Tomorrow Belongs To Me - A 'Democratic' Germany AAR

[TheButterflyComposer]

As the dust clears, it will be interesting to see who is actually implicated and who the massacre is blamed upon.

Two different things, and the distinction is not lost on those investigating, esepcially once now the Duke is snapped back to reality and about to go on the warpath.

Neither (if they are different actors) will be shown any mercy, doubtless.

Certainly not. If it's typical homegrown loonies, war time measures mean justice ends with the rope. If something more sinister is afoot, it could be much the same, or various alternative methods such as disappearances, suicides, etc.

Radcliffe was ‘lucky’ to have the influence he was conceded at the peak of the crisis: despite the family and royal connections, it’s a little surprising the large cast of imperious and self-important scions of the establishment. More than one may well have told him to “sod off, young pup, and leave this to the adults”.

Some did, as covered in the chapter. The problem Rodger had was that he felt obliged to do what he thought Atherleigh would have done, and in many aspects he supposed correctly. But, of course, he isn't Atherleigh (in any sense, though no one knew that).

Everyone else was dealing with the implications of the current war hero giving them a safe place to reorganise in his own house, half the old guard knew him from childhood and respected his dad, and the other half prefer him because he's usually a lot more amiable than Atherleigh and previously was a political nonentity with no ambition in that arena. He's not a threat, but is an invaluable asset given that, so far as they know, he just inherited Atherleigh's fortune and Lords seat, plus titles (and so outranks most of them), is going to inherit further fortune and titles in the near future (the Duke turns 81 in 1916), is a war hero, has a personal relationship with the king of England and is best friends with the next one.

Hrs also done a pretty good job in the time he's had to get everyone possible together, informed and negotiating...though the limits of not actually having a formal role are recognised by both sides, hence the frustration.

Elsewhere, will the war just go on largely regardless? Or was this part of a more deliberate and widespread plot, or even revolutionary attempt?

The British state runs itself unless grievously damaged. If the entire high table died, taking out the radcliffes, both party leaders, the core cabinet aside from Kitchener, and the riots carried on, things would be a lot worse but even then, it probably wouldn't stop the government once it reasserted itself after some time. It's the middle of winter just after new year, there's no offensives going on from either side of the front. Most of parliament is close to or in London after Christmas, the king is fine, etc.

Would be a kick in the teeth for the entente and someone else would have to take over as the face of the war effort and start building relations with various governments and militaries in allied and neutral nations, plus it sets back all the nations being courted into joining the war.

It's basically the same in regards to Germany of course. The miltiary high command would have to collectively decide to stop, which is not going to happen any time soon (and them admitting they've lost may never happen, much as OTL)...the kaiser or civilian leadership dying would not really alter the situation much in regards to that.

It'd be much worse for Austria or Russia though.

 

[J_Master]

It was originally my intention for Atherleigh to straight up die, but history has a touch of the random hand of fate as well as deliberate action or inaction of humanity. So he lives for now, in some state.

I feel like soon he will lament the fact he didn't die over that dinner. Simply because of the state he is left in and that he is still tied to the ship of state, if only in a informal manner, with all the worries that come with it.

Things did not get better twenty minutes to midnight, when a grey faced messenger appeared with the official death toll from the hospital.

“It is with deepest regret that we inform you of the deaths of
​

• Herbert Henry Asquith, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and Ireland​
• Arthur James Balfour, Home Secretary​
• The Earl Crewe, Robert Offley Ashburton Crewe-Milnes​
• Viscount Haldane, Richard Burdon Haldane​
• Viscount Buxton, Sydney Charles Buxton​

Who died this day, the 5th January 1916, in the 6th Year of George V.”

Atherleigh wiped his face after glancing over the death notice, and nearly placed it aside before his heart seized up and a jolt threw his nerves afire. He carefully re-read the note.

His father was not on it.

The Earl of Atherleigh slipped and fell from his shoulders, and with a great shudder, Rodger Radcliffe wept into his hands.​

Excelently written btw, before continueing on from the list I myself checked it twice to make sure I wasn't missing Atherleigh

 

[TheButterflyComposer]

I feel like soon he will lament the fact he didn't die over that dinner. Simply because of the state he is left in and that he is still tied to the ship of state, if only in a informal manner, with all the worries that come with it.

It does in retrospect make his prior lamenting that he didn't die before 1914 quite funny.

Excelently written btw, before continueing on from the list I myself checked it twice to make sure I wasn't missing Atherleigh

Thanks yo so much. It seems people liked this chapter a lot more than I did.

 

[J_Master]

It does in retrospect make his prior lamenting that he didn't die before 1914 quite funny.

 

[TheButterflyComposer]

Actually I think it mostly gets better from now on from what I've roughly plotted for the next x years of war. At least for him personally (though to be fair, I'm not sure how it could get worse).

 

[TheButterflyComposer]

Not strictly relevant to the AAR itself but probably a mirror universe.

 

[El Pip]

I am assuming home grown idiots and whatever cause they were doing it for is doomed by association for a generation or two.

