AWWA-Yesterday, Today, and Forever(OOC-Closed)

by **Unicario** » Tue Apr 19, 2016 6:33 pm

Pfft.

Also; because of a discovery I have made, I shall hereby declare the following. Ruri, I am, in writing, giving you Harvey Milk and Jackie Kennedy -- both of them are Long Islanders.

However, I am hoarding John Williams. He shall write the beautiful, beautiful music for Eternal Soldiers.

Speaking of that, I forgot something.

by **Ruridova** » Tue Apr 19, 2016 6:50 pm

Unicario wrote:Also; because of a discovery I have made, I shall hereby declare the following. Ruri, I am, in writing, giving you Harvey Milk and Jackie Kennedy -- both of them are Long Islanders.

On Jacqueline Kennedy, keep in mind I did give the Kennedys to Canada when we restarted the whole thing. So it might be better if you gave Jackie to Shrill.

I will gladly accept Milk, though. The Confederate counterculture, civil rights, and the power movements will make the 50s, 60s, and 70s interesting even as the CSA stays largely noninterventionist.

About me · by **Luziyca** » Tue Apr 19, 2016 6:52 pm

Ruridova wrote:
Unicario wrote:Also; because of a discovery I have made, I shall hereby declare the following. Ruri, I am, in writing, giving you Harvey Milk and Jackie Kennedy -- both of them are Long Islanders.

On Jacqueline Kennedy, keep in mind I did give the Kennedys to Canada when we restarted the whole thing. So it might be better if you gave Jackie to Shrill.

I will gladly accept Milk, though. The Confederate counterculture, civil rights, and the power movements will make the 50s, 60s, and 70s interesting even as the CSA stays largely noninterventionist.

IIRC, Shrill gave you JFK.

by **Unicario** » Tue Apr 19, 2016 7:21 pm

Ruridova wrote:
Unicario wrote:Also; because of a discovery I have made, I shall hereby declare the following. Ruri, I am, in writing, giving you Harvey Milk and Jackie Kennedy -- both of them are Long Islanders.

On Jacqueline Kennedy, keep in mind I did give the Kennedys to Canada when we restarted the whole thing. So it might be better if you gave Jackie to Shrill.

I will gladly accept Milk, though. The Confederate counterculture, civil rights, and the power movements will make the 50s, 60s, and 70s interesting even as the CSA stays largely noninterventionist.

I thought you had Kennedy back again, hence why he gets assassinated in Texas in 1963?

About me · by **Luziyca** » Tue Apr 19, 2016 7:26 pm

Unicario wrote:
Ruridova wrote:On Jacqueline Kennedy, keep in mind I did give the Kennedys to Canada when we restarted the whole thing. So it might be better if you gave Jackie to Shrill.

I will gladly accept Milk, though. The Confederate counterculture, civil rights, and the power movements will make the 50s, 60s, and 70s interesting even as the CSA stays largely noninterventionist.

I thought you had Kennedy back again, hence why he gets assassinated in Texas in 1963?

Yeah. Pretty sure he did.

by **Unicario** » Tue Apr 19, 2016 7:31 pm

And Japan-CS relations in the 60s are now completely justifiable -- if Jacqueline Kennedy is a Japanese citizen and native, the Japanese would be more friendly to them. Japanese press would be caught up in Camelot fever.

by **Ruridova** » Tue Apr 19, 2016 7:48 pm

Unicario wrote:
Ruridova wrote:On Jacqueline Kennedy, keep in mind I did give the Kennedys to Canada when we restarted the whole thing. So it might be better if you gave Jackie to Shrill.

I will gladly accept Milk, though. The Confederate counterculture, civil rights, and the power movements will make the 50s, 60s, and 70s interesting even as the CSA stays largely noninterventionist.

I thought you had Kennedy back again, hence why he gets assassinated in Texas in 1963?

Kennedy is Canadian, I gave the Kennedys to Shrill a while back. IIRC JFK was visiting the CSA for whatever reason, and the Indonesians just happened to shoot him there.

by **Unicario** » Tue Apr 19, 2016 8:11 pm

Ruridova wrote:
Unicario wrote:
I thought you had Kennedy back again, hence why he gets assassinated in Texas in 1963?

Kennedy is Canadian, I gave the Kennedys to Shrill a while back. IIRC JFK was visiting the CSA for whatever reason, and the Indonesians just happened to shoot him there.

