Ah, EdT, he was one-of-a-kind. It's sad we'll never see The Bloody Man finished but he left a wonderful legacy in his completed timelines. A Greater Britain really got me interested in writing alternate history (though naturally, its portrayals of Mosley, Franco, et al, have aged a little poorly).
It's also making a very relevant AH point that it can be a quirk of happenstance between two timelines whether the same authoritarian figure gets to be presented primarily as a Park Chung Hee or a Kim Jong Il.You know, I'm going to be the contrarian and argue that the point of A Greater Britain's Mosley, Franco and Mussolini is to underline the dangers of a smarter, quieter fascism. It can be easy to miss, partially because the worst elements are happening on the edges of the TL and the TTL historians show at various points an inability to grapple with any of their essential awfulness, especially Mosley's. But the fact remains, as it wraps up the Fourth Reich is launching death satellites and Alan Clark is prepping for a likely successful takeover of the Labour leadership as the Mosleyite heir apparent, with a later term as PM (in a probably military crisis) looking equally likely.
Charles Evans Hughes, Thomas E.Dewey, Hubert Humphrey, al Gore,Hillary Clinton -the narrow losers? In Britain -Heseltine,Tebbit,Parkinson,John Smith, Austen Chamberlain?I think Thomas's way of picking out a historical figure who was considered a 'big beast' in their time but either flopped or sank without a trace (Tim Collins, anyone?) is a clever way of writing AH. Thanks to his work, whenever I'm reading or listening to history and a figure is mentioned as "You probably haven't heard of him now but..." my ears prick up.
There's a good thread brainstorming 'hipster' choices for leading politicians in an AH, alongside the 'near misses' and more prominent figures.Charles Evans Hughes, Thomas E.Dewey, Hubert Humphrey, al Gore,Hillary Clinton -the narrow losers? In Britain -Heseltine,Tebbit,Parkinson,John Smith, Austen Chamberlain?