spanishspy
Fleet admiral
Posts: 10,366
Likes: 1,587
|
Post by spanishspy on Jul 2, 2017 18:11:18 GMT
Didn't think of the Philippines but you bring up a good point. I would reckon if the union liberalizes at all they will be brought in. Quebec poses another interesting question due to its differing majority language. But if the Philippines becomes a member of the Union, than it would not be the Union of the English-Speaking Peoples but something general like the League of Nations. They wouldn't change the name and keep the English language as the core. Even today in OTL the Philippines speaks a good deal of English.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 67,964
Likes: 49,369
|
Post by lordroel on Jul 2, 2017 18:15:16 GMT
But if the Philippines becomes a member of the Union, than it would not be the Union of the English-Speaking Peoples but something general like the League of Nations. They wouldn't change the name and keep the English language as the core. Even today in OTL the Philippines speaks a good deal of English. Also it seems if i get the article right that the United Kingdom should let Germany control Europe.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Jul 2, 2017 22:47:55 GMT
They wouldn't change the name and keep the English language as the core. Even today in OTL the Philippines speaks a good deal of English. Also it seems if i get the article right that the United Kingdom should let Germany control Europe. The argument is that the union wouldn't care about any part of continental Europe, or probably most of Africa and Asia. Which of course is the big problem because: a) Britain and the dominions have vast interests in those areas and also rely on control of some of them for communications. b) If Germany and Japan, for instance, are unopposed it is rash I think to believe they would actually leave the union core territories alone.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 67,964
Likes: 49,369
|
Post by lordroel on Jul 3, 2017 2:52:30 GMT
b) If Germany and Japan, for instance, are unopposed it is rash I think to believe they would actually leave the union core territories alone. Japan would be stupid to attack Union territory ore members, they would surely know they will have to fight the most powerful armed forces on the planet if they attack them.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Jul 3, 2017 8:30:56 GMT
b) If Germany and Japan, for instance, are unopposed it is rash I think to believe they would actually leave the union core territories alone. Japan would be stupid to attack Union territory ore members, they would surely know they will have to fight the most powerful armed forces on the planet if they attack them. On their own and if the union isn't at war with Germany yes. However I doubt that it would be practical to have a lasting peace between the union and Nazi Germany. Either the war between the British empire and the Nazis would continue or, if somehow Britain made concessions to get peace then after the defeat of the Soviets - which would be very likely in those circumstances I fear - especially if Japan joined with the Germans on that operation, then renewed war between the union and the fascists would be almost certain. Also if the stance that the union will be isolationist and have no involvement on the European continent what about the Dutch East Indies? If Britain/Union accepts German control of the continent will the union oppose a Japanese attack on either the DEI or their occupation of French Indo-China? Japan could take both of those territories boosting their power and gaining important bases prior to an enlarged war with the union. Not to mention simply that being isolationist and refusing to engage in supporting other powers against the fascists will be seen as displaying weakness by them and will encourage them to further aggression.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 67,964
Likes: 49,369
|
Post by lordroel on Jul 3, 2017 13:47:50 GMT
Japan would be stupid to attack Union territory ore members, they would surely know they will have to fight the most powerful armed forces on the planet if they attack them. On their own and if the union isn't at war with Germany yes. However I doubt that it would be practical to have a lasting peace between the union and Nazi Germany. Either the war between the British empire and the Nazis would continue or, if somehow Britain made concessions to get peace then after the defeat of the Soviets - which would be very likely in those circumstances I fear - especially if Japan joined with the Germans on that operation, then renewed war between the union and the fascists would be almost certain. The Article was written on October 7th 1940, that is during the Battle of Britain, unless the Union was established before the outbreak of war it will mean the United Kingdom is fighting for its life at the moment the Union is formed, i do not know what the United States might demand, make peace with Germany ore something.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Jul 3, 2017 15:12:02 GMT
On their own and if the union isn't at war with Germany yes. However I doubt that it would be practical to have a lasting peace between the union and Nazi Germany. Either the war between the British empire and the Nazis would continue or, if somehow Britain made concessions to get peace then after the defeat of the Soviets - which would be very likely in those circumstances I fear - especially if Japan joined with the Germans on that operation, then renewed war between the union and the fascists would be almost certain. The Article was written on October 7th 1940, that is during the Battle of Britain, unless the Union was established before the outbreak of war it will mean the United Kingdom is fighting for its life at the moment the Union is formed, i do not know what the United States might demand, make peace with Germany ore something. That is why it makes no sense at all to me for the document to suggest that the proposed union would have no involvement in Europe, despite the already on-going war. Can only think it is to make the idea more palatable to isolationists. The suggestion is that Britain would make peace with Germany but on what terms. As well as economic expulsion from the European continent how much would Britain have to give up to make peace? No doubt Malta but also quite probably a lot of the ME and Gibraltar at least. The suggestion that only the core territories of the union matter hints that the planned union wouldn't defend any other parts of either empire. Plus as I say there is the question of the colonies of other European powers now under Nazi domination.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 67,964
Likes: 49,369
|
Post by lordroel on Jul 3, 2017 15:12:50 GMT
The Article was written on October 7th 1940, that is during the Battle of Britain, unless the Union was established before the outbreak of war it will mean the United Kingdom is fighting for its life at the moment the Union is formed, i do not know what the United States might demand, make peace with Germany ore something. That is why it makes no sense at all to me for the document to suggest that the proposed union would have no involvement in Europe, despite the already on-going war. Can only think it is to make the idea more palatable to isolationists.I think you are right.
|
|