The Anglo-Saxon Social Model

So the USSR is OTL's PRC, and Petrograd was their Tiananmen Square. I think you either stated or implied earlier (certainly by having Alexei Kosygin as General Secretary from 1960-75) that the USSR underwent market reforms at some point. And at various points, we see that this liberalization did not extend to politics.

Come to think of it, we've never gotten a full update on the USSR outside their domination of their Eastern European puppets.

So the Soviet Union has been living under TTL's equivalent of the NEP since the 1920s, with a few minor variations. The political scene is slightly more liberal to the extent that different factions of the Communist Party are allowed to exist (provided they're discreet) and so you do occasionally see competitive elections in some seats. Following elections every five years a Party Conference confirms the Chairman of the Communist Party for another five years. That being said, the commanding heights of the economy are still dominated by state enterprises and held on a tight leash and I wouldn't be too overt about my opposition to the government of the day if I wanted to successfully get a seat in the Supreme Soviet.

One of the reasons why I haven't done a separate update on the Soviets is that their domestic politics has been a little dull since the 1960s: the state is broadly repressive and the people at the top are the same coterie comfortable in their positions. By the late 1980s and early '90s, however, this is leading to divisions, as countries like China and Brazil look like they might overtake the Soviets economically and the cost of holding the CIS down increasingly hard to bear. While it would be wrong to say that people like Gorbachev or Shevarnadze wanted to divest themselves of the empire in Europe, hardliners saw that as a concession that would make the country look weak. Now the Soviets are entering a more repressive, conservative, confrontational period and it remains to be seen what the result of that is.

I take your point about the Soviets therefore acting as a PRC equivalent but, as I was thinking about it, it probably resembles OTL's Putin's presidency but stretched out over decades: a few decades of soft repression partially soothed by a veneer of democracy and economic progress, followed by more hard-edged authoritarianism more recently when that begins to falter. It should be noted that TTL's Soviet Union is in a much better economic position than its OTL equivalent at this time because of the less confrontational geopolitical scene (on that note, TTL's US has a significantly smaller military).

I wonder what is Putin doing right now...

He worked his way up through the KGB and the Soviet-staffed civil service in the CIS (not always distinct services) before resigning to contest (and win) a seat in the Supreme Soviet in the 1990 elections. is still a pretty minor figure at this stage but it more or less thought of as having been supportive of the 1991 coup.

Just after organising a little job in Murmansk?

I don't know what you're implying. The weather is lovely there this time of year.
 

Well shit. Here goes a (slightly) more decent Soviet Union.

Also, did you retcon it, or did I miss something about the way the CIS functioned - I've assumed that it's just OTL Brezhnev doctrine imposed on the Soviet satellites lumped together, but it looks much worse, with TTL's Soviets acting not much better - except for the Holocaust and other genocides, of course - than OTL's Axis powers.
 
Well shit. Here goes a (slightly) more decent Soviet Union.

Also, did you retcon it, or did I miss something about the way the CIS functioned - I've assumed that it's just OTL Brezhnev doctrine imposed on the Soviet satellites lumped together, but it looks much worse, with TTL's Soviets acting not much better - except for the Holocaust and other genocides, of course - than OTL's Axis powers.

The idea I had in mind when thinking about the CIS government was actually the OTL Raj. So most areas are run by Soviet civil servants and bureaucrats but there are a few areas (i.e. the ones which remained loyal in 1969) which were allowed to have 'native' governments, albeit under close Soviet supervision. So I wouldn't really say they're acting like the OTL Nazis - albeit that from the point of view of the mouse all cats look the same... - but they're far more explicit about their imperial aspirations and control.
 
Why does your soviet union has arguments straight from the racist colonialist psyche? Social imperialism was a different beast from European colonialism and I think the parallels are a bit too stark and miss the point of it. For example the whole thing about the judges feel out of place. It's likely the protests would happen around economic domination instead.
 
Why does your soviet union has arguments straight from the racist colonialist psyche? Social imperialism was a different beast from European colonialism and I think the parallels are a bit too stark and miss the point of it. For example the whole thing about the judges feel out of place. It's likely the protests would happen around economic domination instead.

The Soviet-dominated judiciary and civil service is there to advise their European comrades on the correct road to socialism and ensure that the government isn't taken over by reactionary wreckers.

