Jerry Voorhis is one sexy Congresscritter and ought to be utilized more often.
All in all it's a nice, well-described list.
Last edited:
-
Hi Guest!
The costs of running this forum are covered by Sea Lion Press. If you'd like to help support the company and the forum, visit patreon.com/sealionpress
Lists of Heads of Government and Heads of State
- Thread starter Mumby
- Start date
All in all it's a nice, well-described list.
Time Enough
"Enthusiastic Cis Male Partner"
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Indeed he is, him and Glen H. Taylor. Nothing like Cooperative Liberal representatives who believe in Social Gospel. He’s a fun person.
Thanks, wanted to do something with Long and Lindbergh that doesn’t end in a horrible dystopia.
Tsar of New Zealand
Beginning to Look a Lot Like Democracy Manifest
- Pronouns
- He/him/his
La Historia Nos Absolverá
Presidents of Cuba ("Antigua República")
1925 - 1933: Gerardo Machado (Partido Liberal)
1933 (Aug-Sep): Carlos Manuel de Céspedes y Quesada (Liberal)
Executive Commission of the Provisional Government of Cuba
1933 (Sep): La Pentarquia (Sergio Carbo y Morena, Porfirio Franca y Alvarez, Ramón Grau San Martín, José Miguel Irisarri y Gamio, Guillermo Portela y Möller)
Presidents of Cuba ("Segunda República")
1933 - 1934 (interim): Ramón Grau San Martín
1934 - 1938: Miguel Mariano Gómez y Arias (Acción Republicana as part of Tripartite Coalition with Partido Liberal and Unión Nacionalista)
1934 def. Ramón Grau (Partido Revolucionaro Cubano - Auténtico), Mario García Menocal (Conjunto Nacional Democrático), Carlos Manuel de Céspedes (Partido Centralista Nacional), various other candidates
1938 - 1942: Ramón Grau (Auténtico)
1938 def. Federico Laredo Brú (Liberal), Mario García Menocal (Partido Conservador), Carlos Mendieta y Montefur (Unión Nacionalista), Antonio Gutieras Holmes (Partido Unión Revolucionaria)
1942 - 1946: Carlos Prío Socarrás (Auténtico)
1942 def. Carlos Márquez Sterling y Guiral (Liberal), Carlos Saladrigas Zayas (Unión Demócrata)
1946 - 1950: Carlos Márquez Sterling (Liberal-Unión Demócrata alliance)
1946 def. Raúl López del Castillo (Auténtico), Gustavo Cuervo Rubio (Partido Republicano), Raúl García Menocal (Partido Popular Nacional), Antonio Gutieras (Unión Revolucionaria-Comunista)
1950 - 1954: Emilio Núñez Portuondo (Liberal as part of Coalición de Acción Nacional with Republicano, Unión Demócrata, and Partido Popular Nacional)
1950 def. Eduardo Chibás (Partido del Pueblo Cubano - Ortodoxos), Ramón Grau (Auténtico), Antonio Gutieras (Partido Socialista Popular)
1954 - 1958: Eduardo Chibás (Ortodoxo)
1954 def. Óscar Gans (Liberal-Nacional alliance) , Carlos Hevia (Auténtico), Gustavo Cuervo Rubio (Republicano), Andrés Rivero Agüero (Unión Demócrata)
1958 - 0000: Manuel Urrutia Lleó (Independent as part of Moderado electoral fusion of Liberal, "Realista" Auténtico, Unión Demócrata, and Republicano)
1958 def. Roberto Agramonte (Ortodoxo), José Miró Cardona (Auténtico), Juan Almeida Bosque (Partido Socialista Popular), Raúl García Menocal (Partido Popular Nacional)
Prime Ministers of Cuba
1940 - 1941: Félix Lancís Sánchez (Auténtico)
1941 - 1942: Carlos Prío Socarrás (Auténtico)
1942 - 1943: Federico Laredo Brú (Liberal)
1943 - 1944: Gustavo Cuervo Rubio (Liberal)
1944 - 1946: Raúl López del Castillo (Auténtico)
1946 - 1947: Carlos Hevia (Auténtico)
1947 - 1948: Anselmo Alliegro y Milá (Liberal)
1948 - 1949: Óscar Gans y López Martínez (Liberal)
1950 - 1951: Manuel Antonio de Varona (Auténtico)
1951 (Jan - Oct): Andrés Rivero Agüero (Unión Demócrata)
1951 - 1952: Guillermo Alonso Pujol (Partido Popular Nacional)
1952 (Mar- Oct): Carlos Hevia (Auténtico)
1952 - 1953: Óscar Gans (Liberal)
1953 - 1954: Rafael Guas Inclán (Liberal)
1954 - 1956: Roberto Agramonte y Pichardo (Ortodoxo)
1956 - 1957: José Miró Cardona (Auténtico)
1957 - 1958: Jorge Mañach y Robato (Ortodoxo)
1958 - 1959: Nicolás Castellanos Rivero ("Realista")
1959 - 1960: Miguel A. Suárez Fernández (Liberal)
1960 - 0000: Huber Matos Benítez (Ortodoxo)
The dissolution of the Machado regime left Cuba with two surviving domestic institutions of note: the University of Havana and the Army.
The quiet court-martial and execution of a jumped-up sergeant with treasonous ideas above his station left the latent might of the Army in the ineffectual hands of Pablo Rodríguez. Between the disorganisation of the Army and the failure of the United States Marine Corps to materialise on the beaches and reinstate the dictatorship, there turned out to be little opposition to the vision of the academics who dominated the Pentarchy of 1933.
For a fleeting moment, there was a chance to secure the future of their short sharp revolution, and Cuba's leaders seized the opportunity.
The election of 1934, hotly contested in a free-flowing political environment, saw the son of a hero of Independence entrusted with carrying Cuba into its bold new revolutionary future? The slowly recovering economy allowed Gómez to legitimise the new Government's shaky position, the recovering sugar harvest to placate the U.S., and a set of social and labour reforms to keep the growing labour movement on-side.
The culmination of these was the Constitution of 1937, a progressive document that enshrined the new order, reflecting serious considerations about Cuba's problems and opportunities, and striking an enlightened, optimistic tone about the future.
The next decade saw these promises delivered on. A fragmented right and the resulting dominance of Congress allowed the Auténticos to push through reforms in women's suffrage, economics, labour relations, and land, with Grau and Socarrás maintaining a delicate balancing act between the aspirations of the nationalist left and the economic interests of the American businesses who made the investments that financed the realisation of the Revolution.
The two-bloc system did not last. The prosperity of the Forties was unevenly distributed, and strikes and political violence had grown as corruption sank in amongst the political establishment. Elements of the progressive and nationalist blocs, disillusioned by the persistence of poverty and corruption as the Auténticos proved ineffectual in overcoming the Liberal-led bloc's opposition to further social reforms, defected to the new Orthodox Party.
While a broad-tent electoral alliance of the right and centre (a Coalition of National Action which, naturally, ended up doing very little) was able to keep the radicals out of power temporarily, the 1954 election was a watershed moment in Cuba's blossoming democracy. The Ortodoxos, who promised "to realise the great place reserved in history for Cuba", were swept into power, and set about their crusade against "the three evils" of corruption, poverty, and slavery.
