, but not THAT much...).
Losing an ally would be bad, of course, but compared to having a direct land
invasion... well, it's better.

Cheers,
Kaiser Wilhelm III
http://alternatehistory.com/decadesofdarkness/
http://decadesofdarkness.blogspot.com/
Kaiser Wilhelm III
2005-06-20 00:07:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by c***@hotmail.com
Hmm, that does sound rather plausible actually; although I find it hard
to imagine that Britain and Germany could go from Allies to enemies in
a matter of 20 years, although I suppose it is possible.
There have been instances where nations went from allies to enemies in
roughly that space of time. (Italy & France, 1918-1940, for example). But
it's worth noting that Germany and Britain have not been active allies in
the NAW. It would be easier to go from their status in 1906 (still allies,
but creaking) to enemies in 20 years or so, as compared to fighting together
in some NAW-type struggle and then going to enemies in the space of 20
years.
Post by c***@hotmail.com
So then, what, we get a replay of OTL World War One :)
Britain/France/Russia(possibly)/Italy against the Germany Reich and
associated allies. Hmmm, fun :)
Don't forget there are other powers besides those in Europe. Sweden,
Aragon, Castile, Portugal.
Post by c***@hotmail.com
It would be interesting to see a war
between Russia and the US I must admit.
How they would manage to do much attacking against each other would be an
interesting exercise. There's not a whole lot of military value in the USA
attacking Kamchatka, for instance. The most accessible area of conflict
would be in China. How would you like to be Nippon, trying to pick a side
in a struggle like that one?
Post by c***@hotmail.com
Also, a British loss in the Great War might well be the final straw
that breaks the Imperial Camel's back. But, if thats the case, that
New England also goes down in defeat for a second time, which could
well be disasterous to her national identity. And, lord help me, I
like this plucky Yankees :)
Well, there's defeat and there's defeat. Fighting on, say, Britain's side
in Europe and losing would be bad, but better than fighting in New England
itself and losing. Either way (or some other way entirely), I hope it's
clear that by 1950, while New England doesn't have a perfect life, they are
still around too.

Cheers,
Kaiser Wilhelm III
http://alternatehistory.com/decadesofdarkness/
http://decadesofdarkness.blogspot.com/
n***@hotmail.com
2005-06-20 15:29:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III
Post by c***@hotmail.com
Hmm, that does sound rather plausible actually; although I find it hard
to imagine that Britain and Germany could go from Allies to enemies in
a matter of 20 years, although I suppose it is possible.
There have been instances where nations went from allies to enemies in
roughly that space of time. (Italy & France, 1918-1940, for example). But
it's worth noting that Germany and Britain have not been active allies in
the NAW. It would be easier to go from their status in 1906 (still allies,
but creaking) to enemies in 20 years or so, as compared to fighting together
in some NAW-type struggle and then going to enemies in the space of 20
years.
If (as seems likely), Britain loses the NAW, then there is quite a lot
of scope for a stabbed-in-the-back mythology to build up in the UK.
Something like: "We came to help Germany in the Second Napoleonic War,
but when we needed their help they just stood by". In twenty years,
this could easily lead Britain to switch its alliance to France, or
maybe even to Russia.

Cheers,
Nigel.
Mark Edelstein
2005-06-20 16:08:26 UTC
Permalink
Of course what's interesting in all this is that every power will
ascribe to be representing Democracy and Freedom, and what's especially
interesting is that in some sense every power (at least by the "Great
War") will be Democratic (save France and Britain perhaps, but the
latter is rather unlikely), even if sometimes the democracy claimed is
rather Athenean in nature.
Kaiser Wilhelm III
2005-06-21 10:04:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Edelstein
Of course what's interesting in all this is that every power will
ascribe to be representing Democracy and Freedom, and what's especially
interesting is that in some sense every power (at least by the "Great
War") will be Democratic (save France and Britain perhaps, but the
latter is rather unlikely), even if sometimes the democracy claimed is
rather Athenean in nature.
Most of the players will be democratic, in some sense, by the Great War.
There may well be a few exceptions, though... socialist states, anyone?
Quasi-fascists? And of course, there's a big difference between a democracy
and a _universal_ democracy.

