stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,860 
Likes: 13,244
|
Post by stevep on Oct 28, 2023 12:34:28 GMT
PC: Newfoundland in a No WWI Scenario Given that WWI and its succeeding decades had a major effect on the Dominion of Newfoundland, what would the effect on Newfoundland be if WWI had been butterflied away? Could it also result in Newfoundland's economy not taking a nose dive that resulted in such crises that eventually resulted in abolishing its own Dominion status, and having a referendum that eventually resulted in Newfoundland joining Cananda?
Possibly although some economic crisis could occur later that prompts a similar chain of events. Newfoundland is too small demographically and dependent largely on the fisheries that somethings likely to cause a crisis sooner or later and Canada is adjacent and the eastern parts especially very similar in culture to it that joining Canada is likely to be an attractive option to many on the island.
|
|
|
|
Post by TheRomanSlayer on Oct 28, 2023 15:07:13 GMT
They were also afraid of Newfoundland joining the United States though, which was exactly why during their referendum the Newfies were given three choices: Dominion status, continued British direct rule, or join Canada. Although in hindsight, joining Canada should have also been an option for Alaska too.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,860
Likes: 13,244
|
Post by stevep on Oct 28, 2023 22:58:29 GMT
They were also afraid of Newfoundland joining the United States though, which was exactly why during their referendum the Newfies were given three choices: Dominion status, continued British direct rule, or join Canada. Although in hindsight, joining Canada should have also been an option for Alaska too.
I can't see the US allowing the latter. Just in case Alaska took up the option.  |
|
|
|
Post by TheRomanSlayer on Oct 28, 2023 23:29:28 GMT
True.
Although in hindsight, allowing Alaska to join Canada would have also saved the US a lot of headache in terms of traveling distance. Newfoundland is a lot closer to the wider New England region than Alaska being closer to say, Washington State.
Then again, it would have been also expensive for Britain to develop Newfoundland's own industries as well, aside from the fisheries. On the other hand, Britain and Canada could have also shared a single border if Newfoundland actually remained under direct British rule, but it would depend on how much money will the British government be able to spend on Newfoundland, in addition to the other colonies that Britain has (there is one scenario that I wanted to run over, though I don't know if we have any experts on South African history).
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,860
Likes: 13,244
|
Post by stevep on Oct 29, 2023 10:25:58 GMT
True. Although in hindsight, allowing Alaska to join Canada would have also saved the US a lot of headache in terms of traveling distance. Newfoundland is a lot closer to the wider New England region than Alaska being closer to say, Washington State. Then again, it would have been also expensive for Britain to develop Newfoundland's own industries as well, aside from the fisheries. On the other hand, Britain and Canada could have also shared a single border if Newfoundland actually remained under direct British rule, but it would depend on how much money will the British government be able to spend on Newfoundland, in addition to the other colonies that Britain has (there is one scenario that I wanted to run over, though I don't know if we have any experts on South African history).
Well if Newfoundland had become a full county say of Britain. with probably a large measure of self government that would cause some interesting complications. It would give Britain a clear and lasting foothold in N America and closer links with Canada and also the US. It would also probably have required maintaining a decent navy for fisheries protection and other activities in the region.
Such self-government might be a prompt for earlier levels of devolution in other parts of the UK and also possibly a deal to make Malta a full part of the country as well - which nearly came about in the 1960's. Keeping both Newfoundland [especially] and Malta would also force Britain to stay more connected with the wider world so less likely to join any sort of EEC/EU type organization. If nothing else since other powers have binding interests in the fisheries it would make membership difficult without protection of those rights - difficult with the centralizing and controlling characteristics of OTL EU.
Not sure about keeping a part of S Africa, although possibly a limited pocket around the Simonstown naval base and possibly the immediate vicinity of Cape Town itself although those would be difficult to maintain long term.
|
|
575
Captain
There is no Purgatory for warcriminals - they go directly to Hell!
Posts: 2,742
Likes: 4,117
|
Post by 575 on Oct 29, 2023 12:57:14 GMT
True. Although in hindsight, allowing Alaska to join Canada would have also saved the US a lot of headache in terms of traveling distance. Newfoundland is a lot closer to the wider New England region than Alaska being closer to say, Washington State. Then again, it would have been also expensive for Britain to develop Newfoundland's own industries as well, aside from the fisheries. On the other hand, Britain and Canada could have also shared a single border if Newfoundland actually remained under direct British rule, but it would depend on how much money will the British government be able to spend on Newfoundland, in addition to the other colonies that Britain has (there is one scenario that I wanted to run over, though I don't know if we have any experts on South African history).
Well if Newfoundland had become a full county say of Britain. with probably a large measure of self government that would cause some interesting complications. It would give Britain a clear and lasting foothold in N America and closer links with Canada and also the US. It would also probably have required maintaining a decent navy for fisheries protection and other activities in the region.