Oh. Well. What was the reason the CSA joins the Indonesian War, again? I think it was just mass terrorism.

by **Unicario** » Tue Apr 19, 2016 8:51 pm

Fun fact: Dr. King once said that the response to his actions in attempts to get rid of housing discrimination in Chicago,, IL was more violent and hostile than his struggles in the South. Canada's little bit of struggle with civil rights is going to be far worse than the CSA's -- radical black movements oops.

by **Unicario** » Tue Apr 19, 2016 8:57 pm

Shiryūshima (支流島, "tributary island")
As established by Final Reform Settlement On The Matters of Japanese Hokubei, promulgated 1899; which established the "administrative region" of Hokubei (北米), of which there is only one administrative region -- Shiryuushima.

Kawashi Prefecture (formerly Kings County)

川市 - Kawashi - "river city" (formerly Brooklyn)

Total Population: 2,636,735 (2015)

Kisaki Prefecture (formerly Queens County)

后 - Kisaki - "queen" (formerly Queens)

Total Population: 2,321,580 (2015)

Tenshin Prefecture ("divine will, zenith, providence"; formerly Nassau County)

北岸 - Kitagishi - "northern shore" (formerly Musketa Cove)
砂州島 - Sasushima - "sandbar island" (formerly Long Beach)
拘束村 - Kōsokumura - "restrained village" (formerly Hempstead/Southern Hempstead)
カキ江 - Kakikō - "oyster bay" (formerly Oyster Bay)

Total Population: 1,361,350 (2015)

Aozora Prefecture ("blue sky"; formerly Suffolk County)

大都市 - Daitoshi - "great city" (formerly Babylon)
記念松 - Kinenmatsu - "memorial pines" (formerly Brookhaven)
進捗村 - Shinchoku-mura - "progress village" (formerly East Hampton)
平然水 - Heizenmizu - "placid water" (formerly Huntington)
水源 - Suigen - "river head" (formerly Riverhead)
避難所島 - Hinanshoshima - "shelter island" (formerly Shelter Island)
(formerly Smithtown)
(formerly Southhampton)
(formerly Southhold)

(formerly Amityville)
(formerly Asharoken)
(formerly Babylon)
(formerly Belle Terre)
(formerly Bellport)
(formerly Brightwaters)
(formerly Dering Harbor)
(formerly East Hampton)
(formerly Greenport)
(formerly Head of the Harbor)
(formerly Huntington Bay)
(formerly Islandia)
(formerly Lake Grove)
(formerly Lindenhurst)
(formerly Lloyd Harbor)
(formerly Mastic Beach)
(formerly Nissequogue)
(formerly North Haven)
(formerly Northport)
(formerly Ocean Beach)
(formerly Old Field)
(formerly Patchogue)
(formerly Poquott)
(formerly Port Jefferson)
(formerly Quogue)
(formerly Sag Harbor)
(formerly Sagaponack)
(formerly Saltaire)
(formerly Shoreham)
明るい浜 - Akaruihama - "bright beaches" (formerly Southampton)
(formerly Village of the Branch)
(formerly Westhampton Beach)
(formerly West Hampton Dunes)

Total Population: 1,501,587 (2015)

Total population of Long Island: 7,821,252 people (4th largest in Japan, approximate as of 2015)

I'll finish these last ones later.

by **Unicario** » Tue Apr 19, 2016 9:00 pm

So; I'm confused now. Who the fuck has John F. Kennedy; is he the Prime Minister of Canada in the 1960s; or is he the President of the CSA!?

by **Ruridova** » Tue Apr 19, 2016 9:09 pm

Unicario wrote:
Ruridova wrote:Kennedy is Canadian, I gave the Kennedys to Shrill a while back. IIRC JFK was visiting the CSA for whatever reason, and the Indonesians just happened to shoot him there.

Oh. Well. What was the reason the CSA joins the Indonesian War, again? I think it was just mass terrorism.

Honestly, they might not, given the ongoing domestic turmoil and the fact that the CSA is far less interventionist than the USA. If they do get involved, it'll probably be because the Indonesian who kills Kennedy also kills Lee Harvey Oswald and J.D. Tippit ATL, and Oswald and Tippit would both be Confederates.

