Rumsfeldia: Fear and Loathing in the Decade of Tears

Status
Not open for further replies.
Basically, MacArthur, the commander bravely trying to fight off the Red Hordes of China, has come to the conclusion that he must use the nuclear option to thin their ranks and allow America a strategic victory in Korea. Parallels to Kwansgi, especially Mao/Lesser Mao, are made. However, between the ninnies at the United Nations and the clearly Soviet-associated Truman (never-fucking-mind that had he been a Soviet agent, he'd have let them take Berlin in 1948), he finds himself stymied. As a last resort, he tries to rally the generals and the American people at his side to make them see reason, only for the traitorous Truman to cut him down and fire him. Later, in a secret meeting with Stalin, Truman admits MacArthur's plan would have put an end to the war, ending the loss in lives and materiel to the USA, almost thwarting his plan to weaken the USA from inside.

How's that? :D

I can definitely picture such a film being made. Maybe even throw in some jingoistic action crap, like MacArthur defeating Soviet agents sent by Truman to kill him, or even throw in a Mao Zedong who is more based off of the Lesser Mao, who is secretly corrupting American soldiers with heroin.

I think the underlying message would be "only Communist pansies are afraid of nukes, and you need to do anything to smash the Reds."

Based off a thread right here on this forum, about whether MacArthur was right in wanting to use the nukes or not, I had this weird idea for a Rumsfeldia propaganda film, based off Korea.

The thing about nukes is that represent a massive shift in the old ways of thinking about war.

The old way of thinking about war was this: if you have the means to achieve victory, use those means.

OTL, from maxim guns, to poison gas, to subterfuge, to aerial bombing, whenever a better weapon was used, it would be implemented to achieve victory.

The incident OTL that shifted this attitude was the dispute between MacArthur and Truman. The former, like any general, wanted to use an easy means of achieving victory. Truman, however, saw how horrible that would be as a precedent.

ITTL, MacArthur might be seen as a proto-Rumsfeldian figure for his willingness to gamble with humanities future. Because the Gumboverse has seen many corrupt people decide that nukes are a useful tool in war, and thus many people have become victims of nuclear attacks, from Chicago to Kwangsi.
 
I do wonder what popular culture is like outside of the United States during Rumsfeldia and the holy terror of the CV, though we have seen snippets of television programs in the USSR and a James Bond films where the antagonist was a general from a Rumsfeldian United States. My main interest is comic books and I recall that DC Comics absorbed a bankrupt Marvel in the mid 70s. I could imagine that icons like Superman and Captain America would be turned into propaganda pieces before the CVs ban them altogether. Most American writers and artists at the time would likely flee to Canada and UK, meanwhile, I could see creators like Alan Moore still rising in prominence with V for Vendetta taking inspiration from Rumsfeldia.

In my own headcanon, expatriate creators in the UK, Canada, and Australia would probably form their own companies that would publish pastiches of popular Americans superheroes. Such examples would be, an alternate Captain Britain and Marvelman (or Miracleman OTL) could become popular in the UK. John Byrne of OTL X-Men fame would probably stay in Canada and create his own version of Superman with Canada "taking custody" of the Man of Steel and emphasizing that Joe Shuster was born in Toronto. Would I be far off the mark?
 
I do wonder what popular culture is like outside of the United States during Rumsfeldia and the holy terror of the CV, though we have seen snippets of television programs in the USSR and a James Bond films where the antagonist was a general from a Rumsfeldian United States. My main interest is comic books and I recall that DC Comics absorbed a bankrupt Marvel in the mid 70s. I could imagine that icons like Superman and Captain America would be turned into propaganda pieces before the CVs ban them altogether. Most American writers and artists at the time would likely flee to Canada and UK, meanwhile, I could see creators like Alan Moore still rising in prominence with V for Vendetta taking inspiration from Rumsfeldia.

