Sequel de Mayo (Cinco de Mayo, Vol. II)
- Thread starter KingSweden24
- Start date
Yes and no. The immediate cause of war is removed if Stephane isn't in Vienna in October of 1918, but a lot of the underlying issues (Hungary vs Austria, French fear of Germany, the Belgian Congo shitshow) are all still there.
Odds are there's some sort of war sooner rather than later. A different war but a war nonetheless.
I'm not really an avid watcher of Filipino Telenovela (Titles like Wildflower or Marla Clara), I spent my childhood watching Cartoon Network and Disney Channel for the most part. Although it reminds me of a scene (Idk what telenovela, don't care) where the husband caught his wife cheating on him. So he shot the guy on the spot.
Upon rereading, my favorite POD for this timeline's alternate history of the war is "Stephane shoots Franz, but gets out of Vienna without getting arrested."
He shoots Franz, leaves the palace and walks right to the train, leaving his stuff behind in his apartment. During the hours of pandemonium when FF is heading back to Vienna, Stephane is already on the first train back to Belgium (probably through Italy or Switzerland as opposed to through Germany). By the time people figure out where he is, he's either in Italy or safe in France or Switzerland.
He shoots Franz, leaves the palace and walks right to the train, leaving his stuff behind in his apartment. During the hours of pandemonium when FF is heading back to Vienna, Stephane is already on the first train back to Belgium (probably through Italy or Switzerland as opposed to through Germany). By the time people figure out where he is, he's either in Italy or safe in France or Switzerland.
I'm certain that Germany is gonna issue a warrant for Stephane Clement's arrest once he's inevitably found not guilty by the Austrian courts. His possible fates once Germany wins, assuming he survives the war:
1. German firing squad
2. Suicide
3. Exile
If it winds up being option 3, I wonder who would accept him. Besides his well-earned reputation, doing so would certainly piss off the Germans
1. German firing squad
2. Suicide
3. Exile
If it winds up being option 3, I wonder who would accept him. Besides his well-earned reputation, doing so would certainly piss off the Germans
Last edited:
The Second Act of the Georgian Age: Britain 1906-1924
"...almost now way in late October and November of 1918 to avoid it. Newspapers chronicling the escalating war of words from the continent were flying off the shelves so fast that there were, for the first time in British history, a shortage of morning papers for all who wanted to read one in some parts of the country. Without as much skin in the game, Britain's famously yellow press avoided some of the truly absurd and destabilizing sensationalism and rhetoric that was almost passe in French, Belgian, and German papers within weeks, but nonetheless, it was a story nobody could keep their eyes off of, much in the way motorists slow down to observe a particularly spectacular collision on the side of the road.
For the Chamberlain government, however, it was not just an absurd and lurid story, it was a bonafide geopolitical crisis, easily the biggest to engulf Europe since the near-war over Siam in 1892 that the Prime Minister's father had narrowly helped defuse, and once again it featured the same protagonists, in France and Germany with Belgium thrown in as the unlikely instigator. By the end of the November, the government had largely agreed to take a wait-and-see approach, if only because they could do little else. Everybody in Whitehall, across Europe, indeed in all the halls of government in the world all stopped and took in a deep breathe, waiting for the other shoe to drop.
The most immediate question in the Hofburg Crisis, as the British press termed it, was how exactly the trial that looked likely for mid-January would go. Austria, like most of continental Europe, used an inquisitorial justice system rather than an adversarial one, and British experts on civil code law suggested to the British government that the mere fact that an Austrian judge had found sufficient need in an investigation to prosecute the case against Prince Stephane Clement was a sign that he was likely to be convicted. As November wore on and turned to December, the Cabinet - full of accomplished attorneys and barristers - began to grow less convinced. What concerned them most, in particular Lord Crewe, was the very serious accusation levied by Germany against Belgium, that it had entered into an explicit defensive alliance with France and Austria-Hungary aimed at Germany in the wake of the Second Congo Crisis, over and above the stipulations of the Treaty of London. What bedeviled British civil servants, envoys, and spies across Europe in those crucial weeks at the end of 1918 was how to ascertain if this was definitively true, hearsay but with a likelihood of accuracy, or a remarkably inflammatory suggestion. The answer to that question was an answer on which the future of Europe potentially hinged.