I had a brief vision of a Kitchener / Roberts / Fisher / Churchill quad being left to run the war while the politicos squabbled, it was.. well Wellington described it best;

I don't know what effect these commanders will have on the enemy, but by God, they terrify me.

 

[TheButterflyComposer]

I am assuming home grown idiots and whatever cause they were doing it for is doomed by association for a generation or two.

Something of a analogous ghastly mess that many OTL assasination/plot/coups/'do somethings' tend to be - absurdly over the top, unrealistic, insane, nonetheless destructive and calamitous if the plotters can manage to work together long enough to enact their schemes without being caught or giving up.

I had a brief vision of a Kitchener / Roberts / Fisher / Churchill quad being left to run the war while the politicos squabbled, it was.. well Wellington described it best;

Kitchener OTL seems basically okay to good as war minister. Clocked that it was going to be a long brutal war, so needed to somehow make a millions strong land army for the first time in British history. Argued repeatedly for smarter deployments and not to get bogged down in France and Belgium. Aside from not liking the idea of the tank, military wise, he was pretty good. But he was awful at politics and shouldn't have been war minister. Supreme allied commander perhaps.

Churchill is just...not very good at the admiralty? He might have done better as war minister ironically enough.

Roberts is too ill and old to do much. The ministry of muntions is essentially ran by Churchill and so he does his usual energy, enthusiasm mixed with tactlessness and stupidty. Tank gets developed here instead, if it comes to that.

Fisher is happy because the big naval campaign is going to happen and has his name all over it. He's also unhappy because too many people know, others are going to command it for obvious reasons, and they aren't targeting the baltics.

I'm not sure what the impact of a war led by these three plus one is...probably rather explosive and a bit schizophrenic to be honest.

 

[HistoryDude]

This update was informative. It's nice to see that the government will survive the Massacre.

It was mentioned that the Liberals suffered a lot from the event. How bad is their post-Massacre position?

 

[TheButterflyComposer]

This update was informative. It's nice to see that the government will survive the Massacre.

It's pretty hard to destroy a UK government by assassination. Unless you focus on killing as many MPs as possible, or the majority is razor thin, the government will survive the attempt - the danger then being can they assign replacements to whoever was lost, immediately?

Usually, the answer is again yes, because of how the parties work and the whips having orders for this sort of thing.

This is still not great for either party - the death of both party leaders and a war to fight. That the Chancellor and foreign secretary survived eases things - the Liberals have a high ranking leader with experience to step in, and the tories have one less cabinet position to fight over.

The king also stabilises things. He chooses the PM, and the national government still stands which means he can pick basically anyone who can command that government.

This plot was clearly planned by people who did not understand how the system worked.

It was mentioned that the Liberals suffered a lot from the event. How bad is their post-Massacre position?

It is popularly said the Liberal landslide of 1906 was a victory they never recovered from.

As ever, this is eloquent but doesn't tell the whole story. For various reasons, the OTL Liberals had a hard time of things despite a massive upwell in the popular vote, common seats, and the Tory split on free trade.

I haven't written out for sure what happens TTL but my vague ideas are:

Here, the tories are still suffering from the malaise of 20 years in power under Atherleigh and then the soon after death of his natural successor - sailsbury. The Liberals meanwhile benefitted from various popular and rising stars and won in 1899. Then they had the dubious honour of presiding over a massive increase in naval budgets due to the German arms race, rhe death of queen Victoria, and finally the Russians firing on British fishing ships. The last one came in the middle of a crisis of confidence in the commons, leading to fears of a government collapse at the start of what everyone assumed to be war with Russia.

The king and both liberal and tory leaders asked Atherleigh to come back to lead the war effort, which he did, and then scheduled elections for straight after, which the tories under Balfour won. However, it was again not a clear victory - Atherleigh boosted their image quite a bit but the Liberals were the ones actually united on trying to find solutions to the economic and social issues of the 00s.

I haven't drafted out what happens after that but Balfour's slim majority staggers on for a while but Asquith's Liberals are in by 1910, with a large majority mandate for at the very least economic reform, which they also want to make political reform. However, the tories have finally united in opposition to this, and the Liberal and old whigs in the Lords aren't thrilled either. Compounded on this, the popular king is not a fan either, and both the Radcliffe family and the tories make sure to nail as many Liberals as possible during the Marconi scandal.

Come the war, the Liberals retain a strong majority but they've been gutted internally, the rising wing of successors under DLG are disgraced, banished, in prison or burnt enough that they were in the wilderness. Meanwhile the tories are back in the game, having united around stopping Liberal reforms at home and strengthening the empire abroad.

In this AAR at least, the Liberals also have the problem of being a reform party...whilst the labour party is rising. The latter is always going to be able to offer more and 'better' reform and change for more voters, and will also increasingly take the intellectual and reform minded middle class vote as well.

HOWEVER

Due to the Massacre, new leaders and players are going to be thrown upwards, there's still a majority, and the parliamentary reforms of OTL have not occurred - meaning until they do, a party that has a balance between Commons AND Lords presence will do better than just a commons one. Thus it's still very much a two horse race between Liberal and tory, until one of them reforms the houses or Labour otherwise manage to win a landslide...far from guaranteed under the British electoral system.

