"Tomorrow Belongs to Me"
A Different Britain 1929-1964
Based on the Alternate History "A Greater Britain" by Ed Thomas
I. The Hand of History
II. Action
III. Locarno
IV. A Necessary End
V. New Jerusalem
VI. Raj
Last edited:
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
"Tomorrow Belongs to Me"
A Different Britain 1929-1964
Based on the Alternate History "A Greater Britain" by Ed Thomas
I. The Hand of History
II. Action
III. Locarno
IV. A Necessary End
V. New Jerusalem
VI. Raj
It's back, fun with Oswald Mosley, rejigged for DH. Why not join me?
Its more fleshed out, re-written, some lovely new events and longer with game play starting in 1933. Hope you enjoy.
Its more fleshed out, re-written, some lovely new events and longer with game play starting in 1933. Hope you enjoy.
Last edited:
I: The Hand of History
Ramsay MacDonald enters 10 Downing Street, June 1929
1930 found Britain’s government on shaky ground. Having missed out on a majority in the previous year’s General Election, Ramsay MacDonald’s Labour Party was forced to rely on the goodwill of the fractious Liberals to establish a minority government. Added to this, the coming of the Great Depression had led to massive upsurge in unemployment and a general economic crisis. As MacDonald and his orthodox Chancellor of the Exchequer, Philip Snowden, attempted to combat the crash they not only faced criticism and pressure from the Conservatives but dissent from within the Labour Party itself. Alongside the established rebels of the Trade Union Congress and left-wing ILP, the leadership faced a new faction of young radical MPs led by the charismatic Oswald Mosley. Following a stunning victory over Conservative grandee Neville Chamberlain in the 1924 General Election, Mosley had quickly made a name for himself. In Birmingham, he had drastically reformed the local Party machine, which saw the city wrenched from forty years of Tory dominance in 1929 and his own constituency of Ladywood catapulted from a hare's breadth marginal into a Labour safe seat. Along with his ever loyal ally John Strachey, he penned the ‘Birmingham Proposals’ in 1925, outlining a Keynesian remedy intended to cure the lacklustre economy. Soon a following had grown around him and despite his intense (and often vocal) dislike of the ‘old men’ of the Party, earned a place in the 1929 Cabinet as Lord Privy Seal, to deal with the issue of unemployment. Despite hopes from acolytes that his inclusion in the Cabinet would see a shift towards their way of thinking, Snowden vetoed proposal after proposal designed to combat joblessness.
The prime minister proved equally infuriating to the impatient Mosley, claiming sympathy for his ideas in private only to defer totally to his Chancellor during Cabinet meetings. In May 1930, flustered by his colleagues’ inaction, Mosley wrote a final memorandum, outlining a broad programme of work projects to combat the millions of unemployed. Again the Chancellor scoffed at such “wild cat finance” as he called it, with MacDonald in cautious agreement, and penned a brutal critique in response. Exasperated, Mosley stepped down from Cabinet. In a fiery resignation speech the next week, he attacked what he saw as the Government’s outmoded concerns and general stagnation. Much to the Prime Minister’s embarrassment, the speech received thunderous applause from both sides of the House [1]. Following on from this victory, Mosley began to mount external pressure on the Government. In July, invited by an increasingly sympathetic Ernest Bevin, Mosley spoke at the Durham Miners’ Gala, the Labour Movement’s annual political rally cum family picnic. On fiery form, he denounced MacDonald and praised the British workers as “the storm troopers of labour”, to wild applause [2]. At the Party Conference in October, with much of the TUC now on side, he made a policy proposal based on his memorandum. The proposal narrowly lost out however any sting of defeat was leavened by its author’s election to the National Executive Committee, a clear indicator of his popularity, as well as a growing grassroots discontent with Snowden’s economic policies [3]. In January 1931, Mosleyite backbenchers led by Strachey, Aneurin Bevan and James Brown formed the ‘New Labour Group’, entrenching the rebellion within the Parliamentary Labour Party.
