The Great Crusade (Reds! Part 3)

[Killer300]

Here's a question.

Why in the world does Afghanistan go FBU? In OTL, reasons for this included collectivized agriculture and the Soviets suppressing religion. However, the former isn't likely to be implemented here, and the latter may be alleviated by a number of factions. Additionally, the logistics of the FBU supplying them are laughable with a Comintern aligned Iran, among other states. Those states themselves show this Comintern can clearly work with states that have major religious elements so... yeah...

See the issue?

 

['Allo 'Allo Secret Army]

Here's a question.

Why in the world does Afghanistan go FBU? In OTL, reasons for this included collectivized agriculture and the Soviets suppressing religion. However, the former isn't likely to be implemented here, and the latter may be alleviated by a number of factions. Additionally, the logistics of the FBU supplying them are laughable with a Comintern aligned Iran, among other states. Those states themselves show this Comintern can clearly work with states that have major religious elements so... yeah...

See the issue?

The Afghanis know nothing about what a communist government is going to bring, history proves that all communists states vary greatly ITTL. And since the Soviet Union is next door and their religious policies and their treatment of their former ruling elites is the most pressing example of communism for the Afghanis, I think it's safe to say the ruling elites and traditional religious leaders of the Western aligned Afghani government prefer not only "the devil they know" but also (naturally) wishto retain their status and social order. And we also have to remember that the threat of religious repression is a very motivating factor. The alternative is a Soviet aligned government, thus galvanizing religious opposition even further. We also have to remember that the Global South is not monolithic and have different socities and different needs. When there's a toppled regime next door it doesn't mean that Afghanistan is just gonna fall like a piece of domino: Note that Afghanistan shares it's largest border with the FBU dominion of India, thus the threat of invasion is permanent. Keeping the FBU is a pretty smart move to maintain order, keep a revolution at bay and avoid a war.

Afghanistan's ruling elite and middle classes are big after the Second World War. To preserve the gains of the 20th Century means avoiding Russia and placating the FBU.

The FBU has dominion over India, retains control over the Suez Canal and has colonies all over South-East Asia. Supply won't be the issue, the issue will of course be keeping any revolutionary activity at bay and militarily supporting the ruling elite of Afghanistan.

 

[Killer300]

The Afghanis know nothing about what a communist government is going to bring, history proves that all communists states vary greatly ITTL. And since the Soviet Union is next door and their religious policies and their treatment of their former ruling elites is the most pressing example of communism for the Afghanis, I think it's safe to say the ruling elites and traditional religious leaders of the Western aligned Afghani government prefer not only "the devil they know" but also (naturally) wishto retain their status and social order. And we also have to remember that the threat of religious repression is a very motivating factor. The alternative is a Soviet aligned government, thus galvanizing religious opposition even further. We also have to remember that the Global South is not monolithic and have different socities and different needs. When there's a toppled regime next door it doesn't mean that Afghanistan is just gonna fall like a piece of domino: Note that Afghanistan shares it's largest border with the FBU dominion of India, thus the threat of invasion is permanent. Keeping the FBU is a pretty smart move to maintain order, keep a revolution at bay and avoid a war.

Afghanistan's ruling elite and middle classes are big after the Second World War. To preserve the gains of the 20th Century means avoiding Russia and placating the FBU.

The FBU has dominion over India, retains control over the Suez Canal and has colonies all over South-East Asia. Supply won't be the issue, the issue will of course be keeping any revolutionary activity at bay and militarily supporting the ruling elite of Afghanistan.

The last get severely disrupted with WW2, and with time, local populaces will probably get sick of it as well. What doesn't help this is that any crack in a colony means a swarm of Communist arms waiting to arrive and arm a revolt. Also doesn't help that apparently the colonies have to get industrialized, which means the social order in areas like Afghanistan just gets run over, and replaced with groups that will be far more open to Communism's message.

Hence, it doesn't matter how hard the FBU fights to keep its Empire, it will inevitably fall.

With that said, good point with India, although Iraq is still a problem here. The latter is surrounded by Communist states apparently, which will cause numerous issues, to say the least.