Unicario wrote:So; I'm confused now. Who the fuck has John F. Kennedy; is he the Prime Minister of Canada in the 1960s; or is he the President of the CSA!?

The most recent of my leadership lists shows the CSA as having three presidents in the 1960s: Dwight Eisenhower, Albert Chandler, and Lyndon Baines Johnson.

The most recent of Shrill's leadership lists shows Canada as having three prime ministers during the 1960s: John Diefenbaker, Lester Bowles Pearson, and George McGovern. It also notes "JFK became leader of the Liberals in 1958, but he was assassinated earlier in '63 before the Liberals won the general election". Ted Kennedy then becomes prime minister in the 1980s.

So, Kennedy holds neither the Prime Ministry of Canada or the Presidency of the Confederacy, but the Kennedys are Canadian and thus Shrill's.

by **Unicario** » Tue Apr 19, 2016 9:13 pm

[ quietly has Kennedy's widow become Chancellor of Japan in 1969 ]

by **Ruridova** » Tue Apr 19, 2016 9:17 pm

(countries who have not been fully reworked in accordance with the new RP are listed as having no leaders presently)
(assuming no serious governmental changes currently unplanned occur in any of my countries:)

BRAZIL founded 1815

HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE (re)founded 1821

QUEBEC founded 1834

CONFEDERACY founded 1834

HUNGARY founded 1835

CAUCASIA founded 1835

YUGOSLAVIA founded 1838

CROATIA founded 1941

SERBIA founded 1941

BULGARIA founded 1941

SLOVENIA founded 1988

KOSOVO founded 1988

MEXICO founded 1821

AZTLAN founded 1838

VASCONIA founded 1851

ZANZIBAR founded 1856

NORWAY founded but leaders will not be listed before

DENMARK founded but leaders will not be listed before

CZECHOSLOVAKIA founded 1891

HAWAII founded 1891 but claimants to the titles Shogun of Japan and King of Hawai'i before 1891 will not be listed
(severe changes likely, given to new plans for history)

POLAND founded 19__

FINLAND founded 19__

LITHUANIA founded 19__

THE VOLTA founded 1954

KAMERUN founded 1960

CENTRAL AFRICA founded 1960

In 1969, Bokassa seized absolute control, declaring himself Emperor Bokassa I of the new Central African Empire.

In 2001, following years of discontent, Bokassa II resigned, returning the country to democratic rule under a Central African Republic.

CONGO/ZAIRE founded 1961

TANGANYIKA founded 1964

NAMIBIA founded 1967

NORTH NEW GUINEA founded 1986

by **Unicario** » Wed Apr 20, 2016 2:49 am

Jacqueline Kennedy (infobox)
John F. Kennedy Jr. (infobox)

I was also gonna do Bobby Kennedy but my browser keeps crashing a lot so no

by **Unicario** » Wed Apr 20, 2016 6:37 am

NHK Update
Queen Elizabeth II Festival Begins!

As the sun set tonight over the Western horizons, the mood in the capital city elevated as the Queen Elizabeth II Festival began. A planned two-day street party to commemorate the 90th Birthday of Her Royal Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. Elizabeth II has the immense honor of being one of the world's longest serving monarchs -- while not serving as long as the Daoguang Emperor of China, she has served longer as Queen of the United Kingdom than Empress Meiji did as Empress of Japan (1774-1837); or Emperor Alexander (1837-1898).

The party itself is a large festival of culture; both British and Japanese, and an expression of friendship to Her Majesty, who, despite the rocky relationship of Britain and Japan's political leadership in the last thirty years, has remained immensely popular in the Empire as a friend, and as a member of the Imperial Family.

The festival is scheduled to end at sundown, April 21. After the party's end, religious blessing ceremonies will be conducted by the Empress at The Mauseoleum; before both the statue of Empress Meiji and Queen Victoria and the one of Emperor Alexander.

by **Unicario** » Wed Apr 20, 2016 9:59 am

by **Unicario** » Thu Apr 21, 2016 6:04 pm

So, is the CSA putting Harriet Tubman on the CS$20?

by **Qianrong** » Thu Apr 21, 2016 6:47 pm

Unicario wrote:So, is the CSA putting Harriet Tubman on the CS$20?