 

[TheButterflyComposer]

Well, here finally is an advantage to the very slow burn and ww1 focus at the moment - when the German DLC update drops and Germany gets some proper non-fascist (and non Hitler fascist) paths, we can use them.

Wait what? Has that been confirmed?

Rumblings seem to be thinking that its happening. Africa, South America, and the Axis powers are the parts that haven't been expanded yet, but they've started doing it recently...

Confirmed:

Hearts of Iron IV: Götterdämmerung - Paradox Interactive

Paradox Interactive is a world leading PC games publisher known for games such as Cities: Skylines, Europa Universalis and Crusader Kings.

www.paradoxinteractive.com

Looks like restored monarchy and democracy are getting expanded upon, so this might impact the gameplay and story once we do get to the post war years quite a bit (as I'll have to lay the ground work for whatever can happen in the 30s and 40s in-game).

I'm glad its happening, because the democratic path is a bit crap aside from the end goal (with no in-game help really) of making the EU and basically being the UK's sidekick. If we get to make MiddleEuropa peacefully, or some other proto-EU, that would be quite fun.

EDIT:

Looks like Hungary is getting an update, and the Austria Hungarian empire is mentioned. Funnily enough, even though Austria is also being updated, they still don't seem to be able to form AH. Belgium also gets some upgrades to focus the Congo...hope that transfers to the Netherlands, or I'll have to figure out a workaround.

 

[TheButterflyComposer]

I blame Asquith

I go along with blaming Asquith, he is guilty of so many things what is on more?

Ok, so I got a strong second behind Asquith.

It turns out that after further research, Asquith is somewhat involved after all, and one of the key reasons why this all has to be covered up as far as possible...

 

[J_Master]

It turns out that after further research, Asquith is somewhat involved after all, and one of the key reasons why this all has to be covered up as far as possible...

DAMN YOU ASQUITH!

 

[El Pip]

DAMN YOU ASQUITH!

 

[TheButterflyComposer]

DAMN YOU ASQUITH!

View attachment 1209075

He's so convenient for a historical fiction writer.

 

[Wraith11B]

I'm sure there's even a way to blame him for the American Revolution...

 

[J_Master]

He's so convenient for a historical fiction writer.

At the risk of striding into modern politics, but it's worth it for a joke. Recently Starmer announced he'd be getting rid of the hereditary Lords. My immediate reaction to it was thus:

broke: Starmer is to blame for this
woke: Blair is to blame for this
bespoke: Asquith is to blame for this

 

[TheButterflyComposer]

At the risk of striding into modern politics, but it's worth it for a joke. Recently Starmer announced he'd be getting rid of the hereditary Lords. My immediate reaction to it was thus:

broke: Starmer is to blame for this
woke: Blair is to blame for this
bespoke: Asquith is to blame for this

It wouldn't be possible without Asquith, technically. So...yes?

Here of course, the Lords remain technically the all powerful veto chamber, with the consensus being they really cant, or at least shouldn't, veto budget and economic stuff (aka the 'real' purpose of the lower house). How long that sticks around basically depends on who first tries to push national insurance and domestic worker rights.

 

[J_Master]

It wouldn't be possible without Asquith, technically. So...yes?

Here of course, the Lords remain technically the all powerful veto chamber, with the consensus being they really cant, or at least shouldn't, veto budget and economic stuff (aka the 'real' purpose of the lower house). How long that sticks around basically depends on who first tries to push national insurance and domestic worker rights.

It's funny how it is the same in the Netherlands. The senate has the explicit goal of testing the constitutionality of bills, even if the body has been politicized more and more the past decades. To take the current government for example, the BBB may be small in the upper house and the smallest party of the coalition, recent political devellopments have made it so that they hold a very large part of the seats in the senate because they won all provincial elections last year and the senate is elected by the provinces. Personally, I think Sweden is very reasonable in having a single chamber. If you're not doing federalism, why do you need two houses of parliament?

 

[TheButterflyComposer]

It's funny how it is the same in the Netherlands. The senate has the explicit goal of testing the constitutionality of bills, even if the body has been politicized more and more the past decades. To take the current government for example, the BBB may be small in the upper house and the smallest party of the coalition, recent political devellopments have made it so that they hold a very large part of the seats in the senate because they won all provincial elections last year and the senate is elected by the provinces. Personally, I think Sweden is very reasonable in having a single chamber. If you're not doing federalism, why do you need two houses of parliament?

Because the Houses of Parliament are over a thousand years old and haven't structurally changed in a very long time, basically therefore still reflecting the medieval premise of high lords and low lords plus landed elite and the City guilds trying to balance all their competing interests, plus a pretty strong monarchy.

The big changes have been:

A) Parliament is defintely the final say of the law of the land. Both Houses, the judicial system and the Crown all agree on that.
B) One of the Houses is now entirely elected rather than appointed.
C) Parliament is held regularly every year, for most of the year.
D) There is a cabinet of MPs and Lords that represents and holds much of the power of the Crown, plus commands the votes of a majority of the Commons (usually).