Rumsfeldia: Fear and Loathing in the Decade of Tears

[Saint_007]

You also forget that Rumsfeld used American resources for wanton funding of fascism around the world.

The leftists that take control of Central and South America after the CSA falls will also don't want to see the rise of an America that can subvert their government again. Before Rumsfeldia, there was Guatemala and Nicaragua (ITTL Wallace gave covert aid to Somoza). The British were also a victim of this, since Rummy funded Protestant Irish terrorism, so they'll also have a bone to pick with any future American intelligence force.

Most likely, the US army will never reach the heights it once did for a long time to come. And I doubt the parts that have broken away will want to come back, considering the mess left behind.

That's more funding, finance, and weapons smuggling, not military intervention. Admittedly, the best way to neuter the US' ability to project force is to just limit the navy or air force, and the presence, number, and size of military bases abroad. Effectively slap them with their version of Article 9 of the modern Japanese constitution.

Pretty hard to control intel agencies, which by nature work under the radar to be effective. But yeah, there'd be a strong sense of "Never Again" in regards to American imperialism.

Speaking of which, what happened to the National Reorganization Government in Argentina and Pinochet in this timeline? With their biggest sponsor basically collapsing spectacularly, becoming social pariahs on the global scale, what now?

According to Rummyfall, Cleveland, where it was headquartered, was nuked.

In another update, the Hague wanted to try the executives for their ties with apartheid South Africa.

So I would guess that its executives are either dead or hiding, and their factories are destroyed. Most likely, they'll be sent to court, and any assets that were not destroyed during the Civil War will confiscated and sold for pennies on the dollar: factories, warehouses, offices, patents.

And even if the CVs didn't come to power, like you said, they would have likely crumbled, their reputation tarnished by their ties to Rumsfeldia.

I'd sing "ding dong the bitch is dead", but... you know, cure worse than the disease.

 

[Commissar_manul]

I wonder if Communism might get traction in post-Rummy America (probably the milder, Euro-Communism, see Italy and France), since Europe and the Warsaw Pact nations are doing reasonably well.
Or American Communists got so crushed under Rummy/CVs never to rise again.

 

[Saint_007]

I wonder if Communism might get traction in post-Rummy America (probably the milder, Euro-Communism, see Italy and France), since Europe and the Warsaw Pact nations are doing reasonably well.
Or American Communists got so crushed under Rummy/CVs never to rise again.

Communism was never really an American franchise. Rooseveltian Socialism (and I use 'Socialism' here loosely) was probably the closest American society got to a true Communist system.

Also, note that none of the major players (California, US Remnant, Bozemann, CVs) are Communist. Hell, the Bozemann collectives are out-and-out Libertarians. If anything, they got crushed harder - if, indeed, there was anything left of them to begin with in 1980. The American Communist party is still regarded as a pariah even after OTL Cold War, let alone a timeline with a resurgent USSR.

If anyone is Communist at all, it would be one of the splinter groups of We The People, and those aren't exactly unified or in possession of a popular base.

 

[QueerSpear]

Hell, the Bozemann collectives are out-and-out Libertarians.

Yeah but the left libertarian kind with right-wing rhetoric.

 

[Bookmark1995]

Yeah but the left libertarian kind with right-wing rhetoric.

They're basically hippie communes armed to the teeth. Since they have made up part of the CV resistance, they'll no doubt have a huge impact on the future American government.

Communism was never really an American franchise. Rooseveltian Socialism (and I use 'Socialism' here loosely) was probably the closest American society got to a true Communist system.

Also, note that none of the major players (California, US Remnant, Bozemann, CVs) are Communist. Hell, the Bozemann collectives are out-and-out Libertarians. If anything, they got crushed harder - if, indeed, there was anything left of them to begin with in 1980. The American Communist party is still regarded as a pariah even after OTL Cold War, let alone a timeline with a resurgent USSR.

If anyone is Communist at all, it would be one of the splinter groups of We The People, and those aren't exactly unified or in possession of a popular base.

I think the future is going to be more complicated than saying "No Commies!" and "Soviet Republic of America!"

I agree with you that neither Marxism-Leninism nor MBA Communism will be the means by which the post-CV government governs. Most likely it will be that Rooseveltian socialism combined with Democratic Socialism.

But ITTL, the USSR is now a legitimately thriving institution, while the US has failed as a result of its leaders drinking the Kool-Aid. Also, the former is covertly funding anti-CV resistance, and has good public standing with Western Europe.

