DBWI: WI The USA hadn't fallen apart during the 30s?

While some on the forum have expressed the opinion that such a thing would be ASB, I think the reunification as the Federated States of America in the late 70s puts a lie to that notion.

I think the easiest way to prevent the Balkanization would be to have Hoover show his gross incompetence earlier and not get reelected.

What thinks AH.com?
 
If you butterflied it away, you could probably keep the main ideological conflicts of the 20th century off of North American soil. California and Texas (and most of the southwest) seceded rather than accept a socialist candidate as president and quickly modeled their new nations around Mussolini's fascism. This in turn helped trigger what would be a Trotskyist revolution in Mexico. New England peacefully and democraticly seceded whereas the USA and CSA fought each other ragged over who was the countries legitamate government. The same sorts of battles were happening in Europe, the United States just had a larger swath of geography for them to occur in.
 
I wonder if a united USA would have intervened in the Second Great War, and on which side. If so, the war might have ended sooner, instead of dragging on until the British Empire nuked Dresden and Munich.

OOC: Note the way I phrased that - even if the UK fell, which is debatable, the Empire/Commonwealth could and would carry on. Likewise, it leaves open the option of the UK not falling, so someone else can establish whether it did or not.
 
Considering the religious fundamentalists who seized power during the 1980 elections of the Federated States of America, it is fairly certain that the 1983 Canadian Missile Crisis wouldn't have taken place under Chairman Falwell. It is also fairly likely that the 1981-1988 Second Mexican-American War wouldn't have taken place. Then again, the 1991 and 2003 European Union invasions of Mexico to depose "Commandante Marcos" would be "butterflied away"....
 
While Chairman Falwell and co were pretty bad, at least they didn't go in for that president-for-life shit Marcos did and were voted out pretty quickly.

At Charon: Probably on the side of the British. Japan did take the Phillipines and Hawaii in the late forties. A United States of America wouldn't have stood for that. Of course, that would mean the Soviet Union would have become a super power much sooner. Not wasting half of it's population against the German War Machine would do that.

(OOC: I was thinking that the POD would be Hoover somehow getting reelected. Considering that the Second World War was still on track I don't see how your post can fit in with what has been established.)
 
While Chairman Falwell and co were pretty bad, at least they didn't go in for that president-for-life shit Marcos did and were voted out pretty quickly.

I wouldn't be so sure about that analysis. Falwell's successors in the form of Chairman Robertson and Chairman Quayle, could be considered politely only as "Falwell-lite" and "Falwell-dum". Then again having the European Union and Great Britain call the United States a "rogue nation state" since 2002, has been a major annoyance to most Americans. When will Europe and Great Britain get the point that America hated "Commandante Marcos" and his terrorist activities? We fought an 8-year war against him and his forces!!!..
 
I wouldn't be so sure about that analysis. Falwell's successors in the form of Chairman Robertson and Chairman Quayle, could be considered politely only as "Falwell-lite" and "Falwell-dum". Then again having the European Union and Great Britain call the United States a "rogue nation state" since 2002, has been a major annoyance to most Americans. When will Europe and Great Britain get the point that America hated "Commandante Marcos" and his terrorist activities? We fought an 8-year war against him and his forces!!!..

But they didn't make any real political trouble when Chairman Johnston got elected. Oh, sure, they decried it but they didn't use bullets, and they let him take office despite controlling the rest of the government. It was like the Federalists all over again really.

As to Marcos. That's probably because when we won we only took back what he stole from the Old US instead of completely dismembering his government.
 
But they didn't make any real political trouble when Chairman Johnston got elected. Oh, sure, they decried it but they didn't use bullets, and they let him take office despite controlling the rest of the government. It was like the Federalists all over again really.

Since when did the European Union and Great Britain start believing that societies should show a "healthy amount of aggression"? You have to forgive us poor Americans who barely have had running electricity since 1978. We Americans, have this strange belief that one is "free to disgree" in a truly free society. But then again, considering the "Re-Education Camps" throughout Western Europe since 1966, maybe we are behind the times....


As to Marcos. That's probably because when we won we only took back what he stole from the Old US instead of completely dismembering his government.
For the love of Jesus and all the saints!!! Does the fact that all of his major cities were bombed by 1986 count for anything? Does the fact that "Commandante Marcos" was forced to use 12-year old boys to cross the minefields of San Diego, California and El Paso, Texas count for something? Contrary to popular belief, Americans are not a blood-thirsty people, especially after the Second Mexican-American War....
 
I'm an American too Mr. Bondoc! From New Jersey. I agree with you that people should be free to disagree with their government in a free society. Although I must say that you are horribly exaggerating the state of the economy here in the FSA.


And I agree that the Second-Mexican American war was bloody, but please don't lump our friends in the British Empire with those European Communists. And the first Re-Education Camp opened at the end of the Second World War. They only really became Communist training centers after '80 when the USSR started throwing its weight around again.
 
I'm an American too Mr. Bondoc! From New Jersey. I agree with you that people should be free to disagree with their government in a free society. Although I must say that you are horribly exaggerating the state of the economy here in the FSA.
Actually, the point that I am trying to make, with a touch of American sarcasm, is the point that Americans are neither technologically or economically as backwards as the British and European popular press makes America out to be. Throughout the period of Reunification until now, Americans have attended the universities of Europe and Great Britain....


And I agree that the Second-Mexican American war was bloody, but please don't lump our friends in the British Empire with those European Communists. And the first Re-Education Camp opened at the end of the Second World War. They only really became Communist training centers after '80 when the USSR started throwing its weight around again.
I certainly am aware of all of that... I am just sickened to no end by the BBC-TV television broadcasts that I do receive in California that accuse the Federated States of America of "not fighting hard enough..." Considering the loss I have felt in the loss of my father, my older brother, and several cousins, that type of comment is out of bounds....
 
I just find it amusing that Britain's Torie government tried to link the FSA with Mexico, particularly after the second Mexican American war. Yes both nations are Marxist in character. America has worked to build the revolution internally and democratically. Mexico on the other hand has actively exported the revolution via expansionist wars and overt military aid. Where as America fought a 2nd civil war and intervened a couple of times in the Caribbean. Given Britain's history for the past 500 years, I'd say America ranks pretty low as an aggressive state.
 
We are not Marxist. Communism as a system won't work. Human psycology won't let it. The FSA has a large Socialist Party, yes, but that hardly makes us Marxist.
 
We are not Marxist. Communism as a system won't work. Human psycology won't let it. The FSA has a large Socialist Party, yes, but that hardly makes us Marxist.
Another point people fail to mention is that ours Socialist movement is a Christian Socialist movement, guided by divine principles of the Bible. It is these Christian principles that make us stand out against other political parties since Billy Graham organized the Movement in 1953....
 
Since when did the European Union and Great Britain start believing that societies should show a "healthy amount of aggression"? You have to forgive us poor Americans who barely have had running electricity since 1978. We Americans, have this strange belief that one is "free to disgree" in a truly free society. But then again, considering the "Re-Education Camps" throughout Western Europe since 1966, maybe we are behind the times....
Not another god-damn conspiracy theroist. :rolleyes:

As for the FSA, I don't see why Britain and Europe need to worry about them at all. They're barely relevant, these days, apart from the resourses which we buy from you anyway.
 
Top