 

['Allo 'Allo Secret Army]

The last get severely disrupted with WW2, and with time, local populaces will probably get sick of it as well. What doesn't help this is that any crack in a colony means a swarm of Communist arms waiting to arrive and arm a revolt. Also doesn't help that apparently the colonies have to get industrialized, which means the social order in areas like Afghanistan just gets run over, and replaced with groups that will be far more open to Communism's message.

Hence, it doesn't matter how hard the FBU fights to keep its Empire, it will inevitably fall.

Oh local populaces are sick of it plenty by 1946. But what the FBU has here that the Brits didn't have OTL is an imperative. There is no choice but to fight for the colonies. The FBU cannot, literally cannot, survive as a society without maintaining the colonial markets and the supply of resources from these colonies. The best comparison is the OTL Eastern Block. The Soviet Union never could've held those states, but they tried for decades and when they could no longer maintain their sphere of influence, their society collapsed. The Soviet Union needed the supplies from and the export zone provided by the Eastern Block, just like the FBU ITTL needs the colonies' supplies to maintain an industrialized capitalist system of economics and government. Also this means that we are not dealing with the bureaucratic imperalism of the early 20th century anymore, the FBU will have to engage in military control of the colonies.

Of course they won't be able to hold these colonies forever, but they can surely try for a very long time. The FBU is militarily stronger, the have more motivation, they have an imperative and they have centuries of ideological motivation to fall back on. They are a more formidable foe to the anti-colonialmovements of the Global South. Also resistance will be fractured between communist and non-communists movements that will "Struggle Together" so to speak. The movements against the colonial powers will not be unified in a much more stratified world. Nationalists, Communists and religiously influenced opposition will not unify in a single struggle for overthrowing the colonials. All would prefer the current government to any of the other alterantives posed by the other anti-colonialists. This of course in the short term will play into the FBU's hands.

But eventually the colonial peoples will liberate themselves and when the Empires are gone, the FBU collapses.

But it's a long process. We cannot treat decolonialization as a simple matter of whether communist revolution. The anti-colonial movements are so varied and diverse and there will be a lot of internal opposition to communism within subjugated communities and people. These divisions matter, and they play into how the FBU can maintain their colonies. By 1946, they've been around in these countries for long, sadly many of the administrators will probably know just how to manipulate the situations within India, Egypt, Indochina, Madagascar and so on, so forth, to their own advantage.

 

[Killer300]

Oh local populaces are sick of it plenty by 1946. But what the FBU has here that the Brits didn't have OTL is an imperative. There is no choice but to fight for the colonies. The FBU cannot, literally cannot, survive as a society without maintaining the colonial markets and the supply of resources from these colonies. The best comparison is the OTL Eastern Block. The Soviet Union never could've held those states, but they tried for decades and when they could no longer maintain their sphere of influence, their society collapsed. The Soviet Union needed the supplies from and the export zone provided by the Eastern Block, just like the FBU ITTL needs the colonies' supplies to maintain an industrialized capitalist system of economics and government. Also this means that we are not dealing with the bureaucratic imperalism of the early 20th century anymore, the FBU will have to engage in military control of the colonies.

Of course they won't be able to hold these colonies forever, but they can surely try for a very long time. The FBU is militarily stronger, the have more motivation, they have an imperative and they have centuries of ideological motivation to fall back on. They are a more formidable foe to the communist movements of the Global South. But eventually the colonial peoples will liberate themselves and when the Empires are gone, the FBU collapses.

But it's a long process.

Including overspend as it has to compete with TWO military superpowers, not just one. This may actually quicken the process of them falling apart on that front, seeing as they're going to realize quickly they can't say, defend Canada in the case of a conventional attack.

 

[LHB]

Including overspend as it has to compete with TWO military superpowers, not just one. This may actually quicken the process of them falling apart on that front, seeing as they're going to realize quickly they can't say, defend Canada in the case of a conventional attack.

Having a powerful nuclear deterrent means they won't have to and changes a lot of the dynamics of the Cold War.

