Subscribed, although the Crown Prince would have become Frederick William V, not William III.
Decimation - A Europe after the French break at Verdun
- Thread starter rejs7
- Start date
I thought that too, but Wilhelm's son Wilhelm had a son Wilhelm, so I though that the line of succession would pass to him rather than to his brother. Plus, for dramatic purposes a 12 year old child with an Austrian regent makes things more interesting if not entirely historically accurate.
BlondieBC
Banned
Nicely done.
Am I reading the POD right? It looks like for some reason the Germans achieved surprise at Verdun, a few French units break and flee at Verdun, then this turns into a local retreat in the Verdun sector as flanks are turned. Then the big mistake of the French High Command panicking, and ordering harsh discipline which cause the whole French army to rapidly break.
Am I reading the POD right? It looks like for some reason the Germans achieved surprise at Verdun, a few French units break and flee at Verdun, then this turns into a local retreat in the Verdun sector as flanks are turned. Then the big mistake of the French High Command panicking, and ordering harsh discipline which cause the whole French army to rapidly break.
Sort of. IOTL the French were on the verge of breaking prior to the British assault at the Somme, and it was only the French begging that braught the Somme offensive forward into July 1916. The POD ITTL is that Hague held of the assault as he did not believe the British were prepared enough, and he wanted to launch it in early August 1916. This delay meant the Germans had an extra few weeks to hammer the French, which caused a collapse in moral, mutiny, and the French High Command panic.
I absolutely love this. Will we have more details on how the Hungarian part of the Empire and the Balkans faired?
This is really amazing - cutting back and forth between the modern traveler's viewpoint and the letters and memoirs is a great narrative style and perfect for the story. Will we get an inside view of Burgundy at some point?
The border of Bohemia-Moravia is picturesque, green rolling fields, farms, and woods. Just short, I stopped at a rest stop for a coffee, and pulled my pad to find the folder of images I had stored for this moment. One-by-one images of shattered trees, broken houses, refugees fleeing in both directions, and dead horses lying in ditches. Out of all the countries formed in the fall into anarchy, this was the one which carried the stigma of failed state well into the middle of the twentieth century. Unlike Austria and Hungary, that both had relatively painless transitions to their new states, Bohemia-Moravia lurched from one extreme to the other. Lloyd-George lamented in his diary the Bohemian nationalists’ decision on July twenty eighth nineteen eighteen to offer the crown to Prince Joachim, bringing into effect sanctions under the Integrity Act.
Much to Churchill’s consternation I feel I have no choice but to bring the full weight of the Act against the Bohemians. Joachim is a clearly a danger to us as he is a beacon to any radical party wishing to break away from their lawful governments. Mores the pity that my actions are just a token effort, as I would prefer a more potent message to be sent to those who wish to threaten British integrity.
The 1963 film Carry on Over the Alps has Kenneth Williams as Lenin agitating in the fictional state of Slavonia, a direct parody of Lenin’s decision to enter Bohemia in early August nineteen eighteen to stir up the peasants in favour of the communists. The film satirised the Bohemian attempts to arrest Lenin as he stumped for the people to rise up. At Pardubice he managed to raise enough local support for the workers to come out on a general strike on August third, though with the support of German Freikorps volunteers from across the border the strike was brutally broken. Lord Beaverbrook in the Daily Express commented.
This is not how it should be done; it must through the ballot box and rhetoric, not direct action against the Red peril. We loyal socialists and liberals who recognise the right of all men to freedom of expression and the right to fair process demand that the British government takes a strong stance against extremism on both sides. Both the far right and the far left must be disavowed and cut off from the cord of British empathy.
Lloyd-George was already under pressure in the court of public opinion, with comments from the likes of Sir Eric Geddes demanding that the government should squeeze the German lemon until the pips squeak for their direct interference in the British state making any moderate position all the more complicated. In cabinet minutes released in nineteen sixty eight, it revealed that Lloyd-George, Andrew Bonar-Law, and Churchill were fighting a three way battle for control of the Liberal party. Simon Sharma regaled his readers in his History of Britain.
