-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
I've got about half of it written, but got caught up in modding the game so it'll be ready to play by the time Part 6 ends.
Maybe tonight. Maybe.
Maybe tonight. Maybe.
First off, I want to thank everyone who's been so patient, or not so patient and given up on me anyways in the years it's taken me to write this, for getting this thing to 500 replies. Thanks, and Enjoy!
As delegates from both the Ottoman Empire and Great Britain arrived in Lisbon, Portugal to make peace, most of the world did not give the Ottomans very good odds at achieving a favorable peace. As it stood, the British Army had effectively eliminated Enver Pasha’s army as any sort of viable threat, and was in clear control of Palestine and most of Syria, including Damascus. It seemed Stanley Baldwin could demand anything he wanted from the Turks.
However, for reasons unknown at the time, Baldwin was surprisingly light on the Turks in negotiations. In later years it was discovered that in a series of secret meetings between the British and the Ottomans’ head representative at the peace conference, Riza Tevfik, Baldwin demanded very favorable trade deals for Ottoman oil from Iraqi oilfields in exchange for light demands in Lisbon. The Ottoman Sultan, Abdülmecid II, not wanting the “Sick Man of Europe” to become any sicker, instructed Tevfik to accept these demands in order to keep control of Lebanon and Syria.
The Middle East, 1936.
It seemed that the British were content with simply protecting their control of the Suez Canal and providing a buffer for it in the shape of Palestine. The reaction to the Treaty of Lisbon worldwide was mainly one of shock. Many of Europe’s leaders, particularly in the Balkans, had felt that the war had meant the end of the Ottoman Empire and it’s eventual dissolution. Greece in particular had felt that the defeat of the Turks would have led to the breakup of the empire, and therefore a chance to grab Constantinople and other territories sought by the Greeks ever since they had achieved independence from those very same Ottomans.
Indeed, the way in which the Ottomans were let off shocked not only Europe, but angered the British public. The London Times wrote of the treaty, “it is an embarrassment to the British public, British pride, and most of all, the British Empire.” Sir Winston Churchill asked the question, “What has Baldwin just announced to the world? That we are weak. He has drug our Empire's prestige through the muck.”
As a result of this national dissent, Baldwin’s popularity, once extremely high due to his dealing of the Crisis of April, plummeted.
In December 1936, the House of Commons met in an Early Day Motion to hold a vote of confidence or no confidence in the current conservative government. As the debates raged inside the House of Commons, they also raged in the streets and in the cafes across Britain. No one seemed to know for sure the fate of Baldwin and his government. Finally, at around 10 at night on December 4th, 1936 the House of Common’s votes were released to the press: A vote of confidence, 415 votes to 244. The conservatives were strong enough in the House to keep one of their own in place, the champion of the Crisis of April. With European affairs the way they were and with the hated French staring at them from across the English Channel, most in the House agreed that it wasn’t the time for a Labour government or Prime Minister.
However, Baldwin, drained from the months of managing the war and then fighting off criticism from his own people, knew his time was almost up. Citing illness and exhaustion, Stanley Baldwin resigned from his position on December 24th, Christmas Eve. Not long afterward, King George VI appointed Baldwin’s longtime ally, if not always close friend, in the Conservative Party, Neville Chamberlain to Prime Minister. With the words “His Majesty the King has asked me to form an administration and I have accepted”, uttered by all Prime Ministers, Chamberlain set about to form a Government.
[Note: I don’t want to hear one complaint about the above paragraphs if I got a detail about British Government wrong. I’m sorry to say, Brits, but you guys have possibly the most complicated political system I’ve ever seen. How do they teach it to kids?
But I do apologize if I did get something wrong.]
Neville Chamberlain.
Chamberlain immediately became extremely popular both within the British government and the British public. The people saw him as a dynamic character that would bring the country together and move it forward. His domestic policies scored a number of victories with the people during his first few years in office. He made strides to clear out the slums, made changes to the Factory Act and nationalized royalties from coalmines. His foreign policies included expansion of British influence in Europe through military and economic aid pacts with nations such as Belgium, Holland, Greece, Portugal and Sweden.