Mosley Resigns, May 1930
The Government’s internal divisions finally came to a head in July with the publishing of the May Report. Established to look into the Depression’s effects on national expenditure, the Report predicted a 1932 deficit of £120 million, and called for severe budget cuts to narrow the gap. Snowden endorsed the Report, leading MacDonald to put a controversial retrenchment plan before the Cabinet. After hours of debate they proved deadlocked by an even split for and against. Seeing no way towards compromise, the ministers all agreed to resign, and that evening MacDonald, greatly disheartened, drove to Buckingham Palace to inform the King of the situation.Having been made aware, George V urged his prime minister not to resign but instead to consider a national coalition, although he openly doubted how receptive the other parties would be. The next day MacDonald met with Stanley Baldwin and Herbert Samuel, leaders of the Conservative and Liberal parties respectively, to discuss the issue of a possible alliance. The meeting proved a dead end as both MacDonald and Baldwin were left unconvinced of the other’s commitment to such a scheme, despite the pleas of Samuel [4]. As such, the Prime Minister despondently returned to the Palace one last time on July 25th to tender his resignation, his ministry to be replaced by a Conservative-Liberal emergency government. In the aftermath of the government’s collapse, Ramsay MacDonald made it clear he would not be staying on as Leader of the Labour Party. After officially announcing his intentions on August 25th, many expected a showdown between the ever vocal Oswald Mosley and Arthur Henderson, standard bearer of the ‘old men’, and the younger man’s archenemy on the NEC. Despite indications it was to be a close run thing, a clash between the Young Turks and the Party establishment, Henderson had little interest in taking the helm, predicting a disaster at the next general election [5]. Unwilling to take the poisoned chalice and much to the anger of the likes of Snowden, on August 30th he made clear his intention not to stand in the name of Party unity. The next day, a year after his policy defeat, Mosley was elected unopposed as Leader of the Labour Party. As MPs carried him on their shoulders, boisterously singing For He’s a Jolly Good Fellow, a single delegate rose and began shouting ‘An English Hitler!’. He was swiftly silenced by his neighbours.
The make-up of Parliament now brought a new issue to the fore of discussion, that of the gold standard. Baldwin’s coalition government unanimously supported the retention of Pound Sterling’s link to the gold supply. In the Opposition benches however, things were far more fluid. While Mosley and his close allies lambasted the outmoded financial system as they saw it, many of the old guard and even some within the ILP looked on nervously. Sections of the TUC, particularly the Miners’ Federation proved the most vocal opponents of Mosley’s ideas, with MFGB stewards openly demonstrating at his public appearances [6]. However by the end of September, Mosley was to be vindicated. The Bank of England, faced with the deflation caused by fixed gold sales, only worsened by the economic climate, called for the end of the gold standard. Much to Baldwin’s chagrin he had little alternative. That month the naval mutiny at Invergordon had seen military pay cuts delayed and led to Austen Chamberlain resigning as First Lord of the Admiralty in disgust. The May Report cuts now in tatters, Baldwin needed to risk inflation. Within a few days, amidst warnings of hyperinflation and economic meltdown from orthodox thinkers, it quickly became clear such apocalyptic fears were unfounded. Despite the reversal, Baldwin decided to call a General Election for October. Not one for coalition politics and with the issue of the gold standard now gone, he was confident he could secure a majority. Similarly both the Liberals and Labour were sure of strong gains, with Samuel convinced of increasing his party’s influence over the next administration, and the Mosleyites hoping their new direction would attract voters. The Labour manifesto, little more than an expanded version of the 1930 memorandum emphasised this change. Alongside work projects, it called for protectionism or ‘insulation’ as Mosley dubbed it, to strengthen British industry, and an economic War Cabinet to direct the national recovery. Despite gaining support amongst disillusioned working-class Tories, many voters were still unconvinced by the last Labour government’s showing.
