The Anglo-Saxon Social Model

Discussion in 'Alternate History Discussion: After 1900' started by Rattigan, Dec 17, 2018.

Loading...
  1. Drunkrobot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2014
    Location:
    Wales, Unfortunately
    Looking forward to seeing the inevitable conflict between the Hashemites and the Saudis. Hopefully by not having been stabbed in the back by the British and being the recognised sovereigns of Arabia the Hashemites are strong enough for them to crush the house of Saud.
     
    Duke of Nova Scotia likes this.
  2. Rattigan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2012
    Location:
    The People's Republic of Brooklyn
    Sorry to disappoint but I'm afraid the Saudis have already been dispatched by the Hashemites during the Great War in early 1917. In fact, the Hashemites' defeat of their last remaining rivals in Arabia made them turn their attention to invading Palestine and Mesopotamia and was a key factor behind encouraging British entry into the war. The Saudis aren't completely gone, of course, and I have plans for them relatively soon.
     
  3. Threadmarks: American Politics, 1918-1935

    Rattigan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2012
    Location:
    The People's Republic of Brooklyn
    Hopes Unfulfilled? The United States, 1918-1935
    Talented Tenth.jpg
    The Talented Ten: President Du Bois with notable African-American cabinet members and scientists


    The human and material losses suffered by the United States during the Great War were staggering. Although the country’s territory had remained free from active combat on its territory (notwithstanding a Mexican invasion scare in December 1913 that had necessitated the brief mobilisation of the Texas National Guard), it had lost over 1,000,000 servicemen dead and nearly 2,000,000 wounded, over 1,000,000 tonnes of shipping (both merchant and naval) and an estimated $44,000,000,000 in financial costs. Although it was owed billions in reparations by the Central Powers, it also owed billions to Britain and the Commonwealth.

    Upon taking over from Roosevelt in January 1919, President Hiram Johnson benefitted from a short-lived economic boom which began in 1918 and was caused by the release of pent-up investment and a rush of orders to replace lost shipping. However, in the first quarter of 1920 the economy tipped back into recession as America caught Britain’s economic cold. Johnson was already unpopular with much of the rest of his party over his choice of William Borah (who had impeccable isolationist credentials but also an independent streak which put him at odds with his Senate colleagues) as Vice President and the 1920-21 recession gave party bosses a good excuse to launch a ‘draft Wood’ campaign in spring 1920. Johnson knew that he stood no chance against the great war hero and stood aside at the convention on the understanding that he would be allowed to run unopposed for his old California Senate seat in 1922.*

    Wood and his running mates Henry Cabot Lodge and Nicholas Longworth easily won the 1920 election, winning 44% in the first round and 78% in the second. Although the presence of Longworth as Speaker and figures in the cabinet such as Herbert Hoover (Treasury Secretary) and William Howard Taft (Attorney General) pressaged the victory of the conservative wing of the Republican Party, the government did not wholly abandon its previous positions on workers’ welfare. Domestic policies pursued under the Wood Administration included industrial conciliation, unemployment insurance, a more extensive old-age pension system, slum clearance and an expansion of childcare. The Unemployment Insurance Act of 1921 created a dole system to protect the unemployed and the House, Town and Planning Act of 1922 instituted a programme of state-run slum clearances. The latter act, in parallel with British credit, stimulated economic growth driven by construction. In foreign affairs, one of the first decisions the new administration took was to reverse Johnson’s decision and apply for membership of the League of Nations (which was accepted in December 1921). However, continuing sluggishness in the economy overall - caused by a mix of decline in heavy industry and Hoover’s decision to return the Dollar to the gold standard at the pre-war level - undermined Wood’s reservoir of goodwill. Over Thanksgiving of 1923, Wood announced that he would not seek another term and instead it was Robert Russa Morton who stood as the Republican candidate in 1924.

