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.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?
I do believe Action Francaise was anti-Breton, yes.
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...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.
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.Are they French or are they British? The latter of which sold France out at Dresden.
^^^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...
We won't see a Holocaust analogue ITTL. Pogroms maybe, but no outright genocide.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.
Violent persecution? You bet. Jews fleeing for German Morocco or Italy? Definitely. But no Holocaust.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.
See above.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.
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?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.
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!
Well, fingers crossed!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.
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.Dumb question: is there any chance of the republicans accepting a separate/higher legislature for the royals, like the House of Lords?
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...
Pfft, shows how much I know! Thanks for catching that.The South Africa Act gave South Africa the right to annex Lesotho and Swaziland.
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!