underused after 1900 pods

[lordroel]

Dec 12, 2019 16:06:42 GMT Zyobot said:

'No Banking Panic Of 1907'.

Never heard of this Banking Panic Of 1907 until you mentioned it Zyobot.

[EwellHolmes]

Dec 6, 2019 3:21:37 GMT Zyobot said:

‘John Kerry Wins In 2004. How Does The 2008 Election Look?’.

Republican Blowout, George Allen and J.C. Watts ticket I'd imagine. 

Dec 8, 2019 23:11:58 GMT Zyobot said:

'No Immigration Act of 1965'.

The White population of the U.S. would still be around 80%, I'd imagine.

Dec 11, 2019 4:00:54 GMT Zyobot said:

‘No Great Depression’.

Massive, massive effects. No construction of the modern welfare state in the U.S. for example and likely an earlier end to the Solid South. Without the banking collapses in Europe, no Nazism in Germany and so you likely get a Proto-EU formed by the Berlin-Paris axis. 

[stevep]

Dec 14, 2019 22:23:00 GMT EwellHolmes said:

Dec 11, 2019 4:00:54 GMT Zyobot said:

‘No Great Depression’.

Massive, massive effects. No construction of the modern welfare state in the U.S. for example and likely an earlier end to the Solid South. Without the banking collapses in Europe, no Nazism in Germany and so you likely get a Proto-EU formed by the Berlin-Paris axis. 

  Agree with most but while you probably avoid the Nazis you will still have a lot of German revanchment feeling and French [and others] fearing that.  About the only issue that might bring the two together like OTL would be a major move by Stalin's successor [whoever that is] to dominate Europe and assuming that is defeated it would need to be a limited defeat with a still continuing Soviet threat to really bring the two together I suspect.

  As you say the US would be markedly poorer socially and very vulnerable to the next serious downturn.  Although a lot would depend on how the Great Depression was avoided.

[lordroel]

Dec 15, 2019 11:16:02 GMT stevep said:

Dec 14, 2019 22:23:00 GMT EwellHolmes said:

Massive, massive effects. No construction of the modern welfare state in the U.S. for example and likely an earlier end to the Solid South. Without the banking collapses in Europe, no Nazism in Germany and so you likely get a Proto-EU formed by the Berlin-Paris axis. 

  Agree with most but while you probably avoid the Nazis you will still have a lot of German revanchment feeling and French [and others] fearing that.  About the only issue that might bring the two together like OTL would be a major move by Stalin's successor [whoever that is] to dominate Europe and assuming that is defeated it would need to be a limited defeat with a still continuing Soviet threat to really bring the two together I suspect.

  As you say the US would be markedly poorer socially and very vulnerable to the next serious downturn.  Although a lot would depend on how the Great Depression was avoided.

Would no Great Depression mean also no FDR as president.

[stevep]

Dec 15, 2019 11:35:06 GMT lordroel said:

Dec 15, 2019 11:16:02 GMT stevep said:

  Agree with most but while you probably avoid the Nazis you will still have a lot of German revanchment feeling and French [and others] fearing that.  About the only issue that might bring the two together like OTL would be a major move by Stalin's successor [whoever that is] to dominate Europe and assuming that is defeated it would need to be a limited defeat with a still continuing Soviet threat to really bring the two together I suspect.

  As you say the US would be markedly poorer socially and very vulnerable to the next serious downturn.  Although a lot would depend on how the Great Depression was avoided.

Would no Great Depression mean also no FDR as president.

  Very likely, although it would depend on the exact butterflies.  If no depression then the drive for serious economic reform is going to be markedly less, at least in the short term and any such move is going to be by fringe/extreme figures like Huey Long.  Roosevelt might still be a democratic candidate at some point but political necessity is likely to mean more conservative policies.  If elected he's unlikely to be the iconic figure of OTL.

[lordroel]

Dec 15, 2019 12:28:56 GMT stevep said:

Dec 15, 2019 11:35:06 GMT lordroel said:

Would no Great Depression mean also no FDR as president.

  Very likely, although it would depend on the exact butterflies.  If no depression then the drive for serious economic reform is going to be markedly less, at least in the short term and any such move is going to be by fringe/extreme figures like Huey Long.  Roosevelt might still be a democratic candidate at some point but political necessity is likely to mean more conservative policies.  If elected he's unlikely to be the iconic figure of OTL.

No Great Depression means no FDR as president which means No lend lease to the United Kingdom during the early years of World War Ii which result in a very different outcome of World War II.