In my own headcanon, expatriate creators in the UK, Canada, and Australia would probably form their own companies that would publish pastiches of popular Americans superheroes. Such examples would be, an alternate Captain Britain and Marvelman (or Miracleman OTL) could become popular in the UK. John Byrne of OTL X-Men fame would probably stay in Canada and create his own version of Superman with Canada "taking custody" of the Man of Steel and emphasizing that Joe Shuster was born in Toronto. Would I be far off the mark?
In the infamous movie "CSA" (a TL where the South not only won the ACW but conquered the North... somehow, and then proceeded to be an imperialistic world power), all important cultural figures flee north, as the South's oppressive culture makes innovation difficult. This results in Canada, not the USA, being the popular culture heart of the world.

While Canada at this point is still a bit rather conservative for this to happen, there's certainly been a boost to European and Canadian art and media, and it was specifically mentioned sometime by 1985, when Rumsfeld began giving opponents "treatment for nervous breakdowns". This spurred America's best talent to go abroad, giving European cinema a massive shot in the arm, and often bringing their (not inconsiderable) capital along with them.

As for comics, I'm already sad Marvel got absorbed into DC, even though I used to be a big Johnny DC (and still am, to some degree, even though the MCU won me over big-time). Both companies have rather distinct identities and flavors, as do their respective comic universes/multiverses, so blending the two together seems like a waste.

I think it was mentioned that DC eventually got bought out by TRW as part of Warner Brothers, as the massive propaganda and merchandising aspects were too great to miss out on. Here's the post:

https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...he-decade-of-tears.261579/page-8#post-6956794

So yeah, that's gone pear-shaped. I can see the various comic lines going out of business with the fall of TRW and the rising American Inquisition under Douglas Coe.

The only good news is that the comics will probably fall under public domain, assuming another company doesn't pick up the copyrights in the meantime. Though without the Copyright extensions law (or at least that it would most likely be dismantled after the SACW), the public domain will be considerably more open. It would mean more schlock, sure, but would be less restricting on creativity too.

What I would have wanted was a tale of a plucky comic company managing to free itself from its parent and out of TRW's clutches, escaping to Canada and then to California, allowing the superheroes to be true icons of freedom and liberty. Instead... well, they're pretty much tainted ITTL. Though it does mean those parodies and pastiches have a bigger shot at legitimacy, now that Superman and Captain America have been reduce to Rumsfeldian shills and then silenced by the CVs for being immoral.
 
In my own headcanon, expatriate creators in the UK, Canada, and Australia would probably form their own companies that would publish pastiches of popular Americans superheroes.
I don’t think they’d be able to set up their own companies but I can see a lot of them being snapped up by local publishers. Pro-Rumsfeldian DC-Marvel probably isn’t going to sell well abroad and thus not dominate the market like otl, meaning stronger local comics. Titles like Eagle or Century 21 in the UK might even survive. Marvel also had a UK based imprint in the 1960’s called Power Comics, who were given leeway to edit reprints as well as commission their own Marvel stories. Through creative legal means, they might be able to continue publishing American style superheroes but written by expatriates.
 
In the infamous movie "CSA" (a TL where the South not only won the ACW but conquered the North... somehow, and then proceeded to be an imperialistic world power), all important cultural figures flee north, as the South's oppressive culture makes innovation difficult. This results in Canada, not the USA, being the popular culture heart of the world.

The creators of movie admitted they weren't creating a serious alternate history. They were using the movie to make a statement on the pernicious influence of racism in American culture, both past and present. The racist products from the in-universe commercials, for example, were real life products that existed in their pure forms at late as the 1980s.

What I would have wanted was a tale of a plucky comic company managing to free itself from its parent and out of TRW's clutches, escaping to Canada and then to California, allowing the superheroes to be true icons of freedom and liberty. Instead... well, they're pretty much tainted ITTL. Though it does mean those parodies and pastiches have a bigger shot at legitimacy, now that Superman and Captain America have been reduce to Rumsfeldian shills and then silenced by the CVs for being immoral.

I bet the Rumsfeldian Captain America would've featured the Soviets and the British teeming up with the Red Skull to destroy freedom.

