I'm expecting next is South America? Yeesh, it'll take months just to write down every coup that's happened there lately. How will you ever get to diplomacy, military and economic matters of all these nations?
- 1
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
I would love to see an Imperial Federation in this AAR, provided it could be realistically explained of course. Maybe a greater union between Britain and the Dominion's could be brought about by greater co-operation between the countries to pull out of the Depression and the success in the war against Italy?
Just my thought I'm not really informed on events in this part of history to be honest.
Just my thought I'm not really informed on events in this part of history to be honest.
- 1
El Pip said:
I for one welcome Canada's impoverishment.
I particularly like the implication that things never get better for America (for why else would Canada continue to have more ties to a smaller, poorer nation far away?)
It's amazing how everything goes right for Britain. Will the next scene show Gandhi drowning in ghee?
:rofl:
- 1
That was a very detailed analysis of Canada. I enjoyed reading it.
Would you say Canada is better off turning to the United Kingdom instead of the United States?
Ha ha ha...what?
Would you say Canada is better off turning to the United Kingdom instead of the United States?
Faeelin said:
Ha ha ha...what?
- 1
Nathan Madien said:Ha ha ha...what?
I'm just giving El Pip a hard time.
And ghee is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghee
- 1
C&D - Central and South America are looking a little daunting, so I may not go into quite so much depth (though I do have a few major plot ideas down there that I need to set in motion).
Sadly though I may have to miss out on some of the depth, I think I set the bar too high in Greece and have been struggling to match that detail ever since. This entire 'Round the world' section was only supposed to be three/four updates when I started it, so I have got slightly side tracked.
Jalex - I can certainly see far closer links, but I fear it's too late for a union. However if anyone has any clever and realistic ideas I'd love to hear them.
Faeelin - While I do deserve such ribbing for daring to question God's representative on earth, the ever perfect St Stresseman of infallibility, and my lack of faith in his bible and testament, your AAR, I should warn you the US plot is still up in the air. The more you mention it, the worse it will be for the US, pretty much regardless of Presidential candidate.
Nathan Madien - The entire era is full of different reactions and politicians on all side and in all countries not really knowing what they're doing. It's been very interesting for me doing the research, hopefully that's coming through.
As to Canada's trade choice, historically Canada did suffer worse than any other nation bar the US. This was due to the tight trade links between the two countries, the Canadian economy being geared towards exports and cross border trade. Finally Canada did come close to defaulting on her national debt in the early 1930s and it was only increased trade with Britain through Imperial Preference that averted disaster.
Now with FDR at the helm the US had picked up (or at least stopped slumping) by the mid 1930s so Hull was able to talk King around to drop Imperial Preference and re-establish the old US-Canadian trade agreements, something the Liberal and independence minded King ideologically agreed with anyway.
In this timeline, the US has only got worse and any trade deal would heavily favour the US while mullering Canada. Put simply the US don't need Canadian raw materials, having plenty of their own given the reduced level of industry while the Canadian factories would not be able to compete with the dirt cheap US ones (no NRA so wages are through the floor in the US).
Of course when (if ) the US recovers that may have to be reconsidered, though I would say this. If your an export orientated economy like Canada, what's important is having a trade party who doesn't slam down up tariffs when the going gets rough. In the Great Depression the US response was the Hawley-Smoot Tariff Act while Britain implemented Empire Free Trade, if I was an exporter I know which I would prefer.
Sadly though I may have to miss out on some of the depth, I think I set the bar too high in Greece and have been struggling to match that detail ever since. This entire 'Round the world' section was only supposed to be three/four updates when I started it, so I have got slightly side tracked.
Jalex - I can certainly see far closer links, but I fear it's too late for a union. However if anyone has any clever and realistic ideas I'd love to hear them.
