The biggest changes that Welfare Capitalism brings on primarily are with regards to relations between the workforce and managers, and that's a real problem for Britain in any scenario. I am anticipating Commonwealth industrial firms saving a number of their British counterparts, but Britain's problems there run very, very deep, primarily because a lot of Britain's industrial workforce had grown up with the post-war full employment consensus, and Britain went through a raft of nationalizations in the 1970s in an attempt to stop large-scale job losses. I'd say the Thatcher era is going to be a lot less ugly but there will still be scars.
Go North, Young Man: The Great Canada
- Thread starter TheMann
- Start date
The biggest changes that Welfare Capitalism brings on primarily are with regards to relations between the workforce and managers, and that's a real problem for Britain in any scenario. I am anticipating Commonwealth industrial firms saving a number of their British counterparts, but Britain's problems there run very, very deep, primarily because a lot of Britain's industrial workforce had grown up with the post-war full employment consensus, and Britain went through a raft of nationalizations in the 1970s in an attempt to stop large-scale job losses. I'd say the Thatcher era is going to be a lot less ugly but there will still be scars.
Iran from 1977 until about 1983 is more than a little chaotic, as several different sides - the House of Pahlavi, Iran's armed forces, Communists, supporters of Islamism and pro-democracy activists - clashed over and over again, tons of massive street protests and unruly violence, with the Shah's position very uncertain until Sadam makes his first big mistake. Iran is more than a little proud and nationalistic, and the House of Pahlavi took the opportunity granted by the Iraqis to work with the armed forces to both smoke the Iraqis. Better trained, led, equipped and with air superiority, the Iranians made Sadam pay dearly for crossing them. Meanwhile, Farah gathered the pro-democracy activists, loyalists and anybody else who would listen and set up plans to shift Iran to democracy, which her son believed in. End result is that the Pahlavis hang on but have to democratize the the country to maintain support, which is what happens. Not good years for the country socially or economically, but it's worth it in the end, particularly once Iran is able to leverage it's goodwill with the West, which they do in earnest starting in the late 1980s. Khomeini dies in 1989 with events having left him and his movement behind.
Iran is most certainly not a western country in terms of many social norms, but it is way, way more tolerant and liberal than OTL, and far more economically successful.
Closer to the latter. The Pahlavis still have power in emergencies and can veto legislation but are very aware that doing so can cause mayhem, so it doesn't happen too often. The Majlis here has real influence and technically all of Iran's government departments and ministries report to the elected officials.
I'd be interested in seeing a bit more of Iran's history, how the 1979 revolution was averted. The Shah was in a very precarious position before the war in Iraq, but how did he stay in power for those extra years? Better diplomatic support after the Palestine deal?
These, the economy was better and Pahlavi dove right into the defense of his country against Saddam.
What tipped Iran into revolution was the economic problems it faced when oil prices dropped substantially in 1976-77, which IOTL caused a major problem with inflation which subsequently caused Iran's standard of living to fall a lot. That didn't happen here, as early on in his reign Pahlavi recognized the value of investment dollars made possible by resource wealth and so did his advisors. Iran still spent a lot, but it didn't overextend itself as what happened IOTL. Beyond that, the Shah (helped along by Farah more than anyone) began the process of trying to expand involvement in the nation's politics by its people much earlier than OTL, which nothing gives him additional support against Khomeini and allows Iran's elites greater say in the way the nation is run. Avoiding obvious problems with American servicemen immunity and keeping SAVAK on a much shorter leash also help, in addition to having been a sizable help with the Ottawa Treaty, which earns him a lot of diplomatic kudos.
Being part of his country's defense however is what seals his family's power. He was very ill with cancer at that point and all knew it, but he more than competently led his forces while also working with his generals to make sure he was a teammate and not a dictator in the fight against the Iraqis, and Iran's victory in that conflict (thanks more than anything to air superiority, naval interdiction tactics helping to strangle Iraq's economy and faster-moving forces that could take tactical advantage of situations) did much to restore his reputation, even as his wife made clear that the dictatorship was going away and lining up all of those who would fight against Khomeini.
