Why would they have to abdicate? I don't think this is an inevitability at all. They could just as easily pull a Juan Carlos and liberalize ushering in a Parliamentary system with the monarchy as heads of state. They might be able to pull a Romania and do a self-coup deposing the regime to appear as heroes "saving the French" from tyrants.


Did Action Francaise have animosity for Bretons?
That's definitely a possibility. While I do think whichever French Integralist does get the top seat will push for a monarchy, I'm not sure which royal house.
I do believe Action Francaise was anti-Breton, yes.
Obviously not a Holocaust but pogroms are likely to be sure. I've already brought up the status of Zionism and Jews in the timeline.

Good point. Also because of historical butterflies, Breton nationalism might become popular and since the BNP (Breton National Party) is openly asking for the creation of an independent Brittany this might be a pain in the ass for Action Francaise and so they could try to suppress the local identity in an attempt to keep France united.
Pogroms and even some anti-Breton policies at the national level; absolutely. Unless the Bretons use the Second French Revolution as an excuse to break away...
Are they French or are they British? The latter of which sold France out at Dresden.
Neither. Bretons are their own ethnic group, I'm pretty sure. While the past 100+ years have seen them slowly integrated into France, the idea of a Breton regional identity was very strong in the 1910s- and even today the Breton language is still a thing.
Bretons are a Celtic ethnic group from France that speak their own language and have a distinct culture separate from the French. Separatism and nationalism were fairly popular in the mid-20th century but due to the Breton National Party's collaboration with Nazi Germany, this led to the ideology becoming mostly taboo.
^^^
And there's no Nazi Germany here, so...
Well, by this point, didn't France actually have a pretty low jewish population? So there wouldn't be much chance for a Holocaust. Hell, most of the jewish people killed in the Holocaust (or at least a majority) were from Eastern European countries the Nazis took over rather than German jews (though plenty of German jews were killed too), IIRC, so France could be just as antisemetic as hitler and, assuming they don't take over Germany, would just have less jews to kill.
We won't see a Holocaust analogue ITTL. Pogroms maybe, but no outright genocide.
OTL's France had a Jewish population in the hundreds of thousands and there were outbursts of anti-Semitism every now and then (see the Dreyfus Affair). While I doubt it will reach Holocaust levels of genocide that doesn't mean there won't be violent perseuction.
Violent persecution? You bet. Jews fleeing for German Morocco or Italy? Definitely. But no Holocaust.
Oh, I agree, violent persecution would be a thing, but not holocaust levels was my point.

But I thought the French Jewish population was more in the tens of thousands at this point, for some reason.
See above.
There'll be bubbles in the 20s; the Florida land boom was hardly the only one. And in general I'd expect a crash to come sooner than the late 1930s simply on the pattern of US business cycles. They suffered two IOTL in rapid succession after World War One in transitioning to a peacetime economy, and World War I starting actually ended an ongoing recession in 1914.

Honestly, without the boom of the Roaring 20s I'd expect one of either the 1923/24 or 1926/27 recessions to bite much harder than they did IOTL. The scary part: the 1926/27 recession was caused by the Ford Motor Company shutting down for six months to switch production from the Model T to the Model A. Gives you an idea of how fragile the economy really was in this time period.


Hughes was pro-business and anti-labor, generally. This is not a good thing for preventing the Great Depression, which necessitated sharp, decisive government intervention and considerable labor reforms. As for why...


Generally, the Great Depression is believed to have been caused by four major factors: a massive demand shock on both the consumer and investor sides; a contraction of the money supply after the collapse of a large chunk of the banking system; as a result deflation dramatically worsening the debt-riddled, over-leveraged condition of the economy; and general loss of confidence in the economy and financial institutions. Mainstream economists mostly differ in which of these factors was the primary factor, generally split by the Keynesians, who hold to the demand shock explanation, and the modern Miltonists, who hold to the monetary explanation.

As for heterodox explanations...
- The Austrian school held that the easy availability of credit, spurred by government policy promoting such, led to a credit bubble that burst. Frankly, given the debt ratio accrued during the Roaring 20s, the massive bank failures, and how badly deflation damaged the economy, they've probably got a point. Unfortunately, their proposed solution was to be even more contractionary, which IMO would've been a catastrophe.
- The Marxists held that this was an inevitable result of capitalism, naturally.

