I fear what could follow, especially remembering Harding’s calls for a dictatorship to handle WWI (and US were far less involved IOTL).
Crimson Banners Fly: The Rise of the American Left
- Thread starter PyroTheFox
- Start date
- Status
“In August [1917], Harding argued for giving Wilson almost dictatorial powers, stating that democracy had little place in time of war”, from Wikipedia.
PS I want precise that Harding was more an opportunistic then a extremist: in 1918 he opposed a bill to expand presidential powers and in 1921 he showed his “magnanimous” leadership in contrast with the “autocratic” Wilson pardoning Eugene Debs, who had been convicted thanks to the Espionage Act of 1917 who the same Harding had voted and supported four years before. But we now opportunistic politicians can be more dangerous then extremist ones, especially in times of crisis.
For a contemporary source you can find him quoted in the Sunday Times, in August 1917. You can read the article here.
Part 7: Chapter XXIII - Page 152
The Great War stayed as hot as ever when 1917 rang in. Its tide adjusted to a discernable extent in North America, but in the murky trenches of Western Europe that was not the case. Authorities on either side of the conflict were capable of pointing to certain strategic advantages and military achievements which throughout 1916 kept the match a dead heat. In the Battle of Verdun, for example, German divisions managed to capture and reinforce Fort Souville, but General Falkenhayn's men failed to break through French lines dug-in roughly three miles from that position. Verdun itself and nearby depots were routinely bombarded by German artillery hidden beyond the sight of observation, but Commander Pétain was ready with artillery barrages of his own. Looking to bolster fledgling French morale, Pétain lettered a career-defining call to officers at the front. "The furious attacks of soldiers of the crown prince have broken down everywhere. Honor to all." This memo wished into existence a synopsis that had not yet been exhibited. Falkenhayn's forces were not breaking down, and as a matter of fact were consistently reinforced. Pétain issued that decree in the summer of 1916. The fires at Verdun raged unceasing six months later.
The American Autumnal Offensive, as ought to be noted, reverberated far and wide. German High Command was splendidly impressed with Roosevelt's plan, and unspeakably grateful that a world power essentially belonging to the Central Powers struck so efficiently against Great Britain. This act was tremendously inspiring to an increasingly war-weary citizenry in Germany, and it too ballooned newfound hope of victory in the hearts and minds of beaten-down German soldiers (and, on the flipside, it was innately detrimental to the morale of the Entente). "Verdun, the Somme, and Pozières were unmitigated slaughterhouses, explained George Smith. "There is no inspiration to be found in the trenches. Patriotism and nationalism drowned away in those vile pits of mud and blood, leaving only survival as the lasting motivator. British-Canadian defeat in Ottawa signaled to German troops the first true sign of light at the end of the tunnel. Its influence certainly may have changed the course of the war."
As U.S. destroyer convoys battled with British and Canadian vessels along the Eastern Seaboard, German Admiral Reinhard Scheer planned to enact his latest defensive maneuvers against the ever-depleting British blockade. Scheer, in coordination with fellow Admiral Alfred von Tirpitz, dispatched repeated waves of U-boats interspersed with unstoppable zeppelin bombing raids during much of 1915 and all of 1916. German sweeps cast a surefire blow, just as the U.S. Navy did to enemy dreadnaughts in North America. Despite concentrated efforts to retool the Royal Navy auxiliary patrols to secure the three seas of Northern Europe whilst maintaining a toughened defense in North America, British naval superiority was being steadily pieced apart. The blockade never truly stood down, but it may as well have. Prime Minister Lloyd George insisted as late as January 1917 that ongoing deterrence efforts prevented 90% of imports from reaching the German Empire, although historical evidence does not back up that claim. George's mobilization of naval resources to prepare for a decisive sea battle that never arrived occurred at the expense of cruiser reinforcements. Its Grand Fleet divided and technologically outmatched, like a knife in a gunfight, Britain incidentally allowed themselves to be outwitted.
Starting July 1st, 1916, the British and French unleashed a cataclysmic assault on the German Army occupying northern France. This, the Battle of the Somme, would emerge as a defining struggle in the war and a testament to the sad reality of modern warfare. The Entente's desperate push at the early part of the battle cost more lives than weeks of fighting elsewhere on the front. Tens of thousands of British soldiers were killed on the first day of the offensive, trapped by stronger-than-anticipated German defenses. Infantry, bogged down by heavy equipment and barbed wire, walked into machine gun fire like herded cattle. 200,000 Entente-allied enlistees were dead by July 31st. 130,000 on the German side. General Falkenhayn trusted in German perseverance and employed the use of an elastic defense, a doctrine he and Pershing modernized (According to hearsay, the Americans most likely caught wind of the Entente offensive, leading to Pershing's discussions with Falkenhayn on the topic of a more developed defensive operation. Some war historians like to imagine that the Revolutionary War's Battle of Cowpens and Brigadier General Daniel Morgan's 1781 defensive arose as a topic betwixt the two commanders, but that is unsubstantiated).