It should be noted that the protests began in the Soviet Union as a result of the change of government in August 1991, rather than in response to Soviet policy in the CIS. The August coup itself was indeed a reaction against the perceived liberalisation of Soviet rule (of which Gorbachev's CIS reforms were a key wedge issue), but the popular protests that resulted were concerned with domestic rather than imperial issues. During this time, the CIS was pretty quiet (itself a demonstration of the effectiveness of Soviet control), with there being only relatively minor disturbances which were dealt with without trouble.
 
The Soviet-dominated judiciary and civil service is there to advise their European comrades on the correct road to socialism and ensure that the government isn't taken over by reactionary wreckers.

Yeah but you made it all about "but the Russian women" which is I think out of place. Complaints about the civil service favouring soviets sound fair.

It should be noted that the protests began in the Soviet Union as a result of the change of government in August 1991, rather than in response to Soviet policy in the CIS. The August coup itself was indeed a reaction against the perceived liberalisation of Soviet rule (of which Gorbachev's CIS reforms were a key wedge issue), but the popular protests that resulted were concerned with domestic rather than imperial issues. During this time, the CIS was pretty quiet (itself a demonstration of the effectiveness of Soviet control), with there being only relatively minor disturbances which were dealt with without trouble.

That part makes sense.
 
French History (1965-1990)
The Road from Mont Pelerin: France in the Neoliberal Age
Raymond_Barre_1980_(cropped_2).jpg

Raymond Barre following the announcement of his retirement, September 1980


If the first two decades of the postwar era had seen French politics dominated by questions of civil rights and the constitutional future of the French Union, the subsequent quarter-century saw the focus move to economics. The upshot of Pompidou’s decision to attempt to fight Vietnamese separatists following the beginning of the Second Indochina War in 1963 was the splitting of the Union of Democrats (“UD”), with the anti-war faction moving to the Radicals and the pro-war faction joining the Republicans. Pierre Mendes-France won the presidential elections in 1965 and immediately went to Indochina, ordering the army to stand down and return to barracks.

Mendes-France de-escalated the war and offered Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia (but not Cochinchina) self-determination in 1966. A settler revolt in those territories (not so subtly cheered on by the Republicans) in 1967 failed, as did an attempted coup by disgruntled members of the French military in 1968. A referendum was held in France to approve Indochinese self-determination in January 1968, followed by the signing of the Saigon Accords in March 1969. A referendum in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia a month later saw an overwhelming vote to leave the FU. A subsequent civil war in those three countries was settled in 1974 by a Chinese invasion, which installed a quasi-democratic constitutional federal monarchy under the name of the United Kingdoms of Indochina. (Bringing to reality Ho Chi Minh’s biggest fear in 1945.)

Mendes-France lost the 1970 presidential election to the Republican candidate Jean Sassi, a former general who was associated with the failed putsch of ‘68. At the same time, the Republicans kept their iron grip on the National Assembly, with electoral victories in 1968 and 1972. Despite the bellicose rhetoric from some of Sassi’s more excitable supporters and allies, upon assuming the presidency he did not attempt anything as severe as a reconquest of Indochina (although plans were drawn up) and instead focused on cementing the current power structures in the FU. To this end, strongmen in the African member states - such as Felix Houphouet-Boigny in the Ivory Coast, Gnassingbe Eyadema in Togoland and Mamadou Dia in Senegal - were propped up with French development money and, where needed, military aid. Although France’s former African colonies would all experience substantial economic development, problems of endemic corruption, inequality and autocracy remained, as did the fundamentally extractive and developing nature of their economies.

With the collapse of the UD in 1965, French politics once again reorientated itself. The Republicans kept their hardline views about the maintenance of the social structure of the FU but allied that to an increased interest in laissez faire economics. Over the 1970s, this ideology increasingly came to be known as ‘neoliberalism’ and was intellectually derived from the activities of the Mont Pelerin Society, founded by Friedrich Hayek, Ludwig von Mises and others in 1947. In response, the Radical Party attempted to become a big tent organisation but this foundered on its own internal contradictions. In 1970 the Radicals would split once more: left wing elements combined with the SFIO and other assorted, smaller, parties to form the Socialist Party, while the remaining more centrist individuals (rather ironically) retained the ‘Radical’ name.