Probably, because Tubman was a very famous Confederate who would be worthy of that honor, though perhaps not, because Jackson wouldn't have been on the CS$20 to begin with.

by **Unicario** » Thu Apr 21, 2016 6:56 pm

Qianrong wrote:
Unicario wrote:So, is the CSA putting Harriet Tubman on the CS$20?

Probably, because Tubman was a very famous Confederate who would be worthy of that honor, though perhaps not, because Jackson wouldn't have been on the CS$20 to begin with.

"Would you say, sir, it is inappropriate to replace President [insert name here] on the $20?"

"I say it's political correctness gone too far."

Assuming your bills follow a similar nature to your planned back a couple dozen pages, President Chandler would be on the $20. So he wouldn't get removed.

by **Qianrong** » Thu Apr 21, 2016 8:32 pm

Unicario wrote:
Qianrong wrote:Probably, because Tubman was a very famous Confederate who would be worthy of that honor, though perhaps not, because Jackson wouldn't have been on the CS$20 to begin with.

"Would you say, sir, it is inappropriate to replace President [insert name here] on the $20?"

"I say it's political correctness gone too far."

Assuming your bills follow a similar nature to your planned back a couple dozen pages, President Chandler would be on the $20. So he wouldn't get removed.

Maybe. I know I had a set of bills and coins worked out, but I've forgotten what they all were.

by **Ruridova** » Fri Apr 22, 2016 9:35 pm

So this is an althistory thought I had, unrelated to the RP but I know that you all are also into althist-y stuff and I wasn't sure where else to post it:

It's well-known that Queen Victoria did not get along with her eldest son and heir, Edward VII. Edward VII (born Albert Edward- he chose to reign as Edward VII partially to spite Victoria, who had wanted him to reign as Albert in honor of his father) did not do as well in his studies as Victoria wanted him to; he sought a military career, but was refused by Victoria; his frequent visits to Paris brothels and his many affairs disgusted Victoria, and his brief sexual relationship with actress Nellie Clifden outright appalled her; furthermore, the fact that Albert (ill with typhoid fever) had insisted on visiting Edward to reprimand him, only to die of typhoid shortly thereafter, meant that Victoria came to blame Edward for Albert's death.

So what if, hypothetically, Victoria decided to spite her eldest son by handing off the throne to one of her eight other children- say, Victoria, Princess Royal. The Princess Royal, Queen Victoria's eldest child, was effectively everything that Edward VII was not- she was extremely studious and curious, educated in science, law, philosophy, astronomy, literature, and history, capable of speaking English, French, German, and Latin, well-behaved in public and in private, steadfastly devoted to her husband. She was a patron of the arts and a talented artist herself, and worked extensively to increase access to education for women. She remained very close to her mother, who affectionately called her "Vicky"; more than 4,000 letters between the two have been cataloged. If Queen Victoria was going to give the throne to someone other than Edward, the Princess Royal seems to be a probable candidate.

So let's say that, shortly before her death on January 22, 1901, Queen Victoria makes an announcement declaring Victoria, Princess Royal to be her heir. Victoria, Princess Royal becomes Her Royal Majesty Victoria II, Queen of Great Britain and Ireland, Empress of India.

Here's where things get interesting: the husband mentioned earlier was His Imperial Majesty Friedrich III, Emperor of Germany and King of Prussia. Friedrich III, by this point, is already dead- he died in 1888 of larynx cancer, with Victoria II being his widow. However, Victoria II- as a result of this marriage- was the Empress Consort of Germany, and retained the title of Empress Dowager after Friedrich III's death. Furthermore, her husband's heir as Emperor of Germany, and her heir as Queen of Great Britain, is her eldest child- His Imperial Majesty Wilhelm II, Emperor of Germany and King of Prussia.

So when Victoria II herself dies on August 5, 1901- after reigning for only 196 days- Wilhelm II becomes His Imperial and Royal Majesty William V and II, King of Great Britain and Ireland, Emperor of India, Emperor of Germany and King of Prussia. Britain and Germany are suddenly under personal union.