Stanley Baldwin goes to the nation, October 1931
Conservative: 291 (+31)
Labour: 257 (-30)
Liberal: 58 (-1)
Other: 9
Total: 615
The General Election results proved a disappointment for all the major parties. Although suffering only moderate losses, Mosley considered Labour’s result a personal humiliation. Baldwin meanwhile had failed to achieve his sort after majority and was forced to rely once more on Samuel’s Liberals who themselves had been disappointed by their complete lack of new gains. Although the overall make-up of Parliament had change little, by the New Year the Prime Minister was coming under increasing pressure from the protectionist wing of his party for new tariffs, something to which the Liberals were dogmatically opposed. As such Baldwin was forced into a tight balancing act to maintain his alliance. In February, he commanded Sir Henry Betterton to lead a review of free trade policy, in effort to kick the issue into the long grass. However by April several Conservative backbenchers, unwilling to wait for the Betterton Report, organised a Private Member’s Bill, calling for a ten per cent import tariff on all non-Imperial goods. Despite being quickly quashed by the whips, the effects of the Bill were plain to see, as dozens of Tory MPs cheered and spoke in favour of the motion, much to the anger of Samuel and his fellows. This was soon followed by a speech from Hugh Dalton, the Shadow Chancellor, cheerily implying Labour support for any future Tory Bill on protection, much to the horror of Baldwin and the Liberals. Labour’s machinations and the growing divisions within the Government soon caught the attention of Lord Beaverbrook, the famed press magnate and ardent supporter of Imperial Preference. Although a Conservative, Beaverbrook disliked Baldwin and believed the present coalition government would be unable to provide the strong protectionist policies he desired. Following the Private Member’s furore, he met with Mosley in May 1932 to discuss the issue and found many of his anti-socialist fears allayed, writing to a friend “the man has the interests of the Empire at heart”. Labour’s Leader had a similar meeting with Lord Rothermere soon after and again, despite his Tory leanings, the two men found common ground on protection.
Increasingly less enamoured with the Government with every passing day, the two media barons decided to resurrect their ‘Empire Free Trade Crusade’ campaign within the Daily Express and Daily Mail. The decision would prove to have a critical impact on the events of the coming summer. In late May, Donald Maclean, the elderly Liberal MP for North Cornwall passed away, precipitating a by-election. Although a marginal seat, Baldwin refused to oppose his coalition partners in the name of governmental unity. At the start of June, a young protectionist, Alan Lennox-Boyd, announced he was standing as an Independent Conservative in the by-election, backed by the Empire Free Trade Crusade. Labour too backed him, calling on their supporters to vote for protection. The Prime Minister was aghast. Efforts to cajole the local Conservative Association into supporting Francis Acland, the Liberal Party candidate, were met with derision. Soon Leo Amery and other protectionist Tories arrived in the constituency to speak on behalf of Lennox-Boyd. On June 15th, word inevitably came in of Liberal defeat in North Cornwall. An embittered Samuel and his party resigned from the ministry, and after little over seven months, Baldwin was forced to call another General Election. The campaign proved vicious as both Labour and the Conservatives were determined to gain an outright majority, they harried the Liberals as much as each other. The Liberals meanwhile, shocked by North Cornwall and left virtually bankrupt by the 1929 and 1931 elections, were a spent force. Baldwin, now unimpeded by Samuel was free to speak for protection but his recent record hardly endeared him to many voters, let alone many Conservative Party members. Some within the ‘magic circle’ even considered dropping Baldwin mid-campaign, but apart from causing even greater chaos within Tory ranks, it came to naught. Mosley meanwhile fought fiercely, focusing on working-class Tories with the platform of patriotism, social reform and protection which had seen him come to dominate his Birmingham heartlands in the late 1920s. When the results of the 1932 General Election were finally announced on June 30th, Britain awoke to her first majority Labour government.
Oswald Mosley in Manchester, June 1932
Labour: 319 (+62)
Conservative: 251 (-40)
Liberal: 36 (-22)
Independent: 1 (+1)
Other: 8
Total: 615
-----------------------------------
[1] Same as OTL: it should be remembered that prior to his turn to Fascism to fulfil his goals, Mosley was certainly the leading Young Turk in the Commons and widely respected.
[2] This happened IOTL.
[3] Due to the POD, Mosley has a more established base within the Labour Party by 1930. As such he is less inclined to leave for the fringes, both because he has a better chance of achieving his goals within a mainstream party and he has more sensible advice.
[4] Baldwin and MacDonald were never too keen on joining up IOTL; here the King’s frankness sees them both in a more honest mood.
[5] Henderson took the leadership in OTL out of duty, as there was little alternative, here however things are different.
[6] The ‘Red Baronet’s background is a world away from the humble origins of Kier Hardie or even MacDonald. Needless to say, Mosley’s outsider image and technocratic predilections do not enamour him to a lot of TUC men.
Last edited:
Looks cool! Always like it when someone does an AAR with a country with an alternate ideology than OTL (e.g. Communist America)
Dovahkiing: Thank you, well I can say Britain, and Europe in particular, will have a very different future to our own.
Kurt_Steiner: Yes he is!