Never had a government in modern British history faced such a split. Lloyd-George was trying to right the ship of state, for while Britain had emerged from the was battered and bruise with her finances were in relatively good shape, her major trading partners on the continent were in the process of falling apart. He knew Germany industrial capacity would go a pretty long way, but also knew that continued mass strikes and industrial action would gum up the global economy, thus he was pushing for direct action against the communists and aiding the nationalists. Bonar-Law, as Conservative leader, was caught between the free trade faction and nationalist elements of his own party, and tried to tack a course that kept Britain out of the affairs of the European powers lest it jeopardise long term trade. Without a majority in parliament he knew his only way of forcing the issue would be to call a vote of no confidence and try to win the resulting general election. This left Churchill as the voice of those who wished to see Britain take a hard line against all extremists and intervention. He made it clear that Communism must be “strangled in its cradle”, and argued for many weeks that British intervention needed to go beyond the blockade of Burgundian ports.
Lloyd-George needed a consensus to move the country forward, as a wildfire set of strikes, later found out to be caused by Trotsky’s agents, hit Birmingham, London, Newcastle, Glasgow, and Bristol. My great grandmother received a letter from a friend in Newcastle.
I hope this letter reaches you well. Bob has been on the line all week, making sure the scabs don’t get through, though he got a cauliflower ear for his troubles when the polis lumped him one yesterday. I know your sweetheart is in France, and I do hope he is safe, but having read Comrade Trotsky’s pamphlet on the rights of the common made I can’t help but think all things are upside down in this country.
Another piece of memorabilia in the scrap book was her mother’s voting card
for the snap election Lloyd-George called on August twenty nineth. Having forced through the Representation of People Act in on July fifth, Lloyd-George finally decided to get a working government to force the country forward. With the British parliament effectively out of action for the next three weeks, there was little that the United Kingdom could do to but watch the tumolt sweeping the continent. With so little time to campaign, the major parties scrambled to get out to the voters. My great grandfather, stuck in Metz, hoarded all the news papers he could find, providing this note in his diary on the eve of the election.
This is going to be a close run thing, bloody Labour shoving their oar into the mix, they may as well sell us down the river to the bleeding commies. Hope Churchill’s lot get back in, and maybe we can stick to the Reds good and proper this time.
My arrival in Prague coinsided with the national day of rememberance, the day Joachim, or King Joachim I as he was formally known, arrived in Prague to become king of Bohemia, and the country declared its formal independence from the former empire, August tenth nineteen eighteen. The former Kaiser Wilhelm sent him a strong worded telgram asking why he had accepted the crown, and the new King sent him this response on the morning of the coronation on August twelth.
I do this not for myself but for the Bohemian people who need a leader who will stand up for what is right and fair. Just because you chose to relinquish your crown does not give you the right to be bitter about my choice. All I ask is that you and my nephew bless this nation with your wisdom and grace.
Unfortunately for Joachim both would be in very short supply in his tenure as King of the Bohemians. Almost immediately Lenin redoubled his efforts, sending a series of cables to Marseilles requesting Trotsy's aid. Unfortunately for Lenin, Trotsky was having a crisis of his own, as the British blockade was preventing him from getting vital resupplies for the new Sociale Marine holed up in Montpelier harbour. He need the ships in order to force the blockade to retreat, and this cable sent on August twentieth showed his schrewd grasp of British politics.
Comrade, I know you need our aid, and by all this just I would send it to you in a heartbeat, but as things stand unless we can bring the British to battle before the 29th we may feel the full weight of the highseas fleet if Churchill has his way. If we can raise the blockade then I will send you what I can through the Adriatic.
The small hotel I checked into near the old city in Prague had a shabby sixties chique about it, with fading pictures of German rock stars who stayed there during its hayday. On the back of the menu was a brief history of the building, put up after the communist riots that burned about half the street down.
This street was scene of the first communist demonstrations, and on the night of August twenty fourth the barricade just outside the house which stood on this site was set on fire on the hope of keeping the advancing Bohemian army at bay. Unfortunately the wind whipped the flames up, and by morning nearly half the houses had been burnt the ground as the fire service could not get close enought to put out the flames.
A small plaque on the wall commemorated the events of August twenty eighth nineteen nineteen, a small prayer for the dead soldiers. Michael Lewis' A History of the British Navy devotes two pages to the battle of Marseilles nineteen eighteen. His conclusion is a testament to the savagery of the fighting.
