DBWI: No "Second American Revolution"

So we are nearing the 15th anniversary of the collapse of the American Federative People's Republic, and anti-communists in America are preparing celebrations as they do every September 1st, so this has me thinking -- what if there was no "Second American Revolution" (as it was called in the AFPR)? How would the history of the United States, North America, and the world progress after that? Some people (read: communists) think the revolution was inevitable, others think that it could have been stopped with a POD in the 1920s or the 1930s. What do you think?
 
It of course could have been stopped. But at what price? Do you really want to imagine arch-reactionaries such as Earnest Hooton or William D. Pelley, or this Premium Army or whatever they were called, in power in Salisbury, F.C.?
 
And who is it who is celebrating now? You labelled them "anti-communists", but I think Ross Perot, Dan Quayle, George W. Bush and their ilk will turn America reactionary again. Not democratic, but hardline reactionary!
 
Well, without it, North America would look incredibly different.

There might still be one large nation, rather than the many post-AFPR nations.

And who is it who is celebrating now? You labelled them "anti-communists", but I think Ross Perot, Dan Quayle, George W. Bush and their ilk will turn America reactionary again. Not democratic, but hardline reactionary!

I seriously doubt that the Pacific Unitary Republic* will ever become reactionary. They kept a lot of the better features of the old AFPR like the universal healthcare service (PacMed's been labeled as one of the best in the world by most observers), while at the same time having a booming private and semi-private sector economy and being easily the most socially liberal and diverse nation in the Americas (legalised same-sex marriage in 2005, strong women's rights, 49% non-white with strong representation at all levels of society). It's pretty much the perfect Social Democracy, and Angelina Voight's presidency looks set to continue that.

Its tech industry is doing very well especially. The Redwood Computing Union and similar businesses proves that employee-owned industries can compete and compete well in a free market-place. I'm writing this on a RedPhone 5 even as we speak :p

*OOC: California, Oregon and Washington State.
 
I seriously doubt that the Pacific Unitary Republic* will ever become reactionary. They kept a lot of the better features of the old AFPR like the universal healthcare service (PacMed's been labeled as one of the best in the world by most observers), while at the same time having a booming private and semi-private sector economy and being easily the most socially liberal and diverse nation in the Americas (legalised same-sex marriage in 2005, strong women's rights, 49% non-white with strong representation at all levels of society). It's pretty much the perfect Social Democracy, and Angelina Voight's presidency looks set to continue that.

Its tech industry is doing very well especially. The Redwood Computing Union and similar businesses proves that employee-owned industries can compete and compete well in a free market-place. I'm writing this on a RedPhone 5 even as we speak :p

Nah, I didn't mean the Pacific Unitary Republic. They might well stay social democratic of course!
I meant the "Confederal American Republic" of course, the biggest AFPR successor state!
 
And who is it who is celebrating now? You labelled them "anti-communists", but I think Ross Perot, Dan Quayle, George W. Bush and their ilk will turn America reactionary again. Not democratic, but hardline reactionary!

People like to shit on the AFPR but are also protective of the SHS (Socialized Health Service), their Unions, and their 4 day workweek/two months vacations. Especially older people.
 
People like to shit on the AFPR but are also protective of the SHS (Socialized Health Service), their Unions, and their 4 day workweek/two months vacations. Especially older people.

Also, basing everything on the, even remote, possibility of Comrade McLain who could have come to power is just oversimplifying things! In fact, it was Comrade Salisbury all that time where McLain was so dangerous!
 
People like to shit on the AFPR but are also protective of the SHS (Socialized Health Service), their Unions, and their 4 day workweek/two months vacations. Especially older people.

Well, the PUR still has most of that stuff. They brought the working week up to 5 days, but holidays are still long, and jobs tend to be permanent. And they're doing pretty damn well.

Funny, of course. The old AFPR prepared for potential war with the Empire of Japan throughout the latter part of the twentieth century, but the PUR and Japan are close trade buddies now...
 
