Miscellaneous >1900 (Alternate) History Thread

[FriendlyGhost]

I’ve been looking for Huey Long’s 15 hour speech for a while for my timeline, but I can‘t seem to find the exact excerpts for the speech. Any luck finding any?

You can find full records of the USA's Senate and House here: https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record
Specifically, the 74th Congress, covering the date of Long's filibuster, is here: https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/74th-congress/browse-by-date
Scroll down to Volume 79, Part 8 (May 24, 1935 to June 13, 1935) and you'll find the Senate records for 12th June 1935 at the '9081 - 9191' link which takes you here: https://www.congress.gov/bound-congressional-record/1935/06/12/senate-section
There, you can download the entire text (43MB pdf) of proceedings that day, which includes Long's speech. From what I can see from a skim through, he starts on page 9089 and finishes at the bottom of page 9175 !
(His recipes for Southern-Fried Oysters and Pot-likker are on pages 9122-9123, if you're interested..., though if those are all you want, it's easier to find them here. )

 

[Esotariot2002]

You can find full records of the USA's Senate and House here: https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record
Specifically, the 74th Congress, covering the date of Long's filibuster, is here: https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/74th-congress/browse-by-date
Scroll down to Volume 79, Part 8 (May 24, 1935 to June 13, 1935) and you'll find the Senate records for 12th June 1935 at the '9081 - 9191' link which takes you here: https://www.congress.gov/bound-congressional-record/1935/06/12/senate-section
There, you can download the entire text (43MB pdf) of proceedings that day, which includes Long's speech. From what I can see from a skim through, he starts on page 9089 and finishes at the bottom of page 9175 !
(His recipes for Southern-Fried Oysters and Pot-likker are on pages 9122-9123, if you're interested..., though if those are all you want, it's easier to find them here. )

Thank you so much!😃

Edit: Any tips on shrinking the speech down in a way that still has context?

 

[Emperor-of-New-Zealand]

Are there any circumstances post-WWII through which British military intervention in the Republic of Ireland could be seen as justified and supported by her allies? Not necessarily with the goal of reintegration into the British state, of course (that would be a hard sell), but a scenario where Britain feels the need to invade and occupy Ireland for some reason is one I find morbidly interesting.

 

[Mitridates the Great]

Are there any circumstances post-WWII through which British military intervention in the Republic of Ireland could be seen as justified and supported by her allies? Not necessarily with the goal of reintegration into the British state, of course (that would be a hard sell), but a scenario where Britain feels the need to invade and occupy Ireland for some reason is one I find morbidly interesting.

What would that reason be?

It would have to be a REALLY fucking good reason, especially since I doubt "because we can" is accepted as a good reason.

And "Britain became a military dictatorship and it was this regime that ordered Ireland invaded" if anything sounds like a even better reason to oppose it than to support it.

Maybe if Ireland suddenly went communist I could somehow see it, but that's highly unlikely.

 

[Emperor-of-New-Zealand]

What would that reason be?

That is the question I am asking:

Are there any circumstances post-WWII through which British military intervention in the Republic of Ireland could be seen as justified and supported by her allies?

Edit: The only thing I can think of is renewed/emboldened Troubles. Islamic terrorism was enough to get the US and allies in board with terrorising the Middle East, after all. Could acts of extremism by Irish nationalists be enough to convince the UK to militarily intervene in Ireland?

 

[FriendlyGhost]

Edit: Any tips on shrinking the speech down in a way that still has context?

Depends on how much you want to shrink it down and what the context is. It's summarised in a few paragraphs on the Senate site here: https://www.senate.gov/about/powers-procedures/filibusters-cloture/huey-long-filibusters.htm

 

[sparky42]

That is the question I am asking:

Edit: The only thing I can think of is renewed/emboldened Troubles. Islamic terrorism was enough to get the US and allies in board with terrorising the Middle East, after all. Could acts of extremism by Irish nationalists be enough to convince the UK to militarily intervene in Ireland?

While OTL had plenty of strained relations between Dublin and London, along with all the Republican attacks, London had long accepted that Republican actions weren’t directed by Dublin, so I’m not sure how you think that would result in an intervention in Ireland?

 

[Emperor-of-New-Zealand]

While OTL had plenty of strained relations between Dublin and London, along with all the Republican attacks, London had long accepted that Republican actions weren’t directed by Dublin, so I’m not sure how you think that would result in an intervention in Ireland?

This is an alternate history website.

 

[sparky42]

This is an alternate history website.

Well thank you for stating the obvious, doesn’t change my post though.

 

[LaCreatura00]

Personally, I think that instead of resorting to the nonsense of "intertwining economies will force the United States to acquire international commitments and get involved in global security," I would focus efforts on convincing the American population that what is happening in Eurasia is not "the problem of another person."

That is, in OTL the approach of "intertwining economies" was attempted (the main reason the USA entered World War I was because the bankers started screaming in fear because, if Germany won, they would lose all the money they had been given). lent to the Entente) and the result we got was isolationism and the Great Depression spreading to Europe when those bankers demanded the money back NOW.

In addition, of course, to the growing belief that the American population had been dragged into a stupid European war solely by the greed and desire for economic benefits of a handful of very rich bankers.

That is why it would be necessary for the people themselves to commit to that direction, instead of something imposed by a handful of unelected bankers.

Very true. Still, I would like to keep WW1 as true as possible to OTL til the end of the war for the sake of the scenario. I'm not sure what could lead to that kind of mindset change in the US, which is why the idea of a different president in 1916 seems appealing.

