I'm kinda hoping for a Jacobite restoration in Ireland. Since monarchism is in full swing, and Kronprinz Ruprecht of Bavaria is also the heir of the Jacobite Claim to the British throne, you could end up with a monarchist Wittlesbach ruled Ireland backed by covert German support.
OTL several leaders of the Easter Rising (Pádraig Pearse, Joseph Plunkett and Thomas MacDonagh) did actually consider an Irish monarchy under Prince Joachim of Prussia (the youngest son of Kaiser Wilhelm II). It was suggested that an German prince becoming king of Ireland would help establish ties with Germany and help the restoration of the Irish language by having the king learn it and promote its use.

The fact that the Germans didn't mention the Irish in the peace negotiations might reduce support for that however, and if you want an Irish monarchy there's potential claimants more likely to be accepted than the Stuarts (Jacobitism is long dead in Ireland at this point) such as Juan O'Donnell, the 3rd Duke of Tetuan (who headed the Irish Race Convention in 1922 and who Eamon de Valera is said to have raised the idea of an Irish monarchy with).
 
Last edited:

Rivercat893

Banned
OTL several leaders of the Easter Rising (Pádraig Pearse, Joseph Plunkett and Thomas MacDonagh) did actually consider an Irish monarchy under Prince Joachim of Prussia (the youngest son of Kaiser Wilhelm II). It was suggested that an German prince becoming king of Ireland would help establish ties with Germany and help the restoration of the Irish language by having the king learn it and promote its use.

The fact that the Germans didn't mention the Irish in the peace negotiations might reduce support for that however, and if you want an Irish monarchy there's potential claimants more likely to be accepted than the Stuarts (Jacobitism is long dead in Ireland at this point) such as Juan O'Donnell, the 3rd Duke of Tetuan (who headed the Irish Race Convention in 1922 and who Eamon de Valera is said to have raised the idea of an Irish monarchy with).
Ireland might become a republic since they were under the thrall of Britain, a monarchy. Though that's not going to stop those from advocating for a close alliance with Germany by installing a king.
 
Probably not. Italy is at peace, and I doubt they would be interested in helping the Basques though things can change now and then.
I wonder what is happening in Italy now, from what I can gather, Italy is quite happily puttering along while half of Europe crash and burn.
Sure the war was costly, but they got out a lot better than the majority of the other countries and now they can rebuild and expand meanwhile France is self-destroying, England is wasting massive amounts of money and soldiers to keep India and the new Austro-Hungarian Empire is already falling apart.
The big shots in Rome have a lot to be happy about I think.
 

Rivercat893

Banned
I wonder what is happening in Italy now, from what I can gather, Italy is quite happily puttering along while half of Europe crash and burn.
Sure the war was costly, but they got out a lot better than the majority of the other countries and now they can rebuild and expand meanwhile France is self-destroying, England is wasting massive amounts of money and soldiers to keep India and the new Austro-Hungarian Empire is already falling apart.
The big shots in Rome have a lot to be happy about I think.
Italy and Germany were the big winners of TTL's World War I.
 
True. Though I wonder how the Kaiser's comments towards the "atrocities the British committed against the Indians" would impact racial views in Europe. One of the reasons why Japan joined the Axis in otl was that they felt burned by the British for not recognizing them as equals despite them going toe toe with and defeating old world powers.
Not very much, unfortunately. He didn't really speak out for India so much as against Britain - most of Europe can see that.
 
Whats happing in Europe specially Russia and Ottoman Empire while the Indian revolt is crushed?
So India becomes OTL Ireland under British control but just waiting for a chance to revokt again
 
The muslim league won almost every muslim seats (95%) in the last raj election. An explicit ideology of the Muslim league of the muslim league was the two nation theory of pakistan and india. Britain divided nothing. The Muslim League basically demanded Pakistan to be formed and the British simply respected the decisions of the elections and did so.
Those electoral results became possible just due to extensive British support of the League in the wake of INC opposition to Indian participation in WW2. It was just the culmination of the British "Divide and Rule" policy. Also I believe the system of separate electorates in which a Muslim candidate faced only a Muslim candidate and no non-Muslim, plays a massive part in those results.

Even Jinnah didn't argue for a Pakistan before WW2 broke out, not even until the 1942 Quit India Movement. Extensive British support for the League and the unprecendented religious polarization as a result, that occurred during WW2 is responsible for the subsequent demands of Pakistan gaining strength.

Also the "ideology of the League being the creation of Pakistan" is just a wild conjecture. It was a party founded in 1905 on the principle of effectively representing Muslim interests, not outright secession. How can a party espouse a concept as its ideology, when the concept itself first came to light at least 25 years after its foundation ?

Also saying "Britain divided nothing" is just laughable. When Lord Curzon in 1906, partitioned Bengal Province along religious lines, ostensibly for "administrative ease", I don't recall the opinions of the Bengalis being taken into consideration.

