The American System: A Henry Clay TL
- Thread starter TheHedgehog
- Start date
Having a fiercely Prussophile, large German minority in a non-German country creates the ability to dominate it economically and culturally without having to do any of the dominating yourself
And it also gives Prussia more of a buffer in case Russia gets belligerent again, rather than having Prussian territory in a contested area
Indeed, lol. Nothing bad could possibly come of this settlement!
The continuation of Ottoman rule in the Balkans is clearly rife with flashpoints, but it may still be somewhat stable with liberal forces in control of the policy towards national minorities. Mini-Bulgaria doesn’t seem capable of outright conquering its claimed territories, but it can still encourage nationalism and anti-Ottoman sentiment across the border if its backers give it a wide enough leash. However, with it probably being a poor, underdeveloped state, they may need the Ottoman Empire itself to fall into chaos in order to present themselves as a credible alternative to the majority of people who just want stability.
I’m also curious how the German Confederation will take the lessons from war and if they’ll pursue a closer union. That would also have potential to spark war, although you could argue that the fears of a united Germany have already been realized even if it’s not a fully cohesive state. The Polish and Lithuanian buffer states add some more complexity to the situation, since even though they’re arguably Prussian puppets first, they aren’t being subject to such ambitious plans for German empire-building (no Polish Border Strip or ideas to outright annex Lithuania, for example). Of course, that could change in the future as well.
I’m also curious how the German Confederation will take the lessons from war and if they’ll pursue a closer union. That would also have potential to spark war, although you could argue that the fears of a united Germany have already been realized even if it’s not a fully cohesive state. The Polish and Lithuanian buffer states add some more complexity to the situation, since even though they’re arguably Prussian puppets first, they aren’t being subject to such ambitious plans for German empire-building (no Polish Border Strip or ideas to outright annex Lithuania, for example). Of course, that could change in the future as well.
And who would be King of the new independent Poland? OTL there was candidature of Archduke Charles Stephen, Polonophilic Habsburg. But he was born in 1860, after POD.
Lol yeah. I'm honestly not sure, although I will shine a light on China within the next 20 years (though they won't dissolve).
There will definitely be more instability in the Balkans, though I admittedly have only the vaguest of vague plans for Europe in the 30s. I have plans for a revanchist Russia turning its attention south, which would lead to an emboldened Bulgaria. For the time being, the Bulgarians are pretty exhausted by the fighting, but give them a couple years and their old revolutionary cells will be back. It won't help them that the Ottoman wartime conduct caused a massive emigration wave to the US and the Ottoman post-war conduct was designed to win hearts and minds of Balkan Christians.
I'm not 100% sure what happens to the Confederation, but my current line of thinking is that there won't be any formal unification (partly because Austria wants to hold on to Hungary, et. al, but doesn't want to bring them into the confederation), but the German states will essentially function as a single country on the world stage, with a common parliament and army by modern day. I do agree with the idea that Germany is already unified enough that any further steps wouldn't draw much international opposition. I think that by 2023 TTL, the Confederation will function as a very loosely united country (or a very centralized customs union), though Prussia, Austria, etc remain officially independent. There isn't really any OTL analogue I can point to, which is kinda fun.
Lithuania is essentially a Prussian dominion, but control of Poland is more split, especially with a Habsburg on the throne.
Probably an ATL version of this guy, bc I think the Prussians will let a Habsburg in as King of Poland so the occupation feels like more of a joint effort
83. National Doldrums
83. National Doldrums
“The impact from the end of the Great War was felt, even in neutral America. The effects were numerous: European markets contracted without governments hungry for endless supplies of artillery shells, uniforms, and loans, and demobilization brought rampant unemployment, the effects of which were worsened by the shift from a war economy to a civilian one. Upheaval in the Balkans had produced a mass of displaced people, their villages ravaged by warfare and the borders redrawn. Ottoman authorities used the creation of a Bulgarian state as an excuse for “population exchanges,” forcing Bulgarian families to either pledge allegiance to the Ottoman government or leave for Bulgaria. The Ottoman government, a coalition between the civic-nationalist National Constitutionalists and the federalist Party of Regions, implemented a unification program known as the Salonika Guarantees, which established full civic equality regardless of religion. These established the right to choose a trial in a secular court, to equal education, participation in government, and ended the military substitution tax paid by non-Muslims wishing to avoid conscription [1].