What happens then?

by **Shrillland** » Sat Apr 23, 2016 1:22 am

Ruridova wrote:So this is an althistory thought I had, unrelated to the RP but I know that you all are also into althist-y stuff and I wasn't sure where else to post it:

It's well-known that Queen Victoria did not get along with her eldest son and heir, Edward VII. Edward VII (born Albert Edward- he chose to reign as Edward VII partially to spite Victoria, who had wanted him to reign as Albert in honor of his father) did not do as well in his studies as Victoria wanted him to; he sought a military career, but was refused by Victoria; his frequent visits to Paris brothels and his many affairs disgusted Victoria, and his brief sexual relationship with actress Nellie Clifden outright appalled her; furthermore, the fact that Albert (ill with typhoid fever) had insisted on visiting Edward to reprimand him, only to die of typhoid shortly thereafter, meant that Victoria came to blame Edward for Albert's death.

So what if, hypothetically, Victoria decided to spite her eldest son by handing off the throne to one of her eight other children- say, Victoria, Princess Royal. The Princess Royal, Queen Victoria's eldest child, was effectively everything that Edward VII was not- she was extremely studious and curious, educated in science, law, philosophy, astronomy, literature, and history, capable of speaking English, French, German, and Latin, well-behaved in public and in private, steadfastly devoted to her husband. She was a patron of the arts and a talented artist herself, and worked extensively to increase access to education for women. She remained very close to her mother, who affectionately called her "Vicky"; more than 4,000 letters between the two have been cataloged. If Queen Victoria was going to give the throne to someone other than Edward, the Princess Royal seems to be a probable candidate.

So let's say that, shortly before her death on January 22, 1901, Queen Victoria makes an announcement declaring Victoria, Princess Royal to be her heir. Victoria, Princess Royal becomes Her Royal Majesty Victoria II, Queen of Great Britain and Ireland, Empress of India.

Here's where things get interesting: the husband mentioned earlier was His Imperial Majesty Friedrich III, Emperor of Germany and King of Prussia. Friedrich III, by this point, is already dead- he died in 1888 of larynx cancer, with Victoria II being his widow. However, Victoria II- as a result of this marriage- was the Empress Consort of Germany, and retained the title of Empress Dowager after Friedrich III's death. Furthermore, her husband's heir as Emperor of Germany, and her heir as Queen of Great Britain, is her eldest child- His Imperial Majesty Wilhelm II, Emperor of Germany and King of Prussia.

So when Victoria II herself dies on August 5, 1901- after reigning for only 196 days- Wilhelm II becomes His Imperial and Royal Majesty William V and II, King of Great Britain and Ireland, Emperor of India, Emperor of Germany and King of Prussia. Britain and Germany are suddenly under personal union.

What happens then?

A new RP.

Seriously though, it would likely mean that Britain joins the Triple Alliance/Central Powers, and British culture would likely be more Germanised. Joining the Triple Alliance would mean eventual victory for the Central Powers in WWI, and therefore, no WWII unless you consider France going the way of Germany ATL. Russia would likely lose more land more quickly since the Western Front would be much weaker while Austria-Hungary would gain parts of Ukraine and complete the conquest of the Balkans. The severe losses on the Russian front would only fan the flames for revolution with the result that the Tsar is likely removed in late 1915/early 1916.

On the domestic front, the influx of German ideas would possibly mean that the welfare state is established at an earlier date, possible in MacDonald's first government. Although the new King William would have the same limitations as ATL, the German influence that such a union would bring could not be ignored in Britain. Ireland would likely continue their fight on ATL schedule while some dominions may be somewhat sceptical to the idea of personal union as would many in Westminster. There may even be a small rumbling for William to try to choose one throne or the other. Whether something could actually come of that, I can't say.

by **Unicario** » Sat Apr 23, 2016 8:44 am

Funnily, I've analyzed this very scenario once. Doesn't end as you think it does.

Ruridova wrote:So what if, hypothetically, Victoria decided to spite her eldest son by handing off the throne to one of her eight other children- say, Victoria, Princess Royal. The Princess Royal, Queen Victoria's eldest child, was effectively everything that Edward VII was not- she was extremely studious and curious, educated in science, law, philosophy, astronomy, literature, and history, capable of speaking English, French, German, and Latin, well-behaved in public and in private, steadfastly devoted to her husband. She was a patron of the arts and a talented artist herself, and worked extensively to increase access to education for women. She remained very close to her mother, who affectionately called her "Vicky"; more than 4,000 letters between the two have been cataloged. If Queen Victoria was going to give the throne to someone other than Edward, the Princess Royal seems to be a probable candidate.