Cheers,
Kaiser Wilhelm III
http://alternatehistory.com/decadesofdarkness/
http://decadesofdarkness.blogspot.com/
Kaiser Wilhelm III
2005-06-21 10:02:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by n***@hotmail.com
Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III
Post by c***@hotmail.com
Hmm, that does sound rather plausible actually; although I find it hard
to imagine that Britain and Germany could go from Allies to enemies in
a matter of 20 years, although I suppose it is possible.
There have been instances where nations went from allies to enemies in
roughly that space of time. (Italy & France, 1918-1940, for example).
But
it's worth noting that Germany and Britain have not been active allies in
the NAW. It would be easier to go from their status in 1906 (still allies,
but creaking) to enemies in 20 years or so, as compared to fighting together
in some NAW-type struggle and then going to enemies in the space of 20
years.
If (as seems likely), Britain loses the NAW, then there is quite a lot
of scope for a stabbed-in-the-back mythology to build up in the UK.
Something like: "We came to help Germany in the Second Napoleonic War,
but when we needed their help they just stood by".
This will certainly be one of the things said in Britain, if they lose the
war. Of course, the Germans have a different view of the situation...
Post by n***@hotmail.com
In twenty years,
this could easily lead Britain to switch its alliance to France, or
maybe even to Russia.
So could balance-of-power considerations, although smoothing things over
with Russia would take some doing.

Cheers,
Kaiser Wilhelm III
http://alternatehistory.com/decadesofdarkness/
http://decadesofdarkness.blogspot.com/
Kaiser Wilhelm III
2005-06-20 00:00:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Good Habit
Post by c***@hotmail.com
It further seemes likely that France would be the aggressor in this
Again? are they never going to learn from defeat, they lost against
Germany at least three times already, getting weaker every time (and
Germany stronger). So France, on it's own, should be vastly outclassed by
Germany.
Quite, and this is why France alone is not going to start a war with
Germany. And Germany, for its part, is perfectly happy to have France be a
neighbour and trading partner if it doesn't look like it wants to start a
war. So if France is the aggressor, it's safe to assume that they're not
doing it alone, and also that they feel that if they don't do start an
aggressive war, they fear that Germany itself would be doing so soon.
Post by Good Habit
So France would need allies, and in an alliance with Russia it would
likely be just the junior partner (oh, and Russia would likely know this
and not give to much on the military value of its partner..).
Post by c***@hotmail.com
This means that Germany
will be on the defensive end, at least at the start of the conflict.
Russia will most likely try to strike at Germany as well: if they lose
bad enough, it might well give the Duma the iniative to derive greater
power from the Czar.
AFAIK, there have been some hints about the Tsar falling earlier..
The current Tsar, Peter IV, is gone by the end of 1906. What happens to
Russia after that will be explained soon, and will make things clearer.
Post by Good Habit
..and then there is the issue of Russian Constantinople and Beijing (ok -
in the 1970's, but there is no hint that this all are very recent
acquisitions, so I wouldn't think that Russia is among the losers of the
Great War.
But Britains policy in OTL - and partly as well in ATL - was to secure
that no power becomes to dominant in Europe. With his aggressive behavior,
Napoleon IV might barely made it to the most threatening force in Europe
in the 1880's.
Napoleon IV made it to the status of biggest threat because he was being
militarily quite aggressive, and because he had a solid alliance with
Russia, which was widely seen as the UK's biggest colonial rival throughout
most of the nineteenth century. The "Great Game" in Central Asia, in
particular. Absent that, France looks a mite less threatening than Germany.
Post by Good Habit
But by remaining neutral in the North-American war, Germany is likely to
become the big winner (including the strongest naval power) and Britain is
already somewhat worn out. So, after the conclusion of the N-A-W, Britain
might really get itchy about Germany's position in Europe, and thus could
seek 'une entente' with France?
There's also the possibility that if the USA wins the NAW, that there may be
considerable resentment within Britain for Germany not helping out. This
would be despite that fact that Germany had no obligation under the terms of
alliance to do so - a condition which both sides wanted when they signed an
alliance. (To be more precise, neither Britain nor Germany wanted to get
drawn into a war because the other was fighting a colonial war, so the terms
of the alliance were to fight together if either was attacked in Europe).
Post by Good Habit
Post by c***@hotmail.com
So this Great War is currently lined up as follows: France and
Russia Vs Germany, Britain, New England
Or Germany against France, Britain, Italy?, New England - with Russia
following it's own interest in East-Asia and the Middle-East. (And the
former might bring it in conflict with the US?). [depends partly on what
Nippon is doing in East-Asia and the Pacific, of course...].
There's quite a lot going on. The Great War is one aspect like OTL's WW2:
it involves a variety of fronts which are linked mostly because they are
being fought at the same time, not because they started for the same
reasons.