Like the late Napoleon IV, Chamberlain also sensed that a conflict in the future was unavoidable. In order to gain a leg up on France, Chamberlain pushed for Commonwealth-wide military centralization. This dream was realized with the formation of the Commonwealth Joint-Action Organization, or COMJO, in 1937. The Organization’s main function was to foster and coordinate military cooperation between Britain and the various members of her commonwealth in times of both peace and war. Based in Alexandria, Egypt, COMJO held annual land, air and naval exercises in various parts of the Commonwealth, involving all units from British armored divisions, South African cavalry, Indian infantry, Canadian air force squadrons, and the Australian Navy.
As a result of what they saw in the Suez War, many nations around the world started to change their military doctrines. Britain’s “Deep Penetration” strategy involving boxes and later motorized infantry was shockingly successful enough to warrant it’s teaching and use in many European countries. However, others, such as Russia, explained away the success of Britain’s armored divisions by stating that only in the arid flatness of the Middle East against a “clearly inferior” opponent such as the Ottomans, could the Deep Penetration doctrine be successful. This was also the stance taken by the French, who thought that rolling armored formations supported by mobile infantry could never survive in a European theatre. That being said, Louis Napoleon did expand his military’s fleet of boxes, and gave out government contracts to build more modern boxes to replace their rapidly aging FT-17s.
As controversial as boxes still were in Europe, no one could deny the effect that air power had on the Suez War. It was Ottoman warplanes that initially ripped into the British columns, but it was the RAF that proved how important air superiority could be to maintaining a successful ground assault. British fighter-bombers made the life of an average Ottoman soldier living hell as they tried in vain to defend their soil from the British onslaught. As a result, Aircraft production in Europe’s major powers (Great Britain, France, Austria-Hungary, Saxe-Bavaria, Russia, Prussia and Italy) shot up by over 120%. The importance of a large, well trained, well-supplied air force had been proven in the deserts of the Sinai and Palestine.
What had also been proven was the value of a new type of warship, the Aircraft Carrier. The British strike on Istanbul had completely shocked the world. Prior to the launching of those Hawker Nimrods on their mission, the world contained 4 aircraft carries. The HMS Hermes, one French carrier, and two Japanese carries. Shortly afterward, The United States, Italy, Austria-Hungary, Russia and even the embryonic Prussian Navy had at least one carrier in production. Winston Churchill’s bold plan, once labeled “silly” and “ridiculous” behind closed doors, had created somewhat of a “Dreadnought Effect”, as Churchill himself christened it.
The French Carrier Béarn, Launched in 1938.
To Be Continued…
God Save Us All - Part Six
A Peace Resting on Quicksand
Chapter 50 –The Treaty of Lisbon
A Peace Resting on Quicksand
Chapter 50 –The Treaty of Lisbon
As delegates from both the Ottoman Empire and Great Britain arrived in Lisbon, Portugal to make peace, most of the world did not give the Ottomans very good odds at achieving a favorable peace. As it stood, the British Army had effectively eliminated Enver Pasha’s army as any sort of viable threat, and was in clear control of Palestine and most of Syria, including Damascus. It seemed Stanley Baldwin could demand anything he wanted from the Turks.
However, for reasons unknown at the time, Baldwin was surprisingly light on the Turks in negotiations. In later years it was discovered that in a series of secret meetings between the British and the Ottomans’ head representative at the peace conference, Riza Tevfik, Baldwin demanded very favorable trade deals for Ottoman oil from Iraqi oilfields in exchange for light demands in Lisbon. The Ottoman Sultan, Abdülmecid II, not wanting the “Sick Man of Europe” to become any sicker, instructed Tevfik to accept these demands in order to keep control of Lebanon and Syria.
The Middle East, 1936.
It seemed that the British were content with simply protecting their control of the Suez Canal and providing a buffer for it in the shape of Palestine. The reaction to the Treaty of Lisbon worldwide was mainly one of shock. Many of Europe’s leaders, particularly in the Balkans, had felt that the war had meant the end of the Ottoman Empire and it’s eventual dissolution. Greece in particular had felt that the defeat of the Turks would have led to the breakup of the empire, and therefore a chance to grab Constantinople and other territories sought by the Greeks ever since they had achieved independence from those very same Ottomans.