Sandino: Glad your happy
Right the first update was effectively a more proof read version of the one from Mk. I, I'm taking advantage of Day of Decision to play from 1933 so the early years of the Mosley government will be much better fleshed out. Update up in a few minutes
Kurt_Steiner: Yes he is!
Sandino: Glad your happy
Right the first update was effectively a more proof read version of the one from Mk. I, I'm taking advantage of Day of Decision to play from 1933 so the early years of the Mosley government will be much better fleshed out. Update up in a few minutes
II. Action
Labour's first piece of legislation in the 1932 Parliament
The arrival of Oswald Mosley and Labour to power in mid-1932 immediately saw a flurry of activity, as the young, energetic prime minister intended to make his mark. First and foremost was the issue of protection, with the passing of the Import Duties Act establishing a tariff wall against foreign goods. The Act helped outline Britain’s position on trade ahead of the long delayed Imperial Economic Conference in Ottawa that summer. There, Chancellor Hugh Dalton pushed, as expected, for the creation of an ‘insulated’ Empire free trade zone. In theory there was great approval. William Downie Stewart, Dalton’s counterpart from New Zealand proved particularly supportive, calling the idea a “bunker in the economic barrage”, a sentiment echoed by the Australian delegation. The Canadians, led by the austere Edgar Rhodes proved far more cautious, siting their long held free trade relations with the United States as good reason not to rush into protectionism. Nonetheless a broad 10% duty was agreed, rising to 25% and 33% on certain goods. The Chancellor’s only true challenge came from the Irish finance minister, Sean MacEntee. He refused to discuss the Free State entering into such a free trade zone without first the abolition of land annuity payments to the Treasury [1]. Then, when the issue of the new Fianna Fail government’s tariffs against British imports was raised, MacEntee claimed he had no authority to negotiate. Dalton was left unimpressed by ‘the awkward little Irishman’.
Despite difficulties, the Chancellor returned to Parliament to applause from both sides of the House. A notable exception was his opposite, Neville Chamberlain, who looked on morosely. He had spent the previous decades advocating his father’s campaign for Imperial Preference, whereas Dalton was considered something of a late convert to protectionism to put it politely [2]. More legislation followed. Settling Labour’s daemons of the ‘bankers’ ramp’ of 1929, the Bank of England was nationalised. However Dalton’s inexperience of City affairs left the act, save the setting of interest rates, a mostly symbolic one. In early 1933 the Agriculture Act passed, providing subsidies for British farmers. Perhaps most importantly to the early days of the Mosleyite project, was the Unemployment Act, which returned benefits to their pre-May Report levels and established the National Recovery Organisation. The NRO quickly ballooned in size, establishing camps across the country to provide work schemes in forestry, infrastructure and housing. By 1936 over a million men had passed through an NRO work camp. Others schemes gave grants and loans to businesses operating in depressed areas such as Scotland and Northern England. These were soon followed by the Fair Wages Act which saw a Committee consisting of union, business and civil service interests established to create a minimum wage on the British Columbian model. This apolitical system of advisors was to be a hallmark of Mosley’s ministry. Deeply impressed by the American system during a visit to the United States in 1925, and equally repulsed by the disorder of previous MacDonald and Baldwin governments, the Prime Minister had an almost religious attachment to what he deemed the “corporate state”.
A slew of interventionist programmes dominated the early days of the Mosley Government
As the practicalities of this creed made themselves known, others begged to differ. Mosley established an inner ‘War Cabinet’ to focus on the economic issues faced. Beyond Dalton, the Home Secretary William Graham and the Prime Minister himself, the circle rarely invited in senior ministers. Instead Strachey, Bevan, and other members of the New Labour Group, often took their place. George Lansbury, the Labour Minister, was an ardent critic of the arrangement, labelling it “the cabal” and lamenting the death of collective government. Clement Attlee, then War Secretary, took a lighter view, mocking Mosley’s domineering ways by saying “why, whenever the Prime Minister talks to you does one get the notion of a feudal lord disciplining his wayward serf?” [3]. Power was further moved to the centre with the creation of the National Council. Comprising the established mix of minds from labour, business, banking, academia and the Services, it acted as a roving committee cum think tank, something supposedly deemed “alarmingly American” by King George. Such reorganisation, the Government claimed, was only necessary given the ossified nature of the British state, primarily that cornerstone of the Whig mentality; the Civil Service. Here however Mosley would fight one of his longest, and most futile, battles culminating in the toothless Jowett Report of 1934 [4]. The Prime Minister would claw one victory out of his efforts however; his dream of a British grande ecole. In 1938 the Civil Service College would open at Hobson House in Regent’s Park, far from the seats of gentlemanly learning at Oxford or Cambridge, ready to produce a post-war generation of young technocrats.