    Morton’s opponent from the Progressive Party (as the Greenbacks had renamed themselves in 1917) was W.E.B. Du Bois, meaning that the United States would almost certainly elect its first African American President in 1924. Although Frederick Douglass (1881-1889) and Booker T. Washington (1893-1897) had both served as Vice President and Octavius Catto (1893-1897) and Archibald Grimke (1901-1905) had served as Speaker of the House, this was considered a major advance for African American civil rights. Du Bois would eventually win the contest (winning 55% in the second round), with his running mates of Al Smith (Vice President) and Charles W. Chesnutt (Speaker). Du Bois would appoint eight African Americans to his first cabinet, a grouping which (along with Du Bois and Chesnutt) became known as the “Talented Ten.”

    Despite this breakthrough in race relations, the American economy was mostly lacklustre throughout the 1920s, with consistently high unemployment and decline in heavy industries that had provided the backbone of the economy during Reconstruction and the Gilded Age. Businesses came to be reliant on economies of scale (squeezing out smaller providers) and British credit. Partly this was caused by Hoover’s decision to return the economy to the Gold Standard at pre-war levels (which Du Bois did not reverse owing to concerns about inflation at a time of high unemployment) but also by the inflationary effects of the Great War. It took until 1926 for economic performance to have fully bounced back and by then growth was steady, albeit at a level lower than the UK (although the average rate of growth was more comparable than many admitted at the time) and below pre-war levels. While the American economy had (just) replaced the British as the world’s leading industrial power, it remained well behind the Commonwealth as a whole.

    Outside of these economic developments, the Du Bois Administration also faced a number of social and constitutional issues. Most notable was the so-called ‘Great Migration’ of Southern whites to the Northern states. During Reconstruction, the white planter class had been successively denuded of its political and economic hegemony (primarily through land reform, most notably the ‘Forty Acres and a Mule’ budget of 1869), which had encouraged an earlier migration, mostly of formerly wealthy white slave owners in the 1880s and 1890s. Now, over the course of the 1920s, approximately 4,000,000 whites migrated from the South to urban areas in the North. In addition, Du Bois organised a referendum in 1927 in the American colony of Liberia over whether or not to join the United States as a state or become independent. In a result which was believed to have been highly fraudulent, the pro-independence faction won out and Liberia became an independent republic (albeit one highly dependent on the US) on 1 January 1928.

    Du Bois narrowly lost his re-election bid (something put down to the sluggish US economy) in 1928 and in 1929 the Republican Charles Curtis (the first Native American to assume the role) became President. However, his presidency would, inevitably, be overshadowed by the crises of 1929-30. The United States’ world trade fall by half (1929-33), the output of heavy industry fell by a third and profits dropped across all sectors. Additionally, the withdrawing of British credit caused bank runs and businesses to go bankrupt unable to repay their loans. Particularly badly hit regions were the Northwest and Midwest, where large heavy industry and construction had dominated the economy before 1929. It was also devastating for the industry (largely African-American owned) which had sprung up across the Upper South during Reconstruction. In those regions, unemployment reached as over 75% and many families depended entirely on dole payments from state and federal government.

    At the 1932 election, Franklin Delano Roosevelt (recovered from a brief illness in 1921 (rumoured at the time to have been polio) which had threatened to derail his political career) returned the Progressives to power promising a ‘New Deal’ involving dropping off the Gold Standard, expansionary fiscal policy and widespread public works programmes. The primary aim was to alleviate unemployment and restarting the economy as a whole was a secondary (but important) consideration. All this was done within the scope of a tax regime which was supposed to be balanced in the short term (economic orthodoxy did nothing in the 1930s if not die slowly). As a result, although the economy recovered slowly (unemployment dropped below 15% nationally by January 1935), a fuller recovery was probably held back by the steady increases in taxation which undid the expansionary effects of fiscal policy. Nevertheless, from the point of view of 1930, any recovery was a good recovery.