Taking care to avoid completely alienating the United States (luckily, the Mafia still had Vegas by the time Chibás started trying to clean up Havana), the Ortodoxos forced a realignment in Cuban politics, between those who favoured careful, incremental reform and those who wished to keep the fires of 1933 burning.
The left of the Auténticos joined forces with the Ortodoxos, while the "Realists" hedged their bets and supported the Moderate bloc, which united behind the progressive (but fiercely anti-Communist) leadership of Manuel Urrutia to regain the confidence of the people.
As the 1960s dawn, Cuba stands at the crossroads. As the Dominican Revolution tears through Hispaniola and the new regime courts the Soviets, threatening American hegemony over the Western Hemisphere, Urrutia seeks to reassure President Lodge that Cuba is as reliable as ever. At the same time, the 1960 mid-terms allowed the Ortodoxos to regain control of the House, and young firebrands who have grown up in the land the Revolution built are agitating for even more. Cuba's careful balancing act is both more crucial and under greater strain than ever before. With God's grace and the best efforts of its leaders, it will avoid falling into the abyss.
The quiet court-martial and execution of a jumped-up sergeant with treasonous ideas above his station left the latent might of the Army in the ineffectual hands of Pablo Rodríguez. Between the disorganisation of the Army and the failure of the United States Marine Corps to materialise on the beaches and reinstate the dictatorship, there turned out to be little opposition to the vision of the academics who dominated the Pentarchy of 1933.
For a fleeting moment, there was a chance to secure the future of their short sharp revolution, and Cuba's leaders seized the opportunity.
The election of 1934, hotly contested in a free-flowing political environment, saw the son of a hero of Independence entrusted with carrying Cuba into its bold new revolutionary future? The slowly recovering economy allowed Gómez to legitimise the new Government's shaky position, the recovering sugar harvest to placate the U.S., and a set of social and labour reforms to keep the growing labour movement on-side.
The culmination of these was the Constitution of 1937, a progressive document that enshrined the new order, reflecting serious considerations about Cuba's problems and opportunities, and striking an enlightened, optimistic tone about the future.
The next decade saw these promises delivered on. A fragmented right and the resulting dominance of Congress allowed the Auténticos to push through reforms in women's suffrage, economics, labour relations, and land, with Grau and Socarrás maintaining a delicate balancing act between the aspirations of the nationalist left and the economic interests of the American businesses who made the investments that financed the realisation of the Revolution.
The two-bloc system did not last. The prosperity of the Forties was unevenly distributed, and strikes and political violence had grown as corruption sank in amongst the political establishment. Elements of the progressive and nationalist blocs, disillusioned by the persistence of poverty and corruption as the Auténticos proved ineffectual in overcoming the Liberal-led bloc's opposition to further social reforms, defected to the new Orthodox Party.
While a broad-tent electoral alliance of the right and centre (a Coalition of National Action which, naturally, ended up doing very little) was able to keep the radicals out of power temporarily, the 1954 election was a watershed moment in Cuba's blossoming democracy. The Ortodoxos, who promised "to realise the great place reserved in history for Cuba", were swept into power, and set about their crusade against "the three evils" of corruption, poverty, and slavery.
Taking care to avoid completely alienating the United States (luckily, the Mafia still had Vegas by the time Chibás started trying to clean up Havana), the Ortodoxos forced a realignment in Cuban politics, between those who favoured careful, incremental reform and those who wished to keep the fires of 1933 burning.
The left of the Auténticos joined forces with the Ortodoxos, while the "Realists" hedged their bets and supported the Moderate bloc, which united behind the progressive (but fiercely anti-Communist) leadership of Manuel Urrutia to regain the confidence of the people.
As the 1960s dawn, Cuba stands at the crossroads. As the Dominican Revolution tears through Hispaniola and the new regime courts the Soviets, threatening American hegemony over the Western Hemisphere, Urrutia seeks to reassure President Lodge that Cuba is as reliable as ever. At the same time, the 1960 mid-terms allowed the Ortodoxos to regain control of the House, and young firebrands who have grown up in the land the Revolution built are agitating for even more. Cuba's careful balancing act is both more crucial and under greater strain than ever before. With God's grace and the best efforts of its leaders, it will avoid falling into the abyss.
Time Enough
"Enthusiastic Cis Male Partner"
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Enter the Markey Zone...
1977-1981: Ronald Reagan (Republican)
1976 (With Bob Dole) def: Jimmy Carter (Democratic), Tom McCall (New)
1981-1989: Jerry Brown (Democratic)
1980 (With Joe Biden) def: Ronald Reagan (Republican), Tom McCall (Reform)
1984 (With Ed Markey) def: Bob Dole (Republican), Ralph Nader (Reform)
1989-1993: Ed Markey (Democratic)
1988 (With Major Owens) def: Dan Quayle (Republican), Ralph Nader (Reform), Lyndon LaRouche (New Democrats)
1993-1997: Jack Kemp (Republican)
1992 (With Lynn Martin) def: Ed Markey (Democratic), Bernie Sanders (Reform), Lyndon LaRouche (New America), Pat Buchanan (We The People)
1997-: Paul Wellstone (Democratic)
1996 (With Nydia Velázquez) def: Jack Kemp (Republican), Bernie Sanders (Reform), Lyndon LaRouche (America Party), David Duke (We The People)
1977-1981: Ronald Reagan (Republican)
1976 (With Bob Dole) def: Jimmy Carter (Democratic), Tom McCall (New)
1981-1989: Jerry Brown (Democratic)
1980 (With Joe Biden) def: Ronald Reagan (Republican), Tom McCall (Reform)
1984 (With Ed Markey) def: Bob Dole (Republican), Ralph Nader (Reform)
1989-1993: Ed Markey (Democratic)
1988 (With Major Owens) def: Dan Quayle (Republican), Ralph Nader (Reform), Lyndon LaRouche (New Democrats)
1993-1997: Jack Kemp (Republican)
1992 (With Lynn Martin) def: Ed Markey (Democratic), Bernie Sanders (Reform), Lyndon LaRouche (New America), Pat Buchanan (We The People)
1997-: Paul Wellstone (Democratic)
1996 (With Nydia Velázquez) def: Jack Kemp (Republican), Bernie Sanders (Reform), Lyndon LaRouche (America Party), David Duke (We The People)
'Great Electors' of the French Republic
1799-1815: Lucien Bonaparte (Brumairian)
1799 def. Emmanuel Joseph Sieyès (Brumairian) [did not seek office], Scattered Jacobin Ballots
1815-1836: Emmanuel Joseph Sieyès (Rue de la Bûcherie Committee)
1815 def. Jacques-Rose Récaimer (Society of the Friends of the Republic), Pierre-Antoine Antonelle (Jacobin Clubs), Joseph Bonaparte (Bonapartist Ballots)
1836-1843: Antoine Marie Rœderer (Party of the Constitution)
1836 def. Phillippe-Antoine Merlin (Party of the Salle du Manège), Scattered Royalist Ballots, Élie Decazes (Liberal Clubs)
1843-1852: Amable Brugière (Nonpartisan)
1843 def. François-René de Chateaubriand (Charismatics), Ferdinand Flacon (Sectionist), Constitutionalists and Liberals endorsed Brugière
1852-1866: Amable Brugière (Liberal-Constitutionalist)
1864-1866: Henri Georges Boulay de la Meurthe (Liberal-Constitutionalist)
1864 def. Other Conservatie Ballots, Éliphas Lévi (Utopic), François Guizot (Club of the Rue de la Ville l'Evêque)
1866-0000: Lucien Bonaparte (Liberal-Constitutionalist)
1866 def. Jean-Baptiste Godin (Utopic), Hippolyte Jaubert (Liberal-Constitutionalist), Victor Hugo (Party of Motion)