In the legislative elections of 1964, the Republicans once again gained a majority, this time under Edmond Jouhaud. Jouhaud was a respected former general and pied-noir, a fairly standard CV for a senior Republican. But with the role of Premier becoming increasingly analogous to that of finance minister (his main duty being to negotiate and pass the annual state budget), he quit the role in 1968 and handed over to the comparatively unknown economist Raymond Barre. Although he would occasionally have to cohabit with non-Republican presidents (the Radical Mendes-France until 1970 and the Socialist Francois Mitterrand from 1975 to 1980), Barre dominated the French government until the Socialists regained control of the Legislature in 1980.

Barre's economic policy was influenced by monetarist thinking, turning France into the so-called ‘cockpit of neoliberalism.’ The otherwise-obscure American economist Milton Friedman was brought in as an economic advisor and from 1974 to 1984 would serve as the first (and so far only) non-French Governor of the Banque de France. Starting with the budget of 1966, direct taxes on income were lowered and indirect taxes raised, aiming to slow the growth of the money supply and cut inflation. Cash limits were introduced on public spending and real terms cuts were introduced to education and housing. (These policies would later be copied by the Thatcher ministry in the UK.) Cuts to higher education led to an attempt by the Sorbonne to revoke Barre's degree there. By 1968, the Republicans won re-election on the back of strong economic growth, even as unemployment remained high.

Following Jean Sassi’s victory in the presidential election of 1970, the party embarked on the privatisation of the previously state-run utilities, with gas, water and electricity all being privatised by 1975. In addition, the government passed a great deal of anti-trades union reforms and privatised struggling heavy industries such as mining. The Socialist Francois Mitterrand won the 1975 presidential election, returning to a policy of cohabitation. However, this period proved to be productive from Barre's point of view, with a series of 1977 reforms known colloquially as the ‘Big Bang’ removing many restrictions on the French finance industries and turning Paris into a major financial hub.

1980 was a year in which there were both presidential and legislative elections and the results were a dramatic split decision, with the Republican Michel Joubert winning the presidency but the Socialists, under Jacques Delors, eking out a narrow legislative victory in coalition with the Radicals. However, as Barre would later say, Delors’ premiership in many ways epitomised the success of his legislative agenda. Under Delors and Presidents Michel Jobert (1980-85) and Mitterrand again (1985-90), a number of progressive measures were enacted, including a minimum wage (albeit not at a level a great deal higher than the market at the time) and an expansion of social security benefits cut under Barre. However, the fundamentals of the neoliberal economic settlement were left untouched.

This inability of the political left to provide a coherent challenge to this political settlement had produced severe divides in the Socialists. The two presidencies of Francois Mitterrand were judged to have been a failure. Even though he had introduced a number of leftist politicians into his cabinet, the control over the budgetary process held by the Premier had stymied all but the most technocratic tinkering around the edges. With the Socialists looking divided, the Republicans regained control of the legislature in 1988 and the Republican candidate Edouard Balladur won the presidential elections in 1990.

Presidents of the Fourth Republic
  1. Charles de Gaulle; Union of Democrats; December 1945 - November 1946
  2. Georges Bonnet; Union of Democrats; November 1946 - December 1950
  3. Philippe Leclerc; Union of Democrats; December 1950 - December 1960
  4. Georges Pompidou; Union of Democrats; December 1960 - December 1965
  5. Pierre Mendes France; Radical; December 1965 - December 1970
  6. Jean Sassi; Republican; December 1970 - December 1975
  7. Francois Mitterrand; Socialist; December 1975 - December 1980
  8. Michel Jobert; Republican; December 1980 - December 1985
  9. Francois Mitterrand; Socialist; December 1985 - December 1990
  10. Edouard Balladur; Republican; December 1990 - present
Premiers of the Fourth Republic
  1. Charles de Gaulle; Union of Democrats; August 1944 - December 1945
  2. Robert Schuman; Union of Democrats; December 1945 - November 1948
  3. Pierre Mendes France; Radical; November 1948 - November 1952
  4. Robert Schuman; Union of Democrats; November 1952 - November 1956
  5. Raoul Salan; Union of Independent Republicans; November 1956 - April 1962
  6. Maurice Faure; Radical; April 1962 - November 1964
  7. Edmond Jouhaud; Republican; November 1964 - September 1968
  8. Raymond Barre; Republican; September 1968 - November 1980
  9. Jacques Delors; Socialist; November 1980 - November 1988
  10. Pascal Salin; Republican; November 1988 - present
 
Interesting how France is a mirror to OTL U.K. in term of economic policy. Will Paris be able to challenge The City in the future for the position of the financial center of Europe?