In general, I highly recommend reading the Wikipedia article on the causes of the Great Depression. There's more information there than I can go over here. I especially recommend looking at the section on productivity shock, that was a concern even contemporary economists and businessmen were trying to address before the Depression.
I see. Thanks for all that. Hey- d'you reckon TTL's Spanish Flu (whatever it's called here) might spark panic in the States and cause the greatest economic crisis in national history? Can't say we've ever seen anything remotely like that before, eh? :openedeyewink:
Hughes won't be around in the late '20s (he may not even win in 1920, I'm not sure). But if we have a Hooveresque pro-business candidate, that will likely make things worse. If on the other hand, we have someone more like FDR at the helm when things go downhill, that could mitigate the damage done.

I see no reason why those four things should be butterflied totally- the American economy is structurally the same beast regardless of who wins the Great War.
As to the Danubians, er sorry, the Austrians, well, I see their point. Sadly for the US, though, I don't see how a Central Powers victory would affect the debt ratio all that much, and so the Americans are going to fall into the same trap here.

The Roaring Twenties will roar less and the Depression may not be as bad, but it seems like something like this was inevitable.
Thanks for your feedback and for that link!

Some of those men might be able to prevent a Great Depression level event in this timeline due to the altered circumstances of the 1920s.
Well, fingers crossed!
Dumb question: is there any chance of the republicans accepting a separate/higher legislature for the royals, like the House of Lords?
Not dumb at all! I think it makes a good deal of sense, personally, and some of the dispossessed princes (especially the boy Azam Jah) have had their power seriously weakened, so it's not at all implausible.
What’s happening in Egypt at the moment? IOTL there was an Egyptian anti-British rebellion around this time. ITTL, with the British defeated and the Ottomans victorious in the Great War, there is an even greater impetus for an anti-British uprising in Egypt.
The Egyptian rebellion to which you refer took place in 1919... we'll get there when we reach 1919. I have plans for the land of the Nile, don't worry...
The South Africa Act gave South Africa the right to annex Lesotho and Swaziland.
Pfft, shows how much I know! Thanks for catching that.
Hopefully though, you see my point- when Britain focuses on clearing up one mess, two other things choose that exact moment to go to pot.

Thanks for commenting, everybody!
 
I see. Thanks for all that. Hey- d'you reckon TTL's Spanish Flu (whatever it's called here) might spark panic in the States and cause the greatest economic crisis in national history? Can't say we've ever seen anything remotely like that before, eh? :openedeyewink:
Considering some of the complaints in the newspaper from 1918 complaining about the exact same goddamn behaviors we're seeing right now? It's a definite possibility.
 
While there might be no holocaust, i am somewhat hoping for some kind of event that makes people realize the sheer madness that hating another group that is not yours can lead to, leading to nations to think inwardly about there own behavior in recent years. Ok, the suffering and death in such an event is definitely not what i'm hoping for, but you get the idea?
 
While there might be no holocaust, i am somewhat hoping for some kind of event that makes people realize the sheer madness that hating another group that is not yours can lead to, leading to nations to think inwardly about there own behavior in recent years. Ok, the suffering and death in such an event is definitely not what i'm hoping for, but you get the idea?
Didn't we get that during the Hungarian revolt? The homogenization policies in Transylvania were pretty abhorrent.
 
I think the holocaust did a lot to - for a long time, less so recently - banish antisemitism to the far corners of the political spectrum. Without an equivalent... I'm not sure we'll get that same response so quickly.
 
For want of a more proportionate analogy, almost three thousand people had to die in a single day for authorities to ban knives on airplanes. Antisemitism probably isn't going anywhere unless a greater evil scares people straight.
 
Sometimes I start thinking that maybe the British don't have it so bad, but then I remember THIS:
Governor-General Isaacs was sworn into his new post forty-five minutes after doctors pronounced Lloyd dead. His first move was to declare a policy of hostage-taking, infamously saying that “for every one of our men they kill, we’ll put twenty up against a wall- and we’ll give ‘em a bit of shepherd’s pie first!”
How well is that going to work, when they randomly grab from the street and murder a member of some Indian soldier's family?

And when that happens a hundred times? A thousand times?

"An eye for an eye, and the world goes blind... Unless the one-eyed Indian manages to kill first the British murderous bastard!"

If the independentists play their cards right, they can paint the whole situation as a fight between civilization and barbarism. Indian civilization against British barbarism.

Add in some propaganda and... "They are using your families for the PIES!"
 