I'm not entirely sure how long it lasted, but I do know it's problems lasted long after it actually went away.
Guyana is not part of Canada, its an independent nation after its independence from Britain in 1966.
Africa for the Commonwealth as of 1980 is now in the situation of states that are improving (Kenya, Tanzania, Zambia, Botswana, Nigeria, Ghana, Malawi), states that are emerging from messes (Uganda, Zimbabwe) and the biggest pain in the ass for the Commonwealth in the entire world (South Africa, obviously). Kenya, Tanzania, Botswana and Zambia are far ahead of OTL, particularly as all of them by 1980 are growing a major Black African professional base (Kenya in particular is this way) and are growing their economy in both large-scale agricultural production, light and medium industrial activities and service sectors. All are more socially advanced than OTL, and one defining characteristic of successful African states is that the nations after independence asked (mostly White or Indian) professional classes to stay in the country and help with the development of the nation after independence, while also developing a home-grown educated class. (The British aren't the only ones who did this - Ivory Coast and Cameroon did this for the French, and it shows.) Where this has worked, it has shown in the nation's wealth - Kenya, Botswana and Ghana in particular did this, and they are the highest-income (and most well governed) nations of the Commonwealth in Africa.
Nigeria suffered from probably the world's worst case of oil-driven economic mismanagement between the Energy Crisis in 1973 and the early 1980s, when Nigeria finally began to deal with its structural economic problems. They are ahead of OTL, but there is an absolutely vast disparity between the wealth of those who are beneficiaries of the oil industry and everyone else that the country is trying to deal with, and the country's political instability, which is finally settling itself in the early 1980s, is going to mean the country advances markedly in the 1980s. The country is and will be for some time to come a major supplier of crude oil to the United States and Western Europe, though. Uganda suffered very badly from Idi Amin and will take time to right itself, but is headed that way.
South Africa is outright hated by the African Commonwealth states, which causes Britain some headaches - Britain, Ireland and Australia are keen on keeping South Africa connected to the Commonwealth, but with the African states hating South Africa as much as they do and with Canada and India mostly in line with them, its difficult for the Commonwealth to not be a thorn in the side of the apartheid state.
South America runs into the Monroe Doctrine, which the Americans continue to jealously enforce at times. Despite that, Chile is a big Commonwealth outpost, Brazil does plenty of both diplomacy and business and Argentina tends to be all over the map.
Will any of the Commonwealth countries that abolished the monarchy keep it in TTL?
Last edited:
Nope. Those who were going to keep the Monarchy did, those who weren't didn't.
Really love this thread, but I'm wondering how much of Canadian Power you are going to incorporate? Ether way great work.
Some of it is being incorporated, but because this one's POD is way, way earlier than Canadian Power (where the POD was in 1972), I can do much more with the social and political changes and add a lot more people to it, as well as changing some element of Canada's cultural contributions to the world.
Here, Canada really has two official languages that are widely used and a long list of seni-official ones that some parts of Canada do need to use - you hear a lot of Native Canadian languages in Northern Ontario and Quebec and Manitoba, for example, while the variations of English used in the Caribbean are commonly heard in other parts of Canada as well. By the mid-1980s all Canadian public schools (including Catholic separate systems and private schools and schools in the Caribbean) require the teaching of French all the way through high school (and English in Quebec and parts of New Brunswick mostly populated by Francophones), so the majority of Canadians are functionally bilingual if not fluently so. Quebec Separatism is a non-issue here because Quebec instead sees itself as a civilizing influence on the rest of Canada (there is a little bit of truth to this) and knows well that it's cultural influence extends across the nation.
