I sure hope that there is no neo-communist movements in the future ITTL. The ideology should die with Stalin and Mao.
Last edited:
The Footprint of Mussolini - TL
Depends on what you mean by communism.
It's about as dead as Jacobinism was after Metternich.
Actually the only one who came close to being impeached was Andrew Johnson who came within one vote. The House voted for impeachment by a 2/3rds majority and it only failed in the Senate trial by one vote.
Probably neither the one or the another. There would be a ruckus in US internal debate, some country hostile could use it as sort of propaganda, then it would fizzle down.
Oh man, by this rate, forget just "Worst President in American History", Wallace will be thanking the gods if he ends up in a jail cell. As opposed to being ripped apart by an angry mob.
Dolan
Banned
I think at the moment Angry Mob coming with torch and pitchforks, Patton would step in and said that Wallace would be tried as the commie rot need to be carefully rooted out instead of having "the head" cut off.
Unfortunately that would mean any idealists with the same view with Wallace would end up thrown in jail and even executed too...
Speaking of Wallace being possibly removed as a Communist Spy, any word on potential Fascist Parties or Movements coming to rise in America?
There might be those minor parties and people who admire the Fascist ideology but they are just as strong as the CPUSA and Far Left movements. While the Polish war is occupying the headlines most people remember the war against Germany.
Derek Pullem
Donor
Wallace can be impeached for sure but any subsequent prosecution is going to be difficult if espionage is the charge. He did make some unwise decisions after the end of WW2 but that's in his job description. Spilling the beans on the Manhattan project to Stalin was probably a crime but as Soviets were then allies it's a very grey area. Malfeasance in office can probably be established.
Malfeasance?
I'm not exactly expecting a Fascist party to rise to prominence in America, the Democrats and Republicans at this point are far too entrenched in their position for a third party to take power, Orthodox Fascism being more popular or no.
And yes, I still think that, despite Wallace, the Dems aren't going to end up going the way of the Whigs, at worse, it'll be just like Reconstruction-era U.S. where the Republicans basically dominated the Presidency for a generation.
Or maybe I'm being far too optimistic for my own good.
I'm not exactly expecting a Fascist party to rise to prominence in America, the Democrats and Republicans at this point are far too entrenched in their position for a third party to take power, Orthodox Fascism being more popular or no.
And yes, I still think that, despite Wallace, the Dems aren't going to end up going the way of the Whigs, at worse, it'll be just like Reconstruction-era U.S. where the Republicans basically dominated the Presidency for a generation.
Or maybe I'm being far too optimistic for my own good.
Last edited:
For what is worth I entierly agree with your assessment. I think that in TTL the "totalitarianism apologism double-standard" that's favouring Socialism in OTL is going in favour Fascism in TTL. With Fascist movements all over academia and the like, who's litany will be how Hitler wasn't true Fascism, Mussolinis was. Then moving on to their next Fascist saviour once Mussolinis dark side can no longer be ignored, while simultaneously anything Socialist is denounced as "Just like Stalin!". With that being restricted to the fringe-though, especially once a milder Cold-War with the Fascist block develops.
I would however add to that that the saying about "Communism is just like Nazism with the serial numbers filed off" works both ways. I could certainly see movements that call themselves "Workers Fascism" to emerge not just in the US, but all over the Western World, that in it's members, rhetoric, stated goals, etc are 99% identical to modern fringe-left movements. After all significant state-control over the economy is part of Fascist doctrine as it is. It just tends to result in Corporatism in practice.
I think people are downplaying how scarring the Red Scare was. Not as blatantly awful as Stalinism but just ask Latin America or Vietnam for example what a USA hyped up to fight communism tends to do. For that matter ask MLK and domestic union leaders....
Its gonna be a rather rough time.
Derek Pullem
Donor
You wouldn't need fascism in the USA - just a succession of strong populist presidents. With the Democrats imploding and the Freedom party mostly confined to the South, the opportunity for the Republicans to create a dynastic succession (perhaps the Kennedy clan now they have crossed the floor) is pretty strong.
I wonder right now how the TTL legacy of FDR would be. I don't think the Republicans will go dirty in forecasting shadows of doubt over him, but may downplay his historic role and tempted to ask, why he choose Wallace? The Democrats eventually may say in defense (my guessing), FDR was a great president, he died too soon, he never suspected Wallace was like that, he was in good faith back then, etc.
Also the President has a huge amount of leeway in conducting foreign affairs. I don't think its sedition or treason or anything for a President to give information to a then-ally in the belief that giving the information would further US foreign policy objectives.
I get why people are upset, but not every massive feckless blunder is or ought to be criminal.
Last edited:
Yeah, but Wallace did what he did on what he believed was good faith.
I agree that the Republicans will not besmirch FDR's role in what he did, but I think historians of TTL would probably rate him as a more middle-of-the-road president. Weird I'm saying this about FDR, because his one screw-up TTL was choosing Wallace as VP, but it'd be one of those cases where the screw-up wound up being big enough in hindsight that it overshadowed anything positive FDR may have achieved.