Indeed, the way in which the Ottomans were let off shocked not only Europe, but angered the British public. The London Times wrote of the treaty, “it is an embarrassment to the British public, British pride, and most of all, the British Empire.” Sir Winston Churchill asked the question, “What has Baldwin just announced to the world? That we are weak. He has drug our Empire's prestige through the muck.”
As a result of this national dissent, Baldwin’s popularity, once extremely high due to his dealing of the Crisis of April, plummeted.
The Resignation of Baldwin
In December 1936, the House of Commons met in an Early Day Motion to hold a vote of confidence or no confidence in the current conservative government. As the debates raged inside the House of Commons, they also raged in the streets and in the cafes across Britain. No one seemed to know for sure the fate of Baldwin and his government. Finally, at around 10 at night on December 4th, 1936 the House of Common’s votes were released to the press: A vote of confidence, 415 votes to 244. The conservatives were strong enough in the House to keep one of their own in place, the champion of the Crisis of April. With European affairs the way they were and with the hated French staring at them from across the English Channel, most in the House agreed that it wasn’t the time for a Labour government or Prime Minister.
However, Baldwin, drained from the months of managing the war and then fighting off criticism from his own people, knew his time was almost up. Citing illness and exhaustion, Stanley Baldwin resigned from his position on December 24th, Christmas Eve. Not long afterward, King George VI appointed Baldwin’s longtime ally, if not always close friend, in the Conservative Party, Neville Chamberlain to Prime Minister. With the words “His Majesty the King has asked me to form an administration and I have accepted”, uttered by all Prime Ministers, Chamberlain set about to form a Government.
[Note: I don’t want to hear one complaint about the above paragraphs if I got a detail about British Government wrong. I’m sorry to say, Brits, but you guys have possibly the most complicated political system I’ve ever seen. How do they teach it to kids?
But I do apologize if I did get something wrong.]
Neville Chamberlain.
Chamberlain immediately became extremely popular both within the British government and the British public. The people saw him as a dynamic character that would bring the country together and move it forward. His domestic policies scored a number of victories with the people during his first few years in office. He made strides to clear out the slums, made changes to the Factory Act and nationalized royalties from coalmines. His foreign policies included expansion of British influence in Europe through military and economic aid pacts with nations such as Belgium, Holland, Greece, Portugal and Sweden.
Like the late Napoleon IV, Chamberlain also sensed that a conflict in the future was unavoidable. In order to gain a leg up on France, Chamberlain pushed for Commonwealth-wide military centralization. This dream was realized with the formation of the Commonwealth Joint-Action Organization, or COMJO, in 1937. The Organization’s main function was to foster and coordinate military cooperation between Britain and the various members of her commonwealth in times of both peace and war. Based in Alexandria, Egypt, COMJO held annual land, air and naval exercises in various parts of the Commonwealth, involving all units from British armored divisions, South African cavalry, Indian infantry, Canadian air force squadrons, and the Australian Navy.
Worldwide Reaction to the War
As a result of what they saw in the Suez War, many nations around the world started to change their military doctrines. Britain’s “Deep Penetration” strategy involving boxes and later motorized infantry was shockingly successful enough to warrant it’s teaching and use in many European countries. However, others, such as Russia, explained away the success of Britain’s armored divisions by stating that only in the arid flatness of the Middle East against a “clearly inferior” opponent such as the Ottomans, could the Deep Penetration doctrine be successful. This was also the stance taken by the French, who thought that rolling armored formations supported by mobile infantry could never survive in a European theatre. That being said, Louis Napoleon did expand his military’s fleet of boxes, and gave out government contracts to build more modern boxes to replace their rapidly aging FT-17s.
As controversial as boxes still were in Europe, no one could deny the effect that air power had on the Suez War. It was Ottoman warplanes that initially ripped into the British columns, but it was the RAF that proved how important air superiority could be to maintaining a successful ground assault. British fighter-bombers made the life of an average Ottoman soldier living hell as they tried in vain to defend their soil from the British onslaught. As a result, Aircraft production in Europe’s major powers (Great Britain, France, Austria-Hungary, Saxe-Bavaria, Russia, Prussia and Italy) shot up by over 120%. The importance of a large, well trained, well-supplied air force had been proven in the deserts of the Sinai and Palestine.
