Lists of Heads of Government and Heads of State

[Mumby]

Big British Communist Party List

Basically my POD is a more severe split in the Labour Party between supporters and opponents of WW1, which leads to more OTL Labour people gravitating to the Communist Party.

1916-1922: David Lloyd George (Coalition Liberal)
1918 (National Coupon with Conservatives and Coalition Labour) def. Eamon de Valera (Sinn Fein), H.H. Asquith (Liberal), Philip Snowden / Zelda Kahan ('United Socialist Council'), John Dillon (Irish Parliamentary)
1922-1923: Austen Chamberlain (Coalition Conservative leading National Government with Coalition Liberals and Coalition Labour)
1923-1925: Austen Chamberlain (United Reform)
1923 (Majority) def. H.H. Asquith (Liberal), Zelda Kahan (Communist), Henry Page Coates (National-Conservative)
1925-1927: Winston Churchill (United Reform leading Anti-Strike Government with Liberals and National-Conservatives)
1927-1936: Leo Amery (United Reform)
1928 (Majority) def. David Lloyd George / Albert Inkpin (Constitutional Democracy / British Workers'), numerous Independents
1932 (Majority) def. David Lloyd George (Constitutional Democracy), Johnny Campbell (Communist)
1936-1939: David Lloyd George ('King's Party')
1937 (Majority) def. Harry Pollitt (Communist), Stanley Baldwin ('Coalition of Antis')
1939-1942: Oswald Mosley ('King's Party' majority)
1939 elections suspended until further notice
1942-1943: Dwight D. Eisenhower, as Supreme Commander of Anti-Fascist Forces in the Atlantic
1943-1945: Stanley Baldwin (Independent leading Provisional Government)
1945-0000: Winston Churchill (National Democratic)
1945 (Majority) def. Tom Wintringham (Communist)

 

[Makemakean]

not getting any fucking bitches

Well, I mean, it's not my fault that there's a court order banning me from owning dogs since that incident where I tried to replicate the results of Brukhonenko's research in the 30s and 40s! That's PETA's and that damned hack judge's fault!

He really should be removed from office!

 

[theev]

Moderator post:

Once again, you are reminded that this is not Discord. You had a warning two days ago, you've now taken a situation where there was no call for your words here and risked aggravating an already uncivil discussion. This time you are kicked for a week.

I really think this was excessive, especially considering that that post was no part of the actual dispute. The mods here tacitly encouraging the clique-ness of this website by being permissive over transgressions from the in-group but cracking down on perceived outsiders.

 

[Japhy]

I really think this was excessive, especially considering that that post was no part of the actual dispute. The mods here tacitly encouraging the clique-ness of this website by being permissive over transgressions from the in-group but cracking down on perceived outsiders.

Seconding this. I think trying to connect this action to the argument thats been going on is a mistake.

 

[Makemakean]

I really think this was excessive, especially considering that that post was no part of the actual dispute. The mods here tacitly encouraging the clique-ness of this website by being permissive over transgressions from the in-group but cracking down on perceived outsiders.

I honestly feel the need to question the charges of cliqueness.

Since way back in the old country, there has persistently been an awareness of the perception of the people who were then most frequently posting in the British politics threads that they might appear a closed community to new posters and outsiders. No shortage of digital ink has been spent by the most prominent posters on this forum and its administrative staff over the years to caution against being dismissive or in any sense downputting towards newcomers and outsiders, to urge the welcoming of people into the community, to be encouraging and inclusive.

At this point, if there is a cliqueness here, then in what does it consist? Is the grievance fundamentally in that many people on this board already are friends with one another since years back and not complete strangers on the internet? Is the desired remedy that people here should know each other less well and be less chummy with one another in the interest of egalitarianism in that basically no one knows no one?

 

[Nyvis]

I honestly feel the need to question the charges of cliqueness.