    Presidents of the Second American Republic
    1. Abraham Lincoln; Republican; March 1881 - March 1889
    2. Grover Cleveland; Liberal; March 1889 - March 1893
    3. James G. Blaine; Republican; March 1893 - March 1897
    4. Moorfield Storey; Liberal; March 1897 - March 1901
    5. William McKinley; Republican; March 1901 - March 1905
    6. William Jennings Bryan; Liberal; March 1905 - March 1913
    7. Theodore Roosevelt; Republican; March 1913 - January 1919
    8. Hiram Johnson; Republican; January 1919 - March 1921
    9. Leonard Wood; Republican; March 1921 - March 1925
    10. W.E.B. Du Bois; Progressive; March 1925 - March 1929
    11. Charles Curtis; Republican; March 1929 - January 1933
    12. Franklin Roosevelt; Progressive; January 1933 - present

    Vice Presidents of the Second American Republic
    1. Frederick Douglass; Republican; March 1881 - March 1889
    2. John M. Palmer; Liberal; March 1889 - March 1893
    3. Booker T. Washington; Republican; March 1893 - March 1897
    4. Thomas F. Bayard; Liberal; March 1897 - March 1901
    5. Theodore Roosevelt; Republican; March 1901 - March 1905
    6. John W. Kern; Liberal; March 1905 - March 1909
    7. Woodrow Wilson; Liberal; March 1909 - March 1913
    8. Hiram Johnson; Republican; March 1913 - January 1919
    9. William Borah; Republican; January 1919 - March 1921
    10. Henry Cabot Lodge; Republican; March 1921 - March 1925
    11. Al Smith; Progressive; March 1925 - March 1929
    12. James Eli Watson; Republican; March 1929 - January 1933
    13. Joseph T. Robinson; Progressive; January 1933 - present

    Speakers of the Second American Republic
    1. John Cresswell; Republican; March 1881 - March 1889
    2. Carl Schurz; Liberal; March 1889 - March 1893
    3. Octavius Catto; Republican; March 1893 - March 1897
    4. William L. Wilson; Liberal; March 1897 - October 1900
    5. William C.P. Breckinridge; Liberal; October 1900 - March 1901
    6. Archibald Grimke; Republican; March 1901 - March 1905
    7. Charles N. Haskell; Liberal; March 1905 - March 1913
    8. James Mann; Republican; March 1913 - March 1921
    9. Nicholas Longworth; Republican; March 1921 - March 1925
    10. Charles W. Chesnutt; Progressive; March 1925 - March 1929
    11. Nicholas Longworth; Republican; March 1929 - January 1933
    12. Walter F. White; Progressive; January 1933 - present
    *Which he did and he would remain there until his death.
     
    Wolfman217, Cool-Eh, Adamant and 16 others like this.
  4. Nyvis Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2013
    Oh wow that US looks good in comparison to ours. One thing I'm interested in is the state of organized labour and leftist activism though. Was alt-ww1 just as devastating for leftists, with wartime laws used to get rid of vocal anti war voices? How are unions doing and did this slightly more progressive US leave them with more rights?
     
    Salvador79 likes this.
  5. Rattigan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2012
    Location:
    The People's Republic of Brooklyn
    The American union movement was very divided between pro- and anti-war factions but there wasn't a full clampdown on their activities as IOTL, mainly because the leadership of the largest unions tended to belong to the first faction. This created a relationship between the government and certain trades unionists that some people considered, if anything, too close.

    So while it's looking good for the union movement (or, at least, better than OTL), it's not quite the same story for leftists in general. They were swept to the side by patriotic fervor in 1913/14 and subsequently found pacifist messages weirdly unpopular. This was partly due to a sunk costs fallacy, partly because it was seen to be allied with the enemy and Republican, Liberal and Progressive politicians weren't afraid to say that. The Socialist Party failed to make gains in 1916 and lost seats in elections over the course of the 20s, with many of their supporters migrating to the Progressives. Whether they will stake out a separate role for themselves as the 1930s wares on, or whether they'll just be stuck in an expanded Progressive Party, remains to be seen. It's also worth noting that the war years were also bad for German-speaking communities, who faced severe repression, both socially and from the federal government.
     
