New Reality Seeds

[Rocket Man]

Originally Posted by tantric

Wasn't there another timeline with international royal families? Or was that something from alt-history?

Well, Britannia-6 had a more liberal attitude toward India, to where an Indian spouse for an aristocrat was merely exotic, and the fad for Indian style kept coming back.

[Kitsune]

Originally Posted by Blind Mapmaker

Berlin/Jerusalem 1916: The German and Ottoman Empires are hard-pressed to hold the line against the Entente Powers. To pre-empt a British attempt to garner Jewish support (what happened in OTL with the Balfour Declaration) German diplomats convince the German and Ottoman governments including a reluctant Wilhelm II (who didn't care for his Jewish subjects very much, but didn't mind Zionism as an easy way to be rid of them) to sponsor a "National home for the Jewish in Palestine". While the leading Zionists in the Entente Powers wisely decline to comment on this development, it earns much interest in Germany, Austria-Hungary and occupied Russian territory. It also turns Jewish opinion in the US in favour of Germany. This combined with the wise decision not to resume unrestricted submarine warfare kept the Americans out of the war (but still friendly to the Entente). The eventual German collapse is just as complete as in OTL, but when the British Empire reluctantly takes up the Zionist cause afterwards the Germans still get all the praise for taking the first step. With Jewish charities in America setting up donations to help starving German children and invalids, anti-semitism has much less appeal in the immediate post-war situation and leads to a minor Austrian corporal in German service to return in disgust to his Austrian native soil. Anti-semitism still plays some role in German politics, but it doesn't form an important platform in any of the major parties. Without a strong NSDAP the Weimar coalition of Zentrum, DVP and SPD manages to weather the storm of the World Economic Crisis and Germany manages to avoid another dictatorship.

Pretty longwinded explanation riddled with lots of what I would not agree with. Whatever you can say of Wilhelm II, he did not try to get rid of Jews - the Germany before WWI was among the most tolerant countries with respect to Jews in the world. Wether Jewish sympathy would have helped a lot to keep America out of the war is also doubtful, in my opinion. It's probable that Germany's resumption of unrestricted submarine warfare (which in any case should have been used relentlessly against Britain as long as the despicable Hunger Blockade was maintained) was only a pretext for America to enter the war. They would have found something else, one always does.

It's also not the case that Germany was more antisemitic after the war than any other nation, and in any case, Hitler's right wing party enjoyed no great successes at first. Even as late as in 1928 the NSDAP achieved a meagre 2,5% result in the election, the soaring rise of this party only began in 1929 with the Depression.

To avoid the NS dictatorship ("Yet another dictatorship"? Had there been another one before that?), all this convoluted stuff isn't really necessary. All kinds of coincidences might have achieved the same. For instance, something may have convinced the conservative parties not to seek a coalition with the NS Party in early 1933. No government can be formed, so another election is held in which the NSDAP achieves only an unspectacular result of 27% (they were on the downward slore, having achieved 37% in late 1932, but only 32% in early 1933). Hitler never becomes chancellor and remains a footnote in history.

Or even simpler: During the Bürgerbräu-Putsch, policemen fire upon the putschists, and one bullet's trajectory leads it right through Hitler's Brain. End of story. Alternatively (should you share Professor Hubert J. Farnsworth's sentiment about saving the latter for transplantation experiments), simply assume that Hitler faces a far less understanding judge in the trial afterwards, and is sentenced to 10 years in prison for treason. After being released in 1933, he emigrates to the US, where he becomes a third class science fiction author, who later founds his own religion called "Systemology" (mainly to avoid paying taxes). He dies as a rich man in 1976.

[Astromancer]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

Why would racism stop? Wouldn't you just have racism against anyone not British white or Indian brown? And doubling down on classism/caste-ism?

A valid point. Ayrianism might have been an English disease as well as a German one.

[Astromancer]

Originally Posted by tantric

Are you particularly knowledgeable about India politics? If so, I'd like to pick your brain sometime for my own India timeline (actually, it's Daniken-1) where ancient Indians really did interact with aliens. After independence the saddhi and such that preserved bits of the knowledge come forward, giving India a tech boost (well - pulse jets and a few other things). I'd really like to see India and China ally and win a three-way cold war/space race when they find a well preserved abandoned Raman moon-base.