Since way back in the old country, there has persistently been an awareness of the perception of the people who were then most frequently posting in the British politics threads that they might appear a closed community to new posters and outsiders. No shortage of digital ink has been spent by the most prominent posters on this forum and its administrative staff over the years to caution against being dismissive or in any sense downputting towards newcomers and outsiders, to urge the welcoming of people into the community, to be encouraging and inclusive.

At this point, if there is a cliqueness here, then in what does it consist? Is the grievance fundamentally in that many people on this board already are friends with one another since years back and not complete strangers on the internet? Is the desired remedy that people here should know each other less well and be less chummy with one another in the interest of egalitarianism in that basically no one knows no one?

I've come in and been an obnoxious communist and I only got one kick out of it, so it's probably working as well as it can I guess...

 

[theev]

I honestly feel the need to question the charges of cliqueness.

Since way back in the old country, there has persistently been an awareness of the perception of the people who were then most frequently posting in the British politics threads that they might appear a closed community to new posters and outsiders. No shortage of digital ink has been spent by the most prominent posters on this forum and its administrative staff over the years to caution against being dismissive or in any sense downputting towards newcomers and outsiders, to urge the welcoming of people into the community, to be encouraging and inclusive.

At this point, if there is a cliqueness here, then in what does it consist? Is the grievance fundamentally in that many people on this board already are friends with one another since years back and not complete strangers on the internet? Is the desired remedy that people here should know each other less well and be less chummy with one another in the interest of egalitarianism in that basically no one knows no one?

This forum was literally created by a clique on ah.com that got tired of dealing with the leadership and body politic of that site.

 

[Japhy]

This forum was literally created by a clique on ah.com that got tired of dealing with the leadership and body politic of that site.

Well technically its more of a money-laundering SuperPAC cum Publishing Company.

Also the Publishing Company started first so you know, also not the issue. But the fact that we are all sort of grouping into an "Old Guard" and "Young Guns" sort of thing isn't great vis a vis when it comes to moderator action.

 

[Makemakean]

This forum was literally created by a clique on ah.com that got tired of dealing with the leadership and body politic of that site.

Doesn't really answer my question, I'm afraid.

If there is a clique then what are ways it manifest itself in that can be deemed toxic, and what changes do you want to see?

 

[Indicus]

Let’s not turn this thread into the Hall of Infamy here - it’s been derailed long enough. We’ve all given our two cents on the matter, and any further discussion probably should be in the form of PMs.

 

[Nyvis]

Let’s not turn this thread into the Hall of Infamy here - it’s been derailed long enough. We’ve all given our two cents on the matter, and any further discussion probably should be in the form of PMs.

"Let's just push it out of sight" isn't a great answer. I agree this is very much not the thread, but maybe there should be one that's public.

 

[Indicus]

Prime Ministers of India

1966-1972: Indira Gandhi (Indian National Congress) ✝
1966 def. C. Rajagopalachari (Swatantra)
1971 def. Morarji Desai (Indian National Congress (Organization))

1972-1982: Yashwantrao Chavan (Indian National Congress)
1975 def. Charan Singh (Bharatiya Lok Dal)
1980 def. Charan Singh (Bharatiya Lok Dal)

1982-1984: Charan Singh (Bharatiya Lok Dal)
1982 def. Yashwantrao Chavan (Indian National Congress)

1984-1985: Jagjivan Ram (Indian National Congress)
1984 def. Charan Singh (Bharatiya Lok Dal)

1985-1986: Jagjivan Ram (Indian National Congress (Samata) - Bharatiya Lok Dal (D) coalition) ✝

1986-xxxx: Devi Lal (Bharatiya Lok Dal (D) - Indian National Congress (Samata) coalition)

In 1972, Indira Gandhi was assassinated by disgruntled retired members of the Pakistani military in 1972, only months after the victory of the 1971 war. Her death when her popularity was at an extreme high meant that she was quickly subject to mythmaking, and she quickly came to be revered as a martyr of epic proportions who was assassinated for stopping a genocide. Her statues line the streets of every town and city in India and even beyond, and she is beloved enough that there even exist a few temples where she is worshipped as a form of Durga. She is, almost unanimously, viewed as one of the greatest heroes of Indian history, and she tops virtually every poll of prime ministers, of scholars and the people alike.

