Which decisions were politically unfeasible at the time but would have been excellent to do in hindsight?

[Evil Crusader]

WW1 offers so many samples it's not even fun.

The Austrians had to move in a certain way, that made War more likely if bungled, because of political restriction from their Hungarian colleagues (who'd end up paying as much as them, arguably even more).
Then it started; and after the initial momentum, it floundered and stopped.
The Ottomans quickly found it politically unfeasible to stay out of the growing conflict, and it proved their eventual undoing.
Then 1915 came - and I'll bundle it together, Europeans who joined before 1918 (Italy, Bulgaria, Romania, Greece) did so because neutrality became politically unfeasible but paid a steep cost that in hindsight would be better avoided.
Italy shifted away from the CP camp because it was politically unfeasible for A-H to give her enough to keep her a friendly neutral, and they bungled into the war because it was political apocalypse for neutral Giolitti to undo at the last minute the Pact of London.
Then came 1916, and the various attempts at peace all failed because everybody found it politically unfeasible to accept a non-punitive peace of some sort.
So they moved into 1917 and the February Revolution happened; but it was politically impossible for Kerensky to just give up on the fight, and he surely paid the price for that. Meanwhile, both Italy and France kept attacking, despite the clear costs of doing so, because it was what their government and populaces kept expecting of them.
1918 saw less of this, because it was when a side started clearly winning after all; but then came the related peace talks, another nice round of politically motivated disasters with far reaching consequences.
The mishandling of Germany contributed to disasters to come; Italy's bungled approach also had large negative consequences; the United States founded an organisation they didn't join, something that, too, would come to have profound effects; Japan was denied their racial equality proposal because of political pressure in the UK and USA, and started shifting away; Greece could not politically survive a limited victory against the Turks and ended up losing all Anatolian claims; and in general, the Europeans ended up in a weaker position that fully realized itself after WW2.

 

[dean6295]

Which decisions were politically unfeasible at the time but would have been excellent to do in hindsight? I can think of:

-Having Russia offer to return Kars and Ardahan Oblasts (other than Adjara/the Batumi area) to the Ottoman Empire in 1914 in exchange for Ottoman neutrality during WWI. Politically unfeasible but would have prevented the Armenian Genocide, would have significantly strengthened Russia's overall position in WWI, and would not have cost Russia anything relative to real life since Russia ultimately ended up losing these territories anyway in the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk.

-Having Poland agree to allow Soviet troops to enter its territory in the event of a Nazi invasion in 1939. Politically unfeasible and Yes, there was a risk that Soviet troops, once in Poland, would not be willing to leave for a long time, but in real life, Poland ended up getting Communism shoved down its throat anyway, but also had to suffer millions of World War II deaths beforehand, including the mass murder of three million Polish Jews in the Holocaust. Here, at least, this part can be avoided or at least massively reduced.

IDK - tolerance and accommodation between Catholics and protestants in the 15th and 16th Centuries?

 

[Gar48]

They shoud have shot the fascists during their march on Rome. Sure, the political instability would have remained (or even got worse), but at least Italy could have been saved from the dictatorship.

 

[Pelranius]

France gives full franchise to all Algerians (the sooner the better).

 

[Ed of the Pueblos Libres]

France gives full franchise to all Algerians (the sooner the better).

....
"Here we drown the Algerians"

In hindsight, I think Algeria independence is better.

 

[Disraeli's Ghost]

I don't know what replacement was under consideration at the time, but it's hard to come up with a less democratic system than the current one, where literally none of the Lords is answerable or accountable to anyone for their voting choices.

That has never been the purpose of the Lords, and the presupposition that all political power has to be democratically accountable is fundamentally at odds with the British constitution. The Lords, like most ancient institutions, creaked and groaned, and had no inherent rationality to it (like the British constitution), but it worked well enough before Blair's reforms. Like everything Bliar did, taking a sledgehammer to the constitution made it far worse. Now we have an upper house packed with party stooge's instead of hereditary's. The only thing that could conceivably make it worse was a Blairite reform which went further and made it fully elected.

 

[JennyB]

Ulster is cool with Home Rule

 

[NAF]

I wouldn't call it outright unfeasible, but from an American perspective, I think we would've been better off had we told France to shove it and made Ho Chi Minh's Vietnam a tight-knit ally instead of an enemy.