A Captain American written in exile (Europe or Canada) would feature the US Government teamming up with the Red Skull to "preserve freedom" and Captain America being declared "an enemy of freedom" for his refusal to work with the Skull, a not-so-subtle statement of the US government embracing fascism in the pursuit of global hegemony.
 
As for comics, I'm already sad Marvel got absorbed into DC, even though I used to be a big Johnny DC (and still am, to some degree, even though the MCU won me over big-time). Both companies have rather distinct identities and flavors, as do their respective comic universes/multiverses, so blending the two together seems like a waste.
Except it did happen IOTL as a brief joint venture between DC and Marvel.
 
The creators of movie admitted they weren't creating a serious alternate history. They were using the movie to make a statement on the pernicious influence of racism in American culture, both past and present. The racist products from the in-universe commercials, for example, were real life products that existed in their pure forms at late as the 1980s.
That actually makes a lot more sense.
I bet the Rumsfeldian Captain America would've featured the Soviets and the British teeming up with the Red Skull to destroy freedom.

A Captain American written in exile (Europe or Canada) would feature the US Government teaming up with the Red Skull to "preserve freedom" and Captain America being declared "an enemy of freedom" for his refusal to work with the Skull, a not-so-subtle statement of the US government embracing fascism in the pursuit of global hegemony.
Give the Red Skull some credit; he at least uses disguises and fronts for this. Would make it an excellent way to twist the knife when he reveals just how he merely took advantage of something, not started it himself. And how America was so quick to throw away its ideals and beliefs in exchange for honeyed promises.
Except it did happen IOTL as a brief joint venture between DC and Marvel.
There was also the time in the 1980s when Warner Bros. considered licensing some of DC’s biggest titles to Marvel, effectively giving them complete control of the dc universe. It’s not hard to imagine that if said deal went through that the characters would eventually be folded into the main Marvel universe.
I'm aware of both the Amalgam comics run, the 1970s crossovers, and the original WB plan. The first two weren't permanent, and while Superman could have benefited from the Marvel treatment, it's unknown how they would have changed him. DC controlling Marvel characters is not quite as effective, as DC was the one trailing behind, if you recall, and had the rich WB vaults to support it.
 
Give the Red Skull some credit; he at least uses disguises and fronts for this. Would make it an excellent way to twist the knife when he reveals just how he merely took advantage of something, not started it himself. And how America was so quick to throw away its ideals and beliefs in exchange for honeyed promises.

That is quite a powerful political statement: The Red Skull may be a fascist, but he can only succeed if enough of the population lets him. In a sense, he is an allegory for how ITTL America became so wretched.

Rumsfeld only succeeded because of a class of wealthy people convinced themselves that destroying labor and economic rights, along with political freedom, was only going to hurt "the no good bums."


The CVs only succeeded because there were a bunch of people who thought that the biggest threat to humanity were social, liberal values.
 
That is quite a powerful political statement: The Red Skull may be a fascist, but he can only succeed if enough of the population lets him. In a sense, he is an allegory for how ITTL America became so wretched.

Rumsfeld only succeeded because of a class of wealthy people convinced themselves that destroying labor and economic rights, along with political freedom, was only going to hurt "the no good bums."


The CVs only succeeded because there were a bunch of people who thought that the biggest threat to humanity were social, liberal values.

Damn this is just depressing. So I wanted to ask what is the economy like in CV America is it privatized or how I see it as many implied, basically is it a state capitalist like machine with the CVers just controlling things, while keeping rummys anti-labor policies in place but discarding his ones making the economy more free to operate and basically just owning all the companies.
 
Damn this is just depressing. So I wanted to ask what is the economy like in CV America is it privatized or how I see it as many implied, basically is it a state capitalist like machine with the CVers just controlling things, while keeping rummys anti-labor policies in place but discarding his ones making the economy more free to operate and basically just owning all the companies.