  6. Nyvis Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2013
    Business unionism and the AFL up to its usual corrupt bargain shenanigans I imagine then?

    On the other hand, the terrible tally of the war and the following crises may re-energize the left somewhat, even if it's just entryism in the progressive party.
     
    Rattigan likes this.
  7. Rattigan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2012
    Location:
    The People's Republic of Brooklyn
    I think the way the second constitution works (and I will at some point get round to explaining it in more detail) presents an interesting challenge regarding entryism. Because on the one hand you have a FPTP system for House seats that works against minor parties. But on the other you have a two-round popular choice vote for a very powerful presidency, which encourages more minor parties to give it a shot. I'm not going to go into US politics in the level of detail I've adopted for UK/Commonwealth politics but what I imagine will happen is that the House will gradually cohere around two big-tent parties of the centre-left and -right (possibly with the Liberals as a minor third party) but different factions of those two big parties might run their own presidential candidates. So I guess the OTL equivalent would be if the Freedom Caucus decided every four years to hold its own convention and run its own candidates against the GOP while continuing to caucus with them in the House. Or something like that, at least...
     
    Adamant likes this.
  8. Nyvis Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2013
    So we could have a party/group running its own presidential candidates in the first round but endorsing sufficiently progressive representatives rather than run their own? Or like we have here in France, further left parties negotiating to have progressives let them run in a few seats in exchange for not running against their representatives anywhere else. Sort of a half-party half-internal group in a sense.

    Or we could trend towards something similar to what fusion voting results in: bigger parties having to court smaller ones and the smaller parties voting on who to endorse or whether to run their own candidate before every election?
     
    Adamant and Salvador79 like this.
  9. Rattigan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2012
    Location:
    The People's Republic of Brooklyn
    Probably a bit of a mix but trending towards the French analogy (as you might've guessed, the 5th Republic was my original inspiration for the second US constitution), at least with House seats. I can imagine the Progressives and the Socialists having some kind of arrangement in the future, for example... But I like the idea of presidential voting trending towards the fusion voting outcome you suggest. Would that mean (for example, not saying this will happen) the Socialists decide not to run a presidential candidate against the Progressives in 1952 because they like whoever the Progressives have got up that year but then they change their mind and run a candidate in 1956?
     
    Adamant, Nyvis and Salvador79 like this.
  10. Nyvis Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2013
    Yeah that's kinda what I mean. Though if you want to take the French inspiration, it's more likely they run in the first round (parties get funding according to performance here), but already plan to endorse the leading left leaning candidate in the second round. In the meanwhile, they probably get to work on building parallel society to support a working class approach. If it goes like France and the PCF, they may fall flat if they endorse someone who betray their promise to them. Or wise up and start running more by themselves if the progressives pull to the center. On the other hand, American socialists are unlikely to be as spineless as the PCF regarding subordination to a nominally socialist power. A combination of local conditions and American exceptionalism will probably keep them well separate from becoming like OTL CPUSA.

    The 5th republic was a bad idea built around one man's ambitions, though, so uh, the US will probably have its issues. But just like it helped solve the issue of Algeria through presidential power, it probably does wonder for imposing reconstruction. On the other hand, the comparison probably have its limits because France is an extremely unitary state and the US is the model federal system. Though people may be fed up with "states' rights" after the civil war.
     
    Adamant and Salvador79 like this.
  11. Rattigan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2012
    Location:
    The People's Republic of Brooklyn
    Don't worry, TTL USA won't just be an analogue for OTL France. But somebody once described Lincoln and De Gaulle being kind of like their respective country's thematic equivalents and I liked that idea and ran with it a bit. I definitely think that by the 1930s TTL there are a lot of legitimate concerns that, while the second constitution worked in the 1880s to allow Lincoln to impose Radical Reconstruction, it might be allowing some presidents to be too tyrannical and, ITTL, American political culture has fewer qualms about rewriting the constitution...
     