Faeelin - While I do deserve such ribbing for daring to question God's representative on earth, the ever perfect St Stresseman of infallibility, and my lack of faith in his bible and testament, your AAR, I should warn you the US plot is still up in the air. The more you mention it, the worse it will be for the US, pretty much regardless of Presidential candidate.
Nathan Madien - The entire era is full of different reactions and politicians on all side and in all countries not really knowing what they're doing. It's been very interesting for me doing the research, hopefully that's coming through.
As to Canada's trade choice, historically Canada did suffer worse than any other nation bar the US. This was due to the tight trade links between the two countries, the Canadian economy being geared towards exports and cross border trade. Finally Canada did come close to defaulting on her national debt in the early 1930s and it was only increased trade with Britain through Imperial Preference that averted disaster.
Now with FDR at the helm the US had picked up (or at least stopped slumping) by the mid 1930s so Hull was able to talk King around to drop Imperial Preference and re-establish the old US-Canadian trade agreements, something the Liberal and independence minded King ideologically agreed with anyway.
In this timeline, the US has only got worse and any trade deal would heavily favour the US while mullering Canada. Put simply the US don't need Canadian raw materials, having plenty of their own given the reduced level of industry while the Canadian factories would not be able to compete with the dirt cheap US ones (no NRA so wages are through the floor in the US).
Of course when (if
) the US recovers that may have to be reconsidered, though I would say this. If your an export orientated economy like Canada, what's important is having a trade party who doesn't slam down up tariffs when the going gets rough. In the Great Depression the US response was the Hawley-Smoot Tariff Act while Britain implemented Empire Free Trade, if I was an exporter I know which I would prefer.- 1
El Pip said:
Perhaps some sort of EU-type federation with a joint foreign Policy? ( Without the idiotic EU regulations of course..)
- 1
El Pip said:
To be totally honest, after the low countries update I was like "let's get this over with". So you won't hear too many complaints about depth from me.
- 1
El Pip said:
Of course. America isn't the land of hope and glory, the way the world's largest Empire is.
But I am a bit confused; given your opposition to Roosevelt's reforms, surely the economy should do better without his parasitic grip?
- 1
El Pip said:That said I am aiming for a stronger Commonwealth, something like a EEC/NATO hybrid. Independent nations but economic co-operation (full on Imperial preference with bits on), free movement of people, joint defence planning and procurement, that sort of thing. It seems plausible to me but I'm sure others (Durry
Have a, have a view you say... I most certainly do good Sir, and I can tell you that I am not amused by your preposterous suggestion!
That said - and it pains me to say it - Lyons and Menzies will be all for it.
I find solace in the inevitability of the rise of Curtin and the Australian Labor Party, the only party capable of leading Australia through the dark times to come.
- 1
Hey ho Pip! Long time no see, just been catching up on your delightful AAR here. The detail is amazing frankly, if you'd given up six months ago I'd say we were peas in a pod.
Interesting stuff though frankly cut down the 'subtle' Imperial Tory-wank, I'm not sure if you know your doing it but there is a tinge of "If Churchill isn't doing the state intervention, its liberal hogwash".
My local NUM branch is recruiting if you feel like experimenting.
Interesting stuff though frankly cut down the 'subtle' Imperial Tory-wank, I'm not sure if you know your doing it but there is a tinge of "If Churchill isn't doing the state intervention, its liberal hogwash".
My local NUM branch is recruiting if you feel like experimenting.
Last edited:
- 1
Then there would need to be a Empire made up of Dominions, each industrialized, but speciualizing in certain areas of production. That means turning the Raj into a Dominion. The British Isles would have to become a Dominion like any other. The Privy Council acts as a quasi-Imperial Parliament, though its members are currently appointed by Dominion Prime Ministers. The Colonial and India Offices would have to go.
- 1
Im almost caught up with this wonderful AAR. It's taken some time yes, but I'm now in the "Fallout and Aftershocks" chapters.
Great AAR, El Pip! I really love it!
Great AAR, El Pip! I really love it!
