AHC: Create a new British settler-colony somewhere in the world with a foundation date of 1900.

South Georgia & the South Sandwich Islands
At that late date--I am thinking Antarctica. Some expedition finds a suite of attractive resources on a portion of the Antarctic coast particularly convenient to reach from either South Africa or Australia/New Zealand, and then some cocaine-sniffing visionary billionaire of the Jules Verne reading type (HG Wells does not have the sort of gung ho vision of victory through technocracy needed here) decides to go all in to pledge to found an "electric Utopia" or some such thing--you know, the resources include stupidly easy to mine open coal faces, so the plan is to mine the coal, use it to generate massive amounts of electricity and process heat on the spot, use the electricity to process aluminum, and a whole surplus of other things.

I have more thoughts on the south polar Dominion but I'm running out of energy and will go on if there is interest!

And yes, such a response is probably ASB as it requires an ATL geographic concentration of attractive resources gathered in one spot to jump-start the first coastal settlement, though perhaps the rest of the colony's expansion can be into terrain with realistic resource incidences.

 
After a worse War of Irish Independence the UK settles Ulstermen and other Irish Protestants in the Kingdom of Jerusalem (hey if the King loses one title it may make sense to revive a past title).

Yes, I have found a way to make the Israel-Palestine conflict worse; having the UVF play king maker. x'D
 
After a worse War of Irish Independence the UK settles Ulstermen and other Irish Protestants in the Kingdom of Jerusalem (hey if the King loses one title it may make sense to revive a past title).

Yes, I have found a way to make the Israel-Palestine conflict worse; having the UVF play king maker. x'D
Well, I guess we get Arab-Jewish unity.
 
What is the plausibility of Socotra anyone? Just randomly popped into my head.
Not very likely, since there's no economic rationale for anything more than several hundred (a couple thousand at the absolute most) British to set up camp in Socotra (the island has only one port, for starters, and no natural resources of note).
 
I doubt it, this would definitely be a case of mutual incompatibility between all three.
The Ulstermen would probably have the upper hand for at least a couple of decades, which would see at least some Arab and Jewish factions (probably of the socialist flavor) start to band together.
 
The Ulstermen would probably have the upper hand for at least a couple of decades, which would see at least some Arab and Jewish factions (probably of the socialist flavor) start to band together.
A temporary alliance of convenience, with some of the most communist leaning elements of all sides breaking away to form a non-confessional non-ethnic Communist faction (similar to the Lebanese communists) seems possible.
 
While Britain had significant interests in East Africa before 1899, perhaps Kenya could have attracted more settlers to the Highlands and other comfortable zones? Displacing more Africans to become more like Southern Rhodesia.
Probably not, since the Highlands would be an agricultural affair, and that requires plenty of non British agricultural workers.
 
Probably not, since the Highlands would be an agricultural affair, and that requires plenty of non British agricultural workers.
They could always get Indian workers to act as a go-between, like Britain did in the Caribbean or South Africa, giving the British a minority that side with them over native Africans. It can also get them more population to outnumber the natives.
 
Already pretty densely populated, though.
The start point is 1900.
Cyprus has a large Turkish population and Britain will be at war with Turkey in 1914. The Turkish Cypriots can be interned and after no doubt rebelling expelled after the war.
Seized properties can be used for British settlers.
Because of rising numbers of British settlers Greek Cypriots may rebel. If they do their lands can be seized by the crown and after release from prison the rebels can be expelled to Greece. These properties can then be used for more British settlers. This causes more rebellions and property seizures.

This may seem unlikely for Britain to do but it's just an extension of how things were done in the earlier settler colonies.
 
They could always get Indian workers to act as a go-between, like Britain did in the Caribbean or South Africa, giving the British a minority that side with them over native Africans. It can also get them more population to outnumber the natives.
It was much cheaper to use the locals (since they're immune to prevalent diseases).

And importing Indians doesn't achieve the OP of at least a plurality British settlement.
 
The start point is 1900.
Cyprus has a large Turkish population and Britain will be at war with Turkey in 1914. The Turkish Cypriots can be interned and after no doubt rebelling expelled after the war.
Seized properties can be used for British settlers.
Because of rising numbers of British settlers Greek Cypriots may rebel. If they do their lands can be seized by the crown and after release from prison the rebels can be expelled to Greece. These properties can then be used for more British settlers. This causes more rebellions and property seizures.

This may seem unlikely for Britain to do but it's just an extension of how things were done in the earlier settler colonies.
Ignoring pissing off both Greece and Turkey for virtually zero strategic benefits:

And what would they induce to get British settlers to come over in the hundreds of thousands? There isn't that much agriculture to have on Cyprus, not to mention that there's no large cache of natural resources to institute a viable industrial base of a meaningful size.
 
Top