Considering some of the complaints in the newspaper from 1918 complaining about the exact same goddamn behaviors we're seeing right now? It's a definite possibility.
"It's INTOLERABLE OPPRESSION for Charles Evans Hughes to tell me to cough into my sleeve!"
:)
While there might be no holocaust, i am somewhat hoping for some kind of event that makes people realize the sheer madness that hating another group that is not yours can lead to, leading to nations to think inwardly about there own behavior in recent years. Ok, the suffering and death in such an event is definitely not what i'm hoping for, but you get the idea?
I absolutely get the idea. Unfortunately, one side effect of no Holocaust means in all probability anti-Semitism will be more mainstream in TTL.
Didn't we get that during the Hungarian revolt? The homogenization policies in Transylvania were pretty abhorrent.
Yes, but they were just the tip of the iceberg- they could have been so much worse.
I think the holocaust did a lot to - for a long time, less so recently - banish antisemitism to the far corners of the political spectrum. Without an equivalent... I'm not sure we'll get that same response so quickly.
I'm afraid you're likely right. We might see more "George Soros"-style conspiracy theories about wealthy Jewish bankers running the world... the ADL and similar organisations will have their work cut out. On the plus side, no Nazis means no neo-Nazis, so hopefully this world will be free of Richard Spencer analogues...
For want of a more proportionate analogy, almost three thousand people had to die in a single day for authorities to ban knives on airplanes. Antisemitism probably isn't going anywhere unless a greater evil scares people straight.
No, I suppose not... but even then it's still a thing in our world. And that's a good analogy.
Sometimes I start thinking that maybe the British don't have it so bad, but then I remember THIS:

How well is that going to work, when they randomly grab from the street and murder a member of some Indian soldier's family?

And when that happens a hundred times? A thousand times?

"An eye for an eye, and the world goes blind... Unless the one-eyed Indian manages to kill first the British murderous bastard!"

If the independentists play their cards right, they can paint the whole situation as a fight between civilization and barbarism. Indian civilization against British barbarism.

Add in some propaganda and... "They are using your families for the PIES!"
Oh yes. The British are shooting themselves in the foot big time. India will be won over, but it will be won over with military force- the people will never be happy with British rule again.
 

Rivercat893

Banned
What exactly will it take for that stupid conspiracy to be largely discredited and go the way of Area 51 aliens?
It might even get a bit worse if Russia still goes communist like OTL. Speaking of communism, even though a few nations might go down a radical path it won't be that widespread due to the Central Powers victory in TTL's World War I.
 
What exactly will it take for that stupid conspiracy to be largely discredited and go the way of Area 51 aliens?
Nothing a POD of 1915 could touch, that's for sure.
It might even get a bit worse if Russia still goes communist like OTL. Speaking of communism, even though a few nations might go down a radical path it won't be that widespread due to the Central Powers victory in TTL's World War I.
The far-left will have a very different form in this TL- one thing I'd like to write in would be to have syndicalism survive and actively compete with communism for decades. That might be fun.
 

Rivercat893

Banned
By the way Kaiser Wilhelm, the Breton Nationalist Party had existed a few years before World War I and they dried up when the conflict began. OTL, there were a few parties that followed the same ideology as the group such as the Autonomist Party and the Breton National Party. Because France of the Place in the Sun universe faced a communist revolution, I think nationalistic Bretons would seek to take advantage of the situation by attempting to establish a free Brittany even if it's unsuccessful.
 
By the way Kaiser Wilhelm, the Breton Nationalist Party had existed a few years before World War I and they dried up when the conflict began. OTL, there were a few parties that followed the same ideology as the group such as the Autonomist Party and the Breton National Party. Because France of the Place in the Sun universe faced a communist revolution, I think nationalistic Bretons would seek to take advantage of the situation by attempting to establish a free Brittany even if it's unsuccessful.
Absolutely! Breton nationalism will be much more of a thing in this universe than our own.
 
I dunno I feel like Breton Nationalism is a pretty fringe movement considering how well Brittany was integrated into France. I don’t think a lot of Bretons would really support it.

With Catalonia the tensions started in the 19th century after its special rights to home rule were stripped.
 

Rivercat893

Banned
I dunno I feel like Breton Nationalism is a pretty fringe movement considering how well Brittany was integrated into France. I don’t think a lot of Bretons would really support it.

With Catalonia the tensions started in the 19th century after its special rights to home rule were stripped.
Well to be fair. But there was a movement to revive the usage of Breton language and culture in the 19th and early 20th century. With France in disarray, nationalistic Bretons would want to try to create a "Free State of Brittany" (try being the key word here).
 
Top