[Zyobot]

'Hillary Clinton Wins In 2008 Election'.

[stevep]

Dec 15, 2019 12:32:14 GMT lordroel said:

Dec 15, 2019 12:28:56 GMT stevep said:

  Very likely, although it would depend on the exact butterflies.  If no depression then the drive for serious economic reform is going to be markedly less, at least in the short term and any such move is going to be by fringe/extreme figures like Huey Long.  Roosevelt might still be a democratic candidate at some point but political necessity is likely to mean more conservative policies.  If elected he's unlikely to be the iconic figure of OTL.

No Great Depression means no FDR as president which means No lend lease to the United Kingdom during the early years of World War Ii which result in a very different outcome of World War II.

  Ah but no great depression probably means no WWII, or at least as we know it.  Without the mass unemployment its unlikely that the Nazis will get anywhere near power.  Plus without the depression impacting on world trade the world is going to be massively different.

[EwellHolmes]

Dec 15, 2019 11:16:02 GMT stevep said:

Dec 14, 2019 22:23:00 GMT EwellHolmes said:

Massive, massive effects. No construction of the modern welfare state in the U.S. for example and likely an earlier end to the Solid South. Without the banking collapses in Europe, no Nazism in Germany and so you likely get a Proto-EU formed by the Berlin-Paris axis. 

  Agree with most but while you probably avoid the Nazis you will still have a lot of German revanchment feeling and French [and others] fearing that.  About the only issue that might bring the two together like OTL would be a major move by Stalin's successor [whoever that is] to dominate Europe and assuming that is defeated it would need to be a limited defeat with a still continuing Soviet threat to really bring the two together I suspect.

  As you say the US would be markedly poorer socially and very vulnerable to the next serious downturn.  Although a lot would depend on how the Great Depression was avoided.

Probably not, Germany and France were taking the steps for a Proto-EU until the Great Depression wrecked it. 

[lordroel]

Dec 15, 2019 23:14:45 GMT EwellHolmes said:

Dec 15, 2019 11:16:02 GMT stevep said:

  Agree with most but while you probably avoid the Nazis you will still have a lot of German revanchment feeling and French [and others] fearing that.  About the only issue that might bring the two together like OTL would be a major move by Stalin's successor [whoever that is] to dominate Europe and assuming that is defeated it would need to be a limited defeat with a still continuing Soviet threat to really bring the two together I suspect.

  As you say the US would be markedly poorer socially and very vulnerable to the next serious downturn.  Although a lot would depend on how the Great Depression was avoided.

Probably not, Germany and France were taking the steps for a Proto-EU until the Great Depression wrecked it. 

In the 1930s, Whit Hitler in power in Germany, that is something i think is hard to believe.

[stevep]

Dec 16, 2019 4:55:01 GMT lordroel said:

Dec 15, 2019 23:14:45 GMT EwellHolmes said:

Probably not, Germany and France were taking the steps for a Proto-EU until the Great Depression wrecked it. 

In the 1930s, Whit Hitler in power in Germany, that is something i think is hard to believe.

  I've never heard of this proto-EU although there were attempts at reducing tension which might have gone further if not for the depression boosting autocracy and extremism so much.  However the idea of a political union which intends to abolish the member states as suggested by the current EU and the suggestions of some of the EEC's founders I think would be a definite no go prior to WWII.  Its unlikely enough as it is now.

  The depression started in 1929 so without it and the serious problems it caused in Germany and elsewhere its pretty unlikely that Hitler and the Nazis would come anywhere near political power.   Hence he's not relevant to those pre-depression discussions epichistory mentioned.

[EwellHolmes]

Dec 16, 2019 4:55:01 GMT lordroel said:

Dec 15, 2019 23:14:45 GMT EwellHolmes said:

Probably not, Germany and France were taking the steps for a Proto-EU until the Great Depression wrecked it. 

In the 1930s, Whit Hitler in power in Germany, that is something i think is hard to believe.

Before the Depression hit, so before Hitler. 

[EwellHolmes]

Dec 16, 2019 15:29:55 GMT stevep said:

Dec 16, 2019 4:55:01 GMT lordroel said:

In the 1930s, Whit Hitler in power in Germany, that is something i think is hard to believe.

  I've never heard of this proto-EU although there were attempts at reducing tension which might have gone further if not for the depression boosting autocracy and extremism so much.  However the idea of a political union which intends to abolish the member states as suggested by the current EU and the suggestions of some of the EEC's founders I think would be a definite no go prior to WWII.  Its unlikely enough as it is now.