OTL Britain and France didn't produce nuclear stockpiles on anywhere near the scale of the USSR and the US or with their global reach. Either way they were both under the US nuclear umbrella in the event of WWIII so it wasn't that necessary.

TTL they will have no choice; they would need to maintain a credible deterrence against both superpowers otherwise the UASR and USSR could easily crush them conventionally. They would need to have an arsenal at least as large as the Soviet arsenal OTL and that's going to factor into their strategic thinking. It will free up more troops for overseas duty in the colonies but that also means nuclear brinksmanship is likely to be more common due to their comparative weakness in conventional affairs. I'd also expect FBU forces to have a much higher proportion of special operations and elite formations like OTL's Paras to compensate for this and get the most bang out of their buck.

It also depends on if the FBU is adopting a defensive siege posture or is trying to roll back Comintern. If you're talking the former that's cheaper and easier to do as they just have to hold what they have but if you're talking the latter that's going to lead to a lot of embarrassing bloody noses. That would eliminate the outspend problem since all they need is to have enough to keep the UASR and USSR at bay.

 

[Libertad]

I think part of the interventions in the liberation of Palestine and Turkey might involve a take-over of Iraq, enough for the Gulf states and the Saud family to go FBU.

In terms of Egypt, it seems that the Nasser overthrow is more of a product of the first draft than a latest version, but nothing much is said about Egypt's fate in the retcon. India is the biggest change, as a FBU mainstay, as well as Latin American revolutions in the 30s, than Latin American bourgeois governments receiving Comintern aid, and then just turn Red. In hindsight, it's not a sound concept. I think not much is going to change on the fate of Egypt of becoming a postwar republic, probably a lingering effect of Labourite governance, then as the Cold War gets more heated and Nasser asserts himself, a coup to solve the Suez Canal crisis might occur. During this time, a PLP administration might be in power in America to further smoothen the coup operation, since DeLeon-Debs is not going to interfere.

Afghanistan seems to be not much of a capitalist island, I stand corrected, thanks to having a border with FBU India. It's more of a capitalist hinterland. However, Afghanistan might be in a unique Thailand-like situation of staying free from dominant international squabbles or even becoming an Asian Switzerland. It might be even agreed for the postwar partition of the world that Afghanistan should stay where it is and the Afghan ruling classes also will have a motivating factor to stay where they are in the social order and to keep foreigners out of the country, especially the commies.

In terms of the rapes, I really thought that the more thorough social revolution of America might really affect the hyper-conservative and patriarchal Soviet Union, thanks to the liberated Americans. Sexual repression would be less among Comintern soldiers of the Soviet front so less need for rapes or going to brothels or provide soldiers with prostitutes and stuff since the rather more sexually open and aggressive American women of the time were around to relieve those repressed feelings, the military command would not tolerate opening brothels for soldiers, an added bonus too is the militant feminism of the female soldiers that you've already had sex with once or even your girlfriend/s, sweetheart/s, fiancee already that is going to condemn rape, especially war rape, from the shared communist ideology. The USSR has to fight for the title ITTL so it have to behave due to American pressure. From a certain viewpoint (American), the best revenge on the fascist enemy is communist conversion, and you cannot create mass converts in an enemy country by doing such atrocities, only creating more anti-communism and worse, a prolonged insurgency. I don't think the logic of "degrading the enemy" is a sound logic for a soldier living in a new society (at least for an American) as well as the understanding that stopping a revanchist Germany/Italy from rising is to treat the country well despite being a defeated enemy. Basically, the lessons of World War I really taken into heart. These soldiers are also well-provisioned and well-disciplined by the giant communist arsenal that is America, plus the power to elect their commanders, a sense of ownership of things rising, including a military run by soldiers. I'm not sure of seeing cases of war rape to reactionary women from the side of anarchist militias during the Spanish Civil War in OTL, despite decades of repression by landlords, the Church, etc. If America really has a Spanish tinge to it, even for a bit, it would be enough. The more socially open wartime environment of the USSR, the presence of Americans, death of Stalin... will create the conditions in my opinion that sexual repression is lessened and such sexual feelings is already directed towards women in their own midst than the prospect of raping conquered women. It's... just so reactionary. A product of the past.

