How different are American politics in the 20th century with no Soviet Union/Red Scare

The first knock-on (ISTM) is in 1918-1920, when there is no Red Scare. The Bolshevik regime was the first "revolutionary" government in the world. Both the Reds and their adversaries expected additional Red revolutions around the world in the immediate wake of Russia. This led to a degree panic in the US. H.L. Mencken summed it up: "Civil liberties under lock and key, and [US Attorney General] Palmer baying through the streets."

By mid to late 1920, it was clear that while the Reds and other radicals might commit isolated acts of violence (e.g. the Wall Street bombing), there was no danger of mass revolutionary action. The Palmer raids had followed the overwrought anti-sedition measures imposed during WW I, such as the American Protective League. The general people began to see such programs as unnecessary intrusions. The termination of all that was implied in by Harding's 1920 campaign slogan "Return to normalcy".

Thus there may be a smaller Republican landslide in 1920. I think Eugene Debs would still be in prison; he would still call for draft resistance during the war, which is what he was convicted for. But he might do better in the 1920 election, without "Bolshevism" drawing leftsts away from electoral politics.

Another possible major knock-on is the effect of no USSR on the world economy in the 1920s and 1930s. I've seen some inchoate suggestions that the separation of Russia from the world capitalist system was a significant cause of the Great Depression. If that is actually true, US elections in the 1930s would be very different.

The existence of the USSR contributed substantially to the rise of Nazism in Germany (as did the Depression). Take it away, and there is no Hitiler dictatorship, and no World War II. The experience of World War II massively transformed the US, of course. It should be noted that by the 1960s, the great majority of US political figures were WW II veterans.

After WW II, the existence of the USSR led to extensive US involvement in world affairs, with US troops permanently deployed around the world and fighting several wars. The Cold War required the US to build and maintain enormous military forces; in the 1950s, military spending was about half of the Federal budget. The whole history of the US in the later 20th century was dominated by the demands of the US role as leading adversary to the USSR. Also, with the USSR as nuclear rival to the US, the threat of nuclear war had immense impact on US culture and politics.

No USSR, all that goes away.

Unless, of course, some other aggressive dictatorship arises instead to play a similar role.

The great technical triumphs of WW II, culminating in the Manhattan Project and the atom bomb, spawned enthusiasm for "big science" in later years. Congress became willing to appropriate immense sums for Science, most impressively for NASA and the "Space Race". Without the Soviet threat and WW II, none of that happens.

A more subtle question is the effect of Communist "agents of influence" on US culture, including political culture. Some observers have noted that in the 1930s, Soviet agents were deliberately tasked with spreading damaging ideas in Western countries, including the US, to cause social disruption and general demoralization. For instance, they promoted "Modernist" architecture, with its penchant for barren, alienating public spaces and ugly buildings. Some of the memes they propagated have remained infectious right down to the present, and the people they affect have no clue that they are pulled by the strings of long-dead Communist puppet masters. I don't know myself how much this has affected poltiical culture, but I know some very smart people who see it clearly.
 
... Some observers have noted that in the 1930s, Soviet agents were deliberately tasked with spreading damaging ideas in Western countries, including the US, to cause social disruption and general demoralization. For instance, they promoted "Modernist" architecture, with its penchant for barren, alienating public spaces and ugly buildings. ...
Sorry, but that sounds rather apocryphal to me. Modernist architecture and abstract art became popular in the USA after WW2 not least because those styles were demonised by both Nazi Germany and Stalin's Soviet Union, America's major adversaries.
 
No USSR, all that goes away.

Unless, of course, some other aggressive dictatorship arises instead to play a similar role.

The great technical triumphs of WW II, culminating in the Manhattan Project and the atom bomb, spawned enthusiasm for "big science" in later years. Congress became willing to appropriate immense sums for Science, most impressively for NASA and the "Space Race". Without the Soviet threat and WW II, none of that happens.
Here we see a re-write of more than 80% of the twentieth century. A cold war could arise, but suppose an extension of the 19th emerges with cooperative sharing of technology. As the 19th century ended, we saw advances in steam engines, internal combustion engines, electricity, radio, medicine, photography, the works. You saw international licensing of patents to allow the holders to collect more royalties. Patents lasted only 17 years then, so you would see worldwide spread of technology. The differences can be immense. In the twenties, America tried to withdraw from the international world, but in this time line there could be different progress. Aviation will progress. Rocket scientists will lose fingers in their experiments. Atomic researchers will die of radiation poisoning.
 
A Russia with somewhere between 400 to 600 million, even if it ends up at say Argentine/Chilean living standards would be a big global player even if it's got "only" 1938 USSR borders.
 
Another possible major knock-on is the effect of no USSR on the world economy in the 1920s and 1930s. I've seen some inchoate suggestions that the separation of Russia from the world capitalist system was a significant cause of the Great Depression. If that is actually true, US elections in the 1930s would be very different.

No soviet union means that Russian empire remains a very large exporter of grain leading a lower prince of grain and reducing the amount of land in the arid areas of America that are put under grain. This might limit the damage done due in the dust bowl because of less ploughing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dust_Bowl
It might reducing banking failures due to farming being less reliant on grain crops.
 
Sorry, but that sounds rather apocryphal to me. Modernist architecture and abstract art became popular in the USA after WW2 not least because those styles were demonised by both Nazi Germany and Stalin's Soviet Union, America's major adversaries.

Umm, no, the work of Soviet operatives such as Willi Muenzenberg is documented. There was material about it in some of the KGB/NKVD archives that were opened in the 1990s.

And actually, both the Soviets and Nazis embraced elements of Modernist architecture. Philip Johnson, an early prophet of Modernist architecture in the US, was a Nazi sympathizer for a while. Some other major advocates of Modernism were the Bauhaus architects, and the Bauhaus was as Red as one could get.