The Americans who grew up being told that Commies were the biggest threat to their way of life have seen those same Commies partly rescue them from their own failures. American soldiers have been granted asylum by Castro, a man they had been raised to believe was Satan. And ITTL, the young college student who warned of capitalist exploitation will be seen as a Cassandra.

My guess is that there will be a sizable number of Americans who will have great sympathy to the USSR. But I think there will also be a lot of people who embrace Soviet Communism, because of their sheer disillusionment with their own government.

Many of them might permanently immigrate to the Soviet Union, which they see as a true bastion of equality, giving Ryzhkov the sweetest propaganda victory any apparatchik could hope for: Countless Americans who embrace the Socialist struggle, even as he pulls back from the dogmatism of the previous decades.

So while Soviet ideology will never be used to govern the United States, there are going to be plenty of angry young people who will look up to the Soviet Union because of how horrible Rumsfeldia-CSA was, and because of how (publicly) magnanimous Ryzhkov was to them.

 

[TheHolyInquisition]

Most likely it will be that Rooseveltian socialism

The what?

 

[Lost Freeway]

I wonder what will happen to Rumsfeld's family in the post-Rummy America. I doubt anyone will want to associate with the family of the man who destroyed America, even if they had no hand in his actions.

 

[Bookmark1995]

The what?

I'm quoting what Saint 007 said.

 

[TheHolyInquisition]

I'm quoting what Saint 007 said.

Alright.

Communism was never really an American franchise. Rooseveltian Socialism (and I use 'Socialism' here loosely) was probably the closest American society got to a true Communist system.

Roosevelt was in no way a socialist.

 

[Kerguelen]

Sometimes I wonder if Drew is secretly Ayn Rand from a bizzaro-universe where she wants to warn people about unrestrained capatalism

 

[Saint_007]

The what?

I'm quoting what Saint 007 said.

Roosevelt was in no way a socialist.

Not by our understanding, of course. Compared to Titoist Yugoslavia, or more 'moderate' socialist governments, the man was practically a free-market liberal. Hell, compared to post-Cold War mixed economies, the man was an unabashed capitalist.

Just that compared with all Presidents before or since, Franklin Delano Roosevelt is probably the closest America's ever gotten to Socialism. He did reforms on social welfare, increased government role in the economy, and tried to enact as much measures as possible to help the more impoverished classes. The New Deal was decried by many conservatives of the time as effectively Communist - also note how pro-Rumsfeld propaganda kept referring to FDR as Stalin's agent in the White House.

Yes, I know; if that makes him a socialist, then who's truly a capitalist so feel free to either chalk it up to my worldview, or just another wanton abuse of terminology on the internet.

EDIT: Also, note I originally said

Communism was never really an American franchise. Rooseveltian Socialism (and I use 'Socialism' here loosely) was probably the closest American society got to a true Communist system.

End Edit.

Speaking of the 1930s, guess what I came across online:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabriel_Over_the_White_House

This was a movie funded by and produced by William Randolph Hearst. In it, a shallow, womanizing man is elected as President, but then has an accident, and wakes up a new man, supposedly inspired by the Archangel Gabriel. He turns the United States into a Fascist state - and in the movie, it's shown as a good thing. The movie came out in 1933, so everyone knows what happened soon after.

 

[Daedwartin]

If it was socialism, it was Socialism designed to save Capitalism from it's own shortcomings so Capitalism would survive the people being fed up with it.

Or in other words, Marx's words in action. He who begets reform invites revolution.

Therefor, if one invites reform, it should help beget revolution.

 

[LouisTheGreyFox]

I have a question that relates to California.

Will California remain as an independent nation for a long time after all the shit that went down in the US? Because I remember reading the timeline that the president of California seemed to have no interest in rejoining the United States if it ever were to come back.

So that bring's my question, will California (and Oregon) remain independent for a long time? And if so what nations would it find having relations with exactly? (I know France was the first country to recognize California's independence if I remember correctly)

 

[QueerSpear]

it was Socialism designed to save Capitalism

That's literally impossible. Socialism is about destroying capitalism by abolishing private property and socializing the economy. Social Security, Medicare, union rights, that's not socialism because it doesn't abolish private property.