    Adamant and Salvador79 like this.
  12. Nyvis Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2013
    Does a party support a 3rd American Republic? I could see that being a plank of a socialist party and left leaning progressives just like our own reformist leftists support a 6th republic today.
     
  13. Rattigan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2012
    Location:
    The People's Republic of Brooklyn
    Yes, it's been a plank of the Socialist and Social Democratic Labour parties for some time. Whether or not it's a serious policy proposal depends on the individual politician within those parties but overall they see constitutional reform as a key plank of what their transformative political programmes would be. The idea also cropped up in GOP circles when William Jennings Bryan was president and I imagine it will turn up there again now that FDR is in the White House.
     
    Nyvis likes this.
  14. Nyvis Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2013
    Let's hope it doesn't perpetually become an opposition plank people discard when they're the ones benefiting then!
     
  15. Threadmarks: Italian Politics, 1920-1935

    Rattigan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2012
    Location:
    The People's Republic of Brooklyn
    The Dream of Italy: Class and Political Conflict, 1920-1935
    Graziani.jpg Diaz.jpg
    I Grande Duci: (l-r) Generals Rodolfo Graziani and Armando Diaz


    Although it was a member of the Entente in 1918-19, the casual observer of Italian politics in the immediate postwar period could well be forgiven for thinking the opposite. Even though its contents has become a matter of almost comical historiographical dispute since Italy attacked Austria*, the widespread feeling in Italy was that the terms of the Paris Treaty were a poor reward for nearly 20,000 dead and over 50,000 wounded. Furthermore, although wartime orders had created the conditions for a small economic boom in 1913-17, including much-needed expansion and modernisation to Italian industry, these conditions rapidly disappeared following the Italian entry into the war and Italy was badly hit by the postwar slump. This created the conditions for what came to be called the ‘Red Biennium’ of social, political and economic chaos in the aftermath of the Paris Treaty.

    A particular cause of grievance was the status of the Austrian Littoral. An area with a substantial Italian-speaking population, many in Italy believed that it rightly belonged to an expanded Italy and at least one version of the London Agreement promised it to them. However, the vast majority of the peninsula had been awarded to Serbia at Paris, while Austria retained control of the rest (including the ideologically and strategically vital port of Trieste). In May 1919, an army of approximately 25,000 Italian soldiers occupied the entire Littoral and, in brazen defiance of the Paris Treaty, declared it to be an Italian province. Coming only a month after the signing of the treaty, neither Austrian or Serbian soldiers or administrators were in any position to oppose this move and within three months the Italian military had set up what at the time passed for a coherent provincial government.

    Major General Emilio De Bono was appointed governor of the province and artists, notably Filippo Marinetti and Gabriele D’Annunzio, flocked to Trieste to celebrate what they saw as the next stage of the Risorgimento. Ethnic Italians paraded through the cities of the province, prominently waving pictures of Victor Emmanuel and Marshal Armando Diaz, the hugely popular victor of the war. What the role of these two individuals was in the occupation remains a matter of dispute. While Victor Emmanuel almost certainly knew nothing about the invasion beforehand, Diaz’s role remains more complicated. Throughout the whole crisis, he was careful to remain studiously quiet on the issue and did not leave his headquarters in Venice (where he had been since the Armistice). On the other hand, moving an army of this size and Do Bono’s bold actions seem inconceivable without Diaz’s tacit support at least.

    Whatever the original plans of the plotters, it soon became clear that the rest of the Entente weren’t going to just accept the occupation as a fait accompli. In August 1919, a squadron from the Royal Navy’s Mediterranean Fleet (consisting of one seaplane carrier, three battleships and six cruisers) sailed into the Adriatic with the intention of blockading the occupied territory and enforcing the Paris Treaty (a backdated League of Nations order mandating the operation hastily appeared later that month). For a brief moment it looked as if the King would order the Regina Marina to put to sea to confront the sortie but they backed down at the last moment. With British ships sitting off Trieste harbour, the occupying government quickly turned their minds to negotiation. In November 1919, a compromise Treaty of Trieste was reached between the occupiers and the Italian, Serbian and Austrian governments, creating the Free State of Istria, an independent country under the notional tripartite sovereignty of Italy, Serbia and Austria.

