New Reality Seeds

[Astromancer]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl

Why would a Britain that possessed North America be weaker than a Britain that did not possess North America? With North America under its control, Britain would have been the world power, as it would have possessed the wealth of Australia, the Subcontinent, North America, and dozens of other colonies and commonwealths within the grasp. I imagine that Britain would have been able to conquer Latin America after it gained independence from Spain and could have eventually become the world government (One World Under The Queen).

The North American continent would have been much poorer and far less stable. Look at British rule in Ireland, which was the model the English elites wanted to follow, how good was that for Ireland? Further, both France and Spain still wanted control of North America or at least big chunks. Ownership of North America wasn't a truely settled thing until the 1860s. With bitter British colonists less than commited to the cause of a Britain that treats them as exploitively as the same Britain treats Ireland how secure is Britain's hold?

The stable decent British empire of our world's popular imagination is a product of having learned from the mistakes of the 1770s and decades of competition with a North American democracy. In this world Britain would likely be a much nastier and less stable society. Also it would be unlikely to be in anyway democratic.

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by Astromancer

The North American continent would have been much poorer and far less stable. Look at British rule in Ireland, which was the model the English elites wanted to follow, .

That's...just false you know. The English elites weren't making any moves to parcel up the colonies on behalf of absentee landlords, not in reality and not in the description. And the colonies weren't mostly occupied by Catholics so the relationship was quite a bit different. Mind you westward expansion would be substantially retarded by the concessions made to native allies that are being inexplicably adhered to with remarkable fidelity.

[cptbutton]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl

Why would a Britain that possessed North America be weaker than a Britain that did not possess North America? With North America under its control, Britain would have been the world power, as it would have possessed the wealth of Australia, the Subcontinent, North America, and dozens of other colonies and commonwealths within the grasp. I imagine that Britain would have been able to conquer Latin America after it gained independence from Spain and could have eventually become the world government (One World Under The Queen).

It might not have Australia. The Fatal Shore said that one of reasons for starting the penal colony was that criminals could no longer be sent to the North American colonies as indentured servants.

[robkelk]

Originally Posted by Astromancer

Later on this would be the basis of deep anti-unicorn feeling and bitter distrust between the former colonies and Britain, which was weaker without the US as any ally. In this world unicorns are a symbol of corruption and oppression, in North America.

This alternate's United Empire Loyalists (or their equivalent) would no doubt beg to differ.

[Astromancer]

Originally Posted by robkelk

This alternate's United Empire Loyalists (or their equivalent) would no doubt beg to differ.

Ireland has loyalists of British rule. How has that promoted peace and prosperity? Also there is Britain itself to think of. Anti-slavery agitation was a crank fringe movement until the American Revolution. George III three times forbid Pennsylvania from outlawing the slave trade, the taxes on the trade were central to Royal revenues. The political fallouts of the American Revolution, in both France and Britain, were central to both ending the slave trade and vast changes of many kinds in British imperal-colonial policy. Even the Reform Bill of 1832 was seen at the time as meeting a cultural challenge from American democracy.

Get rid of a successful American Revolution and you reinforce all reactionary trends in Britain. That would lead to brutally bad rule in tbe entire empire.

[Astromancer]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

That's...just false you know. The English elites weren't making any moves to parcel up the colonies on behalf of absentee landlords, not in reality and not in the description. And the colonies weren't mostly occupied by Catholics so the relationship was quite a bit different. Mind you westward expansion would be substantially retarded by the concessions made to native allies that are being inexplicably adhered to with remarkable fidelity.

Actually they were thinking that way. Historians have dozens of letters by prominent Brits in the government of Lord North that show that they did plan to do that sort of thing. Specific details weren't figured out though.

[robkelk]

Originally Posted by Astromancer

Ireland has loyalists of British rule. How has that promoted peace and prosperity? Also there is Britain itself to think of. Anti-slavery agitation was a crank fringe movement until the American Revolution. George III three times forbid Pennsylvania from outlawing the slave trade, the taxes on the trade were central to Royal revenues. The political fallouts of the American Revolution, in both France and Britain, were central to both ending the slave trade and vast changes of many kinds in British imperal-colonial policy. Even the Reform Bill of 1832 was seen at the time as meeting a cultural challenge from American democracy.

Get rid of a successful American Revolution and you reinforce all reactionary trends in Britain. That would lead to brutally bad rule in tbe entire empire.

I'm thinking you're attaching excess importance to the American revolution and not enough importance to the mental state of George III, based on what I know of events in the provinces after George III's passing.

But if we continue this discussion, we run the risk of turning this thread political and having it locked...

[Astromancer]

Try this idea...

A Q6 world is having a series of plagues in the early 1970s. The USSR and the Chinese both accuse America of Germ Warfare. Nixon has pointed out that the USA is a trading nation, plagues hurt commerce. A rational point no one cares about.

Homeline sees these plagues as using sophisticated biotech, well beyond 1970s tech.Who is spreading these plagues and why? Centrum doesn't promote nuclear warfare nor germ warfare either. Who or what is using advanced biotech?

Some Cabal contacts are dropping hints about a Proteus Virus. A plague that rewrites the genetics of its victems. If they're right, who has that tech? And how can Homeline defend this world or others? Or even themselves?

[Astromancer]

Try this idea..

In some ways this is a weird parallel but both Centrum and the Cabal would kill to know what happened and how it was done. In most ways this Q6 world is an echo of Homeline in 1937 but the difference is vast. Between March of 1935 and January of 1936 all forms of racial, religious, ethnic, class, sex, gender, and sexual orientation, bigotries just faded away in the USA and its territories.

In the US folks seem pleased with the change if embarassed to have had such deluded notions. In much of the rest of the world people are appalled. Many people react toward the transformed USA with genuine disgust and horror.

Both Centrum and the Cabal see the event that transformed this USA as mass mind control or mind editing. Homeline agrees that it looks like that. In fact, given that in towns where the border goes through the town, only the American half changed, strongly suggests that the transforming force was as tightly controled as it was powerful.

Homeline's main goal in this parallel is to keep the Atlantic allience on track. With both Centrum and the Cabal throwing caution to the winds in a mad drive to learn the secret Interworld agents have a nasty fight to keep the USA from getting ripped up by fools. Also, with much of the world shocked disgusted with the USA making sure highly conservative 1930s Britain still sees America as a possible ally is also vital.

Remember, in this period, many bigotries were seen as virtues. The PCs will need to realize why people are freaked out by America just dumping all kinds of prejudices so quickly. Remember, disgust with and rejection of democracy was an intellectually repectable position in the 1930s. Such a loss of bigotries would have been seen as proof of the corrupting power of democracy.

[malloyd]

Originally Posted by Astromancer

Also, with much of the world shocked disgusted with the USA making sure highly conservative 1930s Britain still sees America as a possible ally is also vital.

I actually don't think it makes much difference there. People in the US tend to be somewhat oblivious to it, but part of the reason much of Europe looked down on the Colonials was that they believed (correctly, another one of those details American racists tend to be vague on) that even the "white" elites were mixed bloods.