 

[Emperor-of-New-Zealand]

Well thank you for stating the obvious, doesn’t change my post though.

Contextually your post was nonsensical because I am obviously discussing something that didn't happen in real history.

If your goal is to just be unhelpful then why bother commenting?

 

[sparky42]

Contextually your post was nonsensical because I am obviously discussing something that didn't happen in real history.

If your goal is to just be unhelpful then why bother commenting?

Real history involves the murder of a senior member of the royal family, the murder of an ambassador and his wife and the burning down of the British Embassy(to name the “highlights”) ,none of which ended with a military response, short of hand waving a WMD attack that Dublin ordered I struggle to find some action short of an ASB you can suggest that could set off such a response?

Forgive me for pointing out the reality.

 

[Mitridates the Great]

That is the question I am asking:

Edit: The only thing I can think of is renewed/emboldened Troubles. Islamic terrorism was enough to get the US and allies in board with terrorising the Middle East, after all. Could acts of extremism by Irish nationalists be enough to convince the UK to militarily intervene in Ireland?

As I described on another occasion: "that would be like the United States ordering the invasion of Italy in response to a mafia boss ordering the murder of an American citizen."

You would need some kind of UNQUESTIONABLE evidence that the Irish Government (not a bunch of nationalists doing it on their own initiative, the government) was the one who organized some particularly heinous and stupid attack (the kind of movement* we see in the TL as part of the "let's make the opposition shoot themselves in the feet" plot) and who absolutely refused to hand over those responsible (which again requires the government to be run by suicidal fools).

And yet there would be many people who would oppose the intervention, inside and outside the UK, because they will see it as equivalent to the "special military operation".

(an imperialist conquest launched by a much larger country against a much smaller one, making up a hypothetical terrorist threat to justify its own acts of aggression, whose "evidence of terrorism" is just "propaganda like Gliewitz", and whose objective is none other than the conquest and destruction of a country that had the audacity to no longer want to be part of the UK).


*I think in the typical movement that we see in TLs: storm a school full of children, simply because there are political leaders visiting, and begin to murder the children in the most brutal ways while the attackers shout that they are doing this in the name of of a united and free Ireland... while the BBC World cameras that were there to cover the politicians' visit broadcast it live to the entire world.

 

[Ogrebear]

IF there was some MAJOR evidence that Dublin ordered a major terrorit attack somewhere, or Ireland suddenly votes communist during the Cold War then MAYBE military intervension would be justified BUT it would never be UK forces doing the invading. In those sort of circumstancies the only people invading would be the NATO ones without the UK for historical and anti-imperialist reasons. London would fume, esp if they where the injured party, but I doubt the US and alliance would let them invade the south of Ireland.

Honestly though if the Dublin govt was that dumb to order something hideous like that I could just see it toppled from within.

Now NATO/UN intervension in an Irish civil war might be more of a goer, but its still feels really unlikely it would happen.

 

[Esotariot2002]

A question for my timeline, To Regain Your Lost Shadows, what any plausible individuals who would take William Phillips’ place as Under Secretary of State (For context: ITTL, Phillips became the U.S. ambassador to Italy [again] in 1935 after Breckinridge Long dies in a freak accident while at the embassy)?

 

[DUWANG]

So there was a planned referendum in the province of Hanover back in 1924 about getting independence from Prussia as its own federal state.
Now the referendum didn't happen because not even the quorum for whenever it should take place was reached.

Now let's imagine that through absolute luck the Rhenish and Palatinate republics which started as nothing more than French protectorates, became instead 2 new states inside the German Reich. Just like how Adenauer hoped to convince Paris and Berlin.

Could that be the push to allow Hanover to actually have a majority vote for breaking away with Prussia?

 

[NorthTension]

How could the Nepalese monarchy survive? Preventing the 2001 massacre is a must, but at that point Nepal was also dealing with a Maoist insurgency, and the country's development had been lagging for a long time.

The country was moving towards parliamentary democracy in the late 50's, but King Mahendra suspended the constitution in 1960 after couping the government and introduced the highly unpopular Panchayat system of royal governance. Is there any way to stop this?

Would present-day Nepal be a fully parliamentary monarchy, like Japan and Britain? Or would it be an executive monarchy where the King holds genuine political power and rules along with a democratic government, like Bhutan and Morocco?

werent peace talks already happening or about to happen?

 

[Strategos' Risk]

You mean more seriously than actually invading the country? It wouldn't have changed anything because the point was that the US government was eager to "show their strength" by massacring someone, as well as having a war to distract the population, so they would have invaded even if Saddam was 200% collaborative. Any attempt to "show we're serious" would in any case have been the first shots of the actual invasion, not something separate.

Their ultimatum was for Hussein and his sons to step down. So what if they were cowed into doing so.

 

[The Ranger]

I imagined if the Bittersweet Symphony video starred an actress who looked like Meg Griffin from Family Guy.

 

[Mitridates the Great]

Their ultimatum was for Hussein and his sons to step down. So what if they were cowed into doing so.

The US would have claimed that the successor is a Saddam puppet and invaded anyway. Or something similar.

Whereas the development of the OTL invasion was:

"we don't give a damn about the truth nor justice. We want to fight this war and we are going to fight it, even if literally the entire rest of the world and half of our country opposes it. No one dares to tell the United States of America what we can or can't do"...

...I think they would have made up some other excuse to invade anyway.