She was succeeded by her finance minister Yashwantrao Chavan. However, his term was mired with domestic troubles, as the economy around the world deteriorated. India's economy fell, and the result was the rise of a protest movement led by Jayaprakash Narayan, a hero of the independence movement. Initially focused around Bihar and Gujarat, it rapidly grew in scale, forcing Chavan to dissolve the parliament of Gujarat, and the alliance of the opposition proved victorious there. But the protests continued to grow, and the protestors fled into Delhi. As these protests continued for weeks, finally Chavan decided to have Parliament dissolved. In the resulting election, Congress's majority was narrowed but retained, and the protests declined. However, the economy deteriorated again in the late seventies, and the protests came back. Nevertheless, Chavan's reaction was deeply restrained and the police gave them a wide berth. In 1980, Congress lost its majority, and the result was that the chaos moved towards Parliament. Budgets proved difficult to pass, and votes of no confidence became regular. Ultimately. in 1982, a money bill failed to pass the Lok Sabha, and the result was an election which the Congress party lost. Chavan died in 1983, a broken man who failed to live up to the great Indira. No doubt, had she lived, the 1970s would have been a much happier decade.

The opposition, largely consolidated into the Bharatiya Lok Dal, was now in power. However, its divides became apparent when the newly elected MPs took multiple votes to agree on a prime minister, who was eventually the great farmer politician Charan Singh. He passed numerous anti-feudal bills which gradually resulted in the ex-princes breaking off - with them came others, and without the need of unity the Lok Dal broke up. In 1984, the result was an election, won narrowly by the Congress party.

The Congress party was led by Jagjivan Ram, whose control of it was tenuous. And so, when he announced the implementation of caste-based reservations in 1985, based on a report from a commission established by the Lok Dal, his party forced him out of the party, and he and fifty Congress MPs formed a distinct new Indian National Congress (Samata), a Congress party sincerely devoted to equality. They allied with the Bharatiya Lok Dal (D), led by Devi Lal, and formed a tenuous coalition with them in return for the inclusion of the Jat caste in the reservation scheme. Further anti-feudal legislation was passed, but at the same time a combination of the ascension of a Dalit to the premiership and the reservation scheme led to the growth of caste-based politics. It was in this India that Jagjivan Ram died in 1986. His death immediately now leaves the continuation of the alliance in doubt, and no doubt an election shall have to be held if this alliance breaks. What the future of Indian politics will bring, no one knows.

 

[Japhy]

"Let's just push it out of sight" isn't a great answer. I agree this is very much not the thread, but maybe there should be one that's public.

We should take the discussion to the Support subforum probably. Both because more people would see it and also because thats the right place for it.

 

[rosa]

Big British Communist Party List

Basically my POD is a more severe split in the Labour Party between supporters and opponents of WW1, which leads to more OTL Labour people gravitating to the Communist Party.