After the initial glut of legislation, the Labour Government began to settle in at home in 1933; however foreign affairs were soon to take precedent. The newly established National Socialist government of Germany had begun its move towards dismantling the much hated Versailles Treaty. At the Geneva Disarmament Conference that spring, Hitler’s representatives called on the other Great Powers to either allow German rearmament or to reduce their militaries in line with its own. Mosley, holding strong pan-European and anti-war feelings due to his service in the Great War, saw this as an excellent opportunity to push for multilateral disarmament. Supported by outgoing US President Herbert Hoover and advocated at the Conference by the ardent pacifist Arthur Henderson, the Foreign Secretary, Mosley hoped to make his impact on the international stage [5]. The proposal met with a cool response. Paul-Boncour, France’s premier and foreign minister denounced it as naïve and irresponsible, while Mussolini merely rolled his eyes as Henderson spoke. The British hoped for an act of faith from von Neurath but were left wanting. Unsurprised by the hardnosed French response and somewhat baffled by the Foreign Secretary’s sincerity, the Germans withdrew from the Conference without further discussion, their bluff inadvertently called. The dovish line and failure of the Conference caused anger in some quarters back home.
Postcard commemorating the Disarmament Conference
Anthony Eden, recently appointed Leader of the Conservative Party, scored his first victory at the dispatch box on May 7th, attacking ‘Britain naked at the negotiation table’, to broad agreement in the House. The incident deeply embarrassed Mosley, and Henderson even more so, who felt taken advantage of by both the Germans and his own Government. Feeling undone and at odds with the Mosleyites, Henderson resigned in July, ostensibly for health reasons. The reversal led to introspection at Number 10 on the issue of disarmament. Feeling multilateralism had proven a noble failure, Mosley slowly came round to the idea of rearmament, not only for national security but to help with the process of rebuilding the economy and creating jobs. In this he was no doubt influenced by Dalton, the leading hawk in the Cabinet, and the key military advisor JFC Fuller [6]. The promotion of Clement Attlee to the Foreign Office can also be seen as the growing influence of the hawks in Cabinet, and crucially within the Prime Minister’s inner circle as well. The sudden change in policy did not come without problems. Labour’s prominent disarmament lobby was left stunned as Mosley casually announced the U-turn at Prime Minister’s Questions in September without informing the PLP or much of the Cabinet.
The Minister of Labour, George Lansbury, a leading advocate of unilateral disarmament was aghast and made little effort to hide his feelings. Soon after, his office was asked to draw up plans regarding new munitions factories as job creators. Lansbury resigned almost immediately in disgust. At best the incident was an act of insensitivity on Mosley’s part. However given his dislike of the old guard, and Lansbury’s replacement at Labour by the resolutely anti-German Ernest Bevin, it was not unpopular at the time to suggest that Lansbury had been ‘pushed’. Whatever the motivation, the former minister would prove one of the Government’s loudest critics well into the future. The left-wing of the party as a whole, primarily the ILP, was greatly disgruntled by recent events. In October at a meeting of ILP MPs the perennial issue of disaffiliation from the Labour Party was raised. It was quickly shot down by the grand old man James Maxton, still a supporter of the Government’s economic policies. Regardless, the more cynical realised that given the aggressive rhetoric of the new German regime and Japanese machinations in East Asia, Mosley’s new position resonated with the British public. Events in 1934 were only to further vindicate the Prime Minister’s change of direction.
George Lansbury, the face of Labour dissent
--------------------
[1] The chunk of UK debt handed to the Free State in 1921; it amounted for a whopping 18% of Irish expenditure in 1932, virtually all of it paid to the British government.
[2] IOTL Chamberlain oversaw the Ottawa Conference and was almost in tears when he finished what he saw as his father’s work. Doubt he’ll be pleased by Dalton stealing his thunder.
[3] Attlee said something very similar of Mosley IOTL.
[4] If there’s one group who can stop the Mosley bulldozer it’s the civil service.