The British, though well drilled and disciplined, stood little chance against the concerted might of the angry Burgundian fleet. In an almost suicidal move Trotsky gambled his entire naval force to force the blockade, at least until the Admiralty could send reinforcements from either Gibraltar or Alexandria, or in extremis Scapa Flow. In the end out of the four dreadnoughts and their assorted squadrons, one was sunk, the Coubert, while the rest suffered minor damage. Only Rear-Admiral Edwyn Alexander-Sinclair's valient rear guard action saved the handful of ships not send to the bottom of the ocean. From his vantage point on HMS Queen Elizabeth he witnessed the first reversal of the British navy for over a hundred years, and with it a brief window in through which the Reds could get reinforcements and supplies.
Trotsky knew he had got lucky, as the British had not sent their biggest ships, but their blood would surely now be up. He was able to send what aid he could on a convoy through the Mediterranean. I had to give him credit for being gutsy as well as crafty.
Much to Churchill’s consternation I feel I have no choice but to bring the full weight of the Act against the Bohemians. Joachim is a clearly a danger to us as he is a beacon to any radical party wishing to break away from their lawful governments. Mores the pity that my actions are just a token effort, as I would prefer a more potent message to be sent to those who wish to threaten British integrity.
The 1963 film Carry on Over the Alps has Kenneth Williams as Lenin agitating in the fictional state of Slavonia, a direct parody of Lenin’s decision to enter Bohemia in early August nineteen eighteen to stir up the peasants in favour of the communists. The film satirised the Bohemian attempts to arrest Lenin as he stumped for the people to rise up. At Pardubice he managed to raise enough local support for the workers to come out on a general strike on August third, though with the support of German Freikorps volunteers from across the border the strike was brutally broken. Lord Beaverbrook in the Daily Express commented.
This is not how it should be done; it must through the ballot box and rhetoric, not direct action against the Red peril. We loyal socialists and liberals who recognise the right of all men to freedom of expression and the right to fair process demand that the British government takes a strong stance against extremism on both sides. Both the far right and the far left must be disavowed and cut off from the cord of British empathy.
Lloyd-George was already under pressure in the court of public opinion, with comments from the likes of Sir Eric Geddes demanding that the government should squeeze the German lemon until the pips squeak for their direct interference in the British state making any moderate position all the more complicated. In cabinet minutes released in nineteen sixty eight, it revealed that Lloyd-George, Andrew Bonar-Law, and Churchill were fighting a three way battle for control of the Liberal party. Simon Sharma regaled his readers in his History of Britain.
Never had a government in modern British history faced such a split. Lloyd-George was trying to right the ship of state, for while Britain had emerged from the was battered and bruise with her finances were in relatively good shape, her major trading partners on the continent were in the process of falling apart. He knew Germany industrial capacity would go a pretty long way, but also knew that continued mass strikes and industrial action would gum up the global economy, thus he was pushing for direct action against the communists and aiding the nationalists. Bonar-Law, as Conservative leader, was caught between the free trade faction and nationalist elements of his own party, and tried to tack a course that kept Britain out of the affairs of the European powers lest it jeopardise long term trade. Without a majority in parliament he knew his only way of forcing the issue would be to call a vote of no confidence and try to win the resulting general election. This left Churchill as the voice of those who wished to see Britain take a hard line against all extremists and intervention. He made it clear that Communism must be “strangled in its cradle”, and argued for many weeks that British intervention needed to go beyond the blockade of Burgundian ports.
Lloyd-George needed a consensus to move the country forward, as a wildfire set of strikes, later found out to be caused by Trotsky’s agents, hit Birmingham, London, Newcastle, Glasgow, and Bristol. My great grandmother received a letter from a friend in Newcastle.
I hope this letter reaches you well. Bob has been on the line all week, making sure the scabs don’t get through, though he got a cauliflower ear for his troubles when the polis lumped him one yesterday. I know your sweetheart is in France, and I do hope he is safe, but having read Comrade Trotsky’s pamphlet on the rights of the common made I can’t help but think all things are upside down in this country.