    Although the solution to the Istrian Crisis was hardly a disaster for Italy (they had avoided war with Britain (the threat of which was very real in August) and gained at least a potential satellite), it was perceived at home as a complete humiliation. Governments headed by Vittorio Orlando and Giovanni Giolitti failed to get a grip of Italy’s recurrent crises and when, in January 1920, Diaz marched his army on Rome, the public flocked to his side and the dictatorial government he set up had enormous popular support. However, Diaz proved to be a somewhat naive political operator and he failed to get to grips with the numerous structural problems built into the Italian state since the 1860s. For example, an attempt to abolish elected local governments and replace them with appointed military governors ran aground on the rocks of regional cronyism and was abandoned without being implemented. Frustrated by his lack of progress and general political infighting (even within the ranks of the army), Diaz resigned in 1924 and went into retirement.

    Giolitti returned to government after Diaz’s retirement but he proved unable to produce meaningful reform. In September 1925, amidst a background of repeated general strikes and communist and anarchist agitation, Gabriele D’Annunzio lead a coalition of his National Fascist Party and demobilised members of the army (about 3,000 men in total) on a march on Rome, demanding to be appointed President of the Council. Victor Emmanuel asked Diaz to return to government once more but, when Diaz refused the call, capitulated to D’Annunzio’s demands on the condition that Giolitti and members of the Liberal Union be retained in cabinet. D’Annunzio promised a revolution in Italian government but this ran aground on the same problems that had derailed previous reform attempts, something not helped by his quixotic and whimsical personality. A new constitution promulgated in 1926 went some way towards establishing a corporatist state, pacifying (for the time being) the syndicalist and revolutionary trades unionist movement. However, underlying corruption and conflict persisted, as did the hostility of conservative forces. Despite all of this, D’Annunzio remained a personally popular figure and stayed in power for over seven years. .

    The Italian manufacturing sector was badly hit by the Great Depression. In order to prevent strategically vital industries like Fiat from disappearing overnight, the government pressured the banking industry into organising an enormous bailout, which provided some relief. But, when it emerged that the assets used to fund the bailout were largely worthless, this precipitated the spread of the crisis to the heart of the Italian banking system. D’Annunzio was forced out in December 1932 as a result. Guido Jung, a non-partisan but fascist-sympathising banker and former soldier, was appointed in his stead to head a government tasked with solving the dual crises of industry and banking. Jung’s government set up the Industrial Reconstruction Institute (“IRI”) in January 1933, which effectively brought the entirety of the Italian banking sector into government hands. In elections of September 1933, however, Jung’s coalition lost its majority and Costanzo Ciano became President at the head of a Fascist-Liberal Union coalition. Ciano’s government lasted eight months without accomplishing much (although it did undertake a number of naval reforms and modernisations, Ciano’s area of special interest) before losing power in elections in May 1934.

    In these elections, leftist parties of a number of stripes achieved a majority. Victor Emmanuel interpreted this as a vote of no confidence in the monarchy and appointed the republican Giacomo Matteotti as head of government before abdicating the following day and going off to exile. Why he did this is a bit obscure, given that it is not clear that republicanism or anti-monarchism was all that big a driver of support for leftist parties: in the circumstances it is likely that he, a shy and diffident man, was simply sick of government affairs. This move immediately created the conditions for another crisis. Although Matteotti attempted to be a conciliatory figure, his socialist-communist-anarchist coalition was immediately boycotted by elites across the country, who turned to the only institution that retained their confidence: the military.