China's invasion of Indochina must make other Asian nations remember about China's role in TTL WWII (Or even the hegemony of the Middle Kingdom pre 19th century). This might have interesting effect in East and South East Asia in term of military and geopolitical development.
 
I wonder, too, what is the former WW allies' opinion of the militarily resurgent China and whether any of them thinks that it got off the hook too easily and that the German solution would have worked better.
 
Interesting how France is a mirror to OTL U.K. in term of economic policy. Will Paris be able to challenge The City in the future for the position of the financial center of Europe?

Neoliberalism with French characteristics. I still think the Republicans are more akin to the OTL contemporary GOP in the extremity of their positions on race and their attitudes towards their opponents rather than Thatcherism per se. They're certainly trying to challenge London by liberalising their financial services rules and so forth but we'll have to wait a few more years to see how that turns out for them.

China's invasion of Indochina must make other Asian nations remember about China's role in TTL WWII (Or even the hegemony of the Middle Kingdom pre 19th century). This might have interesting effect in East and South East Asia in term of military and geopolitical development.

I wonder, too, what is the former WW allies' opinion of the militarily resurgent China and whether any of them thinks that it got off the hook too easily and that the German solution would have worked better.

China hasn't been running a particularly large military since 1945 to be honest (not quite to the level of the OTL postwar Japanese army but not a million miles above that) and the 'invasion' of Indochina is really more of a UN-backed peacekeeping mission than a full-on conquest. But, yeah, there definitely are some people who are concerned about a resurgent China. At this stage, though, they're a bit like those people who were moaning about German industry in the OTL 1980s: they're relatively common and influential in their own way but they're not running the government in Washington, London or Petrograd. I'll be covering Chinese economic development in a future update.

The diplomatic competition between China and Japan post 1945 has been something that I've rather neglected. (I have a few ideas and might put them down in an update at some point later on, if people are interested.) The short story on Japanese politics is that it's been dominated by balance of payment problems which they've tried to solve through development of indigenous energy sources (notably tidal and wind) but with mixed success. The socialist movement is growing increasingly prominent in Japanese politics, with Tetsuzo Fuwa having served as prime minister since 1980 and won an unprecedented third term in 1988.
 
French Union in 1990
For no particular reason, these are the members of the French Union in 1990. This will necessitate some retcons because I'd previously said that the countries were the same OTL - I'll get to that in good time.
unknown-11.png
unknown-13.png
unknown-12.png
 
Last edited:
Any reason why Madagascar has absorbed the Comoros and Réunion?

Also, I assume the rest of the French colonial empire has been absorbed into France directly.
 
Any reason why Madagascar has absorbed the Comoros and Réunion?

Also, I assume the rest of the French colonial empire has been absorbed into France directly.

Yes, all the French possessions in the Caribbean and the Pacific are Overseas Departments.

Mostly just for administrative neatness. IIRC the Comoros was party of Madagascar for a time anyway.
 
Following Jean Sassi’s victory in the presidential election of 1970, the party embarked on the privatisation of the previously state-run utilities, with gas, water and electricity all being privatised by 1975. In addition, the government passed a great deal of anti-trades union reforms and privatised struggling heavy industries such as mining.

This is really underselling the militancy of trade unions in French politics. I could see this happening in 90, but not 70.

At least not without a massive rolling strike of the entire public sector.

Even today, Macron's neoliberalism had to face off with 6 month of on and off strikes and student protests, then a sudden grassroot protest movement... And the French left is a lot weaker than it would have been back then.

Unless someone put all the CGT against the wall and shot them, this is not happening without a colossal fight.

1980 was a year in which there were both presidential and legislative elections and the results were a dramatic split decision, with the Republican Michel Joubert winning the presidency but the Socialists, under Jacques Delors, eking out a narrow legislative victory in coalition with the Radicals. However, as Barre would later say, Delors’ premiership in many ways epitomised the success of his legislative agenda. Under Delors and Presidents Michel Jobert (1980-85) and Mitterrand again (1985-90), a number of progressive measures were enacted, including a minimum wage (albeit not at a level a great deal higher than the market at the time) and an expansion of social security benefits cut under Barre. However, the fundamentals of the neoliberal economic settlement were left untouched.