Well until a certain point. About Potsdam, he shouldn't have informed of Stalin that the US was preparing the bomb and keeping the West Allies rather unaware. Well Churchill sort of knew and Mussolini might if else because Italy had its own nuclear studies going on but that is besides the point, which was as President of the US he put ahead ideology before America's allies, because he treated the USSR on a higher level not only than Italy, but of Britain and France as well. In all honesty I don't even think Stalin might have realized the complete implications of the revelation back then because he was already having a foot into Stalinland in his mind and so most of his aides certainly not until Hiroshima but still Wallace gave back carte blanche to the Soviets in getting their own arsenal, not thinking of the possible consequences neither of the fact the Soviets went for the fastest way to get it - spying the US on every detail.
I can get the intention of Wallace to bring America back into isolationism - it's something in the deep roots of the Americans after all. But refusing to take clear stances or mediator act when he was in the best position to do it, certainly won't bode in his favour.
And yes, I fear Wallace will be seen as Roosevelt's legacy and therefore of the 1930/1940's Democratic Party and therefore a stain which would still remain.
thorr97
Banned
RyuDrago, Noblesse Oblige, & all,
World War Two is what "saved" FDR and cemented his legacy. Had it not been for the war's outbreak he might not have even been able to run in '40 - let alone in '44. The programs he'd instituted as part of his "New Deal" had all failed. They'd driven the US back into a recession in the late 30s. This, despite the rest of the world's having finally managed to pull itself out of the Great Depression and see their economies once again thriving. Even FDR's own Treasury Secretary, Morgenthau, admitted as much when he was speaking before Congress in the late 30s that all the New Deal had done was drive the nation deeper into debt and that they'd run out of ideas of how to do anything different.
Without those war material orders coming in from the UK, France and the rest of non-Nazi Europe, the US economy would've remained crushed by the New Deal's economic failures. Instead and in spite of what FDR did, the US economy improved. After the war's end this unique situation continued where both our enemies and our allies were too damaged by the war to compete with the US. Thus those New Deal programs could continue handing out the tax payer's largesse as the US economy was thriving to rapidly to be hindered by them.
Take away that unique situation and the US public would most likely have turned on the Democrats for having failed to deliver on their promises and having actually made things worse.
In this ATL, I don't think the Republicans will be stupid enough to go after FDR directly. First off, there's no need. The guy is dead and his successor is loathed enough that they can hang everything they want on him - if not also hang him personally. This will allow them to repeal the more damaging elements of the New Deal and drive a steak through the heart of its intent on massively growing the power of the Federal government - and do so while blaming Wallace for everything. They'll be able to declare that those programs may have been good things when FDR started them but, thanks to Wallace and his Red Pals, they'd become twisted and evil. The only solution then would be to both get rid of Wallace and those programs so that the nation could start over. Yeah, it'd a whole bunch of political spin to describe things that way but the Republicans would definitely seize on the opportunity.
World War Two is what "saved" FDR and cemented his legacy. Had it not been for the war's outbreak he might not have even been able to run in '40 - let alone in '44. The programs he'd instituted as part of his "New Deal" had all failed. They'd driven the US back into a recession in the late 30s. This, despite the rest of the world's having finally managed to pull itself out of the Great Depression and see their economies once again thriving. Even FDR's own Treasury Secretary, Morgenthau, admitted as much when he was speaking before Congress in the late 30s that all the New Deal had done was drive the nation deeper into debt and that they'd run out of ideas of how to do anything different.
Without those war material orders coming in from the UK, France and the rest of non-Nazi Europe, the US economy would've remained crushed by the New Deal's economic failures. Instead and in spite of what FDR did, the US economy improved. After the war's end this unique situation continued where both our enemies and our allies were too damaged by the war to compete with the US. Thus those New Deal programs could continue handing out the tax payer's largesse as the US economy was thriving to rapidly to be hindered by them.
Take away that unique situation and the US public would most likely have turned on the Democrats for having failed to deliver on their promises and having actually made things worse.
In this ATL, I don't think the Republicans will be stupid enough to go after FDR directly. First off, there's no need. The guy is dead and his successor is loathed enough that they can hang everything they want on him - if not also hang him personally. This will allow them to repeal the more damaging elements of the New Deal and drive a steak through the heart of its intent on massively growing the power of the Federal government - and do so while blaming Wallace for everything. They'll be able to declare that those programs may have been good things when FDR started them but, thanks to Wallace and his Red Pals, they'd become twisted and evil. The only solution then would be to both get rid of Wallace and those programs so that the nation could start over. Yeah, it'd a whole bunch of political spin to describe things that way but the Republicans would definitely seize on the opportunity.
Thomas Wilkins
Banned
I wonder how the Democrats would remain out of power. I'm guessing they would remain as the loser party for the next 20 years or more.