- 1
trekaddict - Something like that but a great deal looser and less binding. For instance I see strong co-operation on defence, due to the shared heritage and the many pan-Empire firms that would make joint defence projects much easier.
I think the key point would be selling it as an alliance of equals who voluntarily work together rather than a British imposed system. Of course some people still wont like it, but I can't think of anything that is universally popular.
Lord Strange - Seems plausible, certainly an organisation rooted in co-operation on trade, defence and foreign policy. Probably not a great deal more than that though, if only because I don't think Canberra is much interested in directing Canadian health policy or vice-versa.
And of course, like any British system, it must be almost entirely informal with very little written down. That way people have plenty of wriggle room to ignore the bits they don't like.
C&D - It has dragged a bit I do confess, but it was interesting to do. And enjoying it is one of the main reasons I do this, though of course it is important that someone actually reads it.
Faeelin - First off I'm just a simple mining engineer and our track record on economics is shabby at best. (Hoover was a mining engineer and look a the horrific mistakes he made! )
On the rest my, limited, understanding is that the New Deal was a mixed bag that certainly stopped things getting worse, so clearly was better than doing nothing, which was Al Smith's policy in this timeline. However I've been led to believe that parts that were bad were just terrible, the Agricultural Adjustment Act for instance and burning food and livestock during a food shortage. So while I believe FDR could have been better, he was obviously an improvement on doing nothing.
That said I'm used to the simple world of engineering where there are right and wrong answers, economics is far too subjective and open to 'interpretation', my normal approach doesn't work well.
Duritz - I'm shocked sir, a Labour Republican against strong links with Britain? Next thing you'll be telling me the Pope has Catholic leanings!
Jape - I think the right wing slant is inevitable, I'm aware of it and have been trying to avoid being too blatant in the last few updates. If it's still to strong for you now them I'm afraid you must accept it's going to get any better.
That said everything has a slant, almost no-one can get straight down the middle writing (and even when they do if it doesn't match your own prejudices you'll still think it's biased. ) Hence I'm not too worried about it I must confess.
Chief Ragusa - Not a chance I'm afraid, any such plan must be acceptable to both Britain and the Dominions. Thus it must be proposed at a point when self-government ideas are weak in the Dominions but Britain has accepted it must give up the Empire and become first among equals, at least among the major Dominions. That's a very, very small window to find, if it even ever existed.
TheVenetian - Spiffing! Always pleased to welcome a new reader. As your working your way through I'll take the chance to ask if you think the style has got better or worse since the first updates. And as Jape raised it if the political slant has got more or less obvious.
I think the key point would be selling it as an alliance of equals who voluntarily work together rather than a British imposed system. Of course some people still wont like it, but I can't think of anything that is universally popular.
Lord Strange - Seems plausible, certainly an organisation rooted in co-operation on trade, defence and foreign policy. Probably not a great deal more than that though, if only because I don't think Canberra is much interested in directing Canadian health policy or vice-versa.
And of course, like any British system, it must be almost entirely informal with very little written down. That way people have plenty of wriggle room to ignore the bits they don't like.
C&D - It has dragged a bit I do confess, but it was interesting to do. And enjoying it is one of the main reasons I do this, though of course it is important that someone actually reads it.
Faeelin - First off I'm just a simple mining engineer and our track record on economics is shabby at best. (Hoover was a mining engineer and look a the horrific mistakes he made!
)On the rest my, limited, understanding is that the New Deal was a mixed bag that certainly stopped things getting worse, so clearly was better than doing nothing, which was Al Smith's policy in this timeline. However I've been led to believe that parts that were bad were just terrible, the Agricultural Adjustment Act for instance and burning food and livestock during a food shortage. So while I believe FDR could have been better, he was obviously an improvement on doing nothing.
That said I'm used to the simple world of engineering where there are right and wrong answers, economics is far too subjective and open to 'interpretation', my normal approach doesn't work well.