The death of Napoleon Bonaparte during the coup of Brumaire 1799 would prove to be only a momentary setback for the plotters seeking to overthrow the frail French Directory. Though scattered in the wake of Bonaparte's supposed murder by Jacobin assassins on the floor of the convention (the truth of which has been lost to history), the Abbé Sieyès, Bonaparte's brother Lucien, and the duplicitous former Bishop Talleyrand were able to rally the army and many of the Sections around the 'myth of Bonaparte', dissolving the existing government. In the hectic days that followed, the esoteric ideals of Sieyès would ultimately win out, and a complex new constitution was ushered to life. At the apex of this system sat the mercurial office of the 'Great Elector', endowed with important functions in selecting two 'Consuls' to act as the executives of the Republic (one for home affairs, the other for war), as well as the initial members of the College of Guardians, a body whose members served for life without the possibility of retirement or resignation, who received great estates as compensation for their service synthesising the elective aristocracy of the United States Senate with the legal function of both a constitutional court and a legislative upper house. The day to day business of legislation, meanwhile, was handed to a bicameral legislature selected by a process of "filtration", by which local, provincial, and regional assemblies (elected by propertied citizens) elected their best members upwards, culminating in a "national list" of the best citizens of the republic, from which the College would select the members of the assembles and the Elector the members of the executive. In its intended operation, this constitution would usher in the rule of a revolutionary aristocracy, with the wise members of the College overseeing the proper functioning of the state, operating as a great council in the background steering the republic onto its proper course, and absorbing into its ranks any official whose ambitions threatened the Republic, including the Great Elector. This Republican monarch would serve for life, but in the normal function of government would be a silent sovereign, possessed of the unique capacity for immense action in times of crisis, but expected to remain dormant.
Yet in the turbulent years of the young Republic, as counter-revolutionary enemies bore down ceaselessly on France's frontiers, the country's charismatic and ambitious young Elector did not remain silent for long. As financial crisis and frequent legislative deadlock between his moderate and conservative supporters and a renewed radical Jacobin movement rocked the Republic, Bonaparte would take an increasingly prominent role. When it became clear, after his dissolution of the government of Ducos and Carnot, he would assume an ever more active function: now, in practice, the government would be directly responsible to the Great Elector, and Bonaparte would use his power to dissolve the government and call for fresh elections (intended for extremes) as a threat held over both the executive and legislature to assume total power over France. For the duration of the wars this was accepted, but with the end of the War of the Fifth Coalition in 1813 with the second capitulation of Austria and the assurance of French hegemony west of the Rhine and in Northern Italy, Bonaparte's refusal to rule "constitutionally" in peace time became a source of increased frustration. There was talk of another coup, and Sieyès, the President of the College of Guardians and his old ally Rœderer became anxious about the Republic's total dissolution despite its triumphs. In the end, extreme action was averted: in a narrow vote, the moderate Brumairians, the liberal Republicans, and the Jacobins in the College would align to absorb Bonaparte, and in a series of secretive votes would elect Sieyès to the Great Electorate, passing in the instant before a special enabling act exempting him from the usual restrictions of a member of the College. The Rue de la Bûcherie Committee, named for the street on which Sieyès lived in Paris, would coalesce into the Party of the Constitution thereafter, their sometime liberal allies a series of Liberal Clubs, and the Jacobins into a constellation of loosely aligned new leftist parties.
The following 28 years, first under Sieyès, and then under his friend Rœderer's son would be one's of stability. The Grand Elector's role remained, in practice, more substantial than Sieyès had envisioned, with the need to break legislative deadlocks or replace failing governments arising far more frequently than the extreme emergencies envisioned by the constitution's father, but none would embrace the extreme dictatorial powers of Bonaparte. The greatest threat the Republic had faced since the years of its founding would come with the "Charismatic" movement led by the extreme reactionary the aristocrat and poet Chateubriand in 1843, synthesising counter-revolutionary royalism with Jacobin nationalism and social policies: these Charismatics had won the legislative elections of the later 1830s, and having assumed a significant position in the College were only defeated by an alliance of Republican forces and the eventual support of the 'Sectionist' Jacobin party. The Charismatics were purged from the lower legislative bodies by the College and the new Elector, the moderate and milquetoast liberal Amable Brugière, and domestic harmony restored. Slowly the Republican forces would coalesce into the hegemonic Liberal-Constitutionalist party, and have dominated France ever since. The rise of the far-left Communist 'Utopic' party first under a series of social theorists, and then under the charismatic mystic Éliphas Lévi remains a concern for the centre, but for now the vigilance of the College's members have meant that despite a brief legislative majority in the late 1860s the Utopics have never possessed more than 20 votes in the College, and seem unlikely to be able to choose the Great Elector. Certainly there has not been perfect harmony, and cracks have begun to show in the liberal movement over Guizot and Hugo's support for some moderate democratisation and the end to the Continental System, as well as some contention in the 1866 election over the triumphant return of the Bonaparte family to power. Nevertheless, promising nationalism abroad to appease the masses, the maintenance of the wise guidance of the elite in politics, and a crackdown at home on the Utopics' para-governmental communes, Lucien Bonaparte is perhaps the most popular Elector since his namesake's early years. It remains to be seen if he will be content to govern as a constitutional sovereign, or if the call to greatness and the easy pretext of rising tensions with the German Empire might reignite the Bonapartist allure of dictatorship...
(This is all based on Sieyès' real plans for a post-1799 French government, which Mignet rather elegantly describes as an attempt to usher in "the reign of a revolutionary oligarchy". I wrote my undergraduate dissertation partially on the topic, so I'm happy to answer any questions on it. This list has been my attempt to sketch out how I think such a system would deteriorate in practice despite Sieyès' intention to maintain a weak executive).
Last edited:
Bolt451
SOON MAY THE WELLERMAN COME
- Location
- Sandford, Gloucestershire
- Pronouns
- She/Her
Sorry to bring up such an old post but Dixy Lee Ray is a fascinating figure. Her running America as some kind of ultra-efficient dictator is a great touch
1939 - 1948: Jan Smuts (United Party)
1948 - 1950: Jan Smuts (United-Labour coalition)
1950 - 1953: Bernard Friedman (United-Labour coalition)
1953 - 1963: Bernard Friedman (United)
1963 - 1968: Bernard Friedman (United-ANC-SAIC coaltions)
The National Party very narrowly took power in 1948, forcing a formal coalition between United and Labour - the recommendations of the Fagan Commission were kicked down the road and a few labour laws were relaxed as the price. Before Smuts' death, the government ground on and was mostly static. Friedman came to power warning that the National Party would win if United couldn't provide something attractive, that the only way to beat the National's dominance on race was to make people question if National had anything else to offer, and a minor form of keynesian investment was shoved through along with social liberalisation. That made enough voters happy enough to win United a term - and then Friedman decided to try and fix the racial issue by, despite avoiding the issue during the election, enacting recommendations in the Fagan Commission and even increasing voting rights for non-white (middle classes) South Africans.