No I'm not all that knowledgeable about India. But I thought moving off into Asia would give us interesting new fields to scan and might lead to original worlds and skarries.

[Astromancer]

Originally Posted by Kitsune

Simply assume that Hitler faces a far less understanding judge in the trial afterwards, and is sentenced to 10 years in prison for treason. After being released in 1933, he emigrates to the US, where he becomes a third class science fiction author, who later founds his own religion called "Systemology" (mainly to avoid paying taxes). He dies as a rich man in 1976.

Another tack might have been a shrewder attitude toward Germany in France. Since by 1922 the French knew that the Americans had been deeply insulted by them and were turning deeply isolationist anyway, and the Brits weren't likely to be that much help, maybe instead of trying to pound Germany down, the French try charm. The French work on winning the Germans over to an allience with them. This allience, strongest on the left by far, slowly but surely moves Germany in a democratic direction. Many of the destabilizing event never occur. When the Spanish Civil War breaks out, a Franco-German allience aids the Loyalist cause. Italy tried to intimidate them, and gets told off. Spain, France and Germany, form a sort of proto-EU/semi-Soverine (I'll check spelling).

Later in the 1940's, Stalin, seeing instability in his Soviet Union, decides that conquest of the decadent West will bring a new unity to Russia.

Basically a proto-EU, Britain and America, Versus the U.S.S.R. in a twisted WWII with Japan and Italy as twisted kibbitzers.

Reactions.

[Kitsune]

Originally Posted by Astromancer

Another tack might have been a shrewder attitude toward Germany in France. Since by 1922 the French knew that the Americans had been deeply insulted by them and were turning deeply isolationist anyway, and the Brits weren't likely to be that much help, maybe instead of trying to pound Germany down, the French try charm. The French work on winning the Germans over to an allience with them. This allience, strongest on the left by far, slowly but surely moves Germany in a democratic direction.

I do consider this as highly unlikely. France enjoyed abusing "her" victory far too much. And on a national level, the French are far from charmant - they tend to be as sore as losers as they are ungracious as victors. As far as "winning Germany over to Democracy" is concerned, Weimarian Germany was actually more democratic than the France of the 1920ts, where not even women were allowed to vote.

Originally Posted by Astromancer

Many of the destabilizing event never occur. When the Spanish Civil War breaks out, a Franco-German allience aids the Loyalist cause. Italy tried to intimidate them, and gets told off. Spain, France and Germany, form a sort of proto-EU/semi-Soverine (I'll check spelling).

Remind me...is this scenario meant to be utopian or dystopian?

Originally Posted by Astromancer

Later in the 1940's, Stalin, seeing instability in his Soviet Union, decides that conquest of the decadent West will bring a new unity to Russia.

Now, that strikes me as rather likely. Independently from what happened in Europe, Stalin solidifies his hold over the Sovietunion and begins to arm (like hell). In our reality Soviet armament began years before Hitler came to power. By the early 1940ts, a gargantuan Red Army would have been ready, a juggernaut, which Stalin would have been quite willing to use. That would have probably ended any European "peace in our time" anyway.

Originally Posted by Astromancer

Basically a proto-EU, Britain and America, Versus the U.S.S.R. in a twisted WWII with Japan and Italy as twisted kibbitzers.

Here we disagree again. Frankly, the Americans never had the guts to stand up against the Russians. Not at the end of WWII, not in 1961, not today. And especially under FDR, the greatest friend the Commies ever had in the White House (who called himself a socialist to boot), they are supposed to engage the Sovietunion? I doubt it. Possibly America conquers Imperial Japan (just as they really did), while the Sovietunion finishes off Europe (especially with a weak and disarmed Weimarian Germany things would have been over pretty quickly). Perhaps Britain is so lucky to stay unoccupied - only to find itself marginalized as a state facing a soviet-ruled Europe on the other side of the channel. I suspect that Roosevelt would have readily divided up the world with Stalin. A later President may have regretted that, but FDR would have not.

[Drifter]

Originally Posted by Astromancer

Another tack might have been a shrewder attitude toward Germany in France. Since by 1922 the French knew that the Americans had been deeply insulted by them and were turning deeply isolationist anyway, and the Brits weren't likely to be that much help, maybe instead of trying to pound Germany down, the French try charm. The French work on winning the Germans over to an allience with them. This allience, strongest on the left by far, slowly but surely moves Germany in a democratic direction. Many of the destabilizing event never occur. When the Spanish Civil War breaks out, a Franco-German allience aids the Loyalist cause. Italy tried to intimidate them, and gets told off. Spain, France and Germany, form a sort of proto-EU/semi-Soverine (I'll check spelling).

