Redem on October 27, 2006, 08:27:09 pm
Well I doubt that Britain was that pro-nazi considering that Oswald Mosley wasn't able to pull a seat at the house of commons

Zen Redneck on October 28, 2006, 07:55:51 am
Actually, he was an MP, but I know what you mean.  The was antifascist sentiment in all the fascist countries and fascist sentiment in all the antifascist countries.  In the Texas Universe, of course, Britain was conquered.  That's what put the fascists on top.

Redem on October 28, 2006, 08:53:41 am
He was MP but was rather a party changing one (respectfully a conversative,independant and labour) and way before he was affilitate with Nazi (early 1920's) he created the British Union of Fascists in the 30's and that never was able to raise major support luckily.

Space Patton! on October 28, 2006, 08:57:33 pm
I think that the leaders of Nazi Britain would be King Edwards circle and their retainers. Edward could not have totally supplanted the entire Nazi Government apparatuses with Brits only a few years after the Atomic Destruction of Berlin. Also, I find it very hard to believe that Winston Churchill would have played the role of a British Petain. Churchill was one of the few (possibly only) British politicians in the 30's who actually stood up to the Nazis. It would fit his character much more if he fled to Canada with the Royal family. A beater choice for a British Petain would be Lord Halifax, I think.

wdg3rd on October 29, 2006, 06:50:21 am
Actually, he was an MP, but I know what you mean.  The was antifascist sentiment in all the fascist countries and fascist sentiment in all the antifascist countries.  In the Texas Universe, of course, Britain was conquered.  That's what put the fascists on top.

And Mosley was very well parodied by P. G. Wodehouse in a bunch of his stories.  Had a character in a number of his Jeeves and Wooster stories leading the English "blackshorts".  Character later retired from the movement (but didn't become much less of a jerk) after inheriting a peerage.

After all these years, there are still folks who think Wodehouse was a Nazi sympathizer because of the radio broadcasts he was conned into making after he was captured by the Germans in France.  That  kept him from being knighted until only a month or so before he died (at a rather greater age than my genetics tell me I can hope for).
Ward Griffiths        wdg3rd@aol.com

Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.  --  Denis Diderot

Space Patton! on November 23, 2006, 06:40:55 pm
There is a nagging question in my mind as to the conquest of Britian: How were they conquered? If the US was on there side, as well as having no pacific front, wouldn't the combined Anglo-American-Commonwealth naval forces be able to whip any invasion force the Nazis could possibly hope to filng across the channel? Also, what is the position of the British Royal family in Canada? Is George VI "King of Canada" or what? Finally, how much of Canada did the US annex, and how much did they give back after Britian's defeat?

Zen Redneck on November 24, 2006, 07:41:55 am
According to my notes, the US gained most of the Oregon Territory, including half of BC, in the war that Polk waged against England instead of Mexico, and the ensuing treaty gave what amounted to a protectorate over Canada to the US.  I'm not sure when, but Quebec was allowed to secede at some point, the US feeling that Canada was more managable without it.  Canada was never annexed, because the US didn't want a Canadian electorate added to the mix, and because the fiction persisted that it was still a British colony — sort of like the Taiwan situation.

In WWII, Röhm conquers Britain in a blitzkrieg before the US and Russia are in the war.  As to the nuts and bolts of the situation, I can't say, but one extra factor was the presence of a homosexual fifth column in Britain and France.  Another was what might be called more prudent politics on Röhm's part.  Add to this the fact that, owing to the effective loss of Canada, Britain was generally weaker than in OTL.

So George VI is in Canada as King of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Exile.  Edward VIII is King back home, and with the death of many of the Nazi leaders, including Röhm, is declared Führer, tho he's largely a figurehead, and the Reich is actually governed by top Nazis from all over Europe.

Space Patton! on November 24, 2006, 12:38:22 pm
But if Canada is what amounts to a American client state, why did the British Royal family and government-in-exile flee there? Why not to the Bahamas or even Australia ? Is the British Prime Minister (Chamberlin? Churchill?) also the Prime Minister of Canada, or is Mackenzie still PM? Lastly, you said Quebec was independant, but on page 72 of the comic (with Lawrence and Ness meeting in  Coventry) a map shows Quebec as part of Canada. What is going on?

Zen Redneck on November 24, 2006, 04:01:50 pm
Australia was pro-German, deciding to side with the new British gvt.  Can't say about the Bahamas, but I think the gvt in exile decided they'd be safest in territory protected by the US.  The map is a mistake in that respect.  You can see a VERY rough map here:
http://homepage.mac.com/rmay/Tex1947.jpg

The Canadian PM in 1947 was probably Tim Buck.

Churchill is Edward VIII's PM.  Oswald Mosely has defected to the IRA.