While some Balkan Slavs were placated by the Salonika Guarantees, others rejected them and either attempted to move to Bulgaria or Serbia or emigrate to the United States. Bulgaria, already a small country, was quickly overcrowded with refugees, and further population movement was directed overseas. Between 1919 and 1920, some 450,000 Serbs and 300,000 Bulgarians came to America, mostly settling in Virginia and the Midwest. This population influx sparked the predictable anti-immigration backlash, but President Hepburn opposed restrictions, and the Democratic Senate voted down a Whig-sponsored quota bill in May 1920. The new immigrants entered the American job market at the same time as the economy finally entered into a recession, burdened by the European depression. Competition between unemployed Americans and desperate immigrants willing to work for low wages sparked violence on several occasions, and when thousands of Irish began arriving in New York and Boston due to the Irish civil war, the Democrats finally relented and imposed modest immigration restrictions.
This waffling attempt at finding a middle ground only incensed both sides of the immigration issue. The Whigs denounced Hepburn for “threatening the livelihoods of American citizens,” with even Bulgarian-American and Serbian-American politicians in Virginia supporting a quota system in order to protect jobs from the newcomers. Immigrant organizations, meanwhile, turned on Hepburn and the Democrats for bending to public pressure and limiting, however feebly, immigration into the country. The beginning of the 1920s marked the end of the National Doldrums, which would give way within the next four years first to widespread prosperity and then to crushing economic despair…”
-From STARING INTO THE ABYSS: AMERICA 1920-1940 by Greg Carey, published 2001
“The heavyweight contender for the Whigs was widely considered to be former Auraria Governor John Fountain. Fountain, born in 1864 in Wisconsin, moved west with his family at four when his father obtained a job as a railroad maintenance worker. Fountain worked as a silver miner in his youth and attended the state polytechnic university before purchasing his town’s local newspaper and striking out on his own. He was drawn to populist causes as a young man, and unsuccessfully ran for congress in 1896 as a Populist. Perhaps inevitably, he came to support women’s suffrage. Many westerners, populist or not, were at minimum indifferent to the idea. Fountain, encouraged by his wife Eliza, herself active in suffragist circles, was an open supporter of an amendment to settle the issue.
He was finally elected to congress as a solidarist Whig in 1902, and was reelected twice before he ran for, and was elected, Governor of Auraria in 1908. He was reelected to four more terms in 1910, 1912, 1914, and 1916 before he retired in 1918. As Governor, he was a strong defender of labor unions, forcing the Hearst Corporation to grant extensive concessions to a silver miners’ union in 1911. He was also instrumental in a state law protecting women’s unions to the same extent after a seamstresses’ union was denied the state minimum wage, even as male factory workers received that wage without issue. For his rather socially progressive positions, Fountain was mocked by many and hated by the conservatives, but beloved in the west and in progressive circles. However, he was decidedly less progressive in other areas. For one, Fountain accused Asian immigrants of being scabs “to the last man” for accepting low wages and poor conditions in the mines [2]. He also tried to ban them from the state, though this was overturned by the Supreme Court in Fountain v. Park.
Fountain, the unabashed s0lidarist, was opposed by the Whig conservatives. Though they were weakened after Kemp’s defeat in 1916, the staid New England aristocrats and midwestern businessmen were confident that William Sprague V [3], the junior senator from Rhode Island, could defeat Fountain. Sprague was a convincing orator and reasonably popular within his home state, but as the fifth Sprague of his name and fourth to hold public office, he was the dynast above all dynasts. He was also a vocal opponent of women’s suffrage, putting him at odds with the national mood. In the lead-up to the Detroit convention, Fountain attacked Sprague for his aristocratic background and conservatism, asking a crowd whether they could “in good conscience bar one-half of the public from expressing their opinion through the ballot.” His folksy speeches and humble, home-tailored suits were popular on the campaign trail, and as the convention approached and his campaign gained more pledged delegates, party leaders began to ponder whether Fountain was the more electable option.
Fountain won the first battle, when his surrogates secured the inclusion of a pro-women’s suffrage resolution in the party platform. The first ballot was deadlocked, with Fountain holding a slim lead over Sprague. After this lead widened on the second vote, party officials began whipping for Fountain among the delegates, and to Sprague’s shock, Massachusetts, New York, and Pennsylvania all defected from his column on the third ballot, handing the nomination to Fountain. For vice president, it was agreed that a conservative was necessary to balance the ticket. Sprague’s close friend Albert Bosworth of Connecticut was selected by the convention.”