Well, during the 1988 election ITTL, they essentially created a substitute welfare agency funded by corporate donations, in a bid to buy votes from people. Since these benefits are not provided by law, it can be called an institutionalized version of paternalistic charity, by which people merely survive on the crumbs thrown from the lap.

When they come to power, they create a forced labor system to build up their national defenses, which creates wealth for the corporations that once supported Donald Rumsfeld.

So...make of that what you will.
 
Well, during the 1988 election ITTL, they essentially created a substitute welfare agency funded by corporate donations, in a bid to buy votes from people. Since these benefits are not provided by law, it can be called an institutionalized version of paternalistic charity, by which people merely survive on the crumbs thrown from the lap.

When they come to power, they create a forced labor system to build up their national defenses, which creates wealth for the corporations that once supported Donald Rumsfeld.

So...make of that what you will.
but they destroyed TRW (which was a corporation if I am correct)
 
but they destroyed TRW (which was a corporation if I am correct)
Kind of a lesser vs greater evil here...

Except the Greater Evil is the CVs. The TRW were partially responsible for fucking up the world through Rumsfeld, but the CVs were an apocalypse cult.
 
Well, during the 1988 election ITTL, they essentially created a substitute welfare agency funded by corporate donations, in a bid to buy votes from people. Since these benefits are not provided by law, it can be called an institutionalized version of paternalistic charity, by which people merely survive on the crumbs thrown from the lap.

When they come to power, they create a forced labor system to build up their national defenses, which creates wealth for the corporations that once supported Donald Rumsfeld.

So...make of that what you will.
so the CVs are supporting the corporations and the megacorporations are supporting the CVs. man, those corporations are willing to do anything to keep there money.
 
but they destroyed TRW (which was a corporation if I am correct)

At first, the CV worked with TRW, but when Robertson died, Coe figured that locking them up would be a good way to win public support.


so the CVs are supporting the corporations and the megacorporations are supporting the CVs. man, those corporations are willing to do anything to keep there money.

Well, Rummy gave them a good gravy train, and the CVs were the only ones who claimed they were going to keep the money flowing their way.
 
At first, the CV worked with TRW, but when Robertson died, Coe figured that locking them up would be a good way to win public support.
That would explain why they did it.
Well, Rummy gave them a good gravy train, and the CVs were the only ones who claimed they were going to keep the money flowing their way.
But then they took down TRW. Why would the other corporations trust the CVs after that? They effectively tore up the biggest corporation out there.

Then again, it seems a combination of a sacrificial lamb and fear tactics. The public is pacified by destroying Rumsfeld's biggest corporate buddies and effectively the symbol of Rummynomics, and it's a clear threat to the other corporations that they need to toe the line or else.

People are probably getting sick of the parallels to Nazi Germany, but there are some here. The corporations and the politicians went alongside the NSDAP, seeing as how the Nazis were still weak at first, but kept telling themselves they could control them if they ever got out of hand. The Nazis had a similar need for businesses and industrial strength, but eventually took total control of the system and forced everyone to march in step or be eliminated.

The CVs are also capitalistically-minded, but they have no compunction against making examples of people.
 
That would explain why they did it.

But then they took down TRW. Why would the other corporations trust the CVs after that? They effectively tore up the biggest corporation out there.

Then again, it seems a combination of a sacrificial lamb and fear tactics. The public is pacified by destroying Rumsfeld's biggest corporate buddies and effectively the symbol of Rummynomics, and it's a clear threat to the other corporations that they need to toe the line or else.

People are probably getting sick of the parallels to Nazi Germany, but there are some here. The corporations and the politicians went alongside the NSDAP, seeing as how the Nazis were still weak at first, but kept telling themselves they could control them if they ever got out of hand. The Nazis had a similar need for businesses and industrial strength, but eventually took total control of the system and forced everyone to march in step or be eliminated.

It is the story of the tail wagging the dog. The corporations learned that their money is no good against those who consider themselves serving a higher cause.

The CVs are also capitalistically-minded, but they have no compunction against making examples of people.