I think the FBU might deliriously try a rollback that is going to spectacularly fail, but it would be too late to take back the losses. By that time, it's all over. All it can do is to maintain a posture of stubborn defense or "open up", that is go more socialist even in rhetoric... but skillfully keeping the system intact under that more socialistic cover. A two-party system of reformist socialists and modern One Nation tories, but the hints are still much on a continued LDP style dominance from 1947 to present. So even better, the FBU is really doomed.

Just because the FBU is demographically and geographically smaller than the Comintern doesn't mean that it can't survive long. For me, one of the biggest reasons why it can survive is because the Comintern is not only divided for 3 decades but also because even at 2010, it is still remotely connected to capitalism through markets, foreign trade and the privileged state apparatus in conditions of continued resource scarcity as well as the recovery period from postwar mass environmental degradation. I'm not optimistic on the prospects that the Second Cultural Revolution really accomplished a lot. There are significant accomplishments, it's for sure, Soviet democracy can provide a limited avenue... but they're not that far-reaching. Cut the FBU from trading completely with the Comintern and have the Comintern develop a full Bookchinite/Venus Project style post-scarcity cybernetic ecological demarchic anarcho-communist society... under a foederati of communities, if it's even possible to do... and the FBU might fall spectacularly very fast. But it's not going to happen immediately, even if the technology might be there for a full international demos and polis to arise. The managerial-coordinator classes and the American military establishment relying on the remnants of nationalism, industrialism and classism within the Comintern with the added benefits of a permanent Cold War economy would have none of it. The struggle continues within international socialism. World revolution continues. The concept is getting more Gramscian than Trotskyist by time.

 

['Allo 'Allo Secret Army]

In terms of the rapes, I really thought that the more thorough social revolution of America might really affect the hyper-conservative and patriarchal Soviet Union, thanks to the liberated Americans. Sexual repression would be less among Comintern soldiers of the Soviet front so less need for rapes or going to brothels or provide soldiers with prostitutes and stuff since the rather more sexually open and aggressive American women of the time were around to relieve those repressed feelings, the military command would not tolerate opening brothels for soldiers, an added bonus too is the militant feminism of the female soldiers that you've already had sex with once or even your girlfriend/s, sweetheart/s, fiancee already that is going to condemn rape, especially war rape, from the shared communist ideology. The USSR has to fight for the title ITTL so it have to behave due to American pressure. From a certain viewpoint (American), the best revenge on the fascist enemy is communist conversion, and you cannot create mass converts in an enemy country by doing such atrocities, only creating more anti-communism and worse, a prolonged insurgency. I don't think the logic of "degrading the enemy" is a sound logic for a soldier living in a new society (at least for an American) as well as the understanding that stopping a revanchist Germany/Italy from rising is to treat the country well despite being a defeated enemy. Basically, the lessons of World War I really taken into heart. These soldiers are also well-provisioned and well-disciplined by the giant communist arsenal that is America, plus the power to elect their commanders, a sense of ownership of things rising, including a military run by soldiers. I'm not sure of seeing cases of war rape to reactionary women from the side of anarchist militias during the Spanish Civil War in OTL, despite decades of repression by landlords, the Church, etc. If America really has a Spanish tinge to it, even for a bit, it would be enough. The more socially open wartime environment of the USSR, the presence of Americans, death of Stalin... will create the conditions in my opinion that sexual repression is lessened and such sexual feelings is already directed towards women in their own midst than the prospect of raping conquered women. It's... just so reactionary. A product of the past.