As the level-headed Crewe explained, the Treaty of London's stipulations were bidirectional. Belgium's territorial integrity was undersigned by Britian, France, and Prussia (Austria and Russia technically as well, but their lack of physical proximity made this more of a formal legal point than one with any particular practical impact). No Great Power could invade her or attempt to partition her without - in theory - triggering a war in which other Great Powers were then to come to her aid. While this settlement clearly benefitted Belgium a great deal, it was also designed to benefit the other Great Powers, especially Britain, which avoided one of France or Germany controlling the port of Antwerp, amongst the most strategic points on the northern European coast from a British perspective. The bargain, as Crewe reminded the Cabinet, was that Belgium's independence was guaranteed by Britain in return for Belgium actually adhering to the neutrality that Britain demanded in return. Implied in this was that if Belgium had reneged on this key point and now was aligned officially with France, then Britain had no duty to defend her come what way. If Belgium had in fact not gone over to Paris formally, however, then a German-Belgian war, depending on who fired first, would leave Britain duty-bound to Belgium, which meant a British intervention on the continent for the first time since Crimea, against a much more potent and direct threat.
To say that none of the Cabinet was much interested in a conflict with Germany was an understatement. Some, like Chamberlain, were Germanophiles, much in the fashion of the King; others, like Crewe, were more skeptical of long-term German interests, but were instinctively mediators who saw little to gain for Britain to leap in on Brussels' behalf. It was also the case that Belgium had worn out her welcome years ago with its repeated insistence on a colonial regime in the Congo so brutal that it had nearly invited European intervention by a concert of the other powers, and her princes, apples having fallen close to their father's tree, shocked and scandalized the European aristocracy going back well over a decade. With some distance from the circumstances at hand, Crewe in particular took the view that Stephane Clement had only himself to blame for putting himself in the dock, and that it was insane for France and Belgium to threaten war over German insistence that he stand trial and face punishment for his very serious two crimes.
With Germanophobes such as Edward Grey a fairly minor voice in the Cabinet, and pacifists dominant amongst a Liberal inner circle that was high on their triumphant solution to Ireland and looking ahead to what executing the transfer of power in February might look like, the appetite for a general European war was low. The decision not to intervene was not taken then, but it may as well have been; as Christmas approached, it was increasingly clear that Whitehall - even those who were increasingly seeing the Germans as a growing threat alongside the French and Russians, Malcolm-Jagow be damned - was looking less likely to step in and save Belgium from itself than it had even at the start of the burgeoning crisis..."
- The Second Act of the Georgian Age: Britain 1906-1924
For the Chamberlain government, however, it was not just an absurd and lurid story, it was a bonafide geopolitical crisis, easily the biggest to engulf Europe since the near-war over Siam in 1892 that the Prime Minister's father had narrowly helped defuse, and once again it featured the same protagonists, in France and Germany with Belgium thrown in as the unlikely instigator. By the end of the November, the government had largely agreed to take a wait-and-see approach, if only because they could do little else. Everybody in Whitehall, across Europe, indeed in all the halls of government in the world all stopped and took in a deep breathe, waiting for the other shoe to drop.
The most immediate question in the Hofburg Crisis, as the British press termed it, was how exactly the trial that looked likely for mid-January would go. Austria, like most of continental Europe, used an inquisitorial justice system rather than an adversarial one, and British experts on civil code law suggested to the British government that the mere fact that an Austrian judge had found sufficient need in an investigation to prosecute the case against Prince Stephane Clement was a sign that he was likely to be convicted. As November wore on and turned to December, the Cabinet - full of accomplished attorneys and barristers - began to grow less convinced. What concerned them most, in particular Lord Crewe, was the very serious accusation levied by Germany against Belgium, that it had entered into an explicit defensive alliance with France and Austria-Hungary aimed at Germany in the wake of the Second Congo Crisis, over and above the stipulations of the Treaty of London. What bedeviled British civil servants, envoys, and spies across Europe in those crucial weeks at the end of 1918 was how to ascertain if this was definitively true, hearsay but with a likelihood of accuracy, or a remarkably inflammatory suggestion. The answer to that question was an answer on which the future of Europe potentially hinged.
As the level-headed Crewe explained, the Treaty of London's stipulations were bidirectional. Belgium's territorial integrity was undersigned by Britian, France, and Prussia (Austria and Russia technically as well, but their lack of physical proximity made this more of a formal legal point than one with any particular practical impact). No Great Power could invade her or attempt to partition her without - in theory - triggering a war in which other Great Powers were then to come to her aid. While this settlement clearly benefitted Belgium a great deal, it was also designed to benefit the other Great Powers, especially Britain, which avoided one of France or Germany controlling the port of Antwerp, amongst the most strategic points on the northern European coast from a British perspective. The bargain, as Crewe reminded the Cabinet, was that Belgium's independence was guaranteed by Britain in return for Belgium actually adhering to the neutrality that Britain demanded in return. Implied in this was that if Belgium had reneged on this key point and now was aligned officially with France, then Britain had no duty to defend her come what way. If Belgium had in fact not gone over to Paris formally, however, then a German-Belgian war, depending on who fired first, would leave Britain duty-bound to Belgium, which meant a British intervention on the continent for the first time since Crimea, against a much more potent and direct threat.