They can justify having gained their wealth from kleptocracy and cronyism, because in their minds, God is allowing them to serve His cause.
 
People have often discussed what the attitude people will have to the sections of America that were seen as pro-Rumsfeld or pro-CV.

The consensus has been...many measures of contempt. But I think that is a deep understatement, because it doesn't capture the sense of what the Rumsfeldians and the CVs have done.

I remember reading a tumblr post explaining why Hitler became so hated, and the Germans treated with so much contempt by the Western Allies. Yes, Hitler did horrible shit, but so have many other nations.

He explained it in these terms: a sense of betrayal and the narcissism of small differences.

Germany, at the time, was considered to be among the "civilized nations" that represented human progress and the best of the Enlightenment. My dad explained to me that the reason many European Jews took German names is because Germany was a nation they looked up to. It was a nation that created everything, from chemicals to Wagner.

While Japan's crimes against the Chinese were heavily jeered by many in the West, there wasn't as much contempt toward the Japanese because they were seen as members of a lesser race that would so something.

Stalin might be a mass murderer, but people say "he was a communist dictator, what did you expect?" The communist system could only breed bad people, since Lenin basically created a system by which you need to be a thug to gain control. The Marxist-Leninist political system would inevitably lead to a man who had the instincts of a gangster, and not someone like Emma Goldman, rising to power in Russia.

The point is that Germany was an advanced society, and the Nazis brought it to a level of cruelty that even George Patton couldn't easily stomach. To other Western people, another Western nation sunk into a form of cruelty that not even the Stalinists sunk too.

Eisenhower parading German civilians around the death camps was him essentially saying "you people should've known better!"
______

Now, lets look at the Rumsfeldians and the CVers.

I think they might not only be hated, but they might be hated even MORE then the Lesser Mao and Magnus Malan.

Yes, the Lesser Mao killed far more people then the CVs and the Rumsfeldians ever did, but the Lesser Mao has the excuse of being under the wing of his equally corrupt and tyrannical uncle, and he had to operate in a Marxist-Leninist system where purging rivals and their families was the norm.

Magnus Malan will likely join the pantheon of history's monsters, but he was an Afrikaner, so his behavior was expected from a society built on racial, and class divisions.

America isn't merely a Western, democratic nation. America is THE Western democratic nation. It is, supposedly the beacon of freedom, the land of opportunity where anyone can rise from nothing and obtain a decent standard of living.

This was the nation keeping West Berlin alive when the Soviets menaced it, this was the nation that rebuild Western Europe to save it from a Communist takeover, this was the nation born from the ideals of the Enlightenment, the nation that once fought a war and destroyed two, totalitarian states, the nation that pursued international cooperation.



Yes the Rumsfeldians and CVs were a pack of gluttonous, glory-seeking, arrogant, murderous, selfish, sociopathic monsters. But they were people born into American society, and they treated American ideals with utter contempt, burning those ideals to pursue their fantasy worlds. America is supposed to be nation where even its worst Presidents, even those who bend the rules, wouldn't be able to demolish the system to their own benefit. Even Buchanan's bad decisions were driven by his own interpretation of the Constitution.

Yet the system itself couldn't deter them because the watchmen, the people who are supposed to keep things in check, eagerly hopped on the train into oblivion. The Supreme Court ignored signs of severe voting fraud, because their loyalty to their cause surpassed loyalty to the nation. And the people sitting in the legislature were also eager to profit from the supposed gravy train, or were more interested in their cultural values.

When the war ends, and people get a good look at the nation created by the Rumsfeldians and the CVs, the feeling of betrayal is going to be off the charts. People around the world will cry over what has become of the United States, but among Americans, the feelings of betrayal are going to be well...indescribable

Seeing your fellow Americans doing shit that shouldn't happen here (murdering a "disloyal" ethnic group, using WMDs) is going to fill many Americans with so much rage, that it means that they will have little mercy toward anyone even vaguely sympathetic toward the Rumsfeldians and CVs.
 