We have to avoid a theory of rape coming out of repressed sexuality. Remember that such a line of throught stems from the notion that women are to blame for their own victimization: that men are owed sexual services by women and when they do not provide such it's their own "fault" that rape occurs. Theorizing that East German rape atrocities would be lessened because of a more lenient and open sexual society avoids the fact that we do OTL live in a morel enient and sexually permissive society and rape is still endemic and the #1 pressing threat to women. We also have to remember how communism addresses and theorizes rape. In traditional communist doctrine rape is a tool of political repression against the women of the working class perpetuated by the master class: there is no analysis present outside of existing thinking about class dynamics. It is simply presumed that the end of class means the end of rape. The other major contemporary analysis of rape comes from the African-American community, adressing the rape of black women by white men as a particular form of political terrorism meant to police the borders between the white and black spaces. The feminist political conscioussness and feminist political analysis of sexual violence does not exist yet. Not only that but several very improtant descriptive words do not exist: domestic abuse, sexual violence, bodily integrity; all terms developed by feminist theory and feminist practice. There is sadly no way for the armed forces of the UASR to address rape, they will simply not have the tools to address it because a wide feminist analysis is yet to be developed.

Sexual liberation does not equal the end of patriarchy. The tools to counter rape are sadly yet to be developed and male entitlement to female bodies (a concept that also will be developed later) is still rife. That and various other strands of thought influences the troops who move through Germany. There will be notion that German women deserve to be punished, there will be a notion that German women are "bad" and "bad women" cannot say no to sex (the oldest of all patriarchal power construction is of course that women are sexually dangerous and insatiable, a myth that makes rape impossible since women are thought of as incapable of denying consent) and there will just be the majority of men who are pleasant to women, offer them their rations, their cigarettes and their food only to be still be denied and they decide that they have shown enough kindness and that they "deserve" sex in return. And of course women of the two armies might also have these responses. As I said, women can victimize other women, hell the women of the UASR will most likely victimize German men.

The army has not the tools to counter rape because the defintion of rape as "the absence of consent" is yet to be defined. The defintion and terminology will define rape in ways that means that rape will occur: it just means that no one will consider it rape. In a defintion where rape is only the case where upper class men rape lower class women or white men black women, this means that the army will not consider German Women's plight as rape, it will just be "sex." We also have to remember that in this time rape was only rape if women could prove bodily harm, that also leaves a huge loophole.

Rape ends when patriarchy ends. And patriarchy is not over by 1946 ITTL.

 

[Aelita]

While you're right, Libertad, that there will be counter-forces at play, Allo is equally correct that there are plenty of revanchist feelings among American soldiers, regardless of their gender. It will be a complicated issue, and we must remember that IOTL the Soviet leadership condemned and set forth policies punishing reprisal rapes in occupied territories. It didn't amount to much, because even CPSU apparatchiks like the political officers who were supposed to deal with internal discipline were joining in, or at the very least turning a blind eye.

After all, you can't prevent a rape you didn't see, and you can't have the rapist shot if you didn't catch him in the act, can you? That said, even IOTL Soviet forces were not uniform in their barbarity towards the German population. Some soldiers did come to the aid of civilians who were being attacked, even if it meant coming to blows with their comrades.

You will see similar things happening ITTL. And it will even happen in the Revolution itself. I haven't touched on it yet, but so far one of the hardest writing tasks I've been taking up is dealing with the "settling of accounts" after the Reds win. And part of that will be an epidemic of "punitive rape" on upper class and collaborator women. It's not pretty, and it's not something that has even a modicum of utility even if you accept a utilitarian justification for terror.

 

[Ravenclaw]

Not to sound impatient, but when do you expect to post an update to the storyline, Jello? It's been a while.

 

[Libertad]

We have to avoid a theory of rape coming out of repressed sexuality. Remember that such a line of throught stems from the notion that women are to blame for their own victimization: that men are owed sexual services by women and when they do not provide such it's their own "fault" that rape occurs.

I think it's more of a line of thought that sex is more of a normal biological act between persons and creating poisonous attitudes towards such a normal thing by reactionary institutions and the ruling classes of people since the beginnings of civilization allows people to develop deviant attitudes and repression of such a need for experiencing sexual pleasure and procreation makes people go to bad diversions of getting and satisfying this need. It's not just rape but also developing sexual deviant behaviors and such. That's what I mean.