Such self-government might be a prompt for earlier levels of devolution in other parts of the UK and also possibly a deal to make Malta a full part of the country as well - which nearly came about in the 1960's. Keeping both Newfoundland [especially] and Malta would also force Britain to stay more connected with the wider world so less likely to join any sort of EEC/EU type organization. If nothing else since other powers have binding interests in the fisheries it would make membership difficult without protection of those rights - difficult with the centralizing and controlling characteristics of OTL EU.
Not sure about keeping a part of S Africa, although possibly a limited pocket around the Simonstown naval base and possibly the immediate vicinity of Cape Town itself although those would be difficult to maintain long term.
Re the EU - I don't see my country (Denmark) going for EU membership without Britain though with the alternative being EFTA or a closer Scandinavian Co-op it would probably want to draw the other Scandinavians closer to EFTA as it seems to me that the real issue was EU or EFTA not Scandinavian Co-op even if such negotiations was run it was all the way a stall to go either EFTA or EU masked as closer Scandinavian Co-op which happended eventually - At least according to History of Danish Foreign Policy. With Norway, Denmark and Sweden already in EFTA and Iceland joining 1970 its only a matter of when Finland will feel free to join. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,860
Likes: 13,244
|
Post by stevep on Oct 29, 2023 18:25:53 GMT
Well if Newfoundland had become a full county say of Britain. with probably a large measure of self government that would cause some interesting complications. It would give Britain a clear and lasting foothold in N America and closer links with Canada and also the US. It would also probably have required maintaining a decent navy for fisheries protection and other activities in the region.
Such self-government might be a prompt for earlier levels of devolution in other parts of the UK and also possibly a deal to make Malta a full part of the country as well - which nearly came about in the 1960's. Keeping both Newfoundland [especially] and Malta would also force Britain to stay more connected with the wider world so less likely to join any sort of EEC/EU type organization. If nothing else since other powers have binding interests in the fisheries it would make membership difficult without protection of those rights - difficult with the centralizing and controlling characteristics of OTL EU.
Not sure about keeping a part of S Africa, although possibly a limited pocket around the Simonstown naval base and possibly the immediate vicinity of Cape Town itself although those would be difficult to maintain long term.
Re the EU - I don't see my country (Denmark) going for EU membership without Britain though with the alternative being EFTA or a closer Scandinavian Co-op it would probably want to draw the other Scandinavians closer to EFTA as it seems to me that the real issue was EU or EFTA not Scandinavian Co-op even if such negotiations was run it was all the way a stall to go either EFTA or EU masked as closer Scandinavian Co-op which happended eventually - At least according to History of Danish Foreign Policy. With Norway, Denmark and Sweden already in EFTA and Iceland joining 1970 its only a matter of when Finland will feel free to join.
I would agree, plus if/when the Warsaw Pact ended - assuming its as peacefully as OTL - that would open up another option for some of those countries, especially if a smaller and more compact EEC/EU has gotten more centralized already. Could see Poland say possibly preferring a looser organisation like EFTA rather than a more restrictive EU. But that is getting off on a bit of a tangent. With the original POD, presumably back in the 1930's or by the latest say shortly after WWII when OTL Newfoundland took the union with Canada option. That early a lot of things could be different.
|
|
|
|
Post by TheRomanSlayer on Oct 29, 2023 18:47:41 GMT
Well if Newfoundland had become a full county say of Britain. with probably a large measure of self government that would cause some interesting complications. It would give Britain a clear and lasting foothold in N America and closer links with Canada and also the US. It would also probably have required maintaining a decent navy for fisheries protection and other activities in the region.
Such self-government might be a prompt for earlier levels of devolution in other parts of the UK and also possibly a deal to make Malta a full part of the country as well - which nearly came about in the 1960's. Keeping both Newfoundland [especially] and Malta would also force Britain to stay more connected with the wider world so less likely to join any sort of EEC/EU type organization. If nothing else since other powers have binding interests in the fisheries it would make membership difficult without protection of those rights - difficult with the centralizing and controlling characteristics of OTL EU.