In spite of poor coordination by British command and the forced downsizing of French reinforcement to compensate for losses at Verdun, the Entente gained territory that stretched on for several miles. Those gains were achieved at a deadly cost, a price they paid in full. Great War offensives, like the U.S. Autumnal Offensive, necessitated profound sacrifice, yet the number of American troops who fell at the Battle of Ottawa were viewed as proportional to the number of British-Canadian casualties. At the Somme, Franco-British losses far outnumbered that of their German counterparts as the fighting endured through October. German-built heavy artillery fired upon waves of advancing divisions, poison gas shrouded the air, and machine-guns shredded to pieces any lonely survivors. One soldier wrote, "It is absolutely impossible to describe what losses the French and British must suffer in these attacks. Nothing can give an idea of it. Under the storm of machine gun, rifle, and artillery fire, the columns were plowed into furrows of death."
Brian Steel, Foreign Relations: A Summary of War, Peace, and Everything In-Between, 2015
The German lines at the Somme never did break. Forces commanding the Entente infantry drove hundreds of thousands of their men into a caked-in meat grinder as the Germans meticulously fell back. It was not until November that the offensive operations finally stalled upon days of pouring rain and intolerable fog. British Field Marshal Douglas Haig referred to the Somme as a strategic victory. He proudly claimed that the overall goal to push back the Germans succeeded, and never uttered a word for the disproportionate death count nor the costly war of attrition. The Somme epitomized to the world, as if there was any remaining doubt, the endless determination of sparring nations to conquer with no regard to human life. Land mattered more to the British and French high command than the men spilling blood for the acquiring of said land, and surviving soldiers finally started to come to terms with that.
Soldiers serving at Verdun in October and November of 1916 learned the fate of their friends and comrades-in-arms just northwest of their position. Streams of French infantrymen received word not only of the death spiral in front of them on the frontlines, but the frivolousness to which the officers directed men at the Somme to suffer for measly territorial gains. Stories also emerged toward the end of 1916 of forced French-Canadian conscription and the similar doomsday facing those soldiers at the Northern Front. With the British blockade falling to bits and German self-sufficiency (plus imports) keeping their war effort going strong, all while the Entente's food rations and munitions started to run thin, discontent brewed within the core of the French Army. Exhaustion and depleted morale indicated trouble on the horizon for France, but a stunning new transpiration in Russia rattled the cage first.
Last edited:
Wonder if the author's gonna be doing anything with the German Revolution of 1918-19 - would be surprised if not since this TL is called the Rise of the American Left (and if you'll forgive my presumption I'm guessing there'll be rises of other non-American Lefts).
I'll be sad if it only gets one update, but this TL has been very disciplined in keeping its focus on the US.
I love leftist victory timelines, just binge read the whole thing. Hope to see more of this soon.
Wars are messy, we still don't know how things are going to go in Europe. Victory or no.
The Revolution wouldn't happen, but when victory feels less satisfying than they thought, I imagine leftist policy in Germany will begin increasing and their dreams of becoming the dominant power in Europe are put on hold.
We'll see! This TL is US-based, but when international events ripple worldwide, they do deserve mention.
Thank you so much!
Part 7: Chapter XXIII - Page 153
In the pre-war period, the vast majority of Europeans were ruled by aristocratic ruling classes and some form of monarchical regime. Politics in Europe centered on the maintenance of empires, imperialist pursuits, capitalistic profit-making, and the repression of downtrodden populations troubled with the present state of affairs. War exacerbates the worst of any government, and of this the Russian Empire was no exception. A worsening casualty count in the war aroused an outpouring of discontent and hostility from every domestic socio-economic class. Tsar Nicholas II, Emperor of All Russia, a blindly conservative and superstitious ruler, was targeted as the source of the nation's woes. The conflict commanded the national economy and had sucked material resources dry, leaving behind mere crumbs for the Russian population to live off of. Detrimental economic conditions, as well as unbelievable bureaucratic incompetence and disastrous military setbacks, left the autocratic government an empty vessel of its former self.