In terms of what Jello said, that's the only drawback that I saw. I didn't write it immediately perhaps to see Jello respond in terms of how she see this issue as a woman, and this is what I feared. Revanchism. Punitive rape. Just because I haven't read anything about rapes committed by anarchist militias in Spain OTL doesn't mean that I believe they didn't happen. I just thought that the cases might be lessened. But war is war. And suffering is suffering. You suffered long... you want to have some payback. Just unfortunate.

we do OTL live in a morel enient and sexually permissive society and rape is still endemic and the #1 pressing threat to women.

Probably I just thought that we are not really living in a sexually permissive society that can promote a more civilized behavior and the fundamentally unchanged class dynamics allowed the contemporary more allowable expression of sex to be corrupted and commodified by existing economic conditions. When sex became a commodity, it allowed women to be seen more as a commodity.

We also have to remember how communism addresses and theorizes rape. In traditional communist doctrine rape is a tool of political repression against the women of the working class perpetuated by the master class: there is no analysis present outside of existing thinking about class dynamics. It is simply presumed that the end of class means the end of rape. The other major contemporary analysis of rape comes from the African-American community, adressing the rape of black women by white men as a particular form of political terrorism meant to police the borders between the white and black spaces. The feminist political conscioussness and feminist political analysis of sexual violence does not exist yet. Not only that but several very improtant descriptive words do not exist: domestic abuse, sexual violence, bodily integrity; all terms developed by feminist theory and feminist practice. There is sadly no way for the armed forces of the UASR to address rape, they will simply not have the tools to address it because a wide feminist analysis is yet to be developed.

Yeah, sadly, only the experiences of Cold War and the postwar second cultural revolution would allow the development of such a very wide feminist analysis of things. And the presumption is true, the end of class would mean the end of rape. But a new class arose out of the Soviet bureaucracy, and the American one too. The prolonged socialist transitional stage... Class conflict continues. But it's not yet a popular idea among the recently liberated working class.

Sexual liberation does not equal the end of patriarchy. The tools to counter rape are sadly yet to be developed and male entitlement to female bodies (a concept that also will be developed later) is still rife.

The revolution is just spreading. World revolution is still on its infancy.

As I said, women can victimize other women, hell the women of the UASR will most likely victimize German men.

Very true.

The army has not the tools to counter rape because the defintion of rape as "the absence of consent" is yet to be defined. The defintion and terminology will define rape in ways that means that rape will occur: it just means that no one will consider it rape. In a defintion where rape is only the case where upper class men rape lower class women or white men black women, this means that the army will not consider German Women's plight as rape, it will just be "sex." We also have to remember that in this time rape was only rape if women could prove bodily harm, that also leaves a huge loophole.

I'm not familiar that rape at that time can be put in such a narrow definition. The revolution did not changed this at least in making it wider or something??

 

['Allo 'Allo Secret Army]

I think it's more of a line of thought that sex is more of a normal biological act between persons and creating poisonous attitudes towards such a normal thing by reactionary institutions and the ruling classes of people since the beginnings of civilization allows people to develop deviant attitudes and repression of such a need for experiencing sexual pleasure and procreation makes people go to bad diversions of getting and satisfying this need. It's not just rape but also developing sexual deviant behaviors and such. That's what I mean.

Yes those poisonous attitudes is patriarchy. And rape is not (sadly) a deviant sexual behavior, rape is rape. Rape is a violent assault upon the bodily integrity of a person. It really has the connection with sex only in that it is ideas about sex and sexuality that create the worldview and the justifications of rapists.

Probably I just thought that we are not really living in a sexually permissive society that can promote a more civilized behavior and the fundamentally unchanged class dynamics allowed the contemporary more allowable expression of sex to be corrupted and commodified by existing economic conditions. When sex became a commodity, it allowed women to be seen more as a commodity.

On the commoditification of sex and sexuality: that predates capitalism. Women have been sold since the start of history. The Oldest Profession indeed. And the commodification of sexuality will probably end with history.