Duritz - I'm shocked sir, a Labour Republican against strong links with Britain? Next thing you'll be telling me the Pope has Catholic leanings!
Jape - I think the right wing slant is inevitable, I'm aware of it and have been trying to avoid being too blatant in the last few updates. If it's still to strong for you now them I'm afraid you must accept it's going to get any better.
That said everything has a slant, almost no-one can get straight down the middle writing (and even when they do if it doesn't match your own prejudices you'll still think it's biased.
) Hence I'm not too worried about it I must confess.Chief Ragusa - Not a chance I'm afraid, any such plan must be acceptable to both Britain and the Dominions. Thus it must be proposed at a point when self-government ideas are weak in the Dominions but Britain has accepted it must give up the Empire and become first among equals, at least among the major Dominions. That's a very, very small window to find, if it even ever existed.
TheVenetian - Spiffing! Always pleased to welcome a new reader. As your working your way through I'll take the chance to ask if you think the style has got better or worse since the first updates. And as Jape raised it if the political slant has got more or less obvious.
- 1
El Pip said:
Forgive me, but I disagree. IMVHO the problem wasn't the window itself but rather the willingness and ability to find it, especially among the old guard in London.
- 1
Very true, I did somewhat ignore the fact that London wasn't even thinking about looking for it.trekaddict said:
o While my point was that the window would be very hard to find, that is obviously superseded by the fact you'll never find it if you aren't looking for it!
- 1
El Pip said:Very true, I did somewhat ignore the fact that London wasn't even thinking about looking for it.
While my point was that the window would be very hard to find, that is obviously superseded by the fact you'll never find it if you aren't looking for it!
Indeed.
- 1
Your Empire seems to a have asense of what it is about.
However, the choice is not often about options and choices, but that which necessity dictates.
The Empire is British. That's the fundamental raison d'etre. Dominions as self-governing parts of the Empire work to a point, but then what. Following the logic implicit makes non-Anglo-Saxons of equal value as Anglo-Saxons. Not a popular view. The change was reflected in the creation of the British Commonwealth, but the emphasis is still on the British control. To simply view the Empire as a collection of nations sharing the same monarch requires a change of mind.
The Commonwealth being born does mean there was a lot of thinking at high levels about the direction the Empire should take. I think a variety of views and options were considered. What emerged seems to have all the hallmarks of a compromise - and WWII speeded up the process. Hard to say if the electorate approved, since it was never consulted. Interesting, but not going to happen in your AAR to have parties fight an elecion of the direction of the Empire.Still, if there's no war in 1940, who knows.
However, the choice is not often about options and choices, but that which necessity dictates.
The Empire is British. That's the fundamental raison d'etre. Dominions as self-governing parts of the Empire work to a point, but then what. Following the logic implicit makes non-Anglo-Saxons of equal value as Anglo-Saxons. Not a popular view. The change was reflected in the creation of the British Commonwealth, but the emphasis is still on the British control. To simply view the Empire as a collection of nations sharing the same monarch requires a change of mind.
The Commonwealth being born does mean there was a lot of thinking at high levels about the direction the Empire should take. I think a variety of views and options were considered. What emerged seems to have all the hallmarks of a compromise - and WWII speeded up the process. Hard to say if the electorate approved, since it was never consulted. Interesting, but not going to happen in your AAR to have parties fight an elecion of the direction of the Empire.Still, if there's no war in 1940, who knows.
- 1
El Pip said:
Having studied the New Deal in depth, I agree with your assessment that the New Deal was a mixed bag. In addition to the Agricultural Adjustment Act, the Tennessee Valley Authority had the negative impact of squeezing out smaller electric companies (kinda like a major grocery story putting smaller grocery stores out of business). Then there is the Supreme Court Packing Bill, nothing more than a thinly veiled power grab move by Roosevelt.
On the other hand, we did get good regulations and protection agencies like the Securities Exchange Commission and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
- 1