Another piece of memorabilia in the scrap book was her mother’s voting card
for the snap election Lloyd-George called on August twenty nineth. Having forced through the Representation of People Act in on July fifth, Lloyd-George finally decided to get a working government to force the country forward. With the British parliament effectively out of action for the next three weeks, there was little that the United Kingdom could do to but watch the tumolt sweeping the continent. With so little time to campaign, the major parties scrambled to get out to the voters. My great grandfather, stuck in Metz, hoarded all the news papers he could find, providing this note in his diary on the eve of the election.
This is going to be a close run thing, bloody Labour shoving their oar into the mix, they may as well sell us down the river to the bleeding commies. Hope Churchill’s lot get back in, and maybe we can stick to the Reds good and proper this time.
My arrival in Prague coinsided with the national day of rememberance, the day Joachim, or King Joachim I as he was formally known, arrived in Prague to become king of Bohemia, and the country declared its formal independence from the former empire, August tenth nineteen eighteen. The former Kaiser Wilhelm sent him a strong worded telgram asking why he had accepted the crown, and the new King sent him this response on the morning of the coronation on August twelth.
I do this not for myself but for the Bohemian people who need a leader who will stand up for what is right and fair. Just because you chose to relinquish your crown does not give you the right to be bitter about my choice. All I ask is that you and my nephew bless this nation with your wisdom and grace.
Unfortunately for Joachim both would be in very short supply in his tenure as King of the Bohemians. Almost immediately Lenin redoubled his efforts, sending a series of cables to Marseilles requesting Trotsy's aid. Unfortunately for Lenin, Trotsky was having a crisis of his own, as the British blockade was preventing him from getting vital resupplies for the new Sociale Marine holed up in Montpelier harbour. He need the ships in order to force the blockade to retreat, and this cable sent on August twentieth showed his schrewd grasp of British politics.
Comrade, I know you need our aid, and by all this just I would send it to you in a heartbeat, but as things stand unless we can bring the British to battle before the 29th we may feel the full weight of the highseas fleet if Churchill has his way. If we can raise the blockade then I will send you what I can through the Adriatic.
The small hotel I checked into near the old city in Prague had a shabby sixties chique about it, with fading pictures of German rock stars who stayed there during its hayday. On the back of the menu was a brief history of the building, put up after the communist riots that burned about half the street down.
This street was scene of the first communist demonstrations, and on the night of August twenty fourth the barricade just outside the house which stood on this site was set on fire on the hope of keeping the advancing Bohemian army at bay. Unfortunately the wind whipped the flames up, and by morning nearly half the houses had been burnt the ground as the fire service could not get close enought to put out the flames.
A small plaque on the wall commemorated the events of August twenty eighth nineteen nineteen, a small prayer for the dead soldiers. Michael Lewis' A History of the British Navy devotes two pages to the battle of Marseilles nineteen eighteen. His conclusion is a testament to the savagery of the fighting.
The British, though well drilled and disciplined, stood little chance against the concerted might of the angry Burgundian fleet. In an almost suicidal move Trotsky gambled his entire naval force to force the blockade, at least until the Admiralty could send reinforcements from either Gibraltar or Alexandria, or in extremis Scapa Flow. In the end out of the four dreadnoughts and their assorted squadrons, one was sunk, the Coubert, while the rest suffered minor damage. Only Rear-Admiral Edwyn Alexander-Sinclair's valient rear guard action saved the handful of ships not send to the bottom of the ocean. From his vantage point on HMS Queen Elizabeth he witnessed the first reversal of the British navy for over a hundred years, and with it a brief window in through which the Reds could get reinforcements and supplies.
Trotsky knew he had got lucky, as the British had not sent their biggest ships, but their blood would surely now be up. He was able to send what aid he could on a convoy through the Mediterranean. I had to give him credit for being gutsy as well as crafty.
English Historical Review
In light of my ongoing research, the English Historical Review asked me for a piece on the primary sources I was uncovering as part of an ongoing series of article.
There are plenty of academics who view the events of 1918 as symptomatic of the post Great War malaise, of the build up of sociological tensions among the working classes of all the major nations, and of a desire by those who had hands on the leavers of power to return to the old pre-war order. In this piece I will outline why I think these ideas take the wrong approach, and why there needs to be more a holistic approach to researching the period 1916 to 1922. I argue that a sociological approach akin to the Annales, with keep figures acting as fulcrums, is a more fundamentally honest way of examining the evidence I have collected.