So let's say that, shortly before her death on January 22, 1901, Queen Victoria makes an announcement declaring Victoria, Princess Royal to be her heir. Victoria, Princess Royal becomes Her Royal Majesty Victoria II, Queen of Great Britain and Ireland, Empress of India.

British royal tradition / succession doesn't necessarily permit the monarch to just skip over the first-in-line; the child has to either fuck so so badly they abdicate upon succession, or is killed in some manner or another. British succession laws in 1901 meant that the only way Victoria, Princess Royal could become Queen is if everyone else in front of her was dead (all of her brothers and their kids, basically.) In the world after the amending of the succession law for George and Charlotte of Cambridge; yes; she would've just had to have been born first before anyone else.

But not in 1901.

So you'd have to disinherit not only Edward VII, but George V, George VI, Edward VIII, and every other female and male child/sibling ahead of her on the line of succession. She would have primacy over her sisters; but you'd have to completely take out everyone Edward VII, George V, George VI, Edward VIII and all their sisters/daughters (where applicable). As the eldest daughter of Queen Victoria, she is behind her brothers and all of their children (which puts her quite far back in the line of succession at this point).

And then you'd also have to take out any of her brothers remaining; though I think they're all dead by 1901.

Here's where things get interesting: the husband mentioned earlier was His Imperial Majesty Friedrich III, Emperor of Germany and King of Prussia. Friedrich III, by this point, is already dead- he died in 1888 of larynx cancer, with Victoria II being his widow. However, Victoria II- as a result of this marriage- was the Empress Consort of Germany, and retained the title of Empress Dowager after Friedrich III's death. Furthermore, her husband's heir as Emperor of Germany, and her heir as Queen of Great Britain, is her eldest child- His Imperial Majesty Wilhelm II, Emperor of Germany and King of Prussia.

So when Victoria II herself dies on August 5, 1901- after reigning for only 196 days- Wilhelm II becomes His Imperial and Royal Majesty William V and II, King of Great Britain and Ireland, Emperor of India, Emperor of Germany and King of Prussia. Britain and Germany are suddenly under personal union.

What happens then?

even if Victoria II did become monarch after a horrific accident that kills off every person in front of her on the line of succession; Parliament (and the Empire) would never give their assent to the coronation of Wilhelm II as King of Great Britain -- they would be very unhappy to be subjugated by the German Empire's whim and foreign policy desires; particularly in an era where Germany and Britain are competing both navally and colonially. Very likely, you'd see them refuse him and invite This guy who is the first-born son of Princess Alice; Victoria's second daughter, to become King Ernest; or King Henry or something. IDK.

Or, considering he's a landed nobleman in the German Empire; they may very well offer Princess Helena the rights to become Queen... or one of the sons of Ernst Augustus, Victoria's uncle -- although they were also Germans and may not be very popular; Ernst Augustus was universally hated in Britain, or at least, by Parliament because he was a tyrannical dickface.

But yeah, a personal union between Germany and Britain in 1901 is impossible; just as how in AWWA, Alexander gave up the opportunity to unite two of the strongest Eastern Empires because of the possible political, economic and military backlash that would be involved.

But the line of succession works like a hierarchy -- if you're the second born child, you're behind not only your brother, but your nephews and nieces, and great-nephews and nieces, and so on...

That's why Prince Harry is 5th in line for the British throne today; he is behind his father (Charles), his brother (William), his nephew (George) and his niece (Charlotte) -- if all four of them were to die / not be elligible to the throne for whatever reason; then he could be King.

In AWWA's case, technically, Empress Elizabeth is the rightful Queen of the United Kingdom; but because of an agreement between Britain's parliament and the Japanese parliament, Victoria was given primacy over her brothers. So, if all of her living descendants were to die, then the throne would pass to Emperor George of Japan; then, since he is deceased, it would pass to Emperor Alexander -- and since he is deceased, it would pass to Empress Elizabeth of Japan; who would become Queen Elizabeth II.

Similarly, in a 2016 context, you'd have to kill every living descendant of Queen Victoria to have the line bounce over to the Japanese line of the Yamato; that is, unless we pull a Hapsburg at some point.

by **Unicario** » Sat Apr 23, 2016 9:00 am

Shrillland wrote:A new RP.

Sure.

