• Hi Guest!

    The costs of running this forum are covered by Sea Lion Press. If you'd like to help support the company and the forum, visit patreon.com/sealionpress

Alternate History General Discussion

My point is that the British Government wanted a war and was not interested in even attempting to seek options other than young men killing each other. And that posters here won't even consider that. Which is what is now happening.

Negotiations probably wouldn't have worked anyway but that doesn't mean governments don't have the right to just choose the murder option because they want to.

But there are always people who want to wave the flag about it here.
 
My point is that the British Government wanted a war and was not interested in even attempting to seek options other than young men killing each other. And that posters here won't even consider that. Which is what is now happening.

Negotiations probably wouldn't have worked anyway but that doesn't mean governments don't have the right to just choose the murder option because they want to.

But there are always people who want to wave the flag about it here.

What options? The Junta invaded sovereign territory ffs
 
There may be an AH in what happened if the Argentine government did agree to negotiations, being convinced by [waves hands]something something oranges something that it'd go in their favour. What happens in Downing Street if Thatcher's bluff is called, which government has the better hand, which countries are sending peacekeepers and what do the islanders think of all this, what's even the potential deal going to be etc.
 
What options? The Junta invaded sovereign territory ffs

There were none. No realistic options, at least.

The limits on Britain's ability to act were quite serious. The choices were really:

1) Send a Task Force, reoccupy the Falklands, declare victory.
2) Send submarines, blockade the Falklands, force the Junta to withdraw. This would be a very long shot, not least because Britain would be effectively starving the Islanders as well as the Junta's troops.
3) Demand the Junta withdraw, with the Falklands occupied by an international UN force. This would be a sign of weakness, even if the issue was agreed in Britain's favor. It probably would not have been. The Junta tried hard to portray the issue as a 'colonial' one and, if the UK looked weak, the UN would probably side with them.
4) Demand the Junta withdraw, or else. Which begs the reply of 'or else what?' Go to 1.
5) Use nukes. No one in their right mind would try this.
6) Surrender the Falklands, abandoning the Islanders to a very hostile regime.

The bottom line is that the time for talking ended when the Junta landed troops. There was no longer any room for a solution that didn't end with Britain repossessing the islands.

Chris
 
A friend of Facebook posted asking "has anyone written a contemporary counterfactual novel on the basis of the survival of the idea of the divine right of kings?" I couldn't think of anything off the top of my head though my knowledge isn't as extensive as others on here. Does anyone know of anything that might fit that bill or has my buddy stumbled across something nobody's done (yet)?
 
A friend of Facebook posted asking "has anyone written a contemporary counterfactual novel on the basis of the survival of the idea of the divine right of kings?" I couldn't think of anything off the top of my head though my knowledge isn't as extensive as others on here. Does anyone know of anything that might fit that bill or has my buddy stumbled across something nobody's done (yet)?

Not until @Ciclavex publishes.
 
Thanks guys for proving my point.

MODERATOR POST

It is certainly fine to debate questions like this here, and to criticize other board members for what you believe are flawed opinions or beliefs, but this sort of statement is a kind of rhetorical trap which - when said generally without talking about any specific point, and outside of any explanatory context clarifying the statement - comes across as a broad attack against any dissent, and brings a hostile and unhelpful atmosphere to the discussion, making it difficult to respond in good faith and as a result degrading the civil environment for posting.

You are free to disagree with other posters, say they are wrong, and make points about how what they say proves your point, but please try to do so in ways that do not come across as broadsides against all posters presenting reasonable dissenting points of view.

Thank you.
 
I find it interesting that a criticism of TNO's Burgundy (that artificially propping up an antagonist state for the sake of plot in something meant to show the unworkability/weakness of it clashes with the tone/intended message) matches an observation I've had about the portrayal of Germans in The Big One near-exactly.

In the latter, it's meant as a sincere debunking of the wunderwaffe, except the Germans can hold the entire Volga for five years and a rump state in the European USSR after their home bases have been destroyed for around a decade.
 
Last edited:
I heard that one of the reasons Britain refused to annex Malta amongst several was that they didn’t want to set the potential precedent that all colonies could be incorporated into the UK.

What potential colonies would’ve wanted this?
 
I heard that one of the reasons Britain refused to annex Malta amongst several was that they didn’t want to set the potential precedent that all colonies could be incorporated into the UK.

What potential colonies would’ve wanted this?
@Turquoise Blue would probably know more about this, but maybe Sarawak?
 
@Turquoise Blue would probably know more about this, but maybe Sarawak?
Most certainly not Sarawak. They deeply objected to the cession from the Raj to the British, as it went against the Rajah's promises to implement constitutionalism to the place. There were a lot of anti-cession protests, and later on separatist communists were popular there.

Yes, the place called for the restoration of a white monarchy, then later on called for communism. The thing people at the time did was that they identified the anti-cession movement, then the communists, with a distinct Sarawak identity and interest against those that wanted to absorb the place.

There is a reason that even now, there are a lot of constitutional protection for Sarawak in Malaysia, the place is very protective of its laws and status.
 
So after discussions with @Oppo I’ve realised there isn’t a major straightforward ‘Kinnock Wins TL’ as it were, like it feels like there should be quite a few but there isn’t really. Like his most consistent appearance is in 90s American Politics timelines where he’s often appears off screen like a bad cameo.

Like the closest I know to a proper ‘Kinnock Wins TL’ is @iainbhx 92’ election night timeline which doesn’t explore the aftermath (not a criticism, it’s an excellent timeline, enjoyed the Gould appearances) but that’s all that comes to my head.

It’s more common for Neil Kinnock to die in a car crash or lose than to have a time in Government.

Feel free to tell me I’m wrong and link timelines etc.
 
To go along with my whining above, I’m not a big fan of Blair TL’s just because it seems fairly redundant, they usually just become ‘And then Blair has us join the Euro and ain’t that nice’.

I would much rather like to see ‘Brown’s New Labour’ or ‘Milburn: The Moderniser’ timelines etc.
 
Back
Top