Space Patton! on November 24, 2006, 04:30:28 pm
Okay, I can see Mosely defecting; he was a fascist but a Briton first, but Churchill as the Nazi's prime minister?!! What about the fact that he was the most anti-fascist politician in Britain during the 30's, and probably the only major one who did not support appeasement, and you have him being "a British Petain"? All right, I could see it if Britain made peace with Rohm's Germany, if it was conquered? No way. Winston Churchill was not a Nazi and would never support an régime propped up by a foreign power that had invaded. No offense, but Churchill would be the first one on that Avro. A better choice for Edward's PM would be Lord Halifax, who was in OTL a power in British politics and more importantly a staunch appeaser.

Zen Redneck on November 25, 2006, 06:57:28 pm
His anti-fascism seems to me to have been purely opportunistic.  If, in the Texas TL, he'd decided that the Germans were the winners, he'd have latched onto them at the first chance.

Revisionist Churchill article at:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/raico-churchill1.html

Space Patton! on November 25, 2006, 10:17:45 pm
Alright, I can see where you get opportunist from, and yes, Churchill held many views, particularly on the empire, which would not be seen as politically correct in our modern era, but to say that just because he flip-flopped in politics is not reason what so ever to say that he would lick the bootstraps of the invaders of a conquered Britain (especially the invaders you proposes). Winston Churchill was a politician, and a strong supporter of the British Empire and all its unsavory institutions, but he was a staunch supporter of democracy, and a patriot who would never betray his country. He was anti-Hitler when that position was UNPOPULAR, and this is historical fact. Even if (if) he was not a strong supporter of British democracy as some people think, he would probably taken the action as you have Oswald Mosely taking. Winston Churchill was many things, but he was a patriot first.

Please pardon me if this offends you. That was not my intention, my intention merely being to present a different point of view.

Zen Redneck on November 27, 2006, 10:35:04 am
Not at all!  No offense taken at all.  Such feedback helps keep us honest and thinking. First off, this backstory we're talking about is hardly essential to the story, and we might well decide that Churchill behaved as you said.  I have a bias in favor of deflating his reputation, because I think he's quite overrated, but that's just me.  Another point is that the FSTTL fascism is not exactly what the OTL fascism was, and the Naziism was certainly different.  In OTL, Hitler is on record as saying he had no intention of destroying the British Empire, but rather thought it a force for good.  I'm assuming the Röhm group would feel much the same way.  And given that, and being conquered in a Blitz, a lot of Brits, Churchill included, might well decide that it's better to support the conquerers, especially since they put the old King back in power.  It's  hard to know what Churchill thought of the abdication, tho he reportedly reluctantly accepted it.

And you must remember that in this situation, it might have been a case of accepting German dominiation as opposed to a possible American/Russian domination.  I thiink the whole fascist era is in bad need of historical scrutiny.  Wasn't nearly as black-or-white as most people seem to think.  Just for fun, here's some more Churchill material:
http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/864/

I found this by googling, and I'm not sure, but it seems to be a British nationalist or racist site.

What I love about being a part of this is the tremendous amount of commentary like yours it's generating.

countingcats on March 12, 2007, 06:29:06 am
Nah, sorry. Churchill may have been an old fashioned tory and British imperialist, but he loved the British constitution, the core of which is the Sovereignty of the King in Parliament governing the freeborn Englishman. He HATED the totalitarian regimes with a passion I would give my life to see in our modern politicians.

Churchill was a royalist, a constitutionalist and a democrat. Churchill as PM to an usurper King while his true Sovereign fled to Canada? What you been smoking?

A Churchill who would do this would be no more than some random dude who shares no more than a name with our Churchill. Winston would have either been kidnapped and marched at gunpoint by his Generals to the an evacuation plane to get him out of the country, or he would have been firing mortars at the panzers as they came up the driveway at Chequers.

Rather than submit to NAZI rule Churchill would have been DEAD.

Australia going pro NAZI? Oz at that time had two political parties vying for power. The Australian Labor Party, part a mix of social democrats, socialists and communist light, and part an owned subsidiary of a pro Moscow/pro british/pro democrat labour movement. These guys hated the fascists.

The other party (from 1944 onwards) was the Liberal Party a mix of conservatives and liberals (in the non American meaning, which is the opposite meaning to the American meaning). These guys also loathed fascism.

There wasn't a constitutional means by which Oz could have just gone NAZI, and no constituency to mount a coup. The empire, with the probable exception of the Union of South Africa, in the main would have remained loyal to the King, not the usurper.

Sorry for the rant.

KiloSeven on March 17, 2007, 07:32:13 pm
Australia was pro-German, deciding to side with the new British gvt.  Can't say about the Bahamas, but I think the gvt in exile decided they'd be safest in territory protected by the US.  The map is a mistake in that respect.

What map?

Quote
You can see a VERY rough map here:
http://homepage.mac.com/rmay/Tex1947.jpg

Well, shows North America, but not the rest of the globe. Did I miss it? Looked through the entire series to date and all of the comments here, to no avail.


73s and best regards, y'all!
--
"We're not living in a simulation. We're living in a collaborative SF novel... and now, of course, it's Philip K. Dick's turn.  In a back room somewhere, Vernor Vinge and George Orwell are currently arguing about who gets to take over in 2025." (Ross Smith)   K7AAY PDX OR USA TERRA