[5] Henderson was Foreign Secretary under MacDonald and returns under Mosley. Firstly to calm the old guard, secondly to reward him for stepping aside during the Leadership contest and thirdly because he is a strong advocate of the Prime Minister’s internationalism…
[6] We’ll get to Fuller and the military in more detail in a later update.
Last edited:
Sir Humphrey Appleby will be aghast for this, sir!
Well, it seems that Mosley is beginning to get rid of those who he doesn't like. Let's hope that he doesn't make too many enemies...
Well, it seems that Mosley is beginning to get rid of those who he doesn't like. Let's hope that he doesn't make too many enemies...
Damn it, you threw a party and didn't invite me! Just goes to show I should check the DH forum more often...
Nice Cabaret reference. I like how the transition to fascism is subtly done within the parliamentary system.
Kurt_Steiner: Ha, I see what you mean but I imagine 'practical' men like Sir Humphrey will learn to adapt. On the issue of the PM's enemies, Mosley had a great ability to entrance a crowd but alienate an individual. Much of the Cabinet is ambivalent or negative towards him on a personal level but the backbenchers, particularly the younger ones, love him and at Cabinet meetings he can easily hold court as long as a chunk of the ministers are on side, which they are as politically he's providing strong leadership and a clear solution to the economic problems. Though with big personalities like Dalton, Bevan, Morrison and Bevin running around we should remember Mosley isn't the only one with enemies.
c0d5579: My apologies, fear not this party will be running for a while still - do join us.
Sandino: Yes to put it bluntly - but will it be tragedy or farce?
Gukpa: Considering Mosley made his name in Parliament defending the Irish rebels he is unlikely to be calling for Anschluss. Doesn't mean it might not get a little messy.
Sakura_F: Fair enough.
satilisu: Ah but what is fascist? All I see is a presidential PM and some Keynesian work programmes. Surely its more FDR than Il Duce?
Right next update will be up tonight. If you're reading do let me have your comments, if there's anything you'd like covered or just critique the writing let me know.
Dr. Gonzo
c0d5579: My apologies, fear not this party will be running for a while still - do join us.
Sandino: Yes to put it bluntly - but will it be tragedy or farce?
Gukpa: Considering Mosley made his name in Parliament defending the Irish rebels he is unlikely to be calling for Anschluss. Doesn't mean it might not get a little messy.
Sakura_F: Fair enough.
satilisu: Ah but what is fascist? All I see is a presidential PM and some Keynesian work programmes. Surely its more FDR than Il Duce?
Right next update will be up tonight. If you're reading do let me have your comments, if there's anything you'd like covered or just critique the writing let me know.
Dr. Gonzo
III. Locarno
Signs of growing German aggression
The new Nazi regime in Berlin sent a wave of uncertainty throughout Europe. After a decade of reconciliation and concord with the likes of Ebert and Stresemann, Hitler presented a starkly aggressive face for the German state, with clearly revanchist intentions. Germany’s withdrawal from the League of Nations in October 1933 was the first concrete sign of this new direction. For Italy, Austrian sovereignty was most significant, and it was Italy that pressed Britain and France into action on the issue. On February 17th 1934 the three nations issued a joint declaration that they had a common view of the necessity of maintaining Austria’s independence and integrity in accordance with the peace treaties of Versailles and Saint-Germain. Italy followed up the three power declaration with practical steps. On March 17th it entered into the Rome Protocols with Austria and Hungary, providing for a consultative pact. This was more than commerce; it was in effect a warning to Germany. On the following day Mussolini was more explicit. He proclaimed to Rome and the world that Austria could rely on Italy for the defence of its independence. Chancellor Dollfuss took this guarantee with gratitude and promptly tightened his grip. On May 1st, the paramilitary Heimwehr closed the Nationalrat as Dollfuss announced a new authoritarian constitution. The governing right-wing coalition was officially merged into the Fatherland Front, establishing a one-party state to the detriment of the Social Democrats, Communists, and crucially, the Austrian Nazi Party [1].
