Communist Anglo-Saxon country

This is sort of a challenge/PC combo. With a POD after 1917, is it possible for any Anglo-Saxon country (Britain, USA, Canada, Australia, NZ) to go communist? Which is most likely or least likely? You can throw in Ireland too, even though it probably wouldn't consider itself Anglo-Saxon.
 
the most likely options in your list in my opinion are probably the UK and Ireland. the US (and Canada to an extent) were pretty anti communist and I doubt the parties in Australia and NZ were ever popular or even acknowledged. I figured the UK could go communist if they end up facing alot of misfortune (especially if they end up losing WW1) and its possible that the Irish rebels could become even more extreme to go communist if given the right conditions (worse potato famine, poverty in various regions, etc.)
 

BigBlueBox

Banned
the most likely options in your list in my opinion are probably the UK and Ireland. the US (and Canada to an extent) were pretty anti communist and I doubt the parties in Australia and NZ were ever popular or even acknowledged. I figured the UK could go communist if they end up facing alot of misfortune (especially if they end up losing WW1) and its possible that the Irish rebels could become even more extreme to go communist if given the right conditions (worse potato famine, poverty in various regions, etc.)
>Ireland
>Anglo-Saxon
 
In the U.S., POD can be no Progressive Era, which means the Gilded Age goes on indefinitely with its unregulated capitalism into the 1920s.

The Labor movement becomes too strong to suppress, to the point of a marxist Labor Party becoming the second largest party after the Republicans, but not strong enough to actually win the Presidency. Then the Great Depression hits and it's much worse, the Labor party wins, but the establishment is too scared of them and plots to coup them out of power. Coup succeeds, but public response turns massively against the coupers and in favor of Labor, one thing leds to the other.

This also just happens to be how Reds! does it.

But actually you could just have the marxist party be so utterly dominant after the Great Depression that they're able to carry out a radical programme of transformation and the abolition of capitalism.
 
In the U.S., POD can be no Progressive Era, which means the Gilded Age goes on indefinitely with its unregulated capitalism into the 1920s.

The Labor movement becomes too strong to suppress, to the point of a marxist Labor Party becoming the second largest party after the Republicans, but not strong enough to actually win the Presidency. Then the Great Depression hits and it's much worse, the Labor party wins, but the establishment is too scared of them and plots to coup them out of power. Coup succeeds, but public response turns massively against the coupers and in favor of Labor, one thing leds to the other.

This also just happens to be how Reds! does it.

But actually you could just have the marxist party be so utterly dominant after the Great Depression that they're able to carry out a radical programme of transformation and the abolition of capitalism.

I agree that R:aRT is the most likely scenario.

For something more original, the UK sees a failed, heavily Marxist revolution of 1848 for some reason. Many of the rank and file Revolutionaries are deported to Australia and Eureka Stockade prompts a socialist uprising in Australia beginning in Victoria and spreading north. The British still take the stockade but a long guerilla war begins with the Communists. Ultimately, especially after the gold fields are exhausted, Australia becomes more trouble than it's worth and achieves independence as a socialist state?

And Eire most certainly doesn't count as Anglo-Saxon, though I could see it going socialist if the Civil War went differently and the (as I understand it) more left-leaning Anti-Treaty IRA won out. But it would be like India going Communist as far as Anglo-Saxon ness is concerned.
 
so I guess we're just gonna ignore that the maker of the thread says we can throw in Ireland in the mix?

The premise of the way the OP is phrased seems to be that "Eire is Anglo Saxon even if it says it isn't" which is factually untrue.
 
The premise of the way the OP is phrased seems to be that "Eire is Anglo Saxon even if it says it isn't" which is factually untrue.

I knew people would moan about that. Forget Ireland. It doesn't matter. I basically meant all English-speaking western developed countries, but there's no convenient word for that.
 

Kaze

Banned
How about one of the smaller Channel islands - if memory serves - one of them was run as a communist commune for a brief period. Basically, the Laird at the time was communist leaning and he decided to let it go through his vassals - at least until the Laird's death, where in it reverted back to its original state.
 
How about one of the smaller Channel islands - if memory serves - one of them was run as a communist commune for a brief period. Basically, the Laird at the time was communist leaning and he decided to let it go through his vassals - at least until the Laird's death, where in it reverted back to its original state.

Too small to avoid being nommed back up by the UK at some point, unless it happens in late, no D Day WWII coterminous to a massive Soviet-wank putting the Red Army on the Channel.
 
so I guess we're just gonna ignore that the maker of the thread says we can throw in Ireland in the mix?

