On another note, what exactly are the specifics of antisemitic state actions by the collabs? I don't remember much details on that from my HMMLR playthrough, though there could have been more from the collabs (couldn't bear to try them)
The New Order: Last Days of Europe - An Axis Victory Cold War Mod for HoIIV
- Thread starter Lonely Knightess
- Start date
- Status
brooklyn99
Banned
Yeah. I believe that in all likelihood, should the Communists had wrestled dominance over England from the Collabs, they would have promptly turned their guns on the HMMLR and other resistance movements as well, drowning the nation into a Red Terror as movements like them have always tended to do, with even Auchinleck being executed for his Royalist loyalties.
So from a pro-HMMLR standpoint, the quelling of the London uprising had it's benefits in creating a vacuum for the HMMLR to fill as well as for allowing Harold Wilson to take the mantle and steer the Far Left radicals to a more moderate and democratic direction (though he'd still have Birch to contend with).
jparker77
Banned
I remember when the HMMLR uprising begins there’s an event about local Jewish militia units forming to fight against the collaborators
That is not what i'm saying.
I'm saying that Britain would be better off if the London Uprising suceeded. Though yes HMMLR can potentially end up better (or worse). It becomes a question of whether that extra decade of occupation and repression is better.
Nuremburg laws level (Nazis barely tolerate them not being outright deported but they are sticking to the letter of the agreement with the Collabs for the most part).
The exception is the jews in the areas administrated by the Cornwall Garrison or detained by such. They are deported to the Reich, few survive.
Slight correction, the Labour Underground (later merged with CPGB into Left Resistance) is only a member, not a majority of the organisation. Labour was hit hard by the early collab repressions, the party is essentially dead or heavily radicalised by the time 1962 roles around. Bill Alexander is the LR's undisputed leader since he's the only one who commands most of the lefts respect.
chankljp
Donor
Given the track record of communists in OTL such as how during the Spanish Civil War, the Stalinists were seemingly more interested in purging their fellow leftist Republicans that do not answer to Moscow using death squads staffed by NKVD advisors of instead of actually fighting the Nationalist, or the way in which the Bolsheviks during the Russian Civil War liquidated Makhno and his Black Army anarchists by firing squad while they were in the middle of the conference with Red Army commanders and the Bolshevik-Makhnovist treaty was still active....
Frankly, I see the idea of the leadership of a Leninist revolutionary/resistance organization willingly playing nice and even compromising with any other resistance movement, even fellow leftists, that does not fit into the exact same ideological orthodox as themselves (Let alone resistance movement led by 'reactionaries' such as HMMLR), while they are in a dominate position of strength over the others, sort of like one of those 'Notzi' TLs where Hitler and the Nazis go OOC by actually acting in a sensible and reasonable manner by not being genocidal racist maniacs.
This is my personal political bias speaking here: But I would say that Red Terror and betrayal against fellow revolutionaries that disagree with them the moment the latter have outlived their usefulness against their common enemy (And often times they couldn't even keep it in their pants for that long, as both the examples that I have cited above took place before the Nationalists/White Army were even defeated) is a fundamental and unalterable feature of communism, something deeply hardwired into the ideology: It is exactly what one would and should expect from a group that believe the ideology that they cling to is the final evolutionary leap of humanity's historical development. With such absolute truth in their hands, why would they NOT get rid of all the reactionaries, revisionist, and class enemies that opposes what they see as the inevitable historical progress the moment they are in a position to do so?
If the Left resistance had won the First London Uprising, assuming that Hitler don't just throw a temper tantrum and order a nuke to be dropped on London (The Nazi's pre start date plot armor is still in effect here), they would not have given up an inch of ground to the other resistance organizations or even the more moderate members within their ranks. The people of England will have a communist dictatorships imposed upon them at the point of a gun, being move from getting trampled under the Nazi jackboot to the Communist jackboot. By the mod's start date, would things be better for the majority of the population under the communists compared to the Collabs, especially with OFN aid rushing into the country to to give the Americans a foothold on Europe once again by propping up an anti-Nazi regime that have nowhere else to turn to? Of course. But compared to the better HMMLR or even collab outcomes that England can get in OTL TNO, I would say that things would most certainly be worst.
And in the end, after their power was broken by Battle of Cable Street, even the surviving communist hardliners such as Birch were forced to work together with moderates such as Wilson and even 'reactionaries' such as Auchinleck... But only because they were forced to do so.... For now.
I would personally widen this to any revolutionary movement that reaches the point of armed conflict.
The Whites and Nationalists in you example had similar problems.
I disagree with the idea that the rebels would even attempt to implement stalinism in England, especially if they wanted to maintain power for any length of time. More realistically, they'd likely attempt to work with moderates and liberals in order to keep England united against the full tide of the Einheitspakt.
Just.... what? Ignoring the fact that Communists have been able to work within various liberal democracies just fine (see the PCI in Italy), I don't even think Stalinist factionalism and anti-liberalism is a factor here. As it happens, in a world without Stalin ever becoming a person of much prominence, his doctrine of "social fascism" never comes to be. In fact, Bukharin was actually quite open to collaborating with liberals and moderate socialists, and I would assume his platform would spread to the mindsets of other socialists around the world.
Bukharin still purged people ttl and the bolsheviks still came to power throw a coup d'etat followed by literal dictatorship.
The only things Bukharin did better are the NEP and being less conservative than Stalin.
This has literally no bearing on the argument that Bukharin's more conciliatory foreign policy towards moderates would most likely avert or at least calm the extreme sectarianism of the OTL Left.
On a side note, I am also somewhat concerned about the fact that people seem to be whitewashing the English Collabs quite a bit here. No, not even the supposedly extremely sectarian and "undemocratic" communists taking power would be anywhere near as bad as the Nazi Collaborators remaining in power. Additionally, when the communists take power in HMMLR England, it's not like they enact some sort of wide-sweeping Purge of the population either, nor would they realistically enact any sort of stalinist reforms.
Well see how Birch does things.
On the colaborator whitewashing i agree somewhat,if you can choose between a foreign boot and a native one alway chose the native one.
Last edited:
Baron Steakpuncher said he's worse that Maudling and MacMillan and better than Thatcher, Stirling, and Chesterton and that he is the "best of the worst", so there's that.
I mean, Birch has already been confirmed to not nearly be as "killpeopleist" as people assumed him to be with his superevent, and he's also been described as more of a mixed bag than anything else, being fairly good for the general population while being fairly bad for his explicit political enemies.
And that should make him sound any better?
I want to see who his "explicit political enemies" are and how does he deal with them first because i have 0 trust in him since you know dictator.
Remainder that Suslov is also a mixed bag.
At the very least, it makes him sound as far less of the stalinist, maoist madman that people annoyingly assume him to be.
Worth noting he's not released yet and stuff can change. Also QOL might be better under him than Thatcher (narrowly) but Thatcher comes ahead in some areas. Having looked at the issue a few times i'd actually say Thatcher's controlled democracy (as opposed to the outright rigged one) is actually better in my personal opinion.
Suslov or Brezhnev are reasonable albeit not 100% accurate reference points for Birch at the moment. His not being literally Stalin doesn't absolve him from the common failings of one party rule.
- Status