By 1980 two generations of Canada will have grown up thinking racism is less and less acceptable, and as a result by the 1980s Canadians won't be often judged or grouped by their skin color or ethnic background unless they desire for that to be so. Skin color won't matter, even if different groups will have elements of their own culture. Shared symbols, past times, traditions and pride will help immensely to weld the whole works together. The ever-growing wealth and first-class transport system of the nation will help experience new horizons both in Canada and abroad, and it will show in cultural and social development. Some things, however, will remain eternal....
Last edited:
Ah....like the Rivalry between hockey teams?
Duh.
Hockey teams, football teams, baseball teams, basketball teams....lots of other stuff. Montreal claims to have the best nightlife, which Toronto vehemently disagrees. Vancouver says they are the best destination for those who love winter sports, to which Calgary points out who hosted the Winter Olympics first. Jamaica proudly says they have the best food, to which everybody else disagrees. It's the way it goes, you see.I am gonna have Ballard own the Leafs, but I'm gonna have him have health problems in the late 1970s. Having had health issues and knowing that his time was almost up, he decides in 1979-80 to effectively say 'fuck it, I'm never gonna lose money on this, and I want championship banners. This sees Dave Keon and Darryl Sittler finish their career as Leafs, and they trade for the #1 in 1984, sending Rick Vaive and the 4th overall pick for the 1st overall, which dutifully sees Mario Lemieux go to the Leafs. Illness means Lemieux doesn't suit up for the Leafs until 1985, allowing Mario Lemieux and Wendel Clark to lead a suddenly VERY resurgent Leafs team.
A second heart attack in 1986 sees Ballard look to go over the top, and he gets that opportunity when Peter Pocklington is shopping Gretzky. The Great One ends up coming to Toronto, though problems with playing time sees Lemieux traded to Pittsburgh in early 1989 for Mark Recchi, Zarley Zalapski and five draft picks in 1990, 1991 and 1992, which get used to select Martin Brodeur and Mikael Renberg, while Pittsburgh's 1990 first-rounder gets sent to St. Louis in return for Scott Stevens. (Pittsburgh got the pick back in another trade, and selected Jaromir Jagr with it.) Ballard's death also allows his successor, Steve Stavro, to sign up legendary Russian goaltender Vladislav Tretiak, initially as a coach to the incoming Brodeur and Felix Potvin - but Tretiak is so good that he ends up playing in net next to Brodeur and Potvin, both of whom would proudly admit to learning from him. Stevens' arrival gives Borje Salming a real (and really good) partner, and him and Stevens play together until the latter's retirement in 1993, despite Toronto drafting Scott Niedermayer in the 1991 Draft. Armed with a bulletproof defense and a scary front end (namely from usual partners-in-crime Gretzky and Doug Gilmour), the Leafs roar to their first Stanley Cup in 25 years in 1993, allowing Salming and Tretiak to retire as Cup champions. The following year, Wendel Clark is traded to the Nordiques in a move that brings Mats Sundin to town but is at first absolutely hated by Leafs fans.
The Leafs in the 1990s gain a rep as a team with absolutely-impregnable defense - Stevens was joined in the 1990s by Scott Niedermayer, Bryan McCabe, Zdeno Chara and Tomas Kaberle, so the reason for that was fairly obvious - and claim the Cup in 1996 over the Quebec Nordiques, but lose it badly to the Philadelphia Flyers in the 1997 Cup Final....but less than a year later, Gretzky, Gilmour and Niedermayer were sent to Philadelphia, with Eric Lindros, Rod Brind'Amour, Alexandre Daigle, Ron Hextall and their first two picks in 1999 (used on Nick Boynton and Chris Kelly) Wendel is back for 1998 on a new contract, and Lindros arrives in town to more than a little fanfare, and the 'Second Legion of Doom' is born in the Leafs mid-1998 front five - Brind'Armour, Lindros, Renberg, Stevens and Chara, with Brodeur in the net - losing to Detroit in the 1998 Cup Final, but winning the 1999 rematch and, courtesy of Boston sending Ray Bourque to Toronto for what turned out to be peanuts, because of Bourque's desire to win a Cup before retirement, repeating in 2000.