Later in the 1940's, Stalin, seeing instability in his Soviet Union, decides that conquest of the decadent West will bring a new unity to Russia.

Basically a proto-EU, Britain and America, Versus the U.S.S.R. in a twisted WWII with Japan and Italy as twisted kibbitzers.

Reactions.

As Kitsune points out it is very unlikely a recognizable France is going to be smart in dealing with Germany. So you need a France that would play nice with them.

The Congress of Tours (1920), which splits the French socialist party leading to the moderate Blum becoming the PM, instead splits violently. Rioting and assassinations - Blum and members of the Radical party are killed, then a right wing coup ushers in the conservative Doumergue into office early and with a huge mandate. He is even more popular here than in Homeline. And he makes nice with the fascists - the Action francaise comes to power, eventually leading to a return of the Monarchy in the person of Alfonso Carlos. He also claimed the throne of Spain, and threw his lot in with Franco during the Spanish Civil War (in our timeline). He does so in this reality, and becomes a figurehead King of Spain and France, where the real power lies with Franco and the AF, respectively.

Sorry, I just went where the wind took me on this one: So things are going south fast for this reality. A Franco-German detente basically leads to a fascist front across continental Europe that looks more like 1984 than a democratic revival. Maybe Stalin tries an alliance with the US and/or Britain, but I doubt it.

The US would be facing a continuation of the recessions that followed the Great Depression (all thanks to that dang Roosevelt and that pack of Reds he called a guv'mint! eh Kitusune?), and probably rioting, violence and a nascent revolt at least egged on by American communists. I'm guessing Trotsky dies in this timeline pretty much like he did in the homeline, so the American communists are disorganized, spit and ultimately run into the ground. The FBI would be pretty harsh, a national police force of sorts, the US, facing a fascism and communism run rampant abroad and terrorism at home becomes authoritarian and then despotic. Eventually they make some sort of alliance with the fascists, if only to access the European money as well as face down the Comintern.

On the bright side, Hitler wouldn't have it all his own way. He might have the weapons but with France as an ally he would have to give more than lip service to political cooperation. Jews are still slaughtered, so not-so-bright-side after all. I'm going with dystopian on this one, even if a USSR/German war does break out in the late 40s.

I don't see a how you get a good outcome unless France is stronger and more unified going into WWI. So the change probably has to happen during the Napoleonic period.

[scc]

If you want to muck with France during/after WW1, your best bet is to do with via the brief civil war that occurred after the Franco-Prussian War in 1871.

Another interesting thing might be to have the US refuse to acknowledge the Treaty of Versailles and threaten to declare war on France unless a treaty that follows the principals that they outlined for ending the war. Given that the US had troops in France at the time it should be very real threat, especially if Britain public supports them.

Another is to have the US react to the French and Belgian troops entering the demilitarized Rhineland in 1921

[johndallman]

Originally Posted by scc

Another interesting thing might be to have the US refuse to acknowledge the Treaty of Versailles and threaten to declare war on France unless a treaty that follows the principals that they outlined for ending the war. Given that the US had troops in France at the time it should be very real threat, especially if Britain public supports them.

The US had around 2,000,000 troops in France at the Armistice, while the French army was around twice that size. The US forces didn't have the kind of technological superiority they're used to in the modern age, and the French would have the civilian population on their side. The British were not aligned with the US as they are in the present day and like the French, were vengeful towards the Germans. This doesn't look like a good move: more a recipe for either having to back down, or fight another couple of years of meatgrinder war.

[scc]

Originally Posted by johndallman

The US had around 2,000,000 troops in France at the Armistice, while the French army was around twice that size. The US forces didn't have the kind of technological superiority they're used to in the modern age, and the French would have the civilian population on their side. The British were not aligned with the US as they are in the present day and like the French, were vengeful towards the Germans. This doesn't look like a good move: more a recipe for either having to back down, or fight another couple of years of meatgrinder war.

Dealing with the US in face of a renewed war with Germany would have been a problem for France. And the British thought that the French where asking for too much