My first example is the Liberal majority that Lloyd-George managed to win in August 1918, the Labour official opposition that was elected to oppose them. The fact that the Tory base collapsed has always been one of the great question marks of history, especially given how strong their vote had been up to this point. Indeed, it was only by examining the recently opened archives in both Marseilles and Prague that I was able to get a clearer indication of how much of a hand Trotsky had to play in that election. While the communists knew they could not act as an open party, especially given the pre-election sinking of the British fleet, they could stump for a socialist party to push an agenda that was more radicalised than before.
Many argue that the conservative decline was inevitable given the social gradient of the late 19th and early 20th century, but given the ambiguous end of the war I would say that the Tories was caught in their own no mans land politically. The empire was strong, while the state of the public purse was in reasonable shape. The liberals occupied the anti-communist/anti-radical ground, while Labour was stumping for the common man. All the Tories were left with was a pro-nationalist agenda which was not in vogue with the majority of voters, especially the newly enfranchised women. Only a military disaster could have sent voters into the arms of the Tories, and while the battle of Marseilles was a body blow, it was by no means a catastrophe. In the end the Tories ship sank because they failed to tack a course away towards the centre of British consciousness. Churchill's election speech made for grim reading in Marseilles, and Trotsky wrote prophetically to Lenin.
Comrade, I fear that the British lion will finally awake to once more try to maul us. We must re-double our efforts to bring to bear the proud working men of Europe in our cause. I fervently believe that if we can bring out the factory workers, railway men, and all the other downtrodden proletariat we will be in a position to force those governments who oppose us to their knees. If we cannot win on the field, then let us win by the will of the people.
Which brings me on to my next piece of evidence based on a series of letters between Trotsy and Lenin over the course of August and September 1918. I suspect everyone would have thought Lenin would have returned to Russian on September fourth when the Tsar announced he was willing to hold open elections for a new constitutional assembly, but the letters clearly show that Lenin believed that without Trotsky acting in concert with him, the Marxists would have suffered a similar reverse to 1904. Which is why it is clear he stayed in Bohemia to spread the revolution against the Joachim led government. Lenin was a proud Russian, as was Trotsky, but they were also arch-pragmatists willing to move forward the idea of revolution. Many in Bohemia were angry at a German king being placed on the throne, especially after the euphoria of independence quickly gave way to the reality of a broken economy.
This begs the question why did Germany or Hungary not seek to strengthen Bohemia, Slovakia, Croatia, and the other smaller nations of central Europe to stave off the rise of the leftist extremists? Maybe they were counting on the nationalists within in each country to have enough of a base to counter the red threat, or, which I believe is more likely, that both nations had major internal issues that needed to be addressed before they could deal with the economic fallout of the Austria-hungarian break-up. Zita's regency had barely begun when she had to manage the putsche by Bavarian nationalists angry at the Kaiser's abdication. It is not entirely clear why Ludendorf decided to use the German Worker's party as tools for his coup, but at his trial in October 1918 he gave this line as his defence.
“I stand here a patriot of the German people, a concerned citizen watching as my once proud country steers a course towards self destruction. We won a war against those who would see us on our knees, yet it feels like those who should be leading us have stabbed us in the back. Convict me, and you may as well convict every right thinking German man and woman of treason.”
Of course when he was executed Zita's government had their immediate legitimacy increased, but given that the whole affair paralysed Berlin for the rest of 1918 it is fair to say that all Ludendorf really achieved was handing central Europe to the wolves.
My third piece of evidence relates to the cables sent by the Serbian government to the Hungarian Foreign Minister on August 30th. Out of all the nations involved in the Great War, Serbia had the most to loose from a destablised central Europe. Faced with an ultra-nationalistic government in the Ottoman empire, an Italian king looking to stabilise his borders, and civil wars breaking out in the remaining countries on their borders, Belgrade needed to act quickly in order to prevent Serbia sliding into chaos. The communique has gone down as one of those pivot points in the 1918-1922 period.
It is our understanding that you will not seek to intervene in our endeavor to stabilise the region to Serbia's south west. We agree by the terms set down in our last meeting, and will provide the Hungarian Republic with full access to the Adriatic at Fiume. We undertake to act in tandam with Hungarian forces at all times, and while past transgressions cannot be overlooked, we hope that this will lead to a greater degree of co-operation between our two nations.