As had been the case for all nations involved in the Great War, Russia was forced to reason with the mass slaughter of its people. The Imperial Russian Army lost hundreds of thousands of lives in the 3 month-long Brusilov Offensive along the Eastern Front: An effort that only succeeded in forcing Germany to dedicate a greater share of its manpower to the East. Russian workers were the first to earnestly unify against the prevailing global narratives of patriotism and national loyalty and seek dramatic, immediate reform. Peasants began refusing work. Eaves of strikes broke out in major metropolitan centers. On International Women's Day in 1917, women waiting in frigid temperatures on endlessly long bread lines sparked a demonstration in opposition to ongoing food rationing. Textile workers initiated a work stoppage soon joined by scores of sympathy strikers across industries, culminating in a general strike. Petrograd protesters held signs aloft reading "We Want Bread," and, before long, "Down with the Tsar." Nicholas unsuccessfully attempted to implement martial law, then panicked. Faced with reports of military obedience breaking down, the autocrat promptly fled. He abdicated soon after.
This, the February Revolution, embodied the first true blowback of the Great War. Russia had crowned princes, tsars and emperors for over 1,000 years. The sudden end of the monarchy stunned the world. Other heads of state looked on with trepidation as the Russian Empire collapsed in on itself, logically fearing for their own futures. This was especially true of the Entente, an alliance in dire straits battling bitter fights in multiple hemispheres. Britain and France presumed the loss of Russia would all but end the war. Fortunately for the oceanic powers, the newly installed Provisional Government had no intention of exiting. Russia's premier political apparatus appeared modeled after the bourgeois constitutional-style system, complete with upper-class representatives and political servants of the military industries. Well-respected aristocratic leader Prince Georgy Lvov ascended to the position of Prime Minister. He was joined by fellow Kadet-affiliated ministers, a majority faction of the Duma (an elected legislature, albeit one that excluded most of the population from voting).
The U.S. press, then optimistic that the Lvov Government would remove Russia from the war, complimented the revolution and its leading faces at length. "Nowhere in the country could the Russian people have found better men to lead them out of the darkness of tyranny," one March New York Times article fawned. It was the closest any mainstream publication came to commending an Entente power since the war began. President Roosevelt recognized the new leadership as the official government of Russia hours after news broke that Nicholas had resigned, breaking off relations with tsarist diplomats in turn. He welcomed to the forefront men he believed were not beclouded by false illusions of innate godliness. To his colleagues in the Cabinet, Roosevelt spoke affectionately of Aleksandr Konovalov, a member of the Provisional Committee and a representative of the moderate Russian Progressive Party, and by historical accounts claimed interest in coaxing him to push for an armistice on the Eastern Front. No public effort was made by the president to actively coerce Konovalov, it should be noted.
As any student of history knows, the provisional Russian state did not make good on the promises of the revolution. Conditions indeed decayed under the managerial eye of Lvov and his associates. Food shortages resumed as normal, fuel stayed in short supply, a lack of raw materials provoked mass layoffs, and the price of everyday goods rose exponentially. The Provisional Government expressed an alliance with the call for patriotism and military preparedness and flagrantly ignored the desperate plea by its people to focus funding on domestic matters. This sense gave rise to an alternate model of government taking shape simultaneously during the spring of 1917: The Petrograd Soviets (or, Council) of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies. The soviets, direct representative bodies made up of the working-class, took on the task of food distribution and operated as makeshift state banks. They popped up in districts all throughout Petrograd, and thereafter spread to towns and cities all throughout Russia. In contrast with the uncaring and pro-war provisional assembly, the soviets were genuinely democratic in nature and were furthermore aligned with the popular desire to make peace.
The American Socialist Party obsessed over the February Revolution, its outcome, and its lessons as juxtaposed with the ramping up of the U.S. war effort in the spring of 1917. Well-known activist and orator Leon Trotsky had just arrived in the United States upon his politically driven deportation from France and Spain. He arrived in New York City, a place he later deemed a wonderous "haven of capitalistic automation, its streets a triumph of cubism, its moral philosophy that of the dollar," and as an idealistic and young revolutionary quickly familiarized himself with the thriving Movement for Socialism taking root in the Manhattan tenements. The outcast spoke to and rallied unorganized Russian immigrants to join in that fight wherever he could. He assisted in the founding of The Class Struggle, a Marxist magazine voicing the opinions of radicals like Ludwig Lore, joining other left-wing theorists and radicals based in New York at that time. Trotsky, inspired by the progress of the American labor movement and the recent success of Debs' wing of the Socialist Party, opted to meet with Eugene Debs during his stay.