Friedman did other stuff too but that didn't matter in the 1958 election: it was National VS United, apartheid vs "dignified coexistence". Labour split in twain. Various dirty tricks and sordid violent acts were used across South Africa to 'discourage' non-white voters. But in the end, FPTP meant United won the most seats if not the most votes, thanks to the increased suffrage.
Political chaos and street violence spread for five years; there were high profile murders. The world winced, but South Africa was a key nation in the Cold War and the United Party were liberal conservatives, so they got support from the US and Britain - Macmillan's famous "Winds of Change" speech praised South Africa for its "calm, sensible, measured changes" which Macmillan knew was bollocks but it helped shore up the government. (Some nice trade deals and quiet tips from MI6 & CIA on plots helped too) In the end, when it came to the next election, United was losing support but the Nationals were as well because enough voters considered them the party of chaos, violence, and yelling loudly. Labour & left-wing vote was splintered.
What wasn't splintered was the African National Congress and South African Indian Congress, who had both taken advantage of the new suffrage to run MPs and had an electoral pact. There was fierce debate within United about allying with them and some MPs resigned, but by this point it was the only game in town - this or opposition, and for how long if Nationals got in now? And so a mostly conservative party passed another tranche of emancipation laws and several cities erupted into bloody riots for weeks. It was later revealed an army mutiny almost occured except that Johnson and Douglas-Home sent word to various South African figures that they would be very unhappy if an elected government headed by Their Man fell and communists went "SEE SEE" and, worse for them, black Americans and the remaining colonies said this showed there was no point talking to white leaders. Even with that behind the scenes, the country teetered on the brink.
In the end, despite hundreds of deaths, Friedman's government was bloodied but still there. Friedman agreed he would step down before the next election to allow a new face.
Those potential news faces are now really hoping the bigger electorate will vote United and 1968 won't see the first Congress Pact government, that the communists don't make gains, that the National Party is too weak to take much, that no new party is coming, that.......
1948 - 1950: Jan Smuts (United-Labour coalition)
1950 - 1953: Bernard Friedman (United-Labour coalition)
1953 - 1963: Bernard Friedman (United)
1963 - 1968: Bernard Friedman (United-ANC-SAIC coaltions)
The National Party very narrowly took power in 1948, forcing a formal coalition between United and Labour - the recommendations of the Fagan Commission were kicked down the road and a few labour laws were relaxed as the price. Before Smuts' death, the government ground on and was mostly static. Friedman came to power warning that the National Party would win if United couldn't provide something attractive, that the only way to beat the National's dominance on race was to make people question if National had anything else to offer, and a minor form of keynesian investment was shoved through along with social liberalisation. That made enough voters happy enough to win United a term - and then Friedman decided to try and fix the racial issue by, despite avoiding the issue during the election, enacting recommendations in the Fagan Commission and even increasing voting rights for non-white (middle classes) South Africans.
Friedman did other stuff too but that didn't matter in the 1958 election: it was National VS United, apartheid vs "dignified coexistence". Labour split in twain. Various dirty tricks and sordid violent acts were used across South Africa to 'discourage' non-white voters. But in the end, FPTP meant United won the most seats if not the most votes, thanks to the increased suffrage.
Political chaos and street violence spread for five years; there were high profile murders. The world winced, but South Africa was a key nation in the Cold War and the United Party were liberal conservatives, so they got support from the US and Britain - Macmillan's famous "Winds of Change" speech praised South Africa for its "calm, sensible, measured changes" which Macmillan knew was bollocks but it helped shore up the government. (Some nice trade deals and quiet tips from MI6 & CIA on plots helped too) In the end, when it came to the next election, United was losing support but the Nationals were as well because enough voters considered them the party of chaos, violence, and yelling loudly. Labour & left-wing vote was splintered.
What wasn't splintered was the African National Congress and South African Indian Congress, who had both taken advantage of the new suffrage to run MPs and had an electoral pact. There was fierce debate within United about allying with them and some MPs resigned, but by this point it was the only game in town - this or opposition, and for how long if Nationals got in now? And so a mostly conservative party passed another tranche of emancipation laws and several cities erupted into bloody riots for weeks. It was later revealed an army mutiny almost occured except that Johnson and Douglas-Home sent word to various South African figures that they would be very unhappy if an elected government headed by Their Man fell and communists went "SEE SEE" and, worse for them, black Americans and the remaining colonies said this showed there was no point talking to white leaders. Even with that behind the scenes, the country teetered on the brink.
In the end, despite hundreds of deaths, Friedman's government was bloodied but still there. Friedman agreed he would step down before the next election to allow a new face.
Those potential news faces are now really hoping the bigger electorate will vote United and 1968 won't see the first Congress Pact government, that the communists don't make gains, that the National Party is too weak to take much, that no new party is coming, that.......
OwenM
The patronising flippancy of youth
- Location
- Colwyn Bay/Manchester
- Pronouns
- He/him
Beata Beatrix
"Lemon, it's January"
- Location
- Portland, OR
- Pronouns
- she/her/hers
Quite a nice list! What happened to Jan Hendrik Hofmeyr – did he die as per IOTL?
- Location
- Albany, NY
- Pronouns
- He/Him
I figure ghe'd still be dead pro-POD
Somehow I just now stumbled upon this thread and have been trying to tear through it while I’m on a cross-country road trip, you folks have some beautiful minds
Presidents of the Bengali Republic
1803-1807: Napoleon Bonaparte
Kings of the Kingdom of Bengal
1807-1821: Napoleon I (House of Bonaparte)
1812 constitutional referendum: Yes (84%); No (16%)
1821-1842: Napoleon II (House of Bonaparte)
1821 constitutional referendum: Yes (75%); No (25%)
1831 constitutional referendum: Yes (81%); No (19%)
1841 constitutional referendum: Yes (59%); No (25%)
1842-1852: Napoleon III (House of Bonaparte)
1842 constitutional referendum: Yes (63%); No (37%)
1852 constitutional referendum: Yes (48%); No (52%)
1852-1905: Debendranath I (House of Tagore)
1905-1937: Rabindranath I (House of Tagore)
1905 constitutional referendum: Yes (62%); No (38%)
1915 constitutional referendum: Yes (57%); No (43%)
1925 constitutional referendum: Yes (55%); No (45%)
1935 constitutional referendum: Yes (61%); No (39%)
1937-1949: Hemendranath I (House of Tagore) [guillotined]
1937 constitutional referendum: Yes (63%); No (37%)
1947 constitutional referendum: Yes (46%); No (54%)
After Napoleon's successful invasion of Britain in 1802 in Operation Lion du Mer, he was quick to take hold of Britain's empire. He ordered armies into Canada, conquering it and forcing the local armies to surrender after conquering Montreal (later renamed Mont Républicain, then Mont Imperial), and also invaded India with Mysorean support. After conquering Calcutta from Richard Wellesley's exilic administration, he turned it into a separate republic, with himself as president. After declaring himself Emperor, he made Bengal a kingdom ruled by himself. In practice, however, he delegated power to Ram Mohan Roy, who was initially his vice president, then Arch-Chancellor of Bengal.