The US gets a staunch ally in Southeast Asia and a bulwark against Communist China, not to mention the takeaway lesson that the Cold War could be fought by winning the hearts and minds of left-leaning states before the Soviets could get their grubby paws on them. In such a scenario I'd expect US international reputation to be significantly better as they get to portray themselves as anti-imperialist and a champion of colonized peoples at the same time the USSR is rolling tanks into Czechoslovakia and Hungary. Expect Soviet whataboutism tactics to be less effective in this timeline.

 

[Ukrainian Victory]

France gives full franchise to all Algerians (the sooner the better).

French/European nationalists probably aren't going to like that very much once they'll realize just how many Muslims this will cause France to have by now. Instead of 6 million, we'll be talking around 46 million!

Much better is just to give Algeria an independence referendum in 1954 instead of waging a brutal eight-year war against them. It might be easier for the Algerians to allow the pieds-noirs to permanently stay in Algeria in this TL similar to South African whites in post-apartheid South Africa since there would be eight years of prior bloodshed in Algeria.

Also a good thing for Algeria would have been for France to govern it similar to Tunisia or Morocco rather than to view and treat it as an official part of France. Tunisia and Morocco suffered much less from French colonialism, to my knowledge. One Moroccan guy on Reddit told me that French colonialism was actually beneficial for Morocco in terms of economic and infrastructure development. But French colonialism in Algeria was full of oppression and later brutal warfare, torture, executions, et cetera.

 

[Ukrainian Victory]

....
"Here we drown the Algerians"

In hindsight, I think Algeria independence is better.

Yeah, too many people would have wanted France to remain European in order for @Pelranius's proposal to be possible. Algeria should have been given an independence referendum in 1954 rather than having eight years of war and only then an independence referendum, though. And France should have never annexed northern Algeria to begin with but instead made it a protectorate like Tunisia and Morocco.

 

[CaptainCalvert]

That has never been the purpose of the Lords, and the presupposition that all political power has to be democratically accountable is fundamentally at odds with the British constitution. The Lords, like most ancient institutions, creaked and groaned, and had no inherent rationality to it (like the British constitution), but it worked well enough before Blair's reforms. Like everything Bliar did, taking a sledgehammer to the constitution made it far worse. Now we have an upper house packed with party stooge's instead of hereditary's. The only thing that could conceivably make it worse was a Blairite reform which went further and made it fully elected.

I sometimes worry about the kind of people who'd end up elected (or appointed) to the replacement for the Lords but I'm not convinced that relying only on hereditary peers is a better alternative, although it's an interesting way to reduce or remove political patronage.

 

[QTXAdsy]

Not sure if this might count but a creation of a UK football team for the 1950 World Cup would have left the Union in a much more firmer place yet really hampers any independence activities.

Hard to imagine this but that time when the Scottish Football Association in their own hubris decided not to, despite having already qualified, go to the world cup in Brazil that year due to losing to England who were going regardless. Both captains for England and Scotland were in close contact with each other pleading with the SFA to let the Scotland team go to Brazil with England. Its not hard to imagine that a little more talk between the players would have likely led for many Scottish (and perhaps Welsh and Irish players) throw their lot in with the English to head out to Brazil as a UK team.

Not going to go into topic fully but 1950 is pretty much the latest date for a UK team to happen and while it might have looked unfeasible for the Home Nations, long term providing a UK team has great success would lead for a more united British identity in the decades that follow in which independence movements in Scotland and Wales are reduced to nothing more than fringe movements while the troubles in Northern Ireland are more muted here.

Really odd to try out this TL sooner than later.

 

[Ed of the Pueblos Libres]

Not sure if this might count but a creation of a UK football team for the 1950 World Cup would have left the Union in a much more firmer place yet really hampers any independence activities.

Hard to imagine this but that time when the Scottish Football Association in their own hubris decided not to, despite having already qualified, go to the world cup in Brazil that year due to losing to England who were going regardless. Both captains for England and Scotland were in close contact with each other pleading with the SFA to let the Scotland team go to Brazil with England. Its not hard to imagine that a little more talk between the players would have likely led for many Scottish (and perhaps Welsh and Irish players) throw their lot in with the English to head out to Brazil as a UK team.

Not going to go into topic fully but 1950 is pretty much the latest date for a UK team to happen and while it might have looked unfeasible for the Home Nations, long term providing a UK team has great success would lead for a more united British identity in the decades that follow in which independence movements in Scotland and Wales are reduced to nothing more than fringe movements while the troubles in Northern Ireland are more muted here.

Really odd to try out this TL sooner than later.