What had also been proven was the value of a new type of warship, the Aircraft Carrier. The British strike on Istanbul had completely shocked the world. Prior to the launching of those Hawker Nimrods on their mission, the world contained 4 aircraft carries. The HMS Hermes, one French carrier, and two Japanese carries. Shortly afterward, The United States, Italy, Austria-Hungary, Russia and even the embryonic Prussian Navy had at least one carrier in production. Winston Churchill’s bold plan, once labeled “silly” and “ridiculous” behind closed doors, had created somewhat of a “Dreadnought Effect”, as Churchill himself christened it.
The French Carrier Béarn, Launched in 1938.
To Be Continued…
Last edited:
I'm afraid I am going to have to criticise that paragraph; What the hell is 'Eden' doing in there? And do you mean George VII, I don't remember any massive changes in the monarchy?
That aside it seemed OK, and far more straight forward than the US primary system for instance.
Good to see Britain is following the advice of Fuller (from a different timeline of course ) and not 'pulling up at the finish line' but charging on ahead in military tech.
That aside it seemed OK, and far more straight forward than the US primary system for instance.
Good to see Britain is following the advice of Fuller (from a different timeline of course
) and not 'pulling up at the finish line' but charging on ahead in military tech.
Bloody Hell!El Pip said:I'm afraid I am going to have to criticise that paragraph; What the hell is 'Eden' doing in there? And do you mean George VII, I don't remember any massive changes in the monarchy?
That aside it seemed OK, and far more straight forward than the US primary system for instance.
Good to see Britain is following the advice of Fuller (from a different timeline of course
I must have been reading about Eden when I typed that, and had him on the brain. It's supposed to say Baldwin. I fixed it.
Yes, I do mean George VII, that's why it says George VII. I skipped over the whole "King Edward marrying a divorced American" part, I deemed it rather unimportant.
Our primaries may be confusing, but at least our legislative branch can go a day without insulting each other!
Thank you for catching my errors.
Mr_A said:
It's closer, it's closer... I can feel it.
Excellent but surprising update. I didn't expect UK being so lenient.
Uh? Wait, it's Chamberlain
Then shouldn't it be George VI, as the last King called George was 'V', hence the Battleship class mentioned in previous updates. Unless I've missed something. Whatever you may say about the British system of government we have yet to incorrectly count in Roman Numerals and so I can say with some certainty we've not had a George VII.Inkana said:
Insults between parties and legislative houses is an important part of Parliamentary democracy. The main chamber of the House of Commons was sized so that the two front benches were and are more than a sword's length apart, just so people couldn't resort to swords and would be forced to use insults. It's a noble and ancient tradition.
Oh, okay, I see my problem now. Awhile back I went and found every ruler and heir to the throne for just about every major Royal Family of Europe from the Osmans to the Napoleons. I must have typed in 'George VII' instead of 'George VI'. My mistake. Fixed.
I never knew that about the House of Commons. I sometimes watch Parliament on CSPAN to get a quick laugh. British sarcasm while in the midst of an insult is simply entertaining.
I never knew that about the House of Commons. I sometimes watch Parliament on CSPAN to get a quick laugh. British sarcasm while in the midst of an insult is simply entertaining.
The British are taking it badly and they won! I'd like to hear about the Turks' reactions--and more pressing probably, those of their dominion's Arabs.
Now that that's sorted out...
Mr_A: Thank you very much! It'll be here before you know it.
Kurt_Steiner: Chamberlain lenient? Never! Thank you very much. We still have quite a few events to get into before the war, but it's close.
HKslan: You raise a very good question. I'll have to include that in my next update or two. For sure, the Ottomans will be going through a rough patch.
Please, keep the comments coming.
Mr_A: Thank you very much! It'll be here before you know it.
Kurt_Steiner: Chamberlain lenient? Never! Thank you very much. We still have quite a few events to get into before the war, but it's close.
HKslan: You raise a very good question. I'll have to include that in my next update or two. For sure, the Ottomans will be going through a rough patch.
Please, keep the comments coming.
Chamberlain sure has gone through a big change from peace with honor to inevitable war.
Very true. We'll see just how complete that transformation really is.
By the way, did you like the little Greece blurb in the last update?
By the way, did you like the little Greece blurb in the last update?