In office, he established an administration on the French model, with separation of powers and a legislature made up of a Vidhan Sabha (Legislative Body) and a Budhe Sabha (House of Elders, or more loosely Senate), as well as regular referenda. Furthermore, while Roy ratified a Penal Code as well as Procedure Codes, he proved resistant to the ratification of a Civil Code. Ram Mohan Roy proved a competent ruler enough, despite controversy over his Unitarian-influenced beliefs, and he also established universities across Bengal. Even after Napoleon I's death, he was retained; Ram Mohan Roy died in 1837.
Napoleon II appointed Dwarkanath Tagore, a loyal reformist aristocrat, as Arch-Chancellor afterwards; furthermore, campaigns to bring Oudh as well as land up to Afghan-ruled Delhi under French control. And so, the period of French expansion in India from 1839-1852 occurred, which only ended with the conquest of Delhi and the end of the Mughal Empire. Subsequently, Napoleon III was declared Emperor of India. However, these expansionist campaigns resulted in high taxes for Bengalis, and the 1852 referendum ended with defeat for the constitution. This led to Napoleon III being forced to resign his post as King of Bengal, though he remained Emperor of India. Instead, Debendranath Tagore, the son of Dwarkanath, was elected King by the Budhe Sabha.
However, paranoid about liberal institutions, Debendranath established an absolute monarchy, and ensured the bonds with France would continue. Although there were perpetual rebellions during his reign, he continued to rule firmly. It was only upon his assassination in 1905 and the ascent of his son that Bengal liberalized.
Immediately upon coming to power, Rabindranath restored the old Bengali constitution and held a referendum for it. Rebels were given amnesty, and Rabindranath was willing to become a figurehead with real power vested in his Arch-Chancellor responsible to the Vidhan Sabha K.C. Sen. In office Rabindranath spent more time writing poems and stories then he did anything related to governance; today, it is for his poems and stories that he is remembered. His reign would see the continued growth of a bourgeois class, in opposition to the old aristocracy. Furthermore, he negotiated the weakening of French influence, and with the Treaty of Kanpur, the House of Bonaparte as Emperors of India no longer had nominal sovereignty over Bengal. Rabindranath died in 1937, beloved.
However, his son Hemendranath proved less capable. Despite initially seeming like being in his father's mold, instead he wanted real powers. He constantly interfered with the ruling administration, and he proved incompetent as a ruler. This resulted in the defeat of the constitution in the 1947 referendum. Though this was obviously a statement against Hemendranath, he refused to resign, and instead declared himself absolute monarch. This resulted in a revolution (1947-1949), and after a trial, he was executed by guillotine, to the horror of many foreign observers. Bengal was declared a republic; today that remains Bengal's form of government, even if its initial revolutionary fervour has cooled.
1803-1807: Napoleon Bonaparte
Kings of the Kingdom of Bengal
1807-1821: Napoleon I (House of Bonaparte)
1812 constitutional referendum: Yes (84%); No (16%)
1821-1842: Napoleon II (House of Bonaparte)
1821 constitutional referendum: Yes (75%); No (25%)
1831 constitutional referendum: Yes (81%); No (19%)
1841 constitutional referendum: Yes (59%); No (25%)
1842-1852: Napoleon III (House of Bonaparte)
1842 constitutional referendum: Yes (63%); No (37%)
1852 constitutional referendum: Yes (48%); No (52%)
1852-1905: Debendranath I (House of Tagore)
1905-1937: Rabindranath I (House of Tagore)
1905 constitutional referendum: Yes (62%); No (38%)
1915 constitutional referendum: Yes (57%); No (43%)
1925 constitutional referendum: Yes (55%); No (45%)
1935 constitutional referendum: Yes (61%); No (39%)
1937-1949: Hemendranath I (House of Tagore) [guillotined]
1937 constitutional referendum: Yes (63%); No (37%)
1947 constitutional referendum: Yes (46%); No (54%)
After Napoleon's successful invasion of Britain in 1802 in Operation Lion du Mer, he was quick to take hold of Britain's empire. He ordered armies into Canada, conquering it and forcing the local armies to surrender after conquering Montreal (later renamed Mont Républicain, then Mont Imperial), and also invaded India with Mysorean support. After conquering Calcutta from Richard Wellesley's exilic administration, he turned it into a separate republic, with himself as president. After declaring himself Emperor, he made Bengal a kingdom ruled by himself. In practice, however, he delegated power to Ram Mohan Roy, who was initially his vice president, then Arch-Chancellor of Bengal.
In office, he established an administration on the French model, with separation of powers and a legislature made up of a Vidhan Sabha (Legislative Body) and a Budhe Sabha (House of Elders, or more loosely Senate), as well as regular referenda. Furthermore, while Roy ratified a Penal Code as well as Procedure Codes, he proved resistant to the ratification of a Civil Code. Ram Mohan Roy proved a competent ruler enough, despite controversy over his Unitarian-influenced beliefs, and he also established universities across Bengal. Even after Napoleon I's death, he was retained; Ram Mohan Roy died in 1837.
Napoleon II appointed Dwarkanath Tagore, a loyal reformist aristocrat, as Arch-Chancellor afterwards; furthermore, campaigns to bring Oudh as well as land up to Afghan-ruled Delhi under French control. And so, the period of French expansion in India from 1839-1852 occurred, which only ended with the conquest of Delhi and the end of the Mughal Empire. Subsequently, Napoleon III was declared Emperor of India. However, these expansionist campaigns resulted in high taxes for Bengalis, and the 1852 referendum ended with defeat for the constitution. This led to Napoleon III being forced to resign his post as King of Bengal, though he remained Emperor of India. Instead, Debendranath Tagore, the son of Dwarkanath, was elected King by the Budhe Sabha.
However, paranoid about liberal institutions, Debendranath established an absolute monarchy, and ensured the bonds with France would continue. Although there were perpetual rebellions during his reign, he continued to rule firmly. It was only upon his assassination in 1905 and the ascent of his son that Bengal liberalized.
Immediately upon coming to power, Rabindranath restored the old Bengali constitution and held a referendum for it. Rebels were given amnesty, and Rabindranath was willing to become a figurehead with real power vested in his Arch-Chancellor responsible to the Vidhan Sabha K.C. Sen. In office Rabindranath spent more time writing poems and stories then he did anything related to governance; today, it is for his poems and stories that he is remembered. His reign would see the continued growth of a bourgeois class, in opposition to the old aristocracy. Furthermore, he negotiated the weakening of French influence, and with the Treaty of Kanpur, the House of Bonaparte as Emperors of India no longer had nominal sovereignty over Bengal. Rabindranath died in 1937, beloved.
However, his son Hemendranath proved less capable. Despite initially seeming like being in his father's mold, instead he wanted real powers. He constantly interfered with the ruling administration, and he proved incompetent as a ruler. This resulted in the defeat of the constitution in the 1947 referendum. Though this was obviously a statement against Hemendranath, he refused to resign, and instead declared himself absolute monarch. This resulted in a revolution (1947-1949), and after a trial, he was executed by guillotine, to the horror of many foreign observers. Bengal was declared a republic; today that remains Bengal's form of government, even if its initial revolutionary fervour has cooled.