Had interventionist forces acted with greater decisiveness during the Second American Civil War, it is very possible that the Second Revolution would not have got off the ground. Had Prime Minister Antony Eden committed more British troops to stabilising New England in the early days of the collapse, it's possible that the region could have provided a suitable base of operations for the legitimate government to operate from.

Of course, Eden was dealing with the Second Indian Mutiny at the time, so it's somewhat implausible. Perhaps if 'Imperial Federation' had got moving earlier and preempted the violence in the subcontinent, freeing the British to commit fully to the New England Intervention? On an unrelated note, perhaps the Indian Empire would have remained an integral part of the Federation rather than simply consenting to retain the British King-Emperor as sovereign.

Continuing on that thought process, a more decisive Canadian contribution could also have been facilitated by an earlier Imperial Federation movement. Consider the implications of a Canadian government certain of support from the rest of what constitutes today's Federation (perhaps even including more African member states - an earlier shift in colonial policy could have convinced more to remain). IOTL, fears of antagonising a potential new regime to the south led to the rather lacklustre interventionist effort made. With an earlier Imperial Federation, a successful capture of Chicago in the name of the legitimate government could even be plausible, giving anti-communist forces an excellent foothold in the socialist industrial heartland.

Just my two-penny worth.
 
Had interventionist forces acted with greater decisiveness during the Second American Civil War, it is very possible that the Second Revolution would not have got off the ground. Had Prime Minister Antony Eden committed more British troops to stabilising New England in the early days of the collapse, it's possible that the region could have provided a suitable base of operations for the legitimate government to operate from.

Of course, Eden was dealing with the Second Indian Mutiny at the time, so it's somewhat implausible. Perhaps if 'Imperial Federation' had got moving earlier and preempted the violence in the subcontinent, freeing the British to commit fully to the New England Intervention? On an unrelated note, perhaps the Indian Empire would have remained an integral part of the Federation rather than simply consenting to retain the British King-Emperor as sovereign.

Continuing on that thought process, a more decisive Canadian contribution could also have been facilitated by an earlier Imperial Federation movement. Consider the implications of a Canadian government certain of support from the rest of what constitutes today's Federation (perhaps even including more African member states - an earlier shift in colonial policy could have convinced more to remain). IOTL, fears of antagonising a potential new regime to the south led to the rather lacklustre interventionist effort made. With an earlier Imperial Federation, a successful capture of Chicago in the name of the legitimate government could even be plausible, giving anti-communist forces an excellent foothold in the socialist industrial heartland.

Just my two-penny worth.

I don't think Britain and Canada had the manpower and such to intervene in the US. The Revolution had a lot of popular support, and it wasn't that long since the war. It was all they could do to get the border fortified and manned.

The AFPR-Canadian border...most heavily fortified border in world history...


On other news, it looks like the Pacific Unitary Republic will be joining Japan, the Philippines, Indonesia, Indochina and Southern China in the Co-Prosperity Sphere... Interesting times.
 
On other news, it looks like the Pacific Unitary Republic will be joining Japan, the Philippines, Indonesia, Indochina and Southern China in the Co-Prosperity Sphere... Interesting times.

Don't forget the Empire of Vietnam, the Empire of Lankang, and the Empire of the Pagan.

The AFPR-Canadian border...most heavily fortified border in world history...

Maybe until 1944. Don't exaggerate - or did you really forget the border between West and East Germany? Or between Russia/Mongolia/Uyghurstan and the Chinese Workers' Union? Or between West and East Ethiopia?
 
I don't think Britain and Canada had the manpower and such to intervene in the US. The Revolution had a lot of popular support, and it wasn't that long since the war. It was all they could do to get the border fortified and manned.

Yeah. WOrse and more foolishly, the European powers - just coming out of the First World War, and if they did not get liberated by their own workers - thought it more important to fight these Bolshikees or whatever the crazy radicals were called. Remember, these terrorists around their guerilla leader ... Lenan? Who controlled St. Petersburg for a few weeks, but not that much more!
 
Of course the National People's Unions under Roman Yevgenevich Alekno were more popular in Russia! Lenan's group would have burned itself out, even with no British, Canadian, or German lives lost in Russia.
 
Top