1950, what a great year for Uruguayan football.
🇺🇾🇺🇾🇺🇾

 

[QTXAdsy]

1950, what a great year for Uruguayan football.
🇺🇾🇺🇾🇺🇾

Yeah, even a UK team likely still flops like England IOTL which was down to bad preparation and underestimate opponents (E.G USA) which ironically a failure out there with the best of British might actually make much of the British population fear that things might have been worse had they gone separately. After that a UK team would do pretty well, 1966 is won for sure (a team with Best, Chalton and Law up front is pretty much a shoo-in for victory) and maybe a few more cups along the decades which would have much butterflies on British society for sure in which you might have more identifying as British rather than English/Scottish/Welsh/Northern Irish etc.

Amazing how football can play a part in society.

 

[Ed of the Pueblos Libres]

Yeah, even a UK team likely still flops like England IOTL which was down to bad preparation and underestimate opponents (E.G USA) which ironically a failure out there with the best of British might actually make much of the British population fear that things might have been worse had they gone separately. After that a UK team would do pretty well, 1966 is won for sure (a team with Best, Chalton and Law up front is pretty much a shoo-in for victory) and maybe a few more cups along the decades which would have much butterflies on British society for sure in which you might have more identifying as British rather than English/Scottish/Welsh/Northern Irish etc.

Amazing how football can play a part in society.

Failure in 1966 causes the dissolution of the UK - new favorite British PoD.

Truly it is.

 

[Ed of the Pueblos Libres]

"Austro-Italian relations deteriorated over a football match after Austria defeated Italy 3–0 in Central European International Cup play. Italians complained that a sideways Hungarian flag was used to represent Italy and that the Austrian band played the wrong Italian song. Italian newspapers also accused the Austrians of unfair play and called for a refusal to float the country any new loans."
*Just read this lol

 

[Pesterfield]

The racial equality clause goes into the treaty of Versailles.
The more racist countries could even pass it off as a meaningless gesture without actually doing anything.

But at the very least it will give Japan a little more respect and might lay groundwork for future progress.

 

[David T]

Which decisions were politically unfeasible at the time but would have been excellent to do in hindsight?

Obviously, to abolish slavery in the US before the ACW. Unfortunately, this was never politically feasible on a *national* scale (as opposed to having it done in northern states with relatively small Black populations and *maybe* through state action in some border states)--no, not even gradually and with compensation to the slaveholders.

 

[Ukrainian Victory]

Obviously, to abolish slavery in the US before the ACW. Unfortunately, this was never politically feasible on a *national* scale (as opposed to having it done in northern states with relatively small Black populations and *maybe* though state action in some border states)--no, not even gradually and with compensation to the slaveholders.

But this means no 14th and 15th Amendments to the US Constitution, no?

 

[David T]

But this means no 14th and 15th Amendments to the US Constitution, no?

"The Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments addressed matters of great importance to the post-Civil War South. But they were ahead of their time, and consequently ended up having little effect until their time came around, in the mid-Twentieth Century....

"Still, it might be said, when the Civil Rights Revolution of the 1950s did occur, it was important that the Fourteenth Amendment supplied a textual provision that the Supreme Court, and others, could point to as guaranteeing equality. But even this limited effect cannot be attributed to the Fourteenth Amendment without qualification. When the Supreme Court declared state-sponsored racial segregation unconstitutional, in Brown v. Board of Education and its sequelae, the Court also ruled, in Bolling v. Sharpe, that the Constitution barred the federal government from segregating the schools of the District of Columbia. Of course the Equal Protection Clause applies only to the states, not to the federal government. The Court in Bolling relied on the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, but this is a notoriously questionable use of the Fifth Amendment: among other things, the Fifth Amendment was adopted at a time when slavery was legal and protection of the slave trade was entrenched in the Constitution.59 The Supreme Court’s willingness to decide Bolling without a plausible textual basis suggests that events in the 1950s and 1960s would not have taken a dramatically different course if the victors of the Civil War had not added the language of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. It is difficult to believe that the Supreme Court would have ruled in favor of the school board in Brown v. Board of Eductation if the Fourteeth Amendment had not been adopted...It seems more likely that the Court (with help, of course, from the litigators who brought the series of cases leading up to Brown) would have identified some other text in the Constitution as the formal basis for their claims of equality...The possibilities include those suggested by the antebellum opponents of slavery and the Reconstruction Congress—such as the Guaranty Clause—and those suggested by some current accounts." https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu...icle=1097&context=public_law_and_legal_theory