Not compared to Russia and china. By 1920 majority of Americans lived in cities and towns.
Communist Anglo-Saxon country
- Thread starter Tio Paquete
- Start date
Not compared to Russia and china. By 1920 majority of Americans lived in cities and towns.
In some ways yes, in many ways no. There's a reason many considered Russia to be "eastern".
It isn't an easy comparison by any means. Nonetheless, I find it much easier to isolate what was meaningfully different about the political climates of the US and Russia in 1917 that comparing the US at one time to China at another.
Last edited:
Koprulu Mustafa Pasha
Gone Fishin'
Does the state of California count? Or does it have to be a country?
I meant Russia and US versus Russia and China (US and China way different and Russia closer to China in some aspects).
Hey, while I find it highly unlikely for any Anglo-Saxon nation to go communist, it's actually a very interesting discussion.
Seems to just be a minor miscommunication then. I don't dispute what you said, but I also don't think that you'd also dispute that the USA was closer to Russia than to China even if Russia was closer to China than the USA as a rule.
I second that. Though at a certain point we're going to run out of countries.
The USA seems to have been ruled impossible with the exception of whatever your opinion is of RaRT.
I would argue that Australia or NZ would both be possible with a Pre 1800 TL, but 1900-1945 the UK will have too much colonial ability to fail to "restore order" to either if they go Communist.
Canada is mostly in the same boat, though the Monroe Doctrine might come into play allowing for key periods either after WWI or during the Depression.
There is a slim chance that returning soldiers have a communist revolution in the UK proper at the end of a longer alt-WWI or maybe, maybe during the Depression, but I'd say its unlikelier than all of the other ones except the USA.
And, of course, Sachsen itself did end up communist
Kevin Phillips's biography of McKinley depicts him as a surprisingly progressive president who was likely to propose important new initiatives with respect to the tariff and trusts. McKinley's last speech to the Pan-American Exposition in September 1901 heralded a campaign for tariff reciprocity. Actions against trusts would likely follow in 1902 when the United States Industrial Commission appointed by McKinley in 1898 reported back. This report, as Phillips notes "wound up laying out much of what would be the Progressive corporate and antitrust agenda through 1914." (Phillips, William McKinley, p. 136)
Also, at least according to Mark Hanna, McKinley himself might have undertaken a prosecution against Northern Securities as TR famously did in OTL: "I warned Hill that McKinley might have to act against his damn company last year. Mr. Roosevelt's done it. I'm sorry for Hill, but just what do you gentlemen think I can do?" https://books.google.com/books?id=B0Jr8Ypal1UC&pg=PA392
Furthermore, Phillips notes McKinley's pro-labor record, which included naming Terence V. Powderly, onetime leader of the Knights of Labor, as commissioner general of immigration, and of Samuel Gompers of the AFL to the Industrial Commission. McKinley frequently consulted with Gompers.
Anyway, even if we assume that McKinley is a reactionary--or is followed by one as the GOP candidate in 1904--it hardly follows that voters are going to desert the major parties en masse--or even if they did that it would be for the Socialist Party. The Democrats in 1904 might not flirt with conservatism as they did in OTL if they were facing a more conservative candidate than TR (in OTL they actually hoped for business support against TR--in vain of course [1]). And even if they did, they would learn it didn't pay and revert to Bryanism in 1908 as they did in OTL.
And finally even if we assume that somehow both major parties for some reason remain unaffected by reform sentiment and keep nominating conservatives, a non-socialist third party led by someone like La Follette seems more likely to take advantage of it than Debs' Socialists.
[1] As the New York Sun, considered the voice of Wall Street, stated in explaining its reluctant endorsement of TR over the "safe" Parker, "We prefer the impulsive candidate of the party of conservatism to the conservative candidate of the party which the business interests regard as permanently and dangerously impulsive." https://books.google.com/books?id=X43uHzjM_GIC&pg=PA82
I think Jim Crow renders this impossible in the 20th century, unless the revolutionary wave in Europe from 1917-1923 is way more successful and there's an...idk, communist Eurasia versus capitalist USA war where the latter collapses. But then you've effectively run into a "socialist world" timeline.