Re: LOTR and 20th Century Western European Prejudices

"MasterDebater" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> "Jordan179" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > That's true. Though the Royal Navy could still win the Battle of the
> > Atlantic (by weakening the Mediterranean forces, with all that
> > implies), the problem is that the British don't have the cash to pay
> > for supplies from a truly neutral America. As it was, the cost of WWII
> > bankrupted the British Empire: with less favorable purchasing terms,
> > Britain can import far less materiel from America.
>
> Let us pretend that, for whatever reason (hypothetically: Stricter
> Isolationism, different leadership, overly strict export laws, whatever),
> America sent no supplies whatsoever under any circumstances whatsoever to
> Britain or anyone else in the European theatre of Operations. No supplies,
> no Liberty Ships, no arms, no equipment, no troops. Nothing. And no American
> aid through Canada or the Middle-East, either. No American assistance to
> Britain or anyone else in any way in the European theatre during WWII. Let
> us suppose that for whatever reasons America will not hinder and or all Nazi
> Naval actions in the Atlantic, and that America makes no attempts whatsoever
> to project power in any way into Europe.
> 
> Britain would quickly run out of money and merchant ships. An eventual Nazi
> U-boat blockade would force her to starve and surrender.

Oh, absolutely. If we move from Lend-Lease (essentially benevolent
neutrality, allowing the British to buy war materials from us under
favorable terms, which was the 1939-41 US policy of OTL, to outright
embargo (a ban on exporting) to the Commonwealth, then Britain is
doomed. There are neither resources nor industry enough in the rest of
the world, nor sufficient hard currency and other resources in the
British Commonwealth, to support the war more than a few months, maybe
at most a year, past the fall of France. Britain has no choice but to
sue for peace.

> Britain would not have survived WWII without American assistance.

Well ... she might have _survived_ if America had continued the
benevolent neutrality of 1939-41. However, I don't see how she could
have _won_.

> Yes. As you (or I) pointed out before, an increase of 25% for infantry and
> tanks, probably double the Luftwaffe on the Eastern Front and more than
> double the Artillery (from AA guns). Germany and Soviet Russia grind to a
> stalemate. The Third Reich survives. Britain does not. Good thing America
> entered the European theatre!

Especially since the only likely alternatives (given American
neutrality) to stalemate are either a Nazi or a Communist mastery of
all Europe. "Choice of evils."

> > I don't think she would be able to _conquer_ the UK (because she is
> > still spending most of her effort on the Eastern Front), but she would
> > probably be able to force Britain to sue for peace on terms.
> > Historically, Hitler was quite willing to accept a negotiated peace
> > with Britain, so the Third Reich probably accepts the offer.
> >
> > The terms probably include the loss of at least some of the
> > Mediterranean part of the British Empire. Maybe the British get to
> > keep Egypt and the Suez Canal. Probably not Gibraltar, which is
> > valuable as a prize to tempt Spain into full membership in the Axis.
>
> I think that the UK probably loses all ofits Mediterranean holdings by
> actual fighting during the war. Britian can't supply herself and fight at
> the same time. Once the British Isles run out of money and merchant ships
> and get totally blockeded for years, she would lose Egypt and Gibralter
> would get invaded.

True ... unless Britain sued for peace fast enough, the need to
withdraw most of the Royal Navy to protect the Atlantic shipping would
lead to the loss of all Mediterranean possessions -- absent major RN
presence, these possessions could not have been held because the
Italian RM would have dominated the sea. German pre-occupation with
Russia and Italian incompetence would have been the only limiting
factors on this.

> It is likely that, due to political and economic pressures, Britain will be
> force to pursue very close military ties to The Third Reich. Due to the
> total blockade, she would likely be forced to divest herself of *all*
> military equipment and become a non-invaded but nominal member of the Third
> Reich.

Hitler actively desired peace with Britain, so I think he would accept
milder terms. However, the British would doubtless be forced to reduce
their Air Force and Navy to relative impotence, and what was left
would be perhaps enough to keep hold of Northern Ireland and suppress
dissidence at home in what would be rapidly becoming an authoritarian
national socialist dictatorship, wracked by austerity and with
rationing a permanent policy enforced at gunpoint.

> > For instance, as Western Europe forgot the evil deeds of the Soviet
> > Union in OTL.
> 
> So many examples of this in history. Much of the expansion of the Roman
> Empire followed this idea. Horror forgotten due to subsequent prosperity.

Very true. The socially important survivors, by definition, are those
who are descended from those who were NOT killed or utterly ruined by
atrocity or oppression. The martyrs may be remembered as symbols of
national pride even while their descendants compromise with the new
masers. See "Boudicca," if you want a good Romano-British example.

> America would still liberate a great number of places and peoples in the
> Pacific theatre, but, unlike the other victors (USSR and Third Reich in
> Europe) we would give back all of those lands and places to the rightful
> owners, as we did in the actual timeline. We understood that Colonialism was
> dead, and that our new-found status of dominant superpower was no longer
> dependent on the acquisition and holding of large portions of the world.

We would probably wind up the protectors of the new nations in Eastern
Asia, as we were in OTL in the 1940's through early 1970's (and still
are in South Korea).

> > Those who fail to learn from history are condemned to repeat it -- as
> > I think a lot of Europe is demonstrating right now.
> 
> I fear for present-day Europe. I hope that they succeed in unifying totally,
> even though such an entity would threaten America's dominant status. But I
> fear that Europe may one day have another of those horrible wars which seem
> to break out every so often. But perhaps my fear is ill-founded. Those prior
> European wars broke out because one European power or another was either a
> dominant world superpower or was trying to become one. But none of those
> European powers, today, can be considered a superpower, and so it is time
> that they unite. Together, they may be able to cause some trouble.

Right now Europe is living in an irresponsible fantasy-land, derived
from decades of protection by America. They think that Great Powers
can act as if they were protected _by_ the world order, rather than
being either protectors _of_ or menaces _to_ the world order.

I think that Britain gets it, and I think that France really gets it
but just pretends naivete. I'm not so sure about Germany, and I'm
pretty sure that Italy is acting randomly.

Sincerely Yours,
Jordan