To say that none of the Cabinet was much interested in a conflict with Germany was an understatement. Some, like Chamberlain, were Germanophiles, much in the fashion of the King; others, like Crewe, were more skeptical of long-term German interests, but were instinctively mediators who saw little to gain for Britain to leap in on Brussels' behalf. It was also the case that Belgium had worn out her welcome years ago with its repeated insistence on a colonial regime in the Congo so brutal that it had nearly invited European intervention by a concert of the other powers, and her princes, apples having fallen close to their father's tree, shocked and scandalized the European aristocracy going back well over a decade. With some distance from the circumstances at hand, Crewe in particular took the view that Stephane Clement had only himself to blame for putting himself in the dock, and that it was insane for France and Belgium to threaten war over German insistence that he stand trial and face punishment for his very serious two crimes.
With Germanophobes such as Edward Grey a fairly minor voice in the Cabinet, and pacifists dominant amongst a Liberal inner circle that was high on their triumphant solution to Ireland and looking ahead to what executing the transfer of power in February might look like, the appetite for a general European war was low. The decision not to intervene was not taken then, but it may as well have been; as Christmas approached, it was increasingly clear that Whitehall - even those who were increasingly seeing the Germans as a growing threat alongside the French and Russians, Malcolm-Jagow be damned - was looking less likely to step in and save Belgium from itself than it had even at the start of the burgeoning crisis..."
- The Second Act of the Georgian Age: Britain 1906-1924
A fair point
Ooooh. Yeah, that’d be a giant clusterfuck, especially once France pointedly refuses extradition. That might all keep Austria more on the sidelines at first though if Ferdinand is pissed Steffie shot Franz then bailed.
The CSA, perhaps?
Remind me in 10 months.
And that has to be the most original way to trigger *WW1 I have seen on the board in quite a while. Very well done.
Thank you! Credit for the idea goes a number of readers, my initial plan was much more rudimentary but I like this a fair deal betterRemind me in 10 months.
And that has to be the most original way to trigger *WW1 I have seen on the board in quite a while. Very well done.
The Great Powers harangue Austria into holding a “Munich Conference” on the question of Hungary, Steffie gets clipped, Belgium blames Berlin and shit goes sideways from there.
I eventually arrived at a conclusion (and @Curtain Jerker agreed when I bounced the idea off him looking to confirm it was a bad idea) that Austria would have a 0% likelihood of agreeing to external intervention like that even if it’s technically mediation and I needed a new plan.
So you building up all the drama over Hungary is for naught?
Im kinda bumned as Im a big sucker for wars of "National Interest" rather than whatever a Royalty does.
It gives a war more , atleast initually, more public support and thus thrre is less of Otl post WW1 nihilism and sense of purposeless of "why did we fight?" and hense less depression and PTSD.
Atleate some people can delude themsekves into thinking thatthey fought for a "cause", instead of being uncessary pieces in elite squabbles.
Despite this, its your tl. Do whatever you want. Peace.
Last edited:
Not really? Who's to say this and the Hungary issues are both the cause of the dissolution of the Austrian-Hungarian Empire.
I think it will be more relevant during the war, with Hungarians probably rebelling in the time which the War of Austria is obviously (or at least seem to be obviously) lost to Austrians.
Wow. Just wow. A murder of a royal by another royal is such an on the nose microcosm of European politics here. No wonder the whole continent blows up immediately after. This is probably one of the best updates you've put out.
I feel like getting strung up outside of a hunting lodge or barn by a bunch of Hungarian partisans if he tries to leave Austria by sneaking through the countryside is pretty likely. Extra points if they are socialist or just red social democratic partisans wanting revenge for the crushing of workers in Brussels.
War is hell. Especially the first world war. You may be missing the underlying causes of the war being the Hungarian/Belgian tensions themselves, but the spark itself being the careless violence of those in power is quite accurate. If you wanted a passionate liberal/idealist war of national freedom you should take a time machine back to 1848.
No no.... just no. No offense to @KingSweden24 but out of common sense we can not give him an award for being a generic piece of shit royalty stereotype 3: too good for Stephane Clement, hopefully we shall get a Cinco de Mayo execution date for him some point in the future....