  The depression started in 1929 so without it and the serious problems it caused in Germany and elsewhere its pretty unlikely that Hitler and the Nazis would come anywhere near political power.   Hence he's not relevant to those pre-depression discussions epichistory mentioned.

The Wages of Destruction, by Adam Tooze covers this in its initial chapter:

On the one hand, the crisis of 1918-23 gave rise to an ultra-nationalism - in the form of the radical wing of the DNVP and Hitler's Nazi party - that was more apocalyptic in its intensity than anything prior to 1914. On the other hand, it also produced a truly novel departure in German foreign and economic policy. This alternative to nationalist militancy also aimed to achieve a revision of the onerous terms of the Treaty of Versailles. But it aimed to do so not by gambling on military force. Instead, Weimar's foreign policy prioritized the economy as the main field within which Germany could still exercise influence in the world. Above all, it sought security and leverage for Germany by developing financial connections with the United States and closer industrial integration with France. In certain key respects, this clearly anticipated the strategy pursued by West Germany after 1945. It was a policy that enjoyed the backing of all of the parties of the Weimar coalition - the Social Democrats, the left liberal DDP and the Catholic Centre party. But it was personified by Gustav Stresemann, leader of the national liberals, the DVP, and Germany's Foreign Minister between 1923 and 1929.....

.....Some have argued that the intensified discussions between Stresemann and the French Foreign Minister, Aristide Briand, in the summer and autumn of
1929 were motivated at least in part by a sense of disappointment with the United States. And in the last week of June 1929 Stresemann had spoken in the Reichstag of Europe becoming 'a colony of those who have been more fortunate than us'. The time had come in which 'French, German and perhaps also other European economies must find a way together to counter a competition that weighs heavily on us all', an unusually antagonistic reference to the United States.

[stevep]

Dec 17, 2019 7:10:03 GMT EwellHolmes said:

Dec 16, 2019 15:29:55 GMT stevep said:

  I've never heard of this proto-EU although there were attempts at reducing tension which might have gone further if not for the depression boosting autocracy and extremism so much.  However the idea of a political union which intends to abolish the member states as suggested by the current EU and the suggestions of some of the EEC's founders I think would be a definite no go prior to WWII.  Its unlikely enough as it is now.

  The depression started in 1929 so without it and the serious problems it caused in Germany and elsewhere its pretty unlikely that Hitler and the Nazis would come anywhere near political power.   Hence he's not relevant to those pre-depression discussions epichistory mentioned.

The Wages of Destruction, by Adam Tooze covers this in its initial chapter:

On the one hand, the crisis of 1918-23 gave rise to an ultra-nationalism - in the form of the radical wing of the DNVP and Hitler's Nazi party - that was more apocalyptic in its intensity than anything prior to 1914. On the other hand, it also produced a truly novel departure in German foreign and economic policy. This alternative to nationalist militancy also aimed to achieve a revision of the onerous terms of the Treaty of Versailles. But it aimed to do so not by gambling on military force. Instead, Weimar's foreign policy prioritized the economy as the main field within which Germany could still exercise influence in the world. Above all, it sought security and leverage for Germany by developing financial connections with the United States and closer industrial integration with France. In certain key respects, this clearly anticipated the strategy pursued by West Germany after 1945. It was a policy that enjoyed the backing of all of the parties of the Weimar coalition - the Social Democrats, the left liberal DDP and the Catholic Centre party. But it was personified by Gustav Stresemann, leader of the national liberals, the DVP, and Germany's Foreign Minister between 1923 and 1929.....

.....Some have argued that the intensified discussions between Stresemann and the French Foreign Minister, Aristide Briand, in the summer and autumn of
1929 were motivated at least in part by a sense of disappointment with the United States. And in the last week of June 1929 Stresemann had spoken in the Reichstag of Europe becoming 'a colony of those who have been more fortunate than us'. The time had come in which 'French, German and perhaps also other European economies must find a way together to counter a competition that weighs heavily on us all', an unusually antagonistic reference to the United States.

  Thanks.  Interesting.  Its still an aspiration and was there much sympathy for the idea from Paris, which had its own problems in the 20's and 30's.  Possibly if the German attitude from the mid-late 20's had continued without the depression it might have developed into better relations with France although that wouldn't resolve other German nationalistic desires and I can't see France accepting the loss of Alsace- Lorraine or even allowing a plebiscite there. 

[Zyobot]

'Republican California Into 21st Century'.