-From SOBER AND INDUSTRIOUS: A HISTORY OF THE WHIGS by Greg Carey, published 1986
“Hepburn left no clear successor, though he had so damaged his credibility with the urban faction of the party that perhaps a designated heir would have been guaranteed to lose at the convention. Instead, two factions emerged: the urbanites with the Irish-Catholic governor Eugene Cox of Massachusetts, and the southerners, with former Governor Thomas Wilder of Virginia. The two factions immediately deadlocked, the southerners unwilling to nominate a Catholic, neutrals worried that a Catholic would doom the party to defeat, and the urbanites adamantly against nominating a close ally of Hepburn. After creating a compromise platform that made no mention of immigration or economic remedies, the delegates turned to bridging the north-south gap. Ultimately, it was decided on the fifteenth ballot that Congressman Elias P. Delany of Pennsylvania, the former chairman of the House Ways and Means committee and opponent of the 1920 immigration law, was acceptable to both sides. For his vice president, the urbanites demanded a Catholic while the southerners pushed for geographic balance, resulting in Louisiana Governor Francois Petain’s selection as running mate.”
-From IN THE SHADOW OF JACKSON by Michelle Watts, published 2012
“The Societists renominated their veteran standard-bearer Daniel Bettrich, but the party was hobbled by Fountain’s candidacy. A significant number of radical solidarists had supported Bettrich in years past, but now that one of their own headed the Whig ticket, these voters drifted back to the Whigs. As a result, the crowds Bettrich addressed were smaller, and he received less press coverage. Worse, the radical suffragettes who had supported him in the past threw in with the more electable Fountain, depriving the Societists of an important source of canvassers and volunteers.
Fountain could not capitalize on his popularity with women for electoral purposes, but he mobilized them as a secondary Wide Awakes group, with women volunteers going door-to-door to persuade voters to support the Whigs. Whig advertisements also urged married women to persuade their husbands to vote for Fountain. Howard Cameron built his base of support in the Midwest by tirelessly stumping for Fountain, honing his rhetoric and organization ahead of a planned 1922 gubernatorial bid.
All three candidates campaigned hard, with Delany proving surprisingly charismatic on the podium. While he struggled to weave his way between nativism and unpopular immigration, he was able to hold the Democratic coalition together. By election day it was clear that the election would be close, with newspapers crediting Delany with turning a certain defeat into a hotly contested race. Ultimately, Delany would emerge just short, losing key races in Ohio, Minnesota, and Missouri [4]. These losses were largely due to anger from immigrant groups and Fountain’s strong performance with Mormon voters, while Delany barely flipped New York due to Bettrich splitting the left-wing vote. However, Bettrich failed to win a single state, and the Societist house caucus was cut in half, from 11 seats to just five.
Fountain prepared to enter office with narrow majorities in the House and Senate, but his bold plans for internal improvements to stimulate the economy and for expanding McGovern’s hemispheric Amphictyony would be born out, for better and for worse. But on November 2nd, as Fountain gave his victory speech, he was optimistic, and though he was unpopular by the time he left office [5], his reputation has been rehabilitated with time, and Fountain has been credited by many historians with laying the foundation for Cameron’s ambitious Third American System of the 1930s…”
-From WHITE MAN’S NATION: AMERICA 1881-1973 by Kenneth Thurman, published 2003
[1] Without the Crimean War TTL, the Tanzimat reforms are less far-reaching or not enacted. Here, they are finally implemented.
[2] Sadly not everyone is perfect, and Fountain’s attitudes fit with the general anti-Asian sentiments of many western working-class voters in olden times. Most Asian immigrants here are Koreans and Chinese, as Japanese immigration is reduced due to the country’s continued isolationism.
[3] Last seen during the Kemp-Roth negotiations.
[4] He’ll be back soon enough, though…
[5] The only hint I’ll give is this: Billion Dollar Congress.
“The impact from the end of the Great War was felt, even in neutral America. The effects were numerous: European markets contracted without governments hungry for endless supplies of artillery shells, uniforms, and loans, and demobilization brought rampant unemployment, the effects of which were worsened by the shift from a war economy to a civilian one. Upheaval in the Balkans had produced a mass of displaced people, their villages ravaged by warfare and the borders redrawn. Ottoman authorities used the creation of a Bulgarian state as an excuse for “population exchanges,” forcing Bulgarian families to either pledge allegiance to the Ottoman government or leave for Bulgaria. The Ottoman government, a coalition between the civic-nationalist National Constitutionalists and the federalist Party of Regions, implemented a unification program known as the Salonika Guarantees, which established full civic equality regardless of religion. These established the right to choose a trial in a secular court, to equal education, participation in government, and ended the military substitution tax paid by non-Muslims wishing to avoid conscription [1].
