AHC: Neo-Confederate Putsch During Korean War

In the "Things People Believe for Ideological Reasons" thread, I said a neo-Confederate putsch during the Korean War was roughly equivalent to the Bolshevik coup in the Civil War in terms of legitimacy.

So with a POD no earlier than, say, 1865, how can we get it so that during the Korean War, neo-Confederates seize control of Washington D.C. and turn over a substantial chunk of U.S. territory to the Chinese, a second American Civil War breaks out, and other members of NATO/the UN make a half-hearted attempt to assist elements of the old U.S. government opposed to the new regime?
 

Japhy

Banned
The Classic, "Radical Reconstruction in full force would turn the South so reactionary it never considers itself American Again, be" line used by those such as Harry Turtledove himself could do the trick. The idea of the south constantly rebelling from the late 1860's on seems to always have a butterfly net around it too so it would be possible.

But then I don't ever consider that too plausible, and even if it is, it's far too clichéd for my tastes.

So basically I'd suggest that perhaps the option could be set a little later, in the 1870's. Have the "Reedemers" get a good kick or two in the face before eventually overthrowing the Republican governments of the South. A few more riots that get called "Battles" by old men but with them "adding defeats to the South" or somesuch. But lets say by the late 1880's we do in fact have the Solid South back.

Moving on to the 1910's, have America enter WWI but with someone besides Wilson or Teddy Roosevelt or anyone else who will use soft gloves on the South, someone who might be vilified by a stronger lost cause/klan/neo-South movement (More "vets" from the 1870s having given it a boost). Maybe the US gets in the war earlier, to have more men killed/wounded/mentally scarred. But for those who come home south of the Mason-Dixon line "Mr. Yankee X's War" was nothing but some brutal war that they had nothing as Southerners to do with. They're mad they fought a war for Yankee Industry and Yankee Bankers and all that.

Such a movement could grow, theres certainly room in the Solid South for a Third Party to rise up at the time, as they only have to face the Yellow Dog Democrats, though thats no easy task. Eventually have it develop into an Angry BQ sort of deal. Some way or another have the WWI Generation that are now the leaders of the movement not get too angry over WWII (Maybe their leadership is in the New Deal Coalition with FDR?) Iin the War somehow you have to keep alot of Southerners in Separate Units, perhaps recruitment in the South being more dominated by the National Guard then the regular Army.

After the Second World War another Generation of Southerners, come home with bitter feelings about the deaths in like with what their fathers felt. Maybe with Anger over "Yankee Miss-management" (Stick Southern Divisions in places like Italy and the South-west Pacific theater in 1944/45 and such feelings would be easy enough to develop) as well as Anger over the 1917 Generation for having "betrayed them". Southern Nationalism has a major and angry boost, come 1950 when the time comes for National Guard Units and Southern Boys to go fight another war in Asia, this time for an organization like the United Nations, they've had enough, and the WWII leadership Generation decides its time to take a stand and start a series of events that rapidly escalate into shooting.

Of course, all of that requires alot of butterfly nets to keep the Korea from even happening here. As it requires WWII to go just so and that requires alot more before.
 
In the "Things People Believe for Ideological Reasons" thread, I said a neo-Confederate putsch during the Korean War was roughly equivalent to the Bolshevik coup in the Civil War in terms of legitimacy.

So with a POD no earlier than, say, 1865, how can we get it so that during the Korean War, neo-Confederates seize control of Washington D.C. and turn over a substantial chunk of U.S. territory to the Chinese, a second American Civil War breaks out, and other members of NATO/the UN make a half-hearted attempt to assist elements of the old U.S. government opposed to the new regime?

Guess which point it was I gave up on the challenge?

Also, your original comment was wrong, anyway. Socialists in general were overwhelmingly the parties supported by the Russian people. Since the Russian state had had literally months of genuine rule of law, and the parties in power had discredited themselves thoroughly in the popular eye, by the Russian standards of the day it was about as legitimate as anything else.

Don't compare apples and oranges. The literal equivalent in legitimacy would probably be more like FDR running for third and fourth terms, but if he had done so in peace time with scattered allegations of vote-rigging.

But seriously, American territory handed to China? During the Korean War? I like a challenge, but sorry, just no.
 
Also, your original comment was wrong, anyway. Socialists in general were overwhelmingly the parties supported by the Russian people. Since the Russian state had had literally months of genuine rule of law, and the parties in power had discredited themselves thoroughly in the popular eye, by the Russian standards of the day it was about as legitimate as anything else.

Lenin was working hand-in-hand with Imperial Germany and his government was explicitly authoritarian.

There are socialists and there are socialists. One of the Whites' biggest screwups was suppressing the Socialist Revolutionaries, who were at least democratic.
 
The Classic, "Radical Reconstruction in full force would turn the South so reactionary it never considers itself American Again, be" line used by those such as Harry Turtledove himself could do the trick. The idea of the south constantly rebelling from the late 1860's on seems to always have a butterfly net around it too so it would be possible.

But then I don't ever consider that too plausible, and even if it is, it's far too clichéd for my tastes.

So basically I'd suggest that perhaps the option could be set a little later, in the 1870's. Have the "Reedemers" get a good kick or two in the face before eventually overthrowing the Republican governments of the South. A few more riots that get called "Battles" by old men but with them "adding defeats to the South" or somesuch. But lets say by the late 1880's we do in fact have the Solid South back.

Moving on to the 1910's, have America enter WWI but with someone besides Wilson or Teddy Roosevelt or anyone else who will use soft gloves on the South, someone who might be vilified by a stronger lost cause/klan/neo-South movement (More "vets" from the 1870s having given it a boost). Maybe the US gets in the war earlier, to have more men killed/wounded/mentally scarred. But for those who come home south of the Mason-Dixon line "Mr. Yankee X's War" was nothing but some brutal war that they had nothing as Southerners to do with. They're mad they fought a war for Yankee Industry and Yankee Bankers and all that.

Such a movement could grow, theres certainly room in the Solid South for a Third Party to rise up at the time, as they only have to face the Yellow Dog Democrats, though thats no easy task. Eventually have it develop into an Angry BQ sort of deal. Some way or another have the WWI Generation that are now the leaders of the movement not get too angry over WWII (Maybe their leadership is in the New Deal Coalition with FDR?) Iin the War somehow you have to keep alot of Southerners in Separate Units, perhaps recruitment in the South being more dominated by the National Guard then the regular Army.

After the Second World War another Generation of Southerners, come home with bitter feelings about the deaths in like with what their fathers felt. Maybe with Anger over "Yankee Miss-management" (Stick Southern Divisions in places like Italy and the South-west Pacific theater in 1944/45 and such feelings would be easy enough to develop) as well as Anger over the 1917 Generation for having "betrayed them". Southern Nationalism has a major and angry boost, come 1950 when the time comes for National Guard Units and Southern Boys to go fight another war in Asia, this time for an organization like the United Nations, they've had enough, and the WWII leadership Generation decides its time to take a stand and start a series of events that rapidly escalate into shooting.

Of course, all of that requires alot of butterfly nets to keep the Korea from even happening here. As it requires WWII to go just so and that requires alot more before.

Thanks for at least trying. Not sure how this would lead to an attempt to take over the United Stares rather than secede again, but it's an actual timeline.
 
Top