Britain and the Empire in a Central Powers victorious World

[Grey Wolf]

What Arabs? They are irrelevant without the British army - you're talking about 30,000 beduin who will quickly and abjectly submit once the war is over.

There is no chance that the Ottoman government would ever consider under any circumstances whatsoever allowing the dropping of mustard gas on its own citizens. Since all the Arabs revolting were from the Hijaz, that would effectively mean using WMD on Mecca.

That's interesting. Was there no use of chemical weapons on the Mesopotamian and Arabian/Palestine fronts ? I never thought about it before, but now wonder...

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

That's interesting. Was there no use of chemical weapons on the Mesopotamian and Arabian/Palestine fronts ? I never thought about it before, but now wonder...

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

I don't believe so, but they would probably be of much less use in a war of maneuver...

 

[Faeelin]

If they gave it Dominion status, they would be having their cake and eating. Politically, it can be sold to Parliament that this is "just like South Africa only with fewer whites" so the necessary legislation should pass. Whether it will be enough for the Indian nats is another matter.

Well, we know it wasn't.

 

[Tocomocho]

That's interesting. Was there no use of chemical weapons on the Mesopotamian and Arabian/Palestine fronts ? I never thought about it before, but now wonder...

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

I have read that Churchill used gas against the Kurds in northern Iraq during the early 20s (talk about History repeating itself) and justified it saying that the prohibition of the League of Nations only affected "civilized" men and not "barbarians" like the Kurds.

I have not heard about it being employed during the actual Great War in the Middle East, however, and certainly not by the Ottomans.

 

[alt_historian]

I have read that Churchill used gas against the Kurds in northern Iraq during the early 20s (talk about History repeating itself) and justified it saying that the prohibition of the League of Nations only affected "civilized" men and not "barbarians" like the Kurds.

I have not heard about it being employed during the actual Great War in the Middle East, however, and certainly not by the Ottomans.

I thought he just said he wouldn't have a problem with it. Then again, given all the other shitty things Churchill did... OK.

 

[The Federalist]

Sorry to keep bringing it up, but a lot depends on when this CP victory is.

If late in 1914, we can expect that things won't change much. France maybe loses the rest of Alsace-Lorraine, and is forced to demilitarise the border regions.
If in 1917-18, the penalties would probably be much more severe.

I'd like the victory to be a late one, 1917-18, because that would mean more changes.

 

[alt_historian]

I'd like the victory to be a late one, 1917-18, because that would mean more changes.

Understood.

 

[Michael B]

I'd like the victory to be a late one, 1917-18, because that would mean more changes.

It is also far more likely. It has been argued that the CP could have knocked Russia out of the war in 1916 if they had not moved some troops westwards. I am not going to argue either way, but knowing that they are not along the French would have at very least held on if they still held Paris. Unlike 1870, they have allies and that should stiffen their resolve. As much as the General Staff would have wished it, I don't believe the CP could have got as quick a kill as they were banking on.