The 2000s see a quartet of absolutely terrifying teams assembled by the NHL, and 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2004 all see the same four teams - the Toronto Maple Leafs, Ottawa Senators, Detroit Red Wings and Vancouver Canucks - as the final four in the playoffs. There was a reason for this, as the teams included:
- Toronto: Eric Lindros, Mats Sundin, Rod Brind'Amour, Wendel Clark, Saku Koivu, Scott Stevens, Mikael Renberg, Brian Rafalski, Martin Havlat, Tomas Kaberle, Dave Andreychuk, Patrick Sharp, Martin Brodeur, Curtis Joseph
- Ottawa: Daniel Alfredsson, Dany Heatley, Marian Hossa, Jason Spezza, Luc Robitaille, Zdeno Chara, Chris Pronger, Sergei Gonchar, Radek Bonk, David Backes, Jose Theodore
- Detroit: Steve Yzerman, Sergei Fedorov, Brendan Shanahan, Nicklas Lidstrom, Chris Chelios, Brett Hull, Igor Larionov, Chris Draper, Pavel Datsyuk, Dominik Hasek
- Vancouver: Jaromir Jagr, Ilya Kovalchuk, Markus Naslund, Trevor Linden, Henrik Sedin, Daniel Sedin, Ed Jovanovski, Brian Leetch, Brendan Morrison, Ryan Kelser, Patrick Roy, Felix Potvin
Of these teams, all would be players well into the future, but Toronto and Vancouver, both of which by this time were spending a mint on draft scouting, were scoring and scoring big on that front - Toronto's 2003 draft haul alone included Corey Perry, Shea Weber, Clarke MacArthur and Dustin Byfuglien, all people who would be important in the future. The 2001 Cup final between Vancouver and Ottawa was one of the most intense series of NHL hockey ever played (Ottawa beat Vancouver in Six), and while Detroit's demolition of Toronto in 2002 (in six) wasn't exactly as good, the Toronto-Vancouver 2003 Cup Final topped that by an order of magnitude, particularly the wild battles - Lindros and Jagr were at each other's throats the whole series, while Kovalchuk rather unwisely proceeded to talk trash about veteran Clark, which Wendel made him pay dearly for by his big forecheck setting up the game-winning goal by Alexander Steen in Game 3. Toronto took the series, but it went to overtime in Game 7 (and a one-timer for the ages by Lindros, fed to him by Stevens) to decide it, and Vancouver fans got the heart-stopper of a lifetime when the Sedins beat Brodeur on a play early in Game 7 overtime, only for Kaberle to deflect the puck just enough that it hit the crossbar. Vancouver finally got its first Stanley Cup after two Cup Final losses in Three years in 2004, getting revenge on Ottawa for 2001 by beating them in Six.
With hockey in mind, does the 1967 and future NHL expansion unfold differently? On that note, the mention of the Nordiques suggest that the WHA still comes into existence as a (brief rival) to the NHL. With many Canadian cities having higher populations that OTL, I would expect butterflies to give some cities franchises earlier. For example, instead of moving to Cleveland and merging with the North Stars, the Oakland/California Golden Seals move to Winnipeg and the Kansas City Scouts move to Calgary.
EDIT: To expand on that. I present this quote from Wikipedia on the 1967 expansion.
Could the flap of a butterfly's wings lead to Montreal and Toronto backing down? It would be contingent of the Chicago Blackhawks, but what if Vancouver got a team in '67 instead of St. Louis?
EDIT: To expand on that. I present this quote from Wikipedia on the 1967 expansion.
Could the flap of a butterfly's wings lead to Montreal and Toronto backing down? It would be contingent of the Chicago Blackhawks, but what if Vancouver got a team in '67 instead of St. Louis?
Last edited:
Duh.
.
Hey you left out "Les Glorieux", if the leafs win in '93 the Habs don't get the miracle of Saint Patrick, do they get another crack at it?