This though makes total sense and mirrors the changes in British Labour following Thatcher and the rise of New Labour / Blairism. Though France would probably already have a minimum wage, they would just raise it. The first French minimum wage law didn't need a leftist government to pass.

Yes, all the French possessions in the Caribbean and the Pacific are Overseas Departments.

Mostly just for administrative neatness. IIRC the Comoros was party of Madagascar for a time anyway.

Comoros, why not. Réunion? Nah. That's outremer France, not a colony.
 
This is really underselling the militancy of trade unions in French politics. I could see this happening in 90, but not 70.

At least not without a massive rolling strike of the entire public sector.

Even today, Macron's neoliberalism had to face off with 6 month of on and off strikes and student protests, then a sudden grassroot protest movement... And the French left is a lot weaker than it would have been back then.

Unless someone put all the CGT against the wall and shot them, this is not happening without a colossal fight.

I think this is kind of fair but I'd say a few things. Firstly, I think you underestimate how different TTL's political culture is from OTL: the early death of De Gaulle has made French politics really unrecognisable in ways that my bird's-eye updates on France maybe don't capture. Secondly, the French left by the 1970s is very divided, between the Radicals, the SFIO, the PCF, whatever few remaining left wing Gaullists there are and a few other odds and sods. Thirdly, Barre's programme wasn't without controversy (as I said, I think my French updates do sometimes miss this) and there were strikes which were broken by the use of the security forces and a compliant business and media environment only too happy to brand the unions 'wreckers' out to destroy France's national dignity. (Another parallel with OTL Thatcherism but in a more extreme and French-inflected form.) Of course, Barre remains controversial and there's a significant leftist dissident tradition in France by 1990, which is going to play out dramatically over the next two decades.

This though makes total sense and mirrors the changes in British Labour following Thatcher and the rise of New Labour / Blairism. Though France would probably already have a minimum wage, they would just raise it. The first French minimum wage law didn't need a leftist government to pass.

Fair enough, I could imagine Schuman or Mendes-France implementing one in the '50s.

Comoros, why not. Réunion? Nah. That's outremer France, not a colony.

Fair enough. I don't actually know much about Réunion so happy to stand corrected.
 
I think this is kind of fair but I'd say a few things. Firstly, I think you underestimate how different TTL's political culture is from OTL: the early death of De Gaulle has made French politics really unrecognisable in ways that my bird's-eye updates on France maybe don't capture. Secondly, the French left by the 1970s is very divided, between the Radicals, the SFIO, the PCF, whatever few remaining left wing Gaullists there are and a few other odds and sods. Thirdly, Barre's programme wasn't without controversy (as I said, I think my French updates do sometimes miss this) and there were strikes which were broken by the use of the security forces and a compliant business and media environment only too happy to brand the unions 'wreckers' out to destroy France's national dignity. (Another parallel with OTL Thatcherism but in a more extreme and French-inflected form.) Of course, Barre remains controversial and there's a significant leftist dissident tradition in France by 1990, which is going to play out dramatically over the next two decades.

This is fair when the parties are concerned. But French unions are notoriously independent of them and capable of acting autonomously. Having strikes and the government weathering them seem fair. Macron is doing just that in the modern day.

I don't see outright suppression of them getting accepted though. The right to strike is very much enshrined in the constitution. It's more likely they get undermined by setting up the private competition against them and media offensives plus economic pressure to get people back to work.
 
This is fair when the parties are concerned. But French unions are notoriously independent of them and capable of acting autonomously. Having strikes and the government weathering them seem fair. Macron is doing just that in the modern day.

I don't see outright suppression of them getting accepted though. The right to strike is very much enshrined in the constitution. It's more likely they get undermined by setting up the private competition against them and media offensives plus economic pressure to get people back to work.

Setting up competition to established unions is an interesting idea I'd not thought of. Considering how the French Republicans are a nexus of social conservatives and the business community I could definitely see that happening.
 
Setting up competition to established unions is an interesting idea I'd not thought of. Considering how the French Republicans are a nexus of social conservatives and the business community I could definitely see that happening.

Directly start giving room to the private sector rather than selling them the public companies full of unionized workers, then let those die, maybe?
 
Top