Not sure about keeping a part of S Africa, although possibly a limited pocket around the Simonstown naval base and possibly the immediate vicinity of Cape Town itself although those would be difficult to maintain long term. What kind of devolution are we talking about in here? On the other hand, keeping Malta within the UK would also mean that Gibraltar would receive additional protection as well. Being a plurocontinental nation might have an interesting development on modern British culture as well, though Newfoundland remaining a part of the UK would mean a complete nightmare for any Canadian that would cross the border, especially from Quebec, as it would mean they will have to switch the side of the road in which they're driving in. Would Newfoundland be driving on the left side of the road, or the right side? Re the EU - I don't see my country (Denmark) going for EU membership without Britain though with the alternative being EFTA or a closer Scandinavian Co-op it would probably want to draw the other Scandinavians closer to EFTA as it seems to me that the real issue was EU or EFTA not Scandinavian Co-op even if such negotiations was run it was all the way a stall to go either EFTA or EU masked as closer Scandinavian Co-op which happended eventually - At least according to History of Danish Foreign Policy. With Norway, Denmark and Sweden already in EFTA and Iceland joining 1970 its only a matter of when Finland will feel free to join. Would Ireland actually join the EFTA in this scenario? If the UK does end up joining the EFTA, would that push Ireland to join them instead, or would they still join the EU? On the other hand, I think there should also be an option of creating a pan-North Atlantic trading bloc that would consist of Scandinavia, the UK, Ireland, Iceland, Canada, Greenland, and the US. |
|
575
Captain
There is no Purgatory for warcriminals - they go directly to Hell!
Posts: 2,742
Likes: 4,117
|
Post by 575 on Oct 29, 2023 19:05:33 GMT
I think the EFTA would be more appealing to the Scandinavians with the loser interconnection - as long as Britain is part of it.
With a POD in the 1930's, which I don't see preclude WWII or post WWII it should still leave room for EEC (as it was later EU) and EFTA and both united - mainly - within NATO.
I have absolutely no idea of the Irish position on EEC/EU at that point. The major player from the Danish perspective being Britain.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,860
Likes: 13,244
|
Post by stevep on Oct 29, 2023 22:52:50 GMT
Trying to respond to points raised in the last couple of posts. Hope those help and I didn't miss anything important out.
Britain was actually a founder member of the EFTA so was already in it. The position of Ireland would be difficult. As the former 'colonial' power [although the Irish had full equality inside the UK long prior to 1921] but many Irish may see it that way, and also if the troubles develop as OTL so elements there would probably prefer to keep their distance from the UK. On the other hand a lot of Irish had moved to the UK for work and also the Irish economy was very tied into the UK and of course much of 3rd party trade, especially with much of the continent probably went through the UK. As such does politics or economic win out?
Not sure what side Newfoundland drove on when they were independent in the 1920's or when back under UK governance from the 1930's. Probably on the left but could be wrong. It would definitely be an issue. IIRC Sweden also drove on the left until I think it was ~1975.
In terms of Scandinavia IIRC Sweden was also a major player in EFTA when Britain was and with given the importance of Danish trade with Britain and probably a fair amount of Sweden? I suspect that if Britain stayed with EFTA you might well see Denmark staying out as well and later joining EFTA.
At least unless and until a Thatcher type shift occurs in British politics - and obviously I would prefer it didn't -Britain would be a good fit socially with much of Scandinavia. Less so probably the US especially since given its size and history its less experienced at considering the interests of other powers. If either/both have a Thatcher/Reagan shift then their unlikely to any any close co-operation with the Scandinavia region.
In terms of devolution I would think that Newfoundland would need some level given the distance from Britain and possibly also Malta in part because of its different culture. Do recall when in my teens in the mid-70's I was reading about concerns about how London and the SE of England was dominating economic development in the UK and a need for regional policies to help level up other regions rather than them simply being drained of investment and also skilled manpower as people were lured to better opportunities in the south. However the general economic malaise in the 70's made major changes impractical and then of course such ideas died when Thatcherism came into power in 1979.
|
|
|
|
Post by Otto Kretschmer on Oct 30, 2023 10:42:06 GMT
WI: Li Keqiang as the leader of the PRC instead of Xi Jinping
|
|
|
|
Post by TheRomanSlayer on Oct 31, 2023 20:48:42 GMT
Trying to respond to points raised in the last couple of posts. Hope those help and I didn't miss anything important out.
Britain was actually a founder member of the EFTA so was already in it. The position of Ireland would be difficult. As the former 'colonial' power [although the Irish had full equality inside the UK long prior to 1921] but many Irish may see it that way, and also if the troubles develop as OTL so elements there would probably prefer to keep their distance from the UK. On the other hand a lot of Irish had moved to the UK for work and also the Irish economy was very tied into the UK and of course much of 3rd party trade, especially with much of the continent probably went through the UK. As such does politics or economic win out?
Not sure what side Newfoundland drove on when they were independent in the 1920's or when back under UK governance from the 1930's. Probably on the left but could be wrong. It would definitely be an issue. IIRC Sweden also drove on the left until I think it was ~1975.
In terms of Scandinavia IIRC Sweden was also a major player in EFTA when Britain was and with given the importance of Danish trade with Britain and probably a fair amount of Sweden? I suspect that if Britain stayed with EFTA you might well see Denmark staying out as well and later joining EFTA.