By July, Berlin believed the window was closing on a moderately painless union with Austria. The domestic Nazi Party had been driven underground with thousands fleeing north to form the SS Austrian Legion [2], while hundreds more languished in Vienna gaols. Deciding desperate times called for desperate measures, Hitler sanctioned a putsch proposed by the Legion’s leader Theodor Habicht and the Bavarian state government. On July 25th Legionnaires disguised in Austrian military and police uniforms seized the RAVAG radio building in Vienna and announced the overthrow of Dollfuss and his government. Learning of the plot, the Chancellor suspended a cabinet meeting and, unsure how to act, remained in the Chancery. There the Nazis found him and shot him down. Despite their apparent victory, the Legion lacked major popular support and as isolated pockets rose up across the country, they were swiftly put down by the Heimwehr and Bundesheer under order from the newly appointed Chancellor, Kurt Schuschnigg. By the 27th violence had stopped and all the putschists were either imprisoned, executed or had fled. Some 240 people lay dead. All this horrified Europe, but none more so than Mussolini. The Italian leader had looked upon Dollfuss as a friend and protégé and decided to act immediately.
Mussolini ordered four divisions, 100,000 men it total, to the Austrian border to guard against any further ‘complications’. He telegraphed the Austrian Government to assure them that Italy would strenuously defend Vienna’s independence. On the 28th he broadcast to the world that Dollfuss’ killers had ‘suffered the wrath of the civilised world’. For several weeks the embassies of Europe were a flurry of activity as diplomats raced back and forth; it seemed war was inevitable. On 7th August, Prime Minister Mosley took it upon himself to fly to Rome in an attempt to avert conflict. By the end of the month Hitler had denounced German involvement as a rogue action by Habicht and the Austrian Legion was disbanded; the crisis quickly died down. Nonetheless, Mosley’s ‘summer jaunt’ (as some in the British press derisively dubbed the excursion) would prove of critical importance to future events. At the Palazzo Venezia, the Labour prime minister and the Fascist dictator kindled a life-long friendship, and began one of the most unlikely partnerships in 20th century diplomacy [3]. On the issue of Hitler however, there proved differences. Mosley attempted to explain German desires to undue the terms of Versailles, while tactfully accepting Mussolini’s interests in Austria, while Il Duce was far blunter; ‘Hitler will create an army’, he said, ‘Hitler will arm the Germans and make war… I cannot stand up to him alone. We must do something and we must do something quickly’ [4].
Austrian troops march through Vienna in the aftermath of the Putsch
The French proved more in step with the Italians than the British. Initially following the rise of Hitler, the French had been unsure how to react and had participated in the ultimately failed Four Power Pact of 1933 [5]. Led by their great elder statesman, Foreign Minister Louis Barthou, the failed Vienna Putsch produced a new focus in French diplomacy, namely the creation of an anti-German cordon sanitaire [6]. In January 1935, Barthou met with Mussolini in Rome. Alongside colonial matters in North and East Africa, the two men discussed Austria and the Rhineland, and the need for cooperation against Hitler. The discussions were marked by the extremely cordial relations between the two leaders, and on January 5th Barthou addressed Mussolini at a ceremony where the Italian dictator was presented the Legion of Honour; “You have written the fairest page in modern Italian history; you will bring assistance indispensable to maintaining peace”. Even better for Il Duce, Barthou left him with an unwritten guarantee of non-intervention on the issue of Abyssinia. That April, on the shores of Lake Como, the two men met once more, along with Oswald Mosley, to sign an official agreement reasserting a guarantee of Austrian independence. In private, Mussolini was able to gain an assurance of British discretion in East Africa as well. The meeting ended in good humour between all parties and despite the technical inaccuracy, most historians consider Como as the foundation of the Locarno bloc that would prove to dominate European diplomacy into the next decade [7].
Despite nods of consent from both Westminster and Paris, neither power seemed to be prepared for the swiftness of Italian action in Abyssinia in October. In reality, the invasion was the end result of increasingly violent border clashes stretching back to the first skirmish at Wal Wal the previous December. The French Government found itself under intense fire from the Left and anti-Italian circles as it stubbornly refused to take a stand on the issue. Mosley and Attlee on the other hand were somewhat blessed by the attention sapping headlines surrounding the King’s marriage crisis [8]. In the first days after the invasion, British representatives in Geneva were ordered to do everything they could to frustrate anti-Italian moves in the League of Nations, vetoing the League’s condemnation of Italy as the aggressor on October 7th and even putting forward proposals to legalise the invasion entirely under the anti-slavery protocols of Abyssinia’s accession agreement. While this move was narrowly rejected it left the League’s policy towards the conflict in utter disarray. By the time the war in Abyssinia reached the public consciousness, British policy on the issue had effectively created a fait accompli. The Government presented the invasion as a humanitarian intervention by Italy to prevent the slave trade and other barbarous practices and was to a certain extent successful, but nonetheless there was plenty of opposition to the conflict from a disparate range of groups.