Cheers,
Kaiser Wilhelm III
http://alternatehistory.com/decadesofdarkness/
http://decadesofdarkness.blogspot.com/
Kaiser Wilhelm III
2005-06-19 23:48:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by c***@hotmail.com
Hmm. Its been pretty much stated that France ceases to exist as an
independant political entity following the Great War.
France's status in 1950 has neither been confirmed nor denied.
Post by c***@hotmail.com
I assume that this means that it is either directly annexed into the
German Reich or, more likely, it is broken up into a number of
smaller states each of which is dominated by the Reich: perhaps
joined to it in some form of economic/military organization.
Well, I can say this much: TTL's Germany is a democratic nation. They
wouldn't annex the entirety of France without assuming that some time later
(perhaps in a few years after things were stable) the French would then be
German citizens and able to vote and so on. The notion of adding so many
non-Germanophone voters to the Germany body politic at once would be
considered a trifle extreme.
Post by c***@hotmail.com
It further seemes likely that France would be the aggressor in this
war: it has been hinted that Napoleon V might managed to come to power,
or else another faction within the French government which demands
retribution for the Second Napoleonic Wars.
The French people have also seen the results of outright militarism. It's
not impossible that they would seek vengeance, but they may also be less
confident about their ability to carry it out.
Post by c***@hotmail.com
This means that Germany
will be on the defensive end, at least at the start of the conflict.
Russia will most likely try to strike at Germany as well: if they lose
bad enough, it might well give the Duma the iniative to derive greater
power from the Czar.
The internal government of Russia will be clearer after post #118, but
suffice it to say that the Duma will already have significant power by 1910,
long before the Great War begins.
Post by c***@hotmail.com
I'm guessing that Britain has already begun to unravel by this point,
or that the stresses of the war manage to rip the UK apart. I really
can't see Britain turn away from their long time ally, Germany,
(although that alliance will be stretched, as Germany is becoming the
major partner within it).
I can see circumstances where both of them may want to turn away from the
other. But it depends on quite a number of factors.
Post by c***@hotmail.com
I am beginning to believe that the Collapse
does not have to do with outside invasion, so much as interneral
rebellion and dissent.
So this Great War is currently lined up as follows: France and
Russia Vs Germany, Britain, New England
France and Russia vs Germany, Britain and New England would not be a great
contest: Germany and Britain would win such a war, and the French
government, at least, knows it. (The Russian government may not be so
sure.) Unless, of course, there were reasons why Germany or Britain could
not bring their full strength against France.
Post by c***@hotmail.com
Now, this leaves the question as to what is going on with America.
It seems evident that they are either on the side of Germany/Britain or
else they are largely Neutral. Now, you've said that nearly every
power within the World fights at one time or another. This leads me to
believe that the US IS in the war which means as a co-belligerent with
the 'Allies'.
The USA most definitely does some fighting in the Great War. Of course,
'some fighting' is a long way from being formal allies with anyone. Or at
least beyond an alliance of convenience.
Post by c***@hotmail.com
I don't know exaclty what could draw them into a war
with France: perhaps Napoleon V is trying to expand into their sphere
of influence? Maybe of France/Russia's lesser allies is threatening
America in their sphere? I'm thinking of possibly Brazil here, if
their Alliance with the US falls apart and ends badly.
Brazil's status is another thing to be clarified in #118.
Post by c***@hotmail.com
Either way, it would seem likely that Canada also exists in 1950 by
this point, or else has merged with New England(not sure if the United
States would like this of course, but...you never know).
The USA, I suspect, wouldn't greatly care one way or the other. New England
and Canada are already so closely linked militarily and economically that it
wouldn't make much difference to them. Of course, it may make a great deal
more difference to the Canadians themselves where they are joined or
separate.

Cheers,
Kaiser Wilhelm III
http://alternatehistory.com/decadesofdarkness/
http://decadesofdarkness.blogspot.com/
k***@cix.compulink.co.uk
2005-06-20 08:21:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by c***@hotmail.com
I really
can't see Britain turn away from their long time ally, Germany,
OTL that is exactly what happened. Britain was traditionally friendly to
Germany. The equally traditional hostility to France goes back to William
I. It took the Kaiser and Tirpitz to change that. Give the traditional
British concern with the "Balance of Power" on the continent it is likely
that France is rapidly becoming a lesser concern.

Ken Young
Kaiser Wilhelm III
2005-06-21 10:06:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by k***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by c***@hotmail.com
I really
can't see Britain turn away from their long time ally, Germany,
OTL that is exactly what happened. Britain was traditionally friendly to
Germany. The equally traditional hostility to France goes back to William
I. It took the Kaiser and Tirpitz to change that. Give the traditional
British concern with the "Balance of Power" on the continent it is likely
that France is rapidly becoming a lesser concern.
France certainly is becoming less threatening. France is largely
preoccupied with cultural pursuits and internal politics rather than
militarism. Russia is still there, though, and has been known to throw its
weight around.

Cheers,
Kaiser Wilhelm III
http://alternatehistory.com/decadesofdarkness/
http://decadesofdarkness.blogspot.com/
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...