Now obviously the Serbian march into the Balkans proved to be as much a disaster as the last two occasions, but the uprisings in Bosnia, Croatia, and Greece left a power vacuum which the Ottomans were intent on filling. Hungary did not respond favourably to the Serbs, who they had only just given back their freedom, invading the newly formed Croatia in a nationalist fervour. In the end it was inevitable that the Hungarians would look to pursue matters on their own terms than with the Serbians, and once again London was caught on the back foot. This was one more wildfire to add to the list. I cannot stress enough that if the British had been able to deal with one crisis after another southern Europe would not have gone the way of those states to the north, but with the growing wildcat strikes in their industrial base and the need to prevent the BSSR in France, the Balkans were a stepping stone too far. Only Greece benefited from a small amount of British aid, given the standing alliance between the two countries, and even then there were strongly worded letters to both the Times and the Mirror asking why British troops were being risked.
My final piece of evidence, and one which backs up a more sociological approach, is a series of petitions made to Joachim from the people of Bohemia in the first month of his rule. Many republicans simply refused to engage with the democratic institutions set up in the wake of his coronation, citing that Bohemia and Moravia deserved a president not a German king. Many of the petitions wanted full democracy, freedom of speech, and universal suffrage. Others wanted workers rights, universal healthcare, and an end to conscription. Joachim could see the effect the workers strikes and protests were having on neighbouring countries, and in light of this he set up a constitutional commission to decide the fate of Bohemian democracy. To borrow a modern phrase, grass roots activism of both nationalist and socialist colours vied for a voice at the commission, and taking a leaf out of the British election he called a snap election for seats, hoping that the socialists would not have enough time to rally enough support. Lenin seized on this opportunity, and on August 15th released a pamphlet decrying the false king.
People of Bohemia, now is the time to emancipate yourselves from the yoke of tyranny, foreign rule, and class oppression. Do not see this election as anything more than a smokescreen for the Imperialist puppet on the throne, the viper appointed to keep you under the heel of the landlord and capitalist. I urge each and every one of you to vote for those who support your rights, vote for a communist on August twentieth.
So it was that Lenin used the voice of the people, not the might of arms, to achieve a communist majority in the commission. Joachim and the nationalists were sent into a panic, and the King delayed the opening of the commission until the end of September to buy himself more time. Was this a mistake? Was he subverting democracy? Had he not listened to his people and given them a say in their country? Future events obviously show how much borrowed time he was one, but it is safe to say that for the first time since 1848 has a European monarch been forced to concede so much power without a bullet being fired.
In the end it is my assertion that this time frame is not about big man politics, as much as names like Churchill or Trotsky are bandied about, rather it is the will of the common man, whether in support of or against the state that ultimately determined the fate of Europe, indeed the world, at the major fulcrum point of the 20th century. I think the primary evidence speaks for itself, and in my next article I will draw upon my further research to show how the BSSR was able to keep its contiguity in the face of overwhelming Imperial ambition.
In light of my ongoing research, the English Historical Review asked me for a piece on the primary sources I was uncovering as part of an ongoing series of article.
There are plenty of academics who view the events of 1918 as symptomatic of the post Great War malaise, of the build up of sociological tensions among the working classes of all the major nations, and of a desire by those who had hands on the leavers of power to return to the old pre-war order. In this piece I will outline why I think these ideas take the wrong approach, and why there needs to be more a holistic approach to researching the period 1916 to 1922. I argue that a sociological approach akin to the Annales, with keep figures acting as fulcrums, is a more fundamentally honest way of examining the evidence I have collected.
My first example is the Liberal majority that Lloyd-George managed to win in August 1918, the Labour official opposition that was elected to oppose them. The fact that the Tory base collapsed has always been one of the great question marks of history, especially given how strong their vote had been up to this point. Indeed, it was only by examining the recently opened archives in both Marseilles and Prague that I was able to get a clearer indication of how much of a hand Trotsky had to play in that election. While the communists knew they could not act as an open party, especially given the pre-election sinking of the British fleet, they could stump for a socialist party to push an agenda that was more radicalised than before.
