By the way, I noticed from the map that Romania has lost all of its coastline. How badly has that impacted them?
I’m honestly wondering about the new political Party situation,I doubt the Progessives will be able to get any where politically but I have a hard time imaging that all the new Democratic defectors will intergrate especilly well into the Republican Party.
Problem being you have lots of Conservatives in the Party, Conservatives who won’t want expansion of the New Deal, heck May want to cut down on it, with the new liberals who would want it expanded. That does not seem to me to be a very good way to run things internally for a partyRemember, political polarization wasn't as bad as it is today. The GOP under Patton could still remain a centrist party that pursues left-wing policies.
The New Deal is most likely political poison ITTL. Unless Patton personally intervenes, there could easily be a political consensus that the New Deal was a commie plot that turned a cyclical recession into the Great Depression, stifling the American economy until it was reforged in the fires of WWII. Social Security probably survives, since people are invested in it, but even that isn't a sure thing. The rest of the New Deal is on even thinner ice.Problem being you have lots of Conservatives in the Party, Conservatives who won’t want expansion of the New Deal, heck May want to cut down on it, with the new liberals who would want it expanded. That does not seem to me to be a very good way to run things internally for a party
The thing is most of the New Deal programs only lasted a few years. The only ones that were still active by this time I listed below:Even if the new deal is mostly dismantled there was several programs that were popular among both Democrats and Republicans. Social Security was one of the programs that had support from both sides of the political arena.
We Brave Few: Europe 1945-1949 by Abraham FergusonWhile the new interest in Kings had certainly been inspired by reactionary backlash against Communism, it was not exclusively for that reason that Monarchy returned to vogue in the Europe of the 1940s. One reason was that it was seen as a great way of ensuring the continued direction of the state. The example from America had shown how suddenly a Republic could radically shift gears. It was felt that a monarchy could serve as a backup to ensure a successor could not suddenly change a country overnight and dramatically upset the geopolitical picture. As the model of bringing back the Monarchy had worked well in establishing order back to Croatia and Hungary, the example soon spread to the neighboring states of Europe.
In Portugal, the Royals had been banished since the 1910 Revolution, but Salazar was interested in furthering Portugal’s international reputation as the ‘most presentable nation’ (in his own words, with reference to the West) of the Roman Alliance. He believed that if he brought back the Monarchy, it would defang some of the poison attached to Portugal’s reputation by not having the state entirely beholden to a single dictator (though it would remain in practice). It also fit in well with the Traditionalism he wanted to bring to the Portuguese Empire, not to mention his belief that a King would be a unifying symbol to the Portuguese settlers in Africa like the English had for their own. Duarte Nuno was the successor, who had successfully married Princess Maria Francisca, thus uniting warring branches of the Portugese Royalty – this would be an advantageous move. Ultimately, it was decided that the ailing President Carmona would step down in 1949. The National Assembly repealed the laws of exile, and in what was perhaps the most stamp of Salazar’s authority, he put the date of coronation on October 5th, the date of the 1910 revolution. Portugal was now a Constitutional Monarchy, under King Duarte (Edward) II.
In Germany, with the ascension of Martin to the US Presidency, the Western occupiers finally united West Germany under a single, consistent policy. With fear of the Soviets at fever-pitch, the belief was that Germany had to be rebuilt to deal with the threat. To that end, bad feeling from World War I aside, appointing a Kaiser was considered a great way to stop any one dictator from grabbing hold of power for themselves, thus keeping another madman from taking over Germany. Mussolini was fine with this, though the Soviets naturally lambasted it as if Hitler himself had been reappointed. Due to his friendliness to the West, connections in America and generally liberal demeanor, Louis Ferdinand was given the role. On November 3rd 1949, Aachen Cathedral greeted the Coronation of Ferdinand V, thus re-establishing the Hohenzollern Dynasty on the European Continent.
Since monarchies are becoming more popular in Europe as a symbol of anti-communism, does that mean that France might actually restore their monarchy? Since Spain, Germany, Hungary, Portugal, and Croatia have already restored their monarchies and monarchism has become more popular in Europe, it looks like the Bourbons and Bonapartes may have a really good opportunity here to press their claims for the French throne. I have no idea if they will actually succeed in this endeavor, but it seems plausible for sucn an event to occur given the current circumstances.
Still I don't see him skipping the coronation ceremony. He would have made good face in a bad game. He should be aware enough of the risk a division between crown and the leader of the fascist world would give outside and inside the nation.
.
Since monarchies are becoming more popular in Europe as a symbol of anti-communism, does that mean that France might actually restore their monarchy? Since Spain, Germany, Hungary, Portugal, and Croatia have already restored their monarchies and monarchism has become more popular in Europe, it looks like the Bourbons and Bonapartes may have a really good opportunity here to press their claims for the French throne. I have no idea if they will actually succeed in this endeavor, but it seems plausible for sucn an event to occur given the current circumstances.
Since monarchies are becoming more popular in Europe as a symbol of anti-communism, does that mean that France might actually restore their monarchy? Since Spain, Germany, Hungary, Portugal, and Croatia have already restored their monarchies and monarchism has become more popular in Europe, it looks like the Bourbons and Bonapartes may have a really good opportunity here to press their claims for the French throne. I have no idea if they will actually succeed in this endeavor, but it seems plausible for sucn an event to occur given the current circumstances.
I'm not sure if this was discussed much: What ultimately did become of Italian-occupied Ethiopia?
EDIT: Ethiopia has at the time a significant Jewish community (Beta Israel). Did this factor into Italian plans in any way? I wonder if any enlisted in the war: The Nazis would be absolutely livid at the sight of African Jews fighting them.
Since monarchies are becoming more popular in Europe as a symbol of anti-communism, does that mean that France might actually restore their monarchy? Since Spain, Germany, Hungary, Portugal, and Croatia have already restored their monarchies and monarchism has become more popular in Europe, it looks like the Bourbons and Bonapartes may have a really good opportunity here to press their claims for the French throne. I have no idea if they will actually succeed in this endeavor, but it seems plausible for sucn an event to occur given the current circumstances.
I agree with the other poster about timeliness but an even bigger obstacle for restoration in France is De Gaulle
Huh. Maybe I was wrong. I didn't think he'd be the kind to share the stage.True. On the other hand, supposedly de Gaulle called in the Bourbon-Orléans claimant, Henri Comte de Paris, and said, «Soit prêt.» ["Get ready."]
So what would happen to the British Raj ITTL?