While some Balkan Slavs were placated by the Salonika Guarantees, others rejected them and either attempted to move to Bulgaria or Serbia or emigrate to the United States. Bulgaria, already a small country, was quickly overcrowded with refugees, and further population movement was directed overseas. Between 1919 and 1920, some 450,000 Serbs and 300,000 Bulgarians came to America, mostly settling in Virginia and the Midwest. This population influx sparked the predictable anti-immigration backlash, but President Hepburn opposed restrictions, and the Democratic Senate voted down a Whig-sponsored quota bill in May 1920. The new immigrants entered the American job market at the same time as the economy finally entered into a recession, burdened by the European depression. Competition between unemployed Americans and desperate immigrants willing to work for low wages sparked violence on several occasions, and when thousands of Irish began arriving in New York and Boston due to the Irish civil war, the Democrats finally relented and imposed modest immigration restrictions.
This waffling attempt at finding a middle ground only incensed both sides of the immigration issue. The Whigs denounced Hepburn for “threatening the livelihoods of American citizens,” with even Bulgarian-American and Serbian-American politicians in Virginia supporting a quota system in order to protect jobs from the newcomers. Immigrant organizations, meanwhile, turned on Hepburn and the Democrats for bending to public pressure and limiting, however feebly, immigration into the country. The beginning of the 1920s marked the end of the National Doldrums, which would give way within the next four years first to widespread prosperity and then to crushing economic despair…”
-From STARING INTO THE ABYSS: AMERICA 1920-1940 by Greg Carey, published 2001
“The heavyweight contender for the Whigs was widely considered to be former Auraria Governor John Fountain. Fountain, born in 1864 in Wisconsin, moved west with his family at four when his father obtained a job as a railroad maintenance worker. Fountain worked as a silver miner in his youth and attended the state polytechnic university before purchasing his town’s local newspaper and striking out on his own. He was drawn to populist causes as a young man, and unsuccessfully ran for congress in 1896 as a Populist. Perhaps inevitably, he came to support women’s suffrage. Many westerners, populist or not, were at minimum indifferent to the idea. Fountain, encouraged by his wife Eliza, herself active in suffragist circles, was an open supporter of an amendment to settle the issue.
He was finally elected to congress as a solidarist Whig in 1902, and was reelected twice before he ran for, and was elected, Governor of Auraria in 1908. He was reelected to four more terms in 1910, 1912, 1914, and 1916 before he retired in 1918. As Governor, he was a strong defender of labor unions, forcing the Hearst Corporation to grant extensive concessions to a silver miners’ union in 1911. He was also instrumental in a state law protecting women’s unions to the same extent after a seamstresses’ union was denied the state minimum wage, even as male factory workers received that wage without issue. For his rather socially progressive positions, Fountain was mocked by many and hated by the conservatives, but beloved in the west and in progressive circles. However, he was decidedly less progressive in other areas. For one, Fountain accused Asian immigrants of being scabs “to the last man” for accepting low wages and poor conditions in the mines [2]. He also tried to ban them from the state, though this was overturned by the Supreme Court in Fountain v. Park.
Fountain, the unabashed s0lidarist, was opposed by the Whig conservatives. Though they were weakened after Kemp’s defeat in 1916, the staid New England aristocrats and midwestern businessmen were confident that William Sprague V [3], the junior senator from Rhode Island, could defeat Fountain. Sprague was a convincing orator and reasonably popular within his home state, but as the fifth Sprague of his name and fourth to hold public office, he was the dynast above all dynasts. He was also a vocal opponent of women’s suffrage, putting him at odds with the national mood. In the lead-up to the Detroit convention, Fountain attacked Sprague for his aristocratic background and conservatism, asking a crowd whether they could “in good conscience bar one-half of the public from expressing their opinion through the ballot.” His folksy speeches and humble, home-tailored suits were popular on the campaign trail, and as the convention approached and his campaign gained more pledged delegates, party leaders began to ponder whether Fountain was the more electable option.