(L) Addis Ababa in ruins following an air raid, (R) Haile Selassie puts his case before the League, December 1935
On October 31st George Lansbury spoke in Trafalgar Square to a crowd of almost ten thousand, marching in opposition to the war. In Parliament the Liberals were the first to come out against the Government’s position, quickly followed by some dissident members of the ILP. In mid-November Eden’s Conservatives followed, sensing that they had finally found a popular stance to take against a Government that increasingly looked like a shoe-in in the next Parliament. In the event however Labour’s early assumption of the moral high ground prevented a coherent opposition to Government policy, and the Abyssinia issue remained, as Churchill put it; ‘an issue in search of a crisis’. To Mussolini’s intense embarrassment, by the beginning of December the Italian advance in Abyssinia had begun to grind to a halt, slowed by the cautiousness of Marshal De Bono, logistical hitches, and continuous hit and run attacks on the overstretched columns. The easy campaign that looked all but assured a few months before now had the potential to be a draining struggle, even if there was little prospect of Italy suffering a repeat of the humiliation she suffered at Adowa forty years before. With this in mind Mussolini sent quiet feelers to both Paris and London indicating his willingness to come to a compromise peace. Mussolini’s action came as a huge relief to the Laval Government in France.
In early December the French entered into consultations with the Mosley Government in Britain, and on the 8th Barthou and the British Foreign Secretary Clement Attlee both flew to Rome to put a compromise peace to Mussolini. Under the terms of the proposal, Abyssinia would be dismembered. Italy would gain the best parts of Ogaden and Tigre, and economic influence over all the southern part of Abyssinia. In compensation, Abyssinia itself would have a guaranteed corridor to the sea, by acquiring the port of Assab from Italian Eritrea. The rump of Abyssinia would become a semi-autonomous region under the trusteeship of the League, although in reality this was intended to formalise British and French influence over the remains of the region. Thanks to British and French intervention, on the 21st December 1935 the brief conflict in Abyssinia came to an end through a cease-fire. The following day the League retroactively legitimised the invasion by accepting the responsibilities offered to it in the region and realising that the deal was their only chance of independence Emperor Haile Selassie signed the treaty on Christmas day. The Mosley Government’s secret diplomacy on the Abyssinia issue took the war’s critics by surprise, and when Mussolini announced that he was submitting to Anglo-French mediation on December 9th Mosley pulled off a public relations coup. Mosley’s insistence on the League’s involvement satisfied the internationalist wings of both the Labour and Conservative parties, and while the reduction of Abyssinia to a rump appalled some on the anti-colonialist left, the Government was able to claim that it was the best possible deal that could be made to save the nation from complete destruction [9].
The Christmas Resolution
----------------------
[1] All OTL
[2] Despite the name, more of a ramshackle terrorist group than a military unit.
[3] Mussolini and Mosley hit if off IOTL too.
[4] He said this IOTL as well, in the early 1930s Mussolini made a point of being Hitler’s nemesis.
[5] An effort by Mussolini to replace multilateralism in Europe with realpolitik dominated by Britain, France, Italy and Germany. Just as IOTL the powers were unsure of each other and the watered down final agreement achieved little.
[6] Due to butterflies the assassination attempt on Alexander of Yugoslavia isn’t carried out, sparing the King and Barthou as well.
[7] The Locarno Treaty was the earliest and best known tripartite effort to keep watch of Germany. As such by popular memory and media inconsistency TTL’s Stresa Front will be known as the Locarno Powers or bloc even though Como is where the real groundwork of the alliance is laid.
[8] More on this next time.
[9] The difference between this and the hated Hoare-Laval Pact of OTL? Well the Government is able to grab the moral high ground early on and the inclusion of a League mandate wins over a lot of internationalists, while Barthou has provided some solid political saavy to get many League members on side. Also the plan is never leaked meaning it is presented as a done deal before any critics can put the boot in.
Last edited:
The seems to be a stronger effort to keep the Germans down - does this mean no WWII?
Well. Britain allying with France and Italy. If WW2 cames to happen to see what the Empire can do with those people in their side
And, of course, Edward had to meet Wallis. No butterflies for him...
And, of course, Edward had to meet Wallis. No butterflies for him...