Many argue that the conservative decline was inevitable given the social gradient of the late 19th and early 20th century, but given the ambiguous end of the war I would say that the Tories was caught in their own no mans land politically. The empire was strong, while the state of the public purse was in reasonable shape. The liberals occupied the anti-communist/anti-radical ground, while Labour was stumping for the common man. All the Tories were left with was a pro-nationalist agenda which was not in vogue with the majority of voters, especially the newly enfranchised women. Only a military disaster could have sent voters into the arms of the Tories, and while the battle of Marseilles was a body blow, it was by no means a catastrophe. In the end the Tories ship sank because they failed to tack a course away towards the centre of British consciousness. Churchill's election speech made for grim reading in Marseilles, and Trotsky wrote prophetically to Lenin.
Comrade, I fear that the British lion will finally awake to once more try to maul us. We must re-double our efforts to bring to bear the proud working men of Europe in our cause. I fervently believe that if we can bring out the factory workers, railway men, and all the other downtrodden proletariat we will be in a position to force those governments who oppose us to their knees. If we cannot win on the field, then let us win by the will of the people.
Which brings me on to my next piece of evidence based on a series of letters between Trotsy and Lenin over the course of August and September 1918. I suspect everyone would have thought Lenin would have returned to Russian on September fourth when the Tsar announced he was willing to hold open elections for a new constitutional assembly, but the letters clearly show that Lenin believed that without Trotsky acting in concert with him, the Marxists would have suffered a similar reverse to 1904. Which is why it is clear he stayed in Bohemia to spread the revolution against the Joachim led government. Lenin was a proud Russian, as was Trotsky, but they were also arch-pragmatists willing to move forward the idea of revolution. Many in Bohemia were angry at a German king being placed on the throne, especially after the euphoria of independence quickly gave way to the reality of a broken economy.
This begs the question why did Germany or Hungary not seek to strengthen Bohemia, Slovakia, Croatia, and the other smaller nations of central Europe to stave off the rise of the leftist extremists? Maybe they were counting on the nationalists within in each country to have enough of a base to counter the red threat, or, which I believe is more likely, that both nations had major internal issues that needed to be addressed before they could deal with the economic fallout of the Austria-hungarian break-up. Zita's regency had barely begun when she had to manage the putsche by Bavarian nationalists angry at the Kaiser's abdication. It is not entirely clear why Ludendorf decided to use the German Worker's party as tools for his coup, but at his trial in October 1918 he gave this line as his defence.
“I stand here a patriot of the German people, a concerned citizen watching as my once proud country steers a course towards self destruction. We won a war against those who would see us on our knees, yet it feels like those who should be leading us have stabbed us in the back. Convict me, and you may as well convict every right thinking German man and woman of treason.”
Of course when he was executed Zita's government had their immediate legitimacy increased, but given that the whole affair paralysed Berlin for the rest of 1918 it is fair to say that all Ludendorf really achieved was handing central Europe to the wolves.
My third piece of evidence relates to the cables sent by the Serbian government to the Hungarian Foreign Minister on August 30th. Out of all the nations involved in the Great War, Serbia had the most to loose from a destablised central Europe. Faced with an ultra-nationalistic government in the Ottoman empire, an Italian king looking to stabilise his borders, and civil wars breaking out in the remaining countries on their borders, Belgrade needed to act quickly in order to prevent Serbia sliding into chaos. The communique has gone down as one of those pivot points in the 1918-1922 period.
It is our understanding that you will not seek to intervene in our endeavor to stabilise the region to Serbia's south west. We agree by the terms set down in our last meeting, and will provide the Hungarian Republic with full access to the Adriatic at Fiume. We undertake to act in tandam with Hungarian forces at all times, and while past transgressions cannot be overlooked, we hope that this will lead to a greater degree of co-operation between our two nations.
Now obviously the Serbian march into the Balkans proved to be as much a disaster as the last two occasions, but the uprisings in Bosnia, Croatia, and Greece left a power vacuum which the Ottomans were intent on filling. Hungary did not respond favourably to the Serbs, who they had only just given back their freedom, invading the newly formed Croatia in a nationalist fervour. In the end it was inevitable that the Hungarians would look to pursue matters on their own terms than with the Serbians, and once again London was caught on the back foot. This was one more wildfire to add to the list. I cannot stress enough that if the British had been able to deal with one crisis after another southern Europe would not have gone the way of those states to the north, but with the growing wildcat strikes in their industrial base and the need to prevent the BSSR in France, the Balkans were a stepping stone too far. Only Greece benefited from a small amount of British aid, given the standing alliance between the two countries, and even then there were strongly worded letters to both the Times and the Mirror asking why British troops were being risked.
