Modern History and the Brzhona, etc.

[Padraic Brown <pbrown@nova.umuc.edu>]

I need some help understanding some of the things that are happening /
have happened in the history of *there*, especially regarding Frank's post
on post1945 Brzhona history and Andrew's reply thereto.  I'd also like to
rant a bit on why I think it's unlikely.  Mind you, I liked Frank's
history up to and including the 1918 section -- it was an innovative and,
quite frankly, unnexpected turn of events. 

The way I _remember_ learning modern history *here*, moving backwards in
time is something like the following sketch:

The Cold War, between the USA and the USSR as they exist *here* is more or
less a result of tensions between the two countries following WWII.
The Cold War is also due to the fact that the USA built the Bomb (and had
the cojones to use it).  At the time, the only other country close to
having one was Germany, but the USA had their scientists (at least some of
them), and that certainly helpped.  I don't recall by what mechanism the
USSR got it, but it may have been a willing action on the part of the USA.  
Therefore the Cold War is caused and/or exacerbated by WWII.

WWII is essentially caused by Mr Hitler's mucking about in Poland,
Czeckoslovakia, Rhineland, Saarland, etc. and otherwise making a big
nuisance of Germany. The USA was dragged into it (not completely
unwillingly, as the country had the Depression to get out of) through
unremembered mechanisms, but undoubtedly due to being allied with GB and
France, two of Mr Hitler's prime targets.

Mr Hitler, and therefore WWII, are eventually caused by the Treaty of
Versailles in which Germany essentially had to pay for the whole of WWI,
and give up the gun.

WWI was caused by Lord only knows how many little things; USA intervention
caused by German Dirty Tricks on the high seas (aka submarine warfare).

USA bloodlust, the desire to kick some German butt, and the nascent
tendency to stick its nose into Everyone's business was probably caused by
the victory over Spain (1898), the Great White Fleet, T. Roosevelt, etc. 

...skip a bit...

The USA was caused by Great Britain in the mid 1770s, essentially.

Britain was in a position to do all of this because a) they had hegemony
in the Islands and b) they had the Empire (or at the very least, a
nascent Empire).

&c. &c. &c.

The point is that the USA is intricately involved in all of this history; 
and Britain is a Powerful (if diminutive) country.  I still do not buy any
class of USA-like country developping *there* that could do things that
the USA have done *here*.  I do not buy a British Empire *there* that
could do the things they did *here*.  I don't accept any of this for the
simple reason that Britain *there* did _not_ have Ireland, Scotland and
Wales under its thumb to provide the basics of Empire building: 1) men for
cannon fodder, navy, colonisation; 2) industry (Wales, Scotland, NI); 3)
shipping capability (Scotland, NI).  I do not see how England by itself
*there* could provide for what Britain provided *here*.

I also am not convinced by the argument that History has a particular
"script" that will be played out regardless of the universe we peek into.
That is; we have changed a _vital_ ingredient in world history (keeping
the British British).  The effects upon later world history _must_ be
farther-reaching than simply having some nice folk west of the Pennines
who speak Romance instead of Celtic or English.

You can try to convince me otherwise, but I really don't see how you can
justify a world like ours *here* existing *there*.

Do you see my reasoning?  No Britain = no USA = no WWII = no Bomb = no
Cold War, etc.

There are (nearly) endless possibilities for what could happen *there*; I
just don't see how nearly carbon-copy events could transpire in two
places...it reminds one of too many 'Captain Kirk finds yet another
Parallel Earth' episodes on Star Trek. 

My tupenny-hapenny worth.
Padraic.