 

[Whumbly]

You know the more I look at the future scenario the less I see of the fall of the Soviet Union and more of the collapse of Yugoslavia. We have Separatist groups (the PSA [or Califorina + Whatever else,] Hawaii, Alaska, Texas [stronghold of Rumsfeld-lite] and Puerto Rico), numerous milita groups with strong ideological goals who only fight beside each other because they hate the authorities more (KKK, Black Panthers, Jewish Denfense League, numerous Bozeman Communes and whatever civilian resistance forms in the face of 'Holy Terror'), and a divided remnant (Nixon is likely only in charge because none of the Governors trusted each other, but mostly Agnew).

Point is I see the future United States becoming something like the Thirteen Colonies, a loose confederation (mostly located on the East Coast) where state rights overrule Federal Government and plagued by a rainbow of militas who after tasting true freedom from the civil war are unlikely to put down their arms.

 

[karatachi]

How is the Soviet military right now? Did they go through with Ogarkov's reforms? What weapons that doesn't exist OTL do they have?
What about the Japanese?

 

[Commissar_manul]

How is the Soviet military right now? Did they go through with Ogarkov's reforms? What weapons that doesn't exist OTL do they have?
What about the Japanese?

Don't recall Drew mentioning Ogarkov, but from looks of it the Soviet Armed Forces are being on a tight leash in terms of spending: the Tu-160, Typhoon class subs and the Admiral Kuznetsov never entered production. So brand new designs would probably have a harder time getting into production, and older designs might see a longer shelf life (Drew mentioned more Delta-class subs and Tu22M3s being built) and upgrading (and adopting a single tank design at last). And judging from the European-Soviet understanding the Soviet forces might gradually become less geared towards a massive mechanized war in Europe in favor of dealing with more immediate threats like the Chinese haliphate.
So maybe a knock off of Harrier might appear to be used with the two existing Kiev-class carriers (Kiev and Minsk were completed before 1980) and a Soviet version of the gunship plane.
So, the Soviet Armed forces won't have a whole lot of flashy new designs (no Soviet stealth bombers, sorry). Precision munitions might get more prevalent though, as a part of the Soviet high tech development.
Speaking of the Warsaw Pact. I wonder how did the re-unification of Germany go TTL?

 

[theg*ddam*hoi2fan]

What about the Japanese?

They have at least two supercarriers, a generally larger fleet and air forces, and nukes. Beyond that I'm not sure.

 

[Saint_007]

You know the more I look at the future scenario the less I see of the fall of the Soviet Union and more of the collapse of Yugoslavia. We have Separatist groups (the PSA [or Califorina + Whatever else,] Hawaii, Alaska, Texas [stronghold of Rumsfeld-lite] and Puerto Rico), numerous milita groups with strong ideological goals who only fight beside each other because they hate the authorities more (KKK, Black Panthers, Jewish Denfense League, numerous Bozeman Communes and whatever civilian resistance forms in the face of 'Holy Terror'), and a divided remnant (Nixon is likely only in charge because none of the Governors trusted each other, but mostly Agnew).

Point is I see the future United States becoming something like the Thirteen Colonies, a loose confederation (mostly located on the East Coast) where state rights overrule Federal Government and plagued by a rainbow of militas who after tasting true freedom from the civil war are unlikely to put down their arms.

That's... actually kind of a good point. The USSR collapsed because there just wasn't any money for anything. It was just decided to break up the mess rather than try and hold it. By contrast, Yugoslavia imploded spectacularly once it was no longer tenable.

However, while Yugoslavia was a fragile mess of a nation held together by the iron will of one man, the USA was a mighty powerhouse shattered by one deluded tyrant - or rather, a couple of well-meaning men and one idiot who broke everything to form his perfect society. Which makes its collapse even more tragic.

 

[Bookmark1995]

That's... actually kind of a good point. The USSR collapsed because there just wasn't any money for anything. It was just decided to break up the mess rather than try and hold it. By contrast, Yugoslavia imploded spectacularly once it was no longer tenable.

However, while Yugoslavia was a fragile mess of a nation held together by the iron will of one man, the USA was a mighty powerhouse shattered by one deluded tyrant - or rather, a couple of well-meaning men and one idiot who broke everything to form his perfect society. Which makes its collapse even more tragic.

I don't think the Yugoslavia metaphor is particularly apt. The ITTL breakup of the US was more along political lines than racial. California and the Northeast only drifted away because of the political leftism.

It is simple to say the downfall of the US was the cause of a few men: it was the result of one regressive man who was enabled by a greedy corporate machine and a selfish middle class, who was succeeded by a group of men who had an 11th century Crusade mentality of the world and 20th century weaponry.

But yes the USA's destruction is utterly tragic. That's why it is the Decade of Tears.