Well I guess it's Anglo-Saxon countries + Ireland. You could also do Anglo-Saxon countries + Norway (or a few steps away and Pakistan is fair game. Hey, they were also under the British crown and the English language is spoken there). I think throwing in Ireland just because is eh but of course if OP inserts it in then sure fine. But examining an Anglo-Saxon society and it's culture and wishing to compare that with Ireland is surely not the route to go. The real cultural question is Anglo-Saxon (Britain + former colonies such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand and even America), not British Isles where the language is English.
 
WI the USA doesn't get involved in WWI for whatever reason and the German Offensive breaks through, forcing Britain and France to sue for peace? This results in the same pro-Bolshevik agitation sweeping the army OTL having a much more fertile breeding ground among returning soldiers, who could potentially throw the country into chaos (particularly if they are told that they're going to Eire and not home resulting in mass mutinies...) and ultimately storming Westminster under the Red Banner?
 
WI the USA doesn't get involved in WWI for whatever reason and the German Offensive breaks through, forcing Britain and France to sue for peace? This results in the same pro-Bolshevik agitation sweeping the army OTL having a much more fertile breeding ground among returning soldiers, who could potentially throw the country into chaos (particularly if they are told that they're going to Eire and not home resulting in mass mutinies...) and ultimately storming Westminster under the Red Banner?


Britain works. Honestly, if the Communists were even better organized, labor anger in the 20's and 30's could lead to a revolution. There was certainly anger and frustration. Perhaps in defeat it would be harder. A defeated England would go more nationalistic imo (Oswald Moseley and his ilk would have greater success then).

Very hard to make America communist. Some Spanish journalist IIRC during the days of the Spanish-American war was lamenting how in America socialism was a dirty word. America is one of the last western nations (or nations period) that would embrace communism. Not only was it's middle class one of the strongest, but culturally communism was antithetical to American ideals.

Perhaps an Irish Catholic led Communist revolution in Australia? Hard to do but a bit easier than America.

Canada perhaps as well. Communist New Zealand? Now that would certainly be interesting. A Maori-infused land ownership rebellion would be fascinating. I think it would be crushed, but perhaps if such a movement were to be tied with the Anglo workers of the rest of New Zealand, New Zealand provides a good opportunity then. It can't be led by a Maori then (but certainly Maori would be in the cabinet and high ranking members of the Wellington Comintern).
 
Britain a great opportunity.

Very hard to make America communist. Some Spanish journalist IIRC during the days of the Spanish-American war was lamenting how in America socialism was a dirty word. America is one of the last western nations (or nations period) that would embrace communism. Not only was it's middle class one of the strongest, but culturally communism was antithetical to American ideals.

Perhaps an Irish Catholic led Communist revolution in Australia? Hard to do but a bit easier than America.

Canada perhaps as well. Communist New Zealand? Now that would certainly be interesting. A Maori-infused land ownership rebellion would be fascinating. I think it would be crushed, but perhaps if such a movement were to be tied with the Anglo workers of the rest of New Zealand, New Zealand provides a good opportunity then. It can't be led by a Maori then (but certainly Maori would be in the cabinet and high ranking members of the Wellington Comintern).

Both Australia and NZ are opportunities. I think the real issue is that most of them will be IMO pre-1900, esp. re. Eureka Stockade, which provides the obvious and symbolic jumping off point in Australian history. Also, it would be awesome to imagine Ned Kelley as an armor-plated Aussie Che Guevara...but again, unlikely.

The real issue is that, by 1900, Britain has too much power projection capacity to "lose" any colony to Communism or otherwise that it either doesn't want to let go unless there's foreign support. Short of either RaRT that won't happen. So essentially, without RaRT, a pre 1900 POD is very hard to finagle without Britain going red itself.

The exception might be Canada at the right time; if they declared independence as a socialist state the Monroe Doctrine might come into play. However, the only OTL presidents I could see pushing the matter to a head would be the Roosevelts, even then it's rather unlikely. If Debs is elected in 1912 and reelected in 1916, and Canada goes Red after WWI, he too would likely push the Doctrine.
 
The real issue is that, by 1900, Britain has too much power projection capacity to "lose" any colony to Communism or otherwise that it either doesn't want to let go unless there's foreign support. Short of either RaRT that won't happen. So essentially, without RaRT, a pre 1900 POD is very hard to finagle without Britain going red itself.

Very good point. But an ever weaker British empire in the 20's is where I felt this could work. But yes, them being colonies is a super crucial aspect.



If Debs is elected in 1912 and reelected in 1916,

This would never happen.
 
Top