Author Topic: USA vs UK/Commonwealth  (Read 3662 times)

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: USA vs UK/Commonwealth
« Reply #15 on: June 06, 2013, 09:08:24 AM »
How about this:
Japan commits ground forces serving along side Commonwealth forces from the very start of WWI.  They serve in Gallipoli and on the Western Front eventually supporting a Corps often serving alongside the ANZACs.  In the Middle  East they provide Cavalry that serves alongside and then under the command of Chauvel.  The IJN integrates a substantial force into the Grand Fleet for the duration.

The US on the other hand remains neutral and then attempts to assert authority after the extended C1920 war over the victorious but weakened Allies.  They push for Naval disarmament, de-colonization and a League of Nations that they control.  Europe is a basket case, exhausted by the war and the Spanish Flu but the Uk a :icon_punal:nd Japan, although weakened, tell them to get stuffed.

This does not lead to war in the short term but does draw Japan closer to the UK, with particularly close relationships developing between Japan, Canada, Australia and New Zealand garnered from the mutual respect and admiration that grew in the trenches beaches and deserts where they bled and died together.

Offline Old Wombat

  • "We'll see when I've finished whether I'm showing off or simply embarrassing myself."
  • "Define 'interesting'?"
Re: USA vs UK/Commonwealth
« Reply #16 on: June 06, 2013, 09:59:18 PM »
^^^^^
Sounds quite plausible to me. Another, additional, point of dispute could be greater US insistence on something similar to the Marshall Plan post-WW1. I seem to recall they did try, albeit not strongly, to dissuade the European allies from taking punitive measures against Germany & Austria-Hungary after WW1 - just take that one or two steps further.

Next point: Does there need to be a "bad guy"?

I doubt any nation or alliance has ever though of itself as the "bad guy" prior to or during a war (if ever), quite the reverse, in fact. Also, it appears to me, that most wars have, actually, been fought between either two sets of "bad guys" or two sets of "good guys" with very few real "good guy - bad guy" conflicts (WW2 being one of those few exceptions).

The base causes of most wars are population pressure, food production & trade (which actually relates closely with the previous two). Technology, also, plays a part - largely by increasing the pressures which build up due to these causes before they need to be released. There are sub-plots of religion, politics & tribalism/racism thrown in there but the base causes remain pretty constant.

???

Guy
"This is the Captain. We have a little problem with our engine sequence, so we may experience some slight turbulence and, ah, explode."

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: USA vs UK/Commonwealth
« Reply #17 on: June 07, 2013, 06:52:36 AM »
Agreed, no need for a bad guy, just conflicting interests and the resulting friction.