    Six weeks after Matteotti became head of government, Rodolfo Graziani (the Governor General of Libya, responsible for a truly brutal repression of rebels in 1930-34) announced his opposition to the government. In a well organised coup (suggesting that the military, or at least Graziani, had been contemplating this for some time) the army and navy seized control of Italy’s main urban centres, ports and transport links. The government was caught completely unprepared and Matteotti was captured and murdered. Over the course of the rest of 1934, Graziani’s regime reconstituted Italy as the corporatist and dictatorial ‘Italian Social Republic’ with himself as ‘Duce’. This was accompanied by the banning of all parties other than the National Fascist Party (which was effectively merged with the army) and a series of extraordinary repressions that are estimated to have killed 50,000-130,000 people over the next three years.

    *Two separate versions of the secret London Agreement have since been produced, one promising effectively all of Dalmatia and the other Italian-speaking areas of Austria-Hungary, the other promising more limited gains similar to what she was eventually awarded in Paris: in all likelihood the duplicitous underpinnings of negotiations meant that both agreements were probably in operation.

    Italian Presidents of the Council of Ministers
    1. Vittorio Orlando; Liberal Union; October 1917 - June 1919
    2. Giovanni Giolitti; Liberal Union; June 1919 - January 1920
    3. Armando Diaz; non-partisan military; January 1920 - April 1924
    4. Giovanni Giolitti; Liberal Union; April 1924 - September 1925
    5. Gabriele D’Annunzio; National Fascist Party; September 1925 - December 1932
    6. Guido Jung; non-partisan; December 1932 - September 1933
    7. Costanzo Ciano; Liberal Union; September 1933 - May 1934
    8. Giacomo Matteotti; Unitary Socialist Party; May - June 1934 [Republic declared in May 1934]
    9. Rudolfo Graziani; non-partisan military/National Fascist Party; June 1934 - present
     
    Last edited: Mar 20, 2019
    Wolfman217, Cool-Eh, Adamant and 14 others like this.
  16. EnvarKadri Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2018
    Ok, but I still dont understand why the italians left the war so early with so little gains (did they actually gained anything? They didn't even take Trieste). They entered the war really late against a losing Central Powers but with barely any losses they decided practically a white peace? Also Greece in this timeline has a lot more territory than in otl, including many albanian and bulgarians minorities in the north and islands that are of interest for Italian imperialist ans smyrna in the turkish side of the egean. Its weird how these doesnt result in a Italian bulgarian and turkish alliance to "solve" their common interest on Greece. Italy needs that sort of victory, Bulgaria won but there is a lot of ethnic bulgarian outside of it and Serbia and Greece are war weary. The Turks need to win something, and they need space for their millions of refugees, and Smyrna is difficult to defend from the other side of the egean, specially if Italy and Bulgaria do something. Why are the italians acting like this? Is the Royal Navy defending EVERYTHING in the mediterrean and the balkans? I can understand Constantinople staying out of trouble thanks to the royal navy, but why are the italians acting somehow like they were even weaker then otl dispate they amazing conditions they enter the Great War? Why are they not taking advantage of how fresh they are dispate being surrounded by small really war weary states?
     
  17. Nyvis Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2013
    Ouch, this is a dire blow for the left. They were led by the moderate side and still got the coup treatment.

    What happens to prominent communists like Bordiga and Gramsci? Is it prison time for them like OTL, just later? It would be interesting to see their influence develop with them being free longer. I imagine Bordiga is railing against a coalition including non-revolutionary parties (and may thus escape by not being associated with the couped government) while Gramsci is more pragmatic about an anti-authoritarian coalition and may be in the thick of things and die in prison like OTL.
     
    Salvador79 likes this.
  18. Kammada Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2007
    Why? Trentino is a completely different region lying the opposite side from the Littoral.
     
  19. Rattigan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2012
    Location:
    The People's Republic of Brooklyn
    Is it? Shit I misunderstood that and thought it was just the Italian name for the city. Will change.
     
  20. pjmidd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2015
    Trieste is one of those places that has not changed name since at least 200BC. Only people who might call it a different name are the Slovenes. Trentino is an inland region next to South Tyrol so includes part of the Alps.
     
    Adamant and Rattigan like this.
Loading...