With "Britain just respecting election results", I find it difficult to believe that the nation of Churchill, who left millions in Bengal to die just to provide succor to a few hundred thousand Greeks, would bother to respect some election result, when it scarcely respected the people themselves.

On a related note, I don't find that Ireland was granted independence on the basis of the overwhelming Sinn Fein victory in the 1918 General elections and thus a clear call for independence. However I do find that those results and the sentiments they conveyed were ruthlessly crushed under British boots. Shows how much "respect" Britain shows to election results of its colonies.
 
Those electoral results became possible just due to extensive British support of the League in the wake of INC opposition to Indian participation in WW2. It was just the culmination of the British "Divide and Rule" policy. Also I believe the system of separate electorates in which a Muslim candidate faced only a Muslim candidate and no non-Muslim, plays a massive part in those results.

Even Jinnah didn't argue for a Pakistan before WW2 broke out, not even until the 1942 Quit India Movement. Extensive British support for the League and the unprecendented religious polarization as a result, that occurred during WW2 is responsible for the subsequent demands of Pakistan gaining strength.

Also the "ideology of the League being the creation of Pakistan" is just a wild conjecture. It was a party founded in 1905 on the principle of effectively representing Muslim interests, not outright secession. How can a party espouse a concept as its ideology, when the concept itself first came to light at least 25 years after its foundation ?

Also saying "Britain divided nothing" is just laughable. When Lord Curzon in 1906, partitioned Bengal Province along religious lines, ostensibly for "administrative ease", I don't recall the opinions of the Bengalis being taken into consideration.

With "Britain just respecting election results", I find it difficult to believe that the nation of Churchill, who left millions in Bengal to die just to provide succor to a few hundred thousand Greeks, would bother to respect some election result, when it scarcely respected the people themselves.

On a related note, I don't find that Ireland was granted independence on the basis of the overwhelming Sinn Fein victory in the 1918 General elections and thus a clear call for independence. However I do find that those results and the sentiments they conveyed were ruthlessly crushed under British boots. Shows how much "respect" Britain shows to election results of its colonies.
Churchill was not PM in the independence of India. Nor was the imperialist filled party of the Tories. The pro-indian dominion party and pro-unified party of Labour with Atlee was in power in the independence of India.
 
Churchill was not PM in the independence of India. Nor was the imperialist filled party of the Tories. The pro-indian dominion party and pro-unified party of Labour with Atlee was in power in the independence of India.
Good Sir, the entire process for the same occurred under the Churchill Government, Attlee was just left with accepting the fait accompli of the Partition after coming to power in 1945. Also Attlee was just concerned about pulling back from the colonies, I doubt he gave much thought to what happened as long as Britain pulled out.

Also I find my other important assertions have yet to be replied to.
 
Last edited:
Good Sir, the entire process for the same occurred under the Churchill Government, Attlee was just left with accepting the fait accompli of the Partition after coming to power in 1945. Also Attlee was just concerned about pulling back from the colonies, I doubt he gave much thought to what happened as long as Britain pulled out.

Also I find my other important assertions have yet to be replied to.
The quit India movement was conducted during wartime measures with the same measures out in place in Britain as well. All dissidents regardless of from India, Britain or Kenya or Nigeria or Tuvalu were thrown in jail during wartime. The ML capitalized on that. You could argue from there that Britain indirectly aided the ML then by jailing the IC, but then again Britain jailed anti-nationalists in the African colonies as well. On the Curzon Line I do agree with you there. However the 1945 General Election was democratic by all US, French and UN accounts with the ML campaigning on the two nation theory and a 'home for Muslims'. Can't stop the votes in a democracy.
 
I disagree - the failure of the pan indian congress could very easily lead to every region spending as much time blaming other regions as blaming the british or blaming sectionalism.
Divisions in India will be very strong for sure. Hindus and Muslims will eagerly accuse the other of "sabotaging" the conference.
It's certainly likely that some groups will harbor grudges against other regions (for example, the regions that rebelled would be irate at those that stayed loyal to the British or fell into internal conflict rather than presenting a united front), but at this point I think that would result in rival pan-Indian governments being formed rather than a retreat from the nationalist ideal they came close to achieving.
I'd imagine a mixture of the two is more likely: the princely states push for real independence while pan-Indian governments are set up in the areas of direct rule and try to conquer the whole subcontinent.
Probably not. Italy is at peace, and I doubt they would be interested in helping the Basques though things can change now and then.
Italy has no grudge against Spain- where the majority of Basques are. What would they gain from such a thing?
OTL several leaders of the Easter Rising (Pádraig Pearse, Joseph Plunkett and Thomas MacDonagh) did actually consider an Irish monarchy under Prince Joachim of Prussia (the youngest son of Kaiser Wilhelm II). It was suggested that an German prince becoming king of Ireland would help establish ties with Germany and help the restoration of the Irish language by having the king learn it and promote its use.