Fountain won the first battle, when his surrogates secured the inclusion of a pro-women’s suffrage resolution in the party platform. The first ballot was deadlocked, with Fountain holding a slim lead over Sprague. After this lead widened on the second vote, party officials began whipping for Fountain among the delegates, and to Sprague’s shock, Massachusetts, New York, and Pennsylvania all defected from his column on the third ballot, handing the nomination to Fountain. For vice president, it was agreed that a conservative was necessary to balance the ticket. Sprague’s close friend Albert Bosworth of Connecticut was selected by the convention.”
-From SOBER AND INDUSTRIOUS: A HISTORY OF THE WHIGS by Greg Carey, published 1986
“Hepburn left no clear successor, though he had so damaged his credibility with the urban faction of the party that perhaps a designated heir would have been guaranteed to lose at the convention. Instead, two factions emerged: the urbanites with the Irish-Catholic governor Eugene Cox of Massachusetts, and the southerners, with former Governor Thomas Wilder of Virginia. The two factions immediately deadlocked, the southerners unwilling to nominate a Catholic, neutrals worried that a Catholic would doom the party to defeat, and the urbanites adamantly against nominating a close ally of Hepburn. After creating a compromise platform that made no mention of immigration or economic remedies, the delegates turned to bridging the north-south gap. Ultimately, it was decided on the fifteenth ballot that Congressman Elias P. Delany of Pennsylvania, the former chairman of the House Ways and Means committee and opponent of the 1920 immigration law, was acceptable to both sides. For his vice president, the urbanites demanded a Catholic while the southerners pushed for geographic balance, resulting in Louisiana Governor Francois Petain’s selection as running mate.”
-From IN THE SHADOW OF JACKSON by Michelle Watts, published 2012
“The Societists renominated their veteran standard-bearer Daniel Bettrich, but the party was hobbled by Fountain’s candidacy. A significant number of radical solidarists had supported Bettrich in years past, but now that one of their own headed the Whig ticket, these voters drifted back to the Whigs. As a result, the crowds Bettrich addressed were smaller, and he received less press coverage. Worse, the radical suffragettes who had supported him in the past threw in with the more electable Fountain, depriving the Societists of an important source of canvassers and volunteers.
Fountain could not capitalize on his popularity with women for electoral purposes, but he mobilized them as a secondary Wide Awakes group, with women volunteers going door-to-door to persuade voters to support the Whigs. Whig advertisements also urged married women to persuade their husbands to vote for Fountain. Howard Cameron built his base of support in the Midwest by tirelessly stumping for Fountain, honing his rhetoric and organization ahead of a planned 1922 gubernatorial bid.
All three candidates campaigned hard, with Delany proving surprisingly charismatic on the podium. While he struggled to weave his way between nativism and unpopular immigration, he was able to hold the Democratic coalition together. By election day it was clear that the election would be close, with newspapers crediting Delany with turning a certain defeat into a hotly contested race. Ultimately, Delany would emerge just short, losing key races in Ohio, Minnesota, and Missouri [4]. These losses were largely due to anger from immigrant groups and Fountain’s strong performance with Mormon voters, while Delany barely flipped New York due to Bettrich splitting the left-wing vote. However, Bettrich failed to win a single state, and the Societist house caucus was cut in half, from 11 seats to just five.
| John Fountain | Elias Delany | Daniel Bettrich | |
| Electoral Vote | 313 | 215 | 0 |
| Popular Vote | 10,536,917 | 9,532,208 | 2,559,152 |
| Percentage | 46.4 | 41.9 | 11.3 |
Fountain prepared to enter office with narrow majorities in the House and Senate, but his bold plans for internal improvements to stimulate the economy and for expanding McGovern’s hemispheric Amphictyony would be born out, for better and for worse. But on November 2nd, as Fountain gave his victory speech, he was optimistic, and though he was unpopular by the time he left office [5], his reputation has been rehabilitated with time, and Fountain has been credited by many historians with laying the foundation for Cameron’s ambitious Third American System of the 1930s…”
-From WHITE MAN’S NATION: AMERICA 1881-1973 by Kenneth Thurman, published 2003
[1] Without the Crimean War TTL, the Tanzimat reforms are less far-reaching or not enacted. Here, they are finally implemented.
[2] Sadly not everyone is perfect, and Fountain’s attitudes fit with the general anti-Asian sentiments of many western working-class voters in olden times. Most Asian immigrants here are Koreans and Chinese, as Japanese immigration is reduced due to the country’s continued isolationism.
