Possible Airship President Redux

[Eckener]

OTL the Statute of Westminster came in to effect automatically in Canada, South Africa, and the Irish Free State. Australia, New Zealand, and Newfoundland all had to pass legislation ratifying it (Newfoundland never did & ented up reverting to a crown colony). I don't think there's any way to delay Australia's ratification by more than a few years (especially given the Pacific War), New Zealand might wait until the 1950s. Facsism is not going to be very popular outside the UK, and a facsist government in London will probally spur the weaking of imperial ties just as surly as WWII did.

As for economic union; Canada will always favour ties with the US over rest of the Empire/Commonwealth. The same with defence. On the other hand keeping most of the other members in the Sterling Zone and some kind of common market is fairly plausible. India will still become indepentant (& likely be split into India & Pakistan) too, and I just don't see either country sticking with the monarchy very long so republican membership in the Commonwealth will still be allowed. Ireland will also become a republic, but I can easily see it staying in the Commonwealth. I don't know about Newfoundland; it's hard to see it getting dominion status back so it'll probally still end up part of Canada (or maybe a self-governing colony like Bermuda).

What you'll probally end up with is a British Commonwealth were most members (but not Canada) have close economic ties and currencies linked to the Pound Sterling, most members are monarchies in personal union with the UK, but some are republics (with the odd independent monarchy thrown in), and all members having their own militaries, some of which are in a Nato-type alliance with the UK. No common citzenship per se, but varying degrees of prefential treatment for migrants from one Commonwealth country to another, and long-term permanant residents from other Commonwealth countries being given political rights (like the vote) than aren't availible to unnaturalized foreigners.

All good points. I hadn't thought about how fascism in Britain would be received in the rest of the Empire.
I do like the idea of keeping the Sterling in use in most of the Empire.

Keeping Newfoundland in the Empire instead of Canada would be interesting. Especially after the British go fascist....on that note, in the OV, this occurred in the 1960s...Mosely took power in 1965. Think this should stay the same?

 

[Eckener]

As I mentioned before, I'd kind of like to include some first person POVs in the rewrite of this TL, beyond what I had with diary/journal entries from a few famous people.
I have actually started on rewriting this (though in the earlier parts of the TL, it's mostly polishing, rewording things...bigger changes are likely to come in the later part of the TL), and what I'm thinking is that after every section that is written like the OV, with primary and secondary documents coming from the TL, I'd like to follow up with a section that gives a few different POV story-lines from different people around the world to see what this TL looks like from the "average joe," and not just from the people in power and the press.

What do you all think of this idea? Also, any suggestions for POVs? I have a few in mind, but I would enjoy getting other people's input here.

 

[Eckener]

I have an idea for two point of views to write from:

1) a journalist who works for the Frankfurter Zeitung, and will cover Eckener's rise to the Presidency for the paper and then be transferred to Berlin to cover the political situation in the Reichs capital.

2) upper-middle class PR person who works for Cunard's advertising department, lives in London. His brother works for the British Airship Works, and his son will end up serving on one of the British Naval Airships. Eventually, this man will end up working for British Airways.

Do you have any other suggestions? I will also add more PoVs (and drop some), as time progresses through the TL (I already have one in mind for the 1960s in the USA, essentially my grandfather, where his family moves to Texas to work at the Goodyear Airship plant that opens there).

 

[historybuff]

The journalist would be a god POV to use I think.

 

[Eckener]

The journalist would be a god POV to use I think.

Oh definitely. I'm having trouble coming up with an American POV for the beginning (I have an idea for one starting in like the 1950s, but not for the start of the TL), and so would really love suggestions.

My plan is to rewrite several sections at once before I release anything on the forum, so it might take me a little longer, but there will be more content to read when I do finally start posting stuff.

 

[historybuff]

How about we just stick with the Democratic and Republican parties?
I've got some other people who could be future politicians in this TL. Tom Brokaw, Larry King, James Earl Jones.

 

[Utgard96]

How about we just stick with the Democratic and Republican parties?
I've got some other people who could be future politicians in this TL. Tom Brokaw, Larry King, James Earl Jones.

Only Jones was born before the PoD; by the time King was born (in '33) the changes hadn't yet reached America, but Brokaw was born in 1940, and by that time the American situation would be completely different. I'm not sure any of them would become known for anything ITTL. And as for sticking with the D/R division, that's boring.

 

[Eckener]

Well, some of those people are far enough out from the POD that they may not amount to anything ITTL.
And the PoV items I'm wanting to do I was trying to use common people, non-historical figures to give a layman's view of what life ITTL is like.

I've got a guy to start out in Germany, a reporter for the Frankfurter Zeitung, and in the United Kingdom, the advertising executive for Cunard that will eventually end up working for British Airways after the launch of the airship service. I just need an American. Maybe someone who lives near Lakehurst? The wife or son of someone who a member of the US Naval Airship Corps?

 

[Eckener]

Only Jones was born before the PoD; by the time King was born (in '33) the changes hadn't yet reached America, but Brokaw was born in 1940, and by that time the American situation would be completely different. I'm not sure any of them would become known for anything ITTL. And as for sticking with the D/R division, that's boring.

My thoughts exactly. In my opinion I probably had too many people that were important OTL end up in the same or similar positions ITTL, and I'd like to change that.

Realistically, what's a decent cut off day to say that, if you were born after said date, you were not born ITTL? Of course I'd agree to a gray area, but regardless, if you were born after the PoD, your life will end up being altered, possibly enough to be unrecognizable to your OTL life.

And yes, the two party D/R split is boring.

 

[historybuff]

I see.
I'm sure you still have some sort fo WWII type of thing to happen in your TL involving Japan. Wonder what will happen to Italy in this TL.