Walpurgisnacht
Victory Dance of the Penguin Race
- Location
- Banned from the forum
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Thanks. It was fun to make.
Better than Parisderry, that's for sure.
Venocara
Britain expects that every man will do his duty...
- Pronouns
- He/him
@Thande's post combined with @Tsar of New Zealand's wonderful reply has given me an idea for what I call List Challenges. These would operate similarly to the Vignette Challenges: someone would come up with a topic (for example "Britain after Sea Lion") and people create lists and descriptions about that topic. Like the Vignette Challenge at the end of the month there would be a vote on the best one, and then the cycle repeats every month..
What do you guys think?
There was an attempt at something like this a while back in the form of a prompt rather than a formal contest. It led to some really good lists, but kinda fizzled out.
I'd love to see something like this tried again, and formalising it seems like a good idea to make it stick around longer.
Time Enough
"Enthusiastic Cis Male Partner"
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Things are could always be worst..:An Alternate Leaders list:
President of the United States of America:
1976-1981:Ronald Reagan (Republican)
1976 (With Nelson Rockefeller) def: Jimmy Carter (Democrat), Tom McCall (Reform)
1981: Ted Kennedy (Democrat)†
1981 (With Jerry Brown) def: Ronald Reagan (Republican), Tom McCall (Reform)
1981-1989: Jerry Brown (Democrat)
1984 (With Geraldine Ferraro) def: George W.Bush (Republican), John B.Anderson (Reform)
1989-1993: John Chafee (Republican)
1988 (With Donald Rumsfeld) def: Jesse Jackson (Democrat), Ralph Nader (People’s), Patrick Lucey (Reform)
1993-: Geraldine Ferraro (Democrat)
1992 (With John Conyers) def: John Chafee (Republican), Angus King (People’s), Joe Lieberman (Reform)
Prime Ministers of Great Britain:
1976-1978: James Callaghan (Labour)
1978-1985: Margaret Thatcher
1978 (Majority) def: James Callaghan (Labour), David Steel (Liberal), William Wolfe (Scottish National Party)
1982 (Majority) def: Denis Healey (Labour), David Steel-David Owen (Liberal-SDP Alliance), Jim Sillars (SNP)
1985-1988: Francis Pym (Conservative)
1985 (Coalition with *Social Democratic Party) def: Peter Shore (Labour), David Owen (*SDP), David Steel-Robert Maclennan (Liberal-SDP Alliance), Jim Sillars (SNP)
1988-1991: Bryan Gould (Labour)
1988 (Majority) def: Francis Pym (Conservative), David Owen (SDP), Lindsay Northover (Liberal Democrats), Jim Sillars (SNP)
1991 Referendum on Maastricht Treaty: Yes 52%, No 48%
1991-:Margaret Beckett (Labour)
1991 (Majority) def: Nicolas Scott (Conservative), Stephen Milligan (SDP), Lindsay Northover (Liberal Democrats), Margo MacDonald (SNP), Alex Salmond (Scottish Independence Party)
1995 (Majority) def: Nicolas Scott (Conservative), Anna Sobury (SDP), Matthew Taylor (Liberal Democrats), Alan Sked-Jimmy Goldsmith (Reform), John Redwood (National)
Leaders of the Soviet Union (CPSU Factions):
1964-1977:Leonid Brezhnev (Conservative)
1977-1986: Grigory Romanov (Conseravtive)
1986-1994: Nikolai Ryzhkov (Reform)
1990 (With Alexander Yakovlev) def: Ruslan Khasbulatov (Democratic), Boris Yeltsin (Liberal)
1994-: Ruslan Khasbulatov (Reform-Democratic)
1994 (With Galina Starovoytova) def: Nikolai Ryzhov (Reform-Conservative), Boris Yeltsin (Liberal),Alexander Barkashov (National Front)
*Continuity Social Democratic Party, created out of a members of the SDP who resisted the Liberal-SDP merger.
President of the United States of America:
1976-1981:Ronald Reagan (Republican)
1976 (With Nelson Rockefeller) def: Jimmy Carter (Democrat), Tom McCall (Reform)
1981: Ted Kennedy (Democrat)†
1981 (With Jerry Brown) def: Ronald Reagan (Republican), Tom McCall (Reform)
1981-1989: Jerry Brown (Democrat)
1984 (With Geraldine Ferraro) def: George W.Bush (Republican), John B.Anderson (Reform)
1989-1993: John Chafee (Republican)
1988 (With Donald Rumsfeld) def: Jesse Jackson (Democrat), Ralph Nader (People’s), Patrick Lucey (Reform)
1993-: Geraldine Ferraro (Democrat)
1992 (With John Conyers) def: John Chafee (Republican), Angus King (People’s), Joe Lieberman (Reform)
Prime Ministers of Great Britain:
1976-1978: James Callaghan (Labour)
1978-1985: Margaret Thatcher
1978 (Majority) def: James Callaghan (Labour), David Steel (Liberal), William Wolfe (Scottish National Party)
1982 (Majority) def: Denis Healey (Labour), David Steel-David Owen (Liberal-SDP Alliance), Jim Sillars (SNP)
1985-1988: Francis Pym (Conservative)
1985 (Coalition with *Social Democratic Party) def: Peter Shore (Labour), David Owen (*SDP), David Steel-Robert Maclennan (Liberal-SDP Alliance), Jim Sillars (SNP)
1988-1991: Bryan Gould (Labour)
1988 (Majority) def: Francis Pym (Conservative), David Owen (SDP), Lindsay Northover (Liberal Democrats), Jim Sillars (SNP)
1991 Referendum on Maastricht Treaty: Yes 52%, No 48%
1991-:Margaret Beckett (Labour)
1991 (Majority) def: Nicolas Scott (Conservative), Stephen Milligan (SDP), Lindsay Northover (Liberal Democrats), Margo MacDonald (SNP), Alex Salmond (Scottish Independence Party)
1995 (Majority) def: Nicolas Scott (Conservative), Anna Sobury (SDP), Matthew Taylor (Liberal Democrats), Alan Sked-Jimmy Goldsmith (Reform), John Redwood (National)
Leaders of the Soviet Union (CPSU Factions):
1964-1977:Leonid Brezhnev (Conservative)
1977-1986: Grigory Romanov (Conseravtive)
1986-1994: Nikolai Ryzhkov (Reform)
1990 (With Alexander Yakovlev) def: Ruslan Khasbulatov (Democratic), Boris Yeltsin (Liberal)
1994-: Ruslan Khasbulatov (Reform-Democratic)
1994 (With Galina Starovoytova) def: Nikolai Ryzhov (Reform-Conservative), Boris Yeltsin (Liberal),
*Continuity Social Democratic Party, created out of a members of the SDP who resisted the Liberal-SDP merger.
Last edited:
- Location
- Doncaster/ Sheffield
Not a bad idea @Venocara .
This is slightly related to my own challenge alluded to above. It's not a period or country I have expertise in so may not be the most plausible, but I had a couple of ideas I wanted to try out.