Seriously though, it would likely mean that Britain joins the Triple Alliance/Central Powers

Eh, I doubt it. There would be a great deal of power playing by domestic politicians to prevent the King (see above post for why he would never be allowed to be King) from completely fucking Britain over. Germany and Britain had significant disagreements on colonial rights, navy-building, and realpolitik at this point -- Britain didn't want to be tied down to the rotting corpse of Austria-Hungary, Germany wanted to dominate the North Sea, Britain wanted to keep her colonies safe; Germany wanted more colonies...

and British culture would likely be more Germanised.

In 1901? No way in hell that happens -- Britain is a very fiercely proud nation; they'd never let themselves be subjugated to another nation's cultural whims. The only reason why it's happening in AWWA is because of the fact that Japan and Britain have been exchanging culture now for nearly five centuries.

But IRL at this point, Germany and Britain were two separate nations. The chances of serious cultural fusion in any situation is almost nil; unless you count stuff like music, which happened OTL with the British Invasion.

Joining the Triple Alliance would mean eventual victory for the Central Powers in WWI, and therefore, no WWII unless you consider France going the way of Germany ATL.

See above on why Britain joining the Central Powers isn't necessarily a guarantee -- Britain still has her own foreign policy aims; and both Splendid Isolation and the Hochseeflotte get in the way of Britain being a German ally.

Russia would likely lose more land more quickly since the Western Front would be much weaker while Austria-Hungary would gain parts of Ukraine and complete the conquest of the Balkans. The severe losses on the Russian front would only fan the flames for revolution with the result that the Tsar is likely removed in late 1915/early 1916.

Ehh, but with Britain as a German ally, Germany may sever her ties to Austria-Hungary (which has been described universally by this point as a "rotting carcass") -- Britain is still obligated by treaty to defend Belgian sovereignty; if Germany enters Belgium w/o permission, all bets are off.

However, it is likely that under British pressure, Belgium would allow German forces into their country -- thus averting a huge bloody part of World War I. At the same end, though; you'd see a large measure of discontent over allowing Germany to run rampant across the continent and letting France get a bloody nose from it -- many Britons who feel threatened by German colonial and naval aims would be upset/hostile.

As for the Russian Tsar; eh -- Britain isn't likely to contribute soldiers to the Russian front, if they're fighting a war elsewhere -- Japan will still want Germany's Pacific territories, America would be pretty pissed off at Britain allying themselves to Germany (remember that America before 1917 was very hostile towards both the Entente and Central Powers; and if Germany keeps fucking about with American civilian liners, you may see America join into the fray against Germany/UK)

And considering how much of a blood-bath 1914-1916 were for the Germans, I don't think Germany gets off that easily at first. Sure, once Lenin is let go, you'd have a shitshow for sure, but Germany will suffer losses trying to fight her way through Poland.

On the domestic front, the influx of German ideas would possibly mean that the welfare state is established at an earlier date, possible in MacDonald's first government. Although the new King William would have the same limitations as ATL, the German influence that such a union would bring could not be ignored in Britain. Ireland would likely continue their fight on ATL schedule while some dominions may be somewhat sceptical to the idea of personal union as would many in Westminster. There may even be a small rumbling for William to try to choose one throne or the other. Whether something could actually come of that, I can't say.

Chances are actually that post-WWI, Britain is overthrown by a communist revolution. Such an event came dangerously close in the mid-1920s and has been used as a jumping off point for things like Kaiserreich -- without a coherent British Royal Family, you'd likely see an upswing in republican sentiment in a bid to get away from Berlin -- thus, you'd probably see a communist uprising much like Russia in the 1920s; either that, or a military coup d'etat that declares the throne vacant and invites someone of arguable legitimacy to sit upon it for a spell.

Ireland would likely not be pleased any more so than any other dominion would be -- dangerously putting Britain's empire into jeopardy; you could also see America very well enter the war against the UK and Germany, which would be a pretty serious front for the Central Powers -- Britain and Germany would be busy fighting France and Russia at the time; add in America's navy and army invading Canada, and you've got a quagmire to end all quagmires.

America would inevitably annex Canada -- most war simulations from that era suggest that Britain would never be able to muster defenses to protect it in time; but it would certainly sour the fledgling "Special Relationship" and possibly lead to America turning her back on Europe and focusing solely on Asia; thus possibly creating an American-Japanese alliance made in hell.

AWWA-Yesterday, Today, and Forever(OOC-Closed)

Who is online