At least unless and until a Thatcher type shift occurs in British politics - and obviously I would prefer it didn't -Britain would be a good fit socially with much of Scandinavia. Less so probably the US especially since given its size and history its less experienced at considering the interests of other powers. If either/both have a Thatcher/Reagan shift then their unlikely to any any close co-operation with the Scandinavia region.
In terms of devolution I would think that Newfoundland would need some level given the distance from Britain and possibly also Malta in part because of its different culture. Do recall when in my teens in the mid-70's I was reading about concerns about how London and the SE of England was dominating economic development in the UK and a need for regional policies to help level up other regions rather than them simply being drained of investment and also skilled manpower as people were lured to better opportunities in the south. However the general economic malaise in the 70's made major changes impractical and then of course such ideas died when Thatcherism came into power in 1979.
How does British devolution work? I don't understand the concept at all, and if it's similar or different from federalization. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,860
Likes: 13,244
|
Post by stevep on Nov 1, 2023 16:24:39 GMT
Trying to respond to points raised in the last couple of posts. Hope those help and I didn't miss anything important out.
Britain was actually a founder member of the EFTA so was already in it. The position of Ireland would be difficult. As the former 'colonial' power [although the Irish had full equality inside the UK long prior to 1921] but many Irish may see it that way, and also if the troubles develop as OTL so elements there would probably prefer to keep their distance from the UK. On the other hand a lot of Irish had moved to the UK for work and also the Irish economy was very tied into the UK and of course much of 3rd party trade, especially with much of the continent probably went through the UK. As such does politics or economic win out?
Not sure what side Newfoundland drove on when they were independent in the 1920's or when back under UK governance from the 1930's. Probably on the left but could be wrong. It would definitely be an issue. IIRC Sweden also drove on the left until I think it was ~1975.
In terms of Scandinavia IIRC Sweden was also a major player in EFTA when Britain was and with given the importance of Danish trade with Britain and probably a fair amount of Sweden? I suspect that if Britain stayed with EFTA you might well see Denmark staying out as well and later joining EFTA.
At least unless and until a Thatcher type shift occurs in British politics - and obviously I would prefer it didn't -Britain would be a good fit socially with much of Scandinavia. Less so probably the US especially since given its size and history its less experienced at considering the interests of other powers. If either/both have a Thatcher/Reagan shift then their unlikely to any any close co-operation with the Scandinavia region.
In terms of devolution I would think that Newfoundland would need some level given the distance from Britain and possibly also Malta in part because of its different culture. Do recall when in my teens in the mid-70's I was reading about concerns about how London and the SE of England was dominating economic development in the UK and a need for regional policies to help level up other regions rather than them simply being drained of investment and also skilled manpower as people were lured to better opportunities in the south. However the general economic malaise in the 70's made major changes impractical and then of course such ideas died when Thatcherism came into power in 1979.
How does British devolution work? I don't understand the concept at all, and if it's similar or different from federalization.
I'm not sure anyone understands it and the situation could be different in TTL. Recent devolution, in Scotland, Wales and N Ireland has given a local parliament while they still also elect MPs to the central parliament, generally with more MPs per population than for England. Scotland has more powers then the Welsh assembly and ditto I believe for the Ulster one, albeit that's been closed down for a while due to internal squabbling.
There has been talking of devolution to assorted English regions but I don't think any of this has been serious, at least in the eyes of the central government, since the 70's and the general trend has been increasing centalization of both overt control and indirectly by control on spending.
|
|
|
|
Post by TheRomanSlayer on Nov 1, 2023 17:22:44 GMT
How does British devolution work? I don't understand the concept at all, and if it's similar or different from federalization.
I'm not sure anyone understands it and the situation could be different in TTL. Recent devolution, in Scotland, Wales and N Ireland has given a local parliament while they still also elect MPs to the central parliament, generally with more MPs per population than for England. Scotland has more powers then the Welsh assembly and ditto I believe for the Ulster one, albeit that's been closed down for a while due to internal squabbling.
There has been talking of devolution to assorted English regions but I don't think any of this has been serious, at least in the eyes of the central government, since the 70's and the general trend has been increasing centalization of both overt control and indirectly by control on spending.
A local parliament for the rest of the other kingdoms that make up of the UK? I guess this would be suitable for a Newfoundland and Malta that remains a part of the UK. I don't suppose the Channel Islands would be qualified for a local parliament of their own, being a stone's throw away from mainland France. (The Channel Islands are essentially a part of the former Duchy of Normandy that the British government controls) |
|
Zyobot
Fleet admiral
Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
Posts: 17,352
Likes: 7,260
|
Post by Zyobot on Nov 1, 2023 17:42:52 GMT
'Herbert Hoover Assassinated'.
Doesn't have to be immediately, but some time after the 1929 Crash makes the most obvious sense. Really, I'm surprised things didn't end that way IOTL, given how much hate he got for all the Hoovervilles and shit.
|
|