The fact that the Germans didn't mention the Irish in the peace negotiations might reduce support for that however, and if you want an Irish monarchy there's potential claimants more likely to be accepted than the Stuarts (Jacobitism is long dead in Ireland at this point) such as Juan O'Donnell, the 3rd Duke of Tetuan (who headed the Irish Race Convention in 1922 and who Eamon de Valera is said to have raised the idea of an Irish monarchy with).
The Irish aren't too happy about the Germans "selling them out", if you will. I'm not sure that Joachim would be well-recieved unless he came bearing a boatload of guns... which would mean war with Britain. As for Juan O'Donnell, that's a possibility.

Ireland might become a republic since they were under the thrall of Britain, a monarchy. Though that's not going to stop those from advocating for a close alliance with Germany by installing a king.
Divisions between monarchists and republicans will be high in Ireland, and will probably be pegged to how close one wants to align with the Germans.
But far, far larger in scope. Basically balkanize the whole thing
Can you imagine the bloodshed that would result in?
I wonder what is happening in Italy now, from what I can gather, Italy is quite happily puttering along while half of Europe crash and burn.
Sure the war was costly, but they got out a lot better than the majority of the other countries and now they can rebuild and expand meanwhile France is self-destroying, England is wasting massive amounts of money and soldiers to keep India and the new Austro-Hungarian Empire is already falling apart.
The big shots in Rome have a lot to be happy about I think.
Italy is fat and happy. France is knocked out for now, while their "ally" Danubia is falling apart and won't contest them... there's not much more the Italians could ask for right now.
An update about Italian politics is coming, but not for a while.
Italy and Germany were the big winners of TTL's World War I.
100 percent. Them and Japan.
Not very much, unfortunately. He didn't really speak out for India so much as against Britain - most of Europe can see that.
I intended that gaffe to be an analogue to the 1898 incident where he praised the Boer rebels. Like I say, a lot of diplomatic fence-mending was needed.
Whats happing in Europe specially Russia and Ottoman Empire while the Indian revolt is crushed?
So India becomes OTL Ireland under British control but just waiting for a chance to revokt again
Give India time and they'll rise up again. Imagine Napoleon's Spanish ulcer the size of a subcontinent... ouch.
Russia is under the rule of Tsar Michael II and is kind of stable.
The Ottomans have their 1914 borders plus Kuwait, Bahrain, and a strip of land connecting the two. The Armenian Genocide continues apace under the rule of Enver Pasha.

Thank you for the comments!
 
I intended that gaffe to be an analogue to the 1898 incident where he praised the Boer rebels. Like I say, a lot of diplomatic fence-mending was needed.
Kaiser Wilhelm II: "People no longer look at me. Am I not 'cool' anymore? Let's see, what could I do... Hey, everyone! Pay attention and listen to me! The British suck!"

*Gasps*
"How dares he?"
"The audacity!"

Kaiser Wilhelm II: "Yes. Mission accomplished!"

German diplomatic service: *Groans* "Not this again please."
 
On a different topic entirely, I wonder how everything is going in Italy, namesake of the timeline as they are. Not only have they gotten substantially more land than in OTL, but the involvement of their allies is a lot different - they have received essentially all of their irredentist claims on their enemies (including Tunisia, which was part of what pushed them into the Germans' camp to begin with) rather than a portion of them, and their involvement was paid for with the most valuable parts of their claims on their own allies rather than... Jubaland. Even with continued irredentism towards Tyrol and Dalmatia, I can't see the postwar national betrayal ethos developing nearly like it did IRL.
 
Last edited:
No, no real butterflies in Spain yet... I need to have a think about what to do there.
Well, would you look at that! 1917 was an interesting year for Spain, too.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_crisis_of_1917
(The spanish version of the same article seems more complete.)

It's the kind of event that could have kept escalating... until it ended being something much, much worse.

Just saying. In this timeline, there can always be one more country on fire!
 
Will britain be able to fight a offensive war against Germany or japan if war breaks out in Europe, Asia or Africa in the future with a lot of the UK white troops required to remain in india to try to prevent another revolution
 
@Kaiser Wilhelm the Tenth, only now have I caught up with this thread, and while the rewrite is quite good, I did, prima facie, notice some mistakes:
1. The post of 'Governor-General of India' did not exist at this point in time, so unless the British decided to chamge titles for whatever unfathomable reason, the guy would still be 'Viceroy of India'.
2. Balochistan does not cover the entire southern portion of modern Pakistan. The area along the Indus, in which Hyderabad and Karachi are located, is a separate region called Sindh; complete with its own distinct language and culture.

Beyond that, I've only skimmed through the five or six new updates, so further information from me will have to wait till I've really caught up, unfortunately.
 
Top