The two gathered for only a short time, but the Russian émigré confided in Debs many of his concerns of the current party makeup, leadership, and design - presumably the very same criticisms relayed in his speeches. Trotsky warned that Socialist leaders like Hillquit presented a grave danger to the party and its purpose, referring to the former SP chairman as, "the ideal Socialist leader for successful dentists," and Berger conservatives as "salesmen." The party's deeply entrenched connection to the working class was its greatest asset, however, Trotsky identified, and honing and guiding workers' movements (not simply limiting oneself to voting within the bourgeois system) was key to accumulating the energy needed for an actual transition to socialism. A healthy start would be to infuse existing labor struggles with the vibrant IWW and collectively rally for an end to the war. Once the February Revolution erupted and Trotsky departed for home, the American Left was left astounded. Was revolution truly waiting just beyond the horizon?
Last edited:
Deleted member 94708
I think we’re starting to get enough information to guess at the outlines of the post-war world.
The US and Central Powers win the war, but the US, at least, loses the peace.
Canada is either occupied or puppeted, but it’s a running sore producing body bags and preventing a rapprochement with Britain and resumption of trade on normal terms.
The Progressives’ high-minded ideal of a united citizenry harnessing itself to a state which embodies and protects the citizenry comes to naught. The party ends its days captured by the same moneyed interests it decried, as Roosevelt and his heirs are distracted by the nationalist forces they unleash and lose sight of their material goals.
All that’s left is the “service to state” part of the equation, which leaves a hollow near-fascism in lieu of a genuine program for improving the lives of the citizenry.
The Democrats become the party of racialism and reaction, doubled in intensity by the radicalized military personnel returning from Canada and the Atlantic, especially the black ones. And the perfectly non-radicalized black ones for that matter. Can’t have “those folk” knowing the business end of a gun.
The Republicans, the few left, are the party of plutocracy untempered by any of the few restraining impulses that survive among the Progressives.
And then there are the Socialists, seen to have a platform with middle- and working class interests at heart, proven to be on the right side of history as regards the war, and engaged in a grand program to integrate people into civic life without regard to class and race (at its best, anyway).
I wonder how badly the Progressives compromise themselves in standing with the Democrats and Republicans against the red (well pinkish) tide before actual violence breaks out...
The US and Central Powers win the war, but the US, at least, loses the peace.
Canada is either occupied or puppeted, but it’s a running sore producing body bags and preventing a rapprochement with Britain and resumption of trade on normal terms.
The Progressives’ high-minded ideal of a united citizenry harnessing itself to a state which embodies and protects the citizenry comes to naught. The party ends its days captured by the same moneyed interests it decried, as Roosevelt and his heirs are distracted by the nationalist forces they unleash and lose sight of their material goals.
All that’s left is the “service to state” part of the equation, which leaves a hollow near-fascism in lieu of a genuine program for improving the lives of the citizenry.
The Democrats become the party of racialism and reaction, doubled in intensity by the radicalized military personnel returning from Canada and the Atlantic, especially the black ones. And the perfectly non-radicalized black ones for that matter. Can’t have “those folk” knowing the business end of a gun.
The Republicans, the few left, are the party of plutocracy untempered by any of the few restraining impulses that survive among the Progressives.
And then there are the Socialists, seen to have a platform with middle- and working class interests at heart, proven to be on the right side of history as regards the war, and engaged in a grand program to integrate people into civic life without regard to class and race (at its best, anyway).
I wonder how badly the Progressives compromise themselves in standing with the Democrats and Republicans against the red (well pinkish) tide before actual violence breaks out...
Canada being puppeted would be more trouble than its worth and that may not be much on the bargaining table, especially sicne discontent will make it worse. Trade restrictions and so on do make sense.
Hard to say with the Progressives since nationalism won't be at the same angle as it would be. After all, the US entered this war "defensively" and without much other power, there is little else that could be done there.
Democrats would be risky there, especially if Teddy decides to spin them as an enemy and comparing them to the CSA with the racialism.
As for beyond the US, well, let's see the other Central Powers: Germany will need to deal with sobering up, the puppets it wants to have, Austria-Hungary imploding (and likely absorbing Austria) and establishing a trade network between themselves, Bulgaria (which will assert their dominance over Southern Europe) and the Ottomans (who will be touch and go until the discovery of oil helps fund their modernization engines)
But don't wanna get too far ahead after all
Canada will probly end up being annexed. Canada is very sparcly populated and won't be able to put up much of a resistance.
- Status