Yeah, sadly, only the experiences of Cold War and the postwar second cultural revolution would allow the development of such a very wide feminist analysis of things. And the presumption is true, the end of class would mean the end of rape. But a new class arose out of the Soviet bureaucracy, and the American one too. The prolonged socialist transitional stage... Class conflict continues. But it's not yet a popular idea among the recently liberated working class.

Ehm, in a way I agree with you. The end of patriarchy would necessitate the end of class so in that sense yes. But patriarchy, like class is slippery, and can remake it's way of operations in suprising way because the revolutionaries who try to tear these systems down were raised in them and can hardly avoid that fact. And feminist analysis starts ITTL the same way it did OTL.

Simone de Beauvoir publishes The Second Sex in 1949.

I'm not familiar that rape at that time can be put in such a narrow definition. The revolution did not changed this at least in making it wider or something??

I can see that being the case. Women having to prove their violation by looking beat up or submitting to an equally violating vaginal probe is very brutal and will probably not survive a revolutionary upheaval.

 

[teg]

I think one thing that needs to borne in mind is that by the time the Americans and Soviets enter German territory, probably in late 1945/early 1946, it has only been twelve to thirteen years since the revolution. That's barely a generation, people born during the revolution or just after won't be old to fight in the war. There is only so much change that any government can implement in that time. That, plus a more vicious eastern front in my opinion makes it very likely that German women (and probably women from the other Axis nations) are in for very rough time.* There might be some more vengeance commissars (is that the term in the UASR?) who encourage on the grounds that it will hurt the fascists more. One difference I would predict is that there might be a much greater instance of male rape both by female and male soldiers. That could have some implications for how rape is viewed even in the capitalist world.

*Another thing to bear in mind with regards to the influence of Americans on the USSR is this; the vast majority of Americans who serve Russia will be there for a very long time. It just plain isn't going to be possible to send large numbers of people home on leave, at least in the first few years of the war when the Axis blockade is at its tightest. While the Americans are going to have an influence on Russian, not American (silly teg) culture, I suspect they will be effected by the Soviet Union to a high degree. Which is already implied but there is no reason to suspect that will end just at loan words.....

teg

 

['Allo 'Allo Secret Army]

Yep teg, you've pretty much hit the nail on the head.

And on men being raped. That of course happened OTL, only no one investigated or took it into account. This means that for instances of sexual violence against men to even be represented and looked into there must be quite a lot of them. And this of course means that German civilians and POW's (since they're, when we're talking sexual violence against men, are in the highest risk zone) are gonna have, like OTL, a horrific end to the war.

 

[Libertad]

Ehm, in a way I agree with you. The end of patriarchy would necessitate the end of class so in that sense yes. But patriarchy, like class is slippery, and can remake it's way of operations in suprising way because the revolutionaries who try to tear these systems down were raised in them and can hardly avoid that fact. And feminist analysis starts ITTL the same way it did OTL.

Simone de Beauvoir publishes The Second Sex in 1949.

Sigh. It's just the way it is.

I can see that being the case. Women having to prove their violation by looking beat up or submitting to an equally violating vaginal probe is very brutal and will probably not survive a revolutionary upheaval.

One good sign, thankfully.

 

[Ravenclaw]

Hey, anyone remember that comic book idea, Seven Sins, that Killer300 posted way back in A Red Dawn?

Well I've been working to develop the story with Killer300, and I've published the first concept art of one of the Sins: Wrath!

PS: Next up is a UASR coat of arms!

 

[Killer300]

Its amazing how far the concept has come, to say the least.

 

[Ravenclaw]

UASR Emblem finished!

As promised, I finished the UASR emblem! I hope you like it, Jello.
http://qualiesin.deviantart.com/art/UASR-Emblem-478121378?ga_submit_new=10%253A1409003015&ga_type=edit&ga_changes=1&ga_recent=1

 

[Ravenclaw]

I was bored, so I also made a Polandball for Reds!
Say hello to UASRBall!

 

[Ravenclaw]

And UASRBall, take 2 (as per eliphas8's suggestion).