List of Presidents of the German Reich (aka Weimar Republic)
1919-1925: Friedrich Ebert (SPD) [1]
1925-1930: Otto Braun (SPD) [2]
1930-1940: Manfred von Richthofen (Nonpartisan) [3]
1940-1940: Ludwig Kaas (Zentrum, caretaker) [4]
1940-1947: Hans Vogel (SPD) [5]
1947-1953: Gustav Streseman (DVP) [6]
1953-1960: Karl Emil Hilferding† (SPD) [7]
1960-1960: Adolf Hitler (NSDAP, caretaker) [8]
1960-1967: Franz Neumann (SPD) [9]
1967-1968: Rüdiger von Lettow-Vorbeck (Nonpartisan) [10]
This is slightly related to my own challenge alluded to above. It's not a period or country I have expertise in so may not be the most plausible, but I had a couple of ideas I wanted to try out.
List of Presidents of the German Reich (aka Weimar Republic)
1919-1925: Friedrich Ebert (SPD) [1]
1925-1930: Otto Braun (SPD) [2]
1930-1940: Manfred von Richthofen (Nonpartisan) [3]
1940-1940: Ludwig Kaas (Zentrum, caretaker) [4]
1940-1947: Hans Vogel (SPD) [5]
1947-1953: Gustav Streseman (DVP) [6]
1953-1960: Karl Emil Hilferding† (SPD) [7]
1960-1960: Adolf Hitler (NSDAP, caretaker) [8]
1960-1967: Franz Neumann (SPD) [9]
1967-1968: Rüdiger von Lettow-Vorbeck (Nonpartisan) [10]
[1] Ebert's Magdeburg treason libel case fell out differently, he sought medical aid earlier, and he ultimately lived to serve out his term till its extended date of 1925.
[2] Otto Braun narrowly defeated Karl Jarres in the second round of the 1925 presidential election, but only with the assistance of - and concessions to - the KPD, which stoked tensions behind the scenes and led to a number of failed putsch attempts. However, his presidency would be secure until the Wall Street Crash, which led to widespread discontent and eventually...
[3] The much-admired Richthofen, who had survived the Weltkrieg against the odds, had no real interest in politics but was persuaded by his very persuasive friends that Germany needed saving. The so-called 'Zirkus-Putsch' put a reluctant Red Baron in power, dissent on all sides (but especially the left) silenced by the authority enacted in his name. Richthofen privately saw his goals as threefold: to fix the economy and political instability of the Republic, to overturn at least the worst excesses of Versailles, and ultimately to restore the Hohenzollern monarchy he remained personally loyal to. Scholars and partisans fiercely debate just how much Richthofen was aware of the actions committed in his name for the stated purpose of achieving the first goal; did Richthofen truly believe that his re-election bid had been repeatedly delayed for 'public safety' reasons? Rather than rearming openly at first, Richthofen invested in a huge airstrip-building programme and aircraft development, claiming peaceful purposes (such as boosting trade via cargo aircraft) and portraying it as an economic stimulus programme. His reputation meant that many observers did not suspect anything, seeing it as merely an eccentric obsession with the skies. As the 1930s wore on, Richthofen's rhetoric against Versailles intensified; specifically, he stated that he had no ambitions to reclaim Alsace-Lorraine or the territories lost to Belgium because 'those who fought well deserve their victory', but he verbally attacked nations that had been neutral in the war but had benefited in territory. Recognition of Austria (with its newly restored Hapsburg monarchy) defeated the attempt at an Anglo-Franco-Italian "Salo Front" when Italy accepted the settlement, while irredentist Hungary became Germany's ally. Well-informed men breathed a sigh of relief in 1938 when Lord Halifax successfully negotiated away Memel and the Free City of Danzig to German plebiscites, certain that Richthofen would be satisfied. The world would awake in shock to find Denmark occupied from the air one fateful day in 1939. But a quick strike to regain all of Schleswig-Holstein was one thing, winning a war was another. Richthofen had miscalculated, trusting in his advisors that Germany's economy could withstand a British blockade, attacks from France and American sanctions. It could not, and after six months of 'Phoney War' and a failed attempt to persuade the Kaiser to return from exile, Richthofen resigned. He took personal responsibility for his actions and offering himself up for trial at the League of Nations. He remained a celebrity even in prison, while the Czerwony Pucz in Poland and the Soviet invasion of the Baltic states and Finland persuaded Britain and France to let him take the blame without weakening Germany, the last bulwark against Communism, too much.
[4] Kaas, a Zentrum leader and diplomat, served as caretaker leader until a fresh election could be held.
[5] Vogel, a prominent SPD leader who had been placed under house arrest under the Zirkußtaat, was elected by a wide margin and saw the return of the liberal (and chaotic) Weimar democracy, though political paramilitaries never quite regained their old strength.
[6] Stresemann's win was a surprise, not least to the Right that had put him up for the expected loss in order to get him out of power in Prussia, where he frequently made comments about adjusting the eastern borders that Britain and France regarded with intense suspicion. But a scandal attaching itself to Vogel at the right minute brought the Right back into power - much to the annoyance of those parties' leaders in the Reichstag, who spent the next seven years distancing themselves from Stresemann's increasingly erratic rhetoric. It was around this time that the power of the presidency was regarded as having faded due to all parts of the political spectrum tending to assert themselves in ignoring the elderly Stresemann.
[7] Hilferding, the son of the prominent SPD Marxist theoretician, had a successful (but tellingly more ceremonial in tone) presidency before unexpectedly dying from a heart attack two months before his re-election bid.
[8] The Right parties had a plurality in the Reichstag at the time of Hilferding's death, but needed to buy support from minor parties in order to govern. Hitler, a leader of the minor NSDAP party who had been imprisoned repeatedly both before and during the Zirkußtaat, was regarded as something of a martyr by veterans' groups for his alleged mistreatment that had led to his health suffering--strangely no-one ever seemed to mention the fact that he had been behind an early putsch attempt, after all, that had been a long time ago. While he had long since withdrawn from mainstream politics, his cause célebre was a major one not only with minnows like the NSDAP but with the larger and more influential DNVP. The DVP and Zentrum therefore decided to buy support by putting this symbolic figure in the presidency for a couple of months. This was not the best decision. The elderly Hitler was suffering from Parkinson's disease and drug addiction, and, outside the carefully coached interviews of the veterans' groups campaigns, rapidly became deranged. He was obsessed with both making anti-Semitic pronouncements and also constantly bringing up the adventures of British explorer and missionary David Livingstone. The Right parties, along with everyone else, were rather relieved by the point that Hitler could be escorted off the premises, even as he attempted to command an imaginary army of supporters to seize the Reichstag.
[9] Though something of a relief after the Two Months' Wonder, Neumann would ultimately fall out with his own party, in part due to being regarded as too close to the KPD--and perhaps even Comrade Yezhov's USSR. This came to a crisis point when France detonated her first atomic bomb in 1963, becoming the fourth nation to do so after America's first test in 1957, and Neumann gave a speech criticising atomic proliferation--at a time when German scientists were feverishly working on their country's own device. It was clear that Neumann was not being trusted or briefed with confidential information, and theorists across the political spectrum began to plot how to address the remaining problem with the Weimar state.