My final piece of evidence, and one which backs up a more sociological approach, is a series of petitions made to Joachim from the people of Bohemia in the first month of his rule. Many republicans simply refused to engage with the democratic institutions set up in the wake of his coronation, citing that Bohemia and Moravia deserved a president not a German king. Many of the petitions wanted full democracy, freedom of speech, and universal suffrage. Others wanted workers rights, universal healthcare, and an end to conscription. Joachim could see the effect the workers strikes and protests were having on neighbouring countries, and in light of this he set up a constitutional commission to decide the fate of Bohemian democracy. To borrow a modern phrase, grass roots activism of both nationalist and socialist colours vied for a voice at the commission, and taking a leaf out of the British election he called a snap election for seats, hoping that the socialists would not have enough time to rally enough support. Lenin seized on this opportunity, and on August 15th released a pamphlet decrying the false king.
People of Bohemia, now is the time to emancipate yourselves from the yoke of tyranny, foreign rule, and class oppression. Do not see this election as anything more than a smokescreen for the Imperialist puppet on the throne, the viper appointed to keep you under the heel of the landlord and capitalist. I urge each and every one of you to vote for those who support your rights, vote for a communist on August twentieth.
So it was that Lenin used the voice of the people, not the might of arms, to achieve a communist majority in the commission. Joachim and the nationalists were sent into a panic, and the King delayed the opening of the commission until the end of September to buy himself more time. Was this a mistake? Was he subverting democracy? Had he not listened to his people and given them a say in their country? Future events obviously show how much borrowed time he was one, but it is safe to say that for the first time since 1848 has a European monarch been forced to concede so much power without a bullet being fired.
In the end it is my assertion that this time frame is not about big man politics, as much as names like Churchill or Trotsky are bandied about, rather it is the will of the common man, whether in support of or against the state that ultimately determined the fate of Europe, indeed the world, at the major fulcrum point of the 20th century. I think the primary evidence speaks for itself, and in my next article I will draw upon my further research to show how the BSSR was able to keep its contiguity in the face of overwhelming Imperial ambition.
Last edited:
Not decided, just seeing how the lie of the land goes.
At present, here is a run down of the countries at the centre of the action:
United Kingdom:
Financially stable, just, emerged from the Great War with 20% of its reserves remaining. No debt spent funding the war. Ireland is very much part of the UK, and after the 1918 Integrity Act will remain so.
Kingdom of France:
Essentially Aquitaine and West Francia, with the border running from 40 miles north of the Cote D'Azure up to, and including Metz. Regained any territory lost to Germany in 1871 not ruled by the BSSR by dint of the Germans withdrawing from the region during the BSSR surge in early 1918. Ruled by King Phillipe VIII, restored Bourbon king of France. Algeria is in turmoil, while Indo-China is still under nominal French control.
Imperial Germany:
The unified country of Imprial German and Austria formed in August 1918, and aside from the loss of French territory and the southern Rhineland it has come through the previous two years relatively unscathed. Socialist unrest, fermented by the BSSR, is wreaking havoc in the Rhineland, with many army units and Friekorps volunteers tied up stopping succession. Nationalist sentiment is running high, both the anti-communists and the anti-Imperialists are gaining strength in the Reichtag, and Empress Rita's regency is still very much a work in progress. Germany has the strongest economy of any European power, but that is faltering under the wave of strikes and BSSR incursions.
Bergundian Soviet Socialist Republic (BSSR):
Emerged from the chaos of the German occupation of southern France in 1916/17, with Leon Trotsky the de facto dictator behind a screen of French ministers. Territory extends up into the southern Rhineland, where the Trotsky line is hastily being build between Luxembourg and the Rhine to defend against the Germans. The British blockade was broken at the battle of Marseilles by the Marine Sociale, ships which mutinied from the Marine Nationale earlier in the summer. Most of the Red army are former French soldiers, but German, Italian, British, and Austrian volunteers have flocked over the border to fight the worker's war.