However, the Soviets rejected the extreme anti-humanist tendencies such as Brutalism for their own use. Covert agents such as Muenzenberg promoted them in the West.

Abstract art was another whole kettle of fish. The Nazis condemned it all as "degenerate"; the Soviets, officially, didn't think much of it. But many of the major abstract artists were Communists: Picasso, for instance, was a Party member for many years. In the US, the Communists promoted social realism and art celebrating the working class. Abstract art only came in after WW II.

However, that was entirely separate from the activities of the operatives I was referring to: agents of influence, working covertly. Their mission was to introduce memes that would either damage the target society or promote assumptions that led people to conclusions which fitted with the Communist agenda. Most of those affected were neither Communists nor even Communist sympathizers; some were vehemently anti-Communist.
 
Here's the way I'd guess it would go.

Wilson was already pretty anti-Socialist by 1917 and some sort of scare would have occurred anyway - let's presume that somethign akin to 1905 happens but it's harsher, forcing the Czar to enact more reforms and give up a bit more power. WWI still is on schedule, maybe Nicholas II abdicates when Russia is doing poorly and Mikhail or whomever becomes a figurehead.

So, you still have a scare, just not as big of a one, and instead of Palmer being discredited when his worries about (IIRC) a big May Day thing don't' materialize, he's discredited by the whole lack of Socialists doing anything big anywhere in the world.

There is enough agitation in Russia I could see a mini-civil war breaking out, but it's crushed after a few years, maybe akin to Franco's win over the Communists in Spain.

Russia 's withdrawal, even if a cause of the Great Depression, wasn't the only one - even if it's jsut Great Recession level, FDR's still ikely to win on name alone, maybe not by as big of a margin but there will be the same type of New Deal, etc., because there won't be any Soviet Union for the GOP to bash FDR for being a Communist sympathizer, either. Actually, even if he would run for a 3rd and then 4th term, it also means Henry Wallace might be VP in '45 when Roosevelt dies, although I'm not sure if his seeming soft on COmmunism was a major factor in his being removed in favor of Truman or not.

But, that's getting ahead of ourselves.

As noted, whether or not there is a WW2 is a bit question. Japan is likely to go into the same ultra-military spiral as OTL, so there will be a war. But, will Europeans also take part? Mussolini may well take power in Italy anyway - and you still had anger in Germany over Versailes - I can see a right wing government taking over, but not quite as brutal as the Nazis. Maybe much more akin to Mussolini.

Without a Soviet military buildup, though, if this Germany does declare war, you wouldn't have them powerful enough to withstand a real blitz. ON the other hand, you also wouldn't have the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, as you almsot surely don't have a leader like Stalin who wants to do a land grab and make peace with Germany for his own interests. You would be more likely to get a Russia which is prepared for war with Germany and which will probably be content to sit on the sidelines and let the Poles try to defeat the Germans without invading from the other side. Sure, Poland still loses, but they don't lose quite as badly.

The thing is, Hitler didn't invent the blitzkrieg - according to the Wikipedia article, the concepts were in development before he took power, so you could have a lightning war anyway, with Germany and Italy both trying to get something, but Germany's attempts are much more focused on getting back what they felt they should have had in WW1, not world domination. With a Russia more willing to step in, and with them possibly willing to help the British, it's not the '30s but the '40s which see the big difference in American politics.

In other words, a Republican is possibly in the White House for the bombing of Pearl Harbor. No need for Willkie to run for the Republicans, it might well be Dewey (though still could be Taft) versus Hull (whom Roosevelt wanted to succeed him).

But, Hull wouldn't insist on Wallace like Roosevelt did - maybe Paul McNutt since NHull hismelf is a Southerner.

FDR wanted to build up the US military anyway a bit, even before the dangers in EUrope were apparent, so America is a bit more prepared, but likely only fights Japan. There is no need for America to enter the war with Europe and no need for Germany to declare war. The US puts their full force into defeating Japan while Russia and Britain finally subdue Germany, with French help. The US probably joins that war late since, hey, they're already at war and Britain can use some help.

After the war, there is still the post-war era, television probably could be a year or two early as Japan may be invaded in '44 and finally defeated in the winter of '44-45. (Maybe about the same number of casualties for America as OTL's WW2 since it's likely there would have to be an invasion.) Then>

Civil Rights gets pushed ahead 5-10 years, in my estimation - you have TV helping but also you don't have people able to brand Civil Rights leaders as Communist. With no postwar Red Scare it would not only be easier, but back to Henry Wallace, he might actually be electable in '48 or '52 if the GOP was the party in power during WW2 - "sure they wont he war," people would say, "but the economy tanked again afterward." If it's Hull and McNutt (who could well succeed him, Hull resigned State due to ill health in '44 anyway OTL and being President, the extra stress could kill him) then maybe Dewey in 48 over a McNutt who tries for a term in his own right but isn't as vibrant as Truman. (Wallace voters might split between him and Dewey, while Thurmond would likely still run his own campaign.)

From there, Russia - not having suffered near the destruction of the last 30-40 years - would probably be a major player on the world stage, only here it would be similar to the Great Game of the late 19th century, where Britain tried to keep Russia from having too much influance and a war water port. Only here, it's not a threat to India like Britain worried about; here America and Britain become equals on the world stage (well, probably America a bit more powerful) in the battle agaisnt Russia, but it's not a battle of ideologies the way OTL went. Instead, it's just wanting the West to come out on top. No proxy wars, no life or death struggle, just a friendly competition (and mayber a little too competitive sometimes) to see who really is the best.
 
Top