1916-1922: David Lloyd George (Coalition Liberal)
1918 (National Coupon with Conservatives and Coalition Labour) def. Eamon de Valera (Sinn Fein), H.H. Asquith (Liberal), Philip Snowden / Zelda Kahan ('United Socialist Council'), John Dillon (Irish Parliamentary)
1922-1923: Austen Chamberlain (Coalition Conservative leading National Government with Coalition Liberals and Coalition Labour)
1923-1925: Austen Chamberlain (United Reform)
1923 (Majority) def. H.H. Asquith (Liberal), Zelda Kahan (Communist), Henry Page Coates (National-Conservative)
1925-1927: Winston Churchill (United Reform leading Anti-Strike Government with Liberals and National-Conservatives)
1927-1936: Leo Amery (United Reform)
1928 (Majority) def. David Lloyd George / Albert Inkpin (Constitutional Democracy / British Workers'), numerous Independents
1932 (Majority) def. David Lloyd George (Constitutional Democracy), Johnny Campbell (Communist)
1936-1939: David Lloyd George ('King's Party')
1937 (Majority) def. Harry Pollitt (Communist), Stanley Baldwin ('Coalition of Antis')
1939-1942: Oswald Mosley ('King's Party' majority)
1939 elections suspended until further notice
1942-1943: Dwight D. Eisenhower, as Supreme Commander of Anti-Fascist Forces in the Atlantic
1943-1945: Stanley Baldwin (Independent leading Provisional Government)
1945-0000: Winston Churchill (National Democratic)
1945 (Majority) def. Tom Wintringham (Communist)

Woo Communism!

Wait..

 

[rosa]

Let’s not turn this thread into the Hall of Infamy here - it’s been derailed long enough. We’ve all given our two cents on the matter, and any further discussion probably should be in the form of PMs.

Add me to the anti-anti-disestablishmentarian PM

 

[Time Enough]

Basically my POD is a more severe split in the Labour Party between supporters and opponents of WW1, which leads to more OTL Labour people gravitating to the Communist Party.

Quando la Gran Bretagna diventa italiana.

 

[Yossarian]

I want to see more of these Turtledove decon-recons

Socialist Al Smith and the Population Reduction should be done justice

The Land of Traitors, Rattlesnakes, and Alligators

"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery—the greatest material interest of the world."

Presidents of the Confederate States of America

1861 - 1868: Jefferson Davis (Non-Partisan)
1861 (with Alexander Stephens) def. unopposed
1868 - 1874: P. G. T. Beauregard (Democratic)
1867 (with James Seddon) def. John Pool (Opposition), Williamson Cobb (Unionist)
1874 - 1880: Fitzhugh Lee (Democratic)
1873 (with Albert G. Brown) def. Patrick Cleburne (Opposition)
1880 - 1882: James Longstreet (Democratic)
1879 (with Lucius Lamar II) def. William Mahone (Opposition)
1881 - 1882: War of the Mexican Intervention: C.S.A., French Republic, United Kingdom restore government of Empire of Mexico, defeat U.S.A.
1882: Hampton Coup

1882 - 1885: DISPUTED; The Slavers' War / Third American Revolution / War of the Manumission
1882 - 1884: James Longstreet† (Democratic / National Unity, backed by Opposition, Loyalist Army)
1884 - 1885: Lucius Lamar II (Democratic / National Unity)
1882 - 1885: Wade Hampton III ("Fire-Eater" then Constitutionalist, backed by Anti-Administration Democratic)
1883 - 0000: Cuban Revolution; José Antonio Maceo y Grajales (Asociacion Independentista) declared President of Cuba by revolutionaries, recognised by United States

1885 - 1886: Lucius Lamar II (Democratic / National Unity)
1886 - 0000: John S. Marmaduke (Democratic)
1885: Absolom West (Anti-Monopoly / Corn-Coal-Cotton League / Farmers' Alliance / Opposition fusion ticket) plurality over John S. Marmaduke (Democratic), Lucius Lamar II (National Unity), States Rights Gist (Nullification)
1886 contingent election (with Lucius M. Walker) def. Absolom West (Opposition), Lucius Lamar II (National Unity)

When the British and French agreed to back the Confederates against the Americans in the rapidly-escalating dispute over the Mexican situation, they were exceedingly clear on their conditions: manumit your slaves within a year of the end of the war. Facing a large and angry United States, President Longstreet, a strategic realist if not necessarily a political one, agreed. And after ten short months, it was all over. The South stood triumphant for the second time in twenty years, and the broad sunlit uplands of an era of good feelings lay ahead.

Except for the Manumission Amendment.