 

[Utgard96]

My thoughts exactly. In my opinion I probably had too many people that were important OTL end up in the same or similar positions ITTL, and I'd like to change that.

Realistically, what's a decent cut off day to say that, if you were born after said date, you were not born ITTL? Of course I'd agree to a gray area, but regardless, if you were born after the PoD, your life will end up being altered, possibly enough to be unrecognizable to your OTL life.

I'd say there isn't a clear cut line; it depends on how fast butterflies spread, and there should be some OTL people mixed in with alternate people at a period about 50-70 years post-PoD. After that, it should be all alternate characters.

And yes, the two party D/R split is boring.

Of course, we must also keep in mind that under FPTP, multi-party systems can only last a decade or two; after that it'll inevitably degrade into a two-party system because the voting system forces people to vote against people rather than for them. If we want to keep a multi-party system, we'll have to change the voting system.

 

[Eckener]

I'd say there isn't a clear cut line; it depends on how fast butterflies spread, and there should be some OTL people mixed in with alternate people at a period about 50-70 years post-PoD. After that, it should be all alternate characters.



Of course, we must also keep in mind that under FPTP, multi-party systems can only last a decade or two; after that it'll inevitably degrade into a two-party system because the voting system forces people to vote against people rather than for them. If we want to keep a multi-party system, we'll have to change the voting system.

What would be a good plausible way for the voting system to change (I would imagine gradually) in the US? And what would it change to?

And good point on the dates. I really do want to make sure there are more alternate characters used in the rewrite.

 

[Utgard96]

What would be a good plausible way for the voting system to change (I would imagine gradually) in the US? And what would it change to?

I believe we discussed it before:

Well, as I said before, Pennsylvania elected a part of its Congressmen on a general ticket several times, usually when its population had grown and it had gotten more seats after a census, but had failed to redraw its districts. Indeed, looking more at Wikipedia, several states have historically done this, and some even elected all of their congressmen on a general ticket, the most recent being Hawaii (which did it between 1962 and 1970), New Mexico (1942-1968) and Alabama (only in 1962). As I see it, the partial general-ticket elections are basically a rudimentary form of MMP.

As I see it, all that is needed to begin the process is for one state to decide to write the system of partial general-ticket representation (as it might be called ITTL; PGTR or PGTV for short) into state law. Which, in turn, means that the most recent apportionment bill can't have forbidden that (as, I think, most of them did). After that, the People's Party might decide to campaign for full MMP (i.e. distributing the at-large seats semi-proportionally instead of proportionally to the entire vote, as would be the case under PGTV), and then implement it for Californian state elections when they gain office in that state. When they gain control of Congress in the 80s, they might try to pass a constitutional amendment establishing the system for House elections.

And good point on the dates. I really do want to make sure there are more alternate characters used in the rewrite.

Indeed, this may be prudent. Having Bill Clinton as president in the 90s strikes me as particularly convergent; he was a baby-boomer, and as such might not even be born in the same way ITTL (what with no WWII).

 

[Eckener]

I believe we discussed it before:





Indeed, this may be prudent. Having Bill Clinton as president in the 90s strikes me as particularly convergent; he was a baby-boomer, and as such might not even be born in the same way ITTL (what with no WWII).

Thank you for reminding me! I could definitely see that coming about. It would probably happen in California and then spread as the APP (American People's Party) goes national. Probably something that would occur in the 1990s or early 2000s.

And yes, you are definitely right about Clinton. That was honestly a bit of laziness on my part. He wouldn't likely have ended up in the same place ITTL if he was even born at all. And with no actual WWII (though there is the War in the Pacific at about the time that WWII happened in OTL), he might not even be born at all.

 

[Plumber]

The Democrats holding the Presidency from 1933-1965 is way too long. If you want to make it interesting, have Republicans enact Civil Rights legislation, so the Democrats split into Northern and Southern sections. The Dixiecrats will be a third party that dominates the South, while the Democratic Party will be the leftist second party in the North. The Republicans will be left as socially liberal but economically conservative, which is no way to win elections. The electoral college clusterfuck that the Dixiecrats cause can cause reforming of FPTP (maybe using Thomas Jefferson's own method), and you can go from there.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

The Democrats holding the Presidency from 1933-1965 is way too long.

I don't know; I've actually seen at least one TL where the Democrats hold onto the White House until 1960 with a latter effective PoD, and I found that plausible enough (though that was still with WWII -- I can certainly see how the absence of that kind of galvanizing conflict may make this kind of hold more of a stretch.)

 

[Eckener]

The Democrats holding the Presidency from 1933-1965 is way too long. If you want to make it interesting, have Republicans enact Civil Rights legislation, so the Democrats split into Northern and Southern sections. The Dixiecrats will be a third party that dominates the South, while the Democratic Party will be the leftist second party in the North. The Republicans will be left as socially liberal but economically conservative, which is no way to win elections. The electoral college clusterfuck that the Dixiecrats cause can cause reforming of FPTP (maybe using Thomas Jefferson's own method), and you can go from there.

I don't know; I've actually seen at least one TL where the Democrats hold onto the White House until 1960 with a latter effective PoD, and I found that plausible enough (though that was still with WWII -- I can certainly see how the absence of that kind of galvanizing conflict may make this kind of hold more of a stretch.)

The Dems holding the White House that long isn't realistic and wasn't actually intentional and will be something that is changed in the rewrite. I do have the Dems splitting over racial equality in the original version of the TL, however the South's party never really recovers nationally...what we could easily see is regional parties becoming more common, and this could increase agiation for something other that FPTP from multiple parites.
@Plumber: what is that "Thomas Jefferson's own method" you were reffering to? I'm honestly not sure what you're talking about.