[10] By mutual agreement between the SPD, DVP, Free Liberal and Zentrum leaderships, the 1967 election was held almost unopposed, with all major parties except the KPD and DNVP nominating the retired general Rüdiger von Lettow-Vorbeck, son of the celebrated Paul von Lettow-Vorbeck of the Weltkrieg. It was clear that Lettow was a mere placeholder, and he promptly called a plebiscite on the return of the monarchy under the 62-year-old exiled Crown Prince Wilhelm. This was duly won by a 55%-45% margin, and the prince was crowned Emperor Wilhelm IV (his father being regarded as retroactively occupying the throne) on November 9th, 1968: on the fiftieth anniversary of the German Revolution, it was undone. However, the fundamental institutions of Weimar democracy would remain unchanged as the world prepared to face the Tokyo Confrontation.
[2] Otto Braun narrowly defeated Karl Jarres in the second round of the 1925 presidential election, but only with the assistance of - and concessions to - the KPD, which stoked tensions behind the scenes and led to a number of failed putsch attempts. However, his presidency would be secure until the Wall Street Crash, which led to widespread discontent and eventually...
[3] The much-admired Richthofen, who had survived the Weltkrieg against the odds, had no real interest in politics but was persuaded by his very persuasive friends that Germany needed saving. The so-called 'Zirkus-Putsch' put a reluctant Red Baron in power, dissent on all sides (but especially the left) silenced by the authority enacted in his name. Richthofen privately saw his goals as threefold: to fix the economy and political instability of the Republic, to overturn at least the worst excesses of Versailles, and ultimately to restore the Hohenzollern monarchy he remained personally loyal to. Scholars and partisans fiercely debate just how much Richthofen was aware of the actions committed in his name for the stated purpose of achieving the first goal; did Richthofen truly believe that his re-election bid had been repeatedly delayed for 'public safety' reasons? Rather than rearming openly at first, Richthofen invested in a huge airstrip-building programme and aircraft development, claiming peaceful purposes (such as boosting trade via cargo aircraft) and portraying it as an economic stimulus programme. His reputation meant that many observers did not suspect anything, seeing it as merely an eccentric obsession with the skies. As the 1930s wore on, Richthofen's rhetoric against Versailles intensified; specifically, he stated that he had no ambitions to reclaim Alsace-Lorraine or the territories lost to Belgium because 'those who fought well deserve their victory', but he verbally attacked nations that had been neutral in the war but had benefited in territory. Recognition of Austria (with its newly restored Hapsburg monarchy) defeated the attempt at an Anglo-Franco-Italian "Salo Front" when Italy accepted the settlement, while irredentist Hungary became Germany's ally. Well-informed men breathed a sigh of relief in 1938 when Lord Halifax successfully negotiated away Memel and the Free City of Danzig to German plebiscites, certain that Richthofen would be satisfied. The world would awake in shock to find Denmark occupied from the air one fateful day in 1939. But a quick strike to regain all of Schleswig-Holstein was one thing, winning a war was another. Richthofen had miscalculated, trusting in his advisors that Germany's economy could withstand a British blockade, attacks from France and American sanctions. It could not, and after six months of 'Phoney War' and a failed attempt to persuade the Kaiser to return from exile, Richthofen resigned. He took personal responsibility for his actions and offering himself up for trial at the League of Nations. He remained a celebrity even in prison, while the Czerwony Pucz in Poland and the Soviet invasion of the Baltic states and Finland persuaded Britain and France to let him take the blame without weakening Germany, the last bulwark against Communism, too much.
[4] Kaas, a Zentrum leader and diplomat, served as caretaker leader until a fresh election could be held.
[5] Vogel, a prominent SPD leader who had been placed under house arrest under the Zirkußtaat, was elected by a wide margin and saw the return of the liberal (and chaotic) Weimar democracy, though political paramilitaries never quite regained their old strength.
[6] Stresemann's win was a surprise, not least to the Right that had put him up for the expected loss in order to get him out of power in Prussia, where he frequently made comments about adjusting the eastern borders that Britain and France regarded with intense suspicion. But a scandal attaching itself to Vogel at the right minute brought the Right back into power - much to the annoyance of those parties' leaders in the Reichstag, who spent the next seven years distancing themselves from Stresemann's increasingly erratic rhetoric. It was around this time that the power of the presidency was regarded as having faded due to all parts of the political spectrum tending to assert themselves in ignoring the elderly Stresemann.
[7] Hilferding, the son of the prominent SPD Marxist theoretician, had a successful (but tellingly more ceremonial in tone) presidency before unexpectedly dying from a heart attack two months before his re-election bid.
[8] The Right parties had a plurality in the Reichstag at the time of Hilferding's death, but needed to buy support from minor parties in order to govern. Hitler, a leader of the minor NSDAP party who had been imprisoned repeatedly both before and during the Zirkußtaat, was regarded as something of a martyr by veterans' groups for his alleged mistreatment that had led to his health suffering--strangely no-one ever seemed to mention the fact that he had been behind an early putsch attempt, after all, that had been a long time ago. While he had long since withdrawn from mainstream politics, his cause célebre was a major one not only with minnows like the NSDAP but with the larger and more influential DNVP. The DVP and Zentrum therefore decided to buy support by putting this symbolic figure in the presidency for a couple of months. This was not the best decision. The elderly Hitler was suffering from Parkinson's disease and drug addiction, and, outside the carefully coached interviews of the veterans' groups campaigns, rapidly became deranged. He was obsessed with both making anti-Semitic pronouncements and also constantly bringing up the adventures of British explorer and missionary David Livingstone. The Right parties, along with everyone else, were rather relieved by the point that Hitler could be escorted off the premises, even as he attempted to command an imaginary army of supporters to seize the Reichstag.
[9] Though something of a relief after the Two Months' Wonder, Neumann would ultimately fall out with his own party, in part due to being regarded as too close to the KPD--and perhaps even Comrade Yezhov's USSR. This came to a crisis point when France detonated her first atomic bomb in 1963, becoming the fourth nation to do so after America's first test in 1957, and Neumann gave a speech criticising atomic proliferation--at a time when German scientists were feverishly working on their country's own device. It was clear that Neumann was not being trusted or briefed with confidential information, and theorists across the political spectrum began to plot how to address the remaining problem with the Weimar state.
[10] By mutual agreement between the SPD, DVP, Free Liberal and Zentrum leaderships, the 1967 election was held almost unopposed, with all major parties except the KPD and DNVP nominating the retired general Rüdiger von Lettow-Vorbeck, son of the celebrated Paul von Lettow-Vorbeck of the Weltkrieg. It was clear that Lettow was a mere placeholder, and he promptly called a plebiscite on the return of the monarchy under the 62-year-old exiled Crown Prince Wilhelm. This was duly won by a 55%-45% margin, and the prince was crowned Emperor Wilhelm IV (his father being regarded as retroactively occupying the throne) on November 9th, 1968: on the fiftieth anniversary of the German Revolution, it was undone. However, the fundamental institutions of Weimar democracy would remain unchanged as the world prepared to face the Tokyo Confrontation.
I can't really see the SPD being sold on restoring the monarchy, even symbolically. OTL they did compromise quite a bit with Weimar's ideals but that was under much greater threat and being squeezed hard to their left while facing the far right.