[3] Last seen during the Kemp-Roth negotiations.
[4] He’ll be back soon enough, though…
[5] The only hint I’ll give is this: Billion Dollar Congress.
Last edited:
I'm not sure myself what's gonna happen in Europe so if you've got ideas I'd love to hear them!
All righty then! Here are some ideas, based on looking at the map:
- Another Balkan war leading to stronger relations between Danubia/Romania and Bulgaria, especially to reclaim their lost land.
- Austria-Hungary falls apart from the inevitable internal strife, which the above two capitalize on.
- Austria goes and takes in the Catholic southern German states into itself to become greater Austria.
- Conflict between Prussia and Hanover, maybe Hanover wins wth Polish assistance
- Maybe alot of trouble for Russia as it may lose Ukraine and the rest of Baltics.
- Ottomans after a bit of fighting, cut losses in Balkans to focus on Arabia, backing their House of Rashidi allies and crush the Sauds there and unite most of Arabia there.
- Not sure on the issue on Armenia or the others there, but I expect revolution there and with the Kurds maybe if Ottomans don't fix issues.
- Without USSR and the like, socialists and communist parties focus alot on their own bases and elections. France going Croix-De-Feu will provide some sort of opportunity for some socialist governments to help out
- WW2 ending era of colonies obviously.
Will try to come up with more.
There’ll definitely be another war in the balkans, and you’ve given me some good ideas for brainstorming so thanks! Definitely going to do something with European societism
Sure! Let me know what other ideas or so on could recommend for Europe at least there
And what would be with the Jewish Question ITTL? Because both Poland and Lithuania look like to have some millions of the Jewish population (may be not 10% of all country populatinon , as was OTL in the Interwar Poland, but a lot of, and Wilno still would be "Northern Jerusalem", I think). OTL in 1918 there was even a ban of the Jewish imigration to the German Empire, which Weimar Republic canceled.
Also, have TTL some analoge of zionism? (well, there was no the Dreyfus Affair, which OTL converted Theodor Herzl into zionism, but idea of the Jewish state in Palestine can still)
And... without Balkan Wars - is TTL Saloniki/Selanik still a Jewish-majority, Ladino-speaking city?
Also, have TTL some analoge of zionism? (well, there was no the Dreyfus Affair, which OTL converted Theodor Herzl into zionism, but idea of the Jewish state in Palestine can still)
And... without Balkan Wars - is TTL Saloniki/Selanik still a Jewish-majority, Ladino-speaking city?
I have an idea for this one. Consider this man: https://www.timesofisrael.com/how-j...s-negotiated-with-zionists-founded-a-kingdom/
He could play a part in this. Granted, it appears Transjordan/the Hejaz is still part of the Ottomans (I think, am not really sure), but I suspect the Ottomans may still end up losing control of the region. If that happens, evens could happen to where Israel is formed as part of an autonomous state over there in Hashemite territory, with the two groups becoming close. As such, this could lead to an Israel and a Hashemite Kingdom consisted of the Hejaz, the Levant and possibly Syria in a symbiotic relationship, sorta like Switzerland and Lichtenstein.
I do figure homeland idea could be possible, albeit done with various negotiations and the like there. Alternately, Ethiopia becomes inspired and invites the Jews there as a homeland through shared heritage, which could work. What is the state of Ethiopia though? Did it still lose Eritrea?
Perhaps...
Sprague has sprung!
The one thing I know for sure will happen RE: Eastern European Jews is a wave of massive Russian pogroms during the 20s. Perhaps Poland/Lithuania, unwilling to accept Jewish refugees, ban them, followed by the rest of Europe, so the UK offers Uganda as a Jewish colony. Especially because Zionism isn't really focused on Israel TTL without the Dreyfus affair.
Salonika is still Jewish-majority, which could hamper efforts to build a Zionist state in Israel if there's already a big center for Ottoman Jews.
I've been thinking a lot about Zionism/the Jews of Europe and the Middle East ITTL. Without a holocaust I don't really see a major Jewish state arising, but that Hashemite article does give me an idea. So if the Hashemites rise up, perhaps Bonapartist France aids them, and the Ottoman Empire, busy with the balkans, has to cut a deal. I could definitely see a closely-aligned Israel+Hashemite state forming in the 20s-30s.
I also had an idea early on where the British settle Jews in Uganda/Kenya similar to the OTL plan in order to build up the white minority in East Africa.