Getting all fourteen states to agree on anything was like herding cats at the best of times. Getting all fourteen to agree to amend out of existence the peculiar institution that was the cornerstone of their young nation's existence posed, to put it mildly, an uphill struggle. That hill got a lot steeper when Wade Hampton convinced Stonewall Jackson to stand with him and resist what he and most other traditionalist Confederates considered treason. The Army of Kentucky received orders to march on Richmond, the state militias began to fragment between those loyal to the president and those 'faithful to the Constitution', and slave uprisings began sparking off across the South.

Where the Confederacy had won each of its wars against the Union in a year, the war against itself would take three; a mestizo revolution in Cuba dislodged most of the Confederates (from both sides) from what was meant to be the first piece of a Caribbean empire, President Longstreet would be slain by an unemployed overseer from rural Virginia, and even after the last Constitutionalist holdouts surrendered in fall 1885 bushwhackers would continue to strike from the hills and swamps.

Not that Longstreet's successor Lamar would need to worry about it; between the disenfranchisement of rebels by the loyalty oaths, the groundswell of anger from poor whites, and much tutting by those who didn't believe it Constitutional (the good kind, not the rebellious kind) for him to stand for election, he came a distant third and only succeeded in splitting the Democratic vote. But while the populist Opposition coalition won the popular vote, they fell short in the Electoral College and then the House, where a corrupt bargain saw them lose to the Democrats (who quite liked the idea of staying in charge, thank you).

The United States, while wounded and vengeful, did not immediately take advantage of their neighbour's strife. For one, the French and British remained poised to strike; for another, the US Army and Navy needed time to recover; finally, an invasion would only unite the warring halves of the Confederacy against the North.

However, the new Administration of President Sherman and his Unionist Party is beginning to weigh its options.
The Mexican insurgency grinds remorselessly towards a successful conclusion, as that charming General Díaz hacks his way to Mexico City through the a hapless Imperial Government now bereft of protection. Cuba is all but independent, and rabidly pro-American. Confederate society is coming apart at the seams on both class and conflict lines. The Southern military has been gutted by four years of constant war, and the new President can't be certain he can trust his own men (many of whom were, after all, trying to kill him eighteen months ago). Richmond is dragging its heels with a gradual model of emancipation that will see the last slaves freed sometime around 1908, if the states don't get tied down in litigation; consequently, Britain has lost all appetite for further American follies while France has bigger problems at home. The U.S. Army has been stripping deadwood relentlessly, and the conscription programme is starting to turn out classes of reservists.

And steaming down the Mississippi just now, right around the bend from a group of Constitutionalist bushwhackers, a Union-flagged riverboat is about to give John Sherman a big bloody shirt to wave around.

 

[claybaskit]

September 5, 1975: president Ford assassinated" !

September 5-1975
January 20.1977 Nelson Rockefeller Republican Robert Dole (Declined to run for reelection)

January 20. 1977
January 20.1981

James Earl Carter

Democratic Walter Fritz Mondale (lost nomination for 2nd term.)

January 20.1981-1989

Edmund Brown jr. (Def :Ronald Reagan 1980.George Bush in 1984

 

[Makemakean]

September 5, 1975: president Ford assignation!

September 5-1975
January 20.1977 Nelson Rockefeller Republican Robert Dole (Declined to run for reelection)

January 20. 1977
January 20.1981

James Earl Carter

Democratic Walter Fritz Mondale (lost nomination for 2nd term.)

January 20.1981-1989

Edmund Brown jr. (Def :Ronald Reagan 1980.George Bush in 1984

"Assignation? Do you mean that he resigned or was assassinated?"

"YES!"

 

[Steve Brinson]

"Assignation? Do you mean that he resigned or was assassinated?"

"YES!"

Clearly, it means he was having a torrid affair. Presumably he was caught, but the possibility he just up and decided to do a runner to Barbados with someone is not to be carelessly discarded.