I'd imagine people like Albert Brewer would be condemned in a court of public opinion, as whatever he's done was probably punished enough by the CVs. It'll take a long while for people to forgive them for their actions, but that they've at least suffered like others have would help.

I imagine toward people like Brewer, there wouldn't be much sympathy. The public attitude toward Brewer would be "you reap what you sow."

If Brewer had given a shit about the Constitution, he wouldn't have been imprisoned and dehumanized. But Brewer, like many Rumsfeldians, grew up in relative comfort and safety and thus took for granted the institutions that ensured those things.

Like everybody else, he imagined that it couldn't happen here, and thus saw little problem in his grotesquely reactionary actions.

Imagine the veterans of WW2 who might have seen the concentration camps and now have to see the exact same horrors again this time brought to there shores not by communist or fascist spies but by fellow Americans, or even by some of there own.

Well, let me put it this way: which army did more to stop the Nazis? The Red Army.

Yes, the same Red Army that massacres Polish soldiers in Katyn and helped deport the Chechens.

And the gold ol'US Army, which helped fight a massive war two smash two racist empires, was itself dominated by a bunch of racist people who would get red in the face if any black person attempted to live with dignity. Jesse Helms and Byron De La Beckwith were World War II veterans, but they were still evil bastards in their own way.

It has been stated that a lot of World War II veterans happily supported Rumsfeld, the very one person called FDR, the man who led them into battle, a Communist puppet of Stalin, and is now working to dismantle their legacy.

The point I am making, and the lesson that will be taken away, is that fighting Nazis doesn't make you a good person.

America is a nation that helped defeat the Nazis, but like Germany, it had regressive political attitudes that proved too strong for its political institutions to control.

Seeing concentration camps would probably be a very humbling experience, by proving to Americans that they are not a special, blessed people.
 
I imagine toward people like Brewer, there wouldn't be much sympathy. The public attitude toward Brewer would be "you reap what you sow."

If Brewer had given a shit about the Constitution, he wouldn't have been imprisoned and dehumanized. But Brewer, like many Rumsfeldians, grew up in relative comfort and safety and thus took for granted the institutions that ensured those things.

Like everybody else, he imagined that it couldn't happen here, and thus saw little problem in his grotesquely reactionary actions.
But even so, they suffered like everyone else. People like Brewer would have at least understood it's their fault, so their legacy, while tainted, would be rather mixed, and would spend the rest of their lives in atonement for what they've done.

Granted, you'd probably have people who refused to believe this was their fault, and those guys would be far more willing to fight for their tattered reputation alongside their apologists.
Well, let me put it this way: which army did more to stop the Nazis? The Red Army.

Yes, the same Red Army that massacres Polish soldiers in Katyn and helped deport the Chechens.

And the gold ol' US Army, which helped fight a massive war two smash two racist empires, was itself dominated by a bunch of racist people who would get red in the face if any black person attempted to live with dignity. Jesse Helms and Byron De La Beckwith were World War II veterans, but they were still evil bastards in their own way.

It has been stated that a lot of World War II veterans happily supported Rumsfeld, the very one person called FDR, the man who led them into battle, a Communist puppet of Stalin, and is now working to dismantle their legacy.

The point I am making, and the lesson that will be taken away, is that fighting Nazis doesn't make you a good person.

America is a nation that helped defeat the Nazis, but like Germany, it had regressive political attitudes that proved too strong for its political institutions to control.

Seeing concentration camps would probably be a very humbling experience, by proving to Americans that they are not a special, blessed people.
One point of contention there.

Turns out, the Nazis only won 40% of the vote - and were most likely going to lose the next election. And that was after the strongarming and bully tactics. A bunch of conservative German politicians then tried to use the Nazis as pawns for their own schemes, made Hitler Chancellor, and it promptly blew up in their faces.

By the time the CVs took over, they were voted in by a broken system. When pre-war Germany's system worked better than yours, that's gotta hurt.

To repeat the Gipper's words; "America was a city on a hill. Lately, the city seems to have caught fire."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top