How to make Post WW2 USA Socialist?

https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...-new-dawn-alternate-history-timeline.1052421/

So I have this TL. There is one major problem (other than the India thing someone pointed out that I'm too lazy to repost the map yet)- the USSA.

Britain is easy to make radical Socialist, Labour in 1945 was pretty radical as it was. A few more pushes, and you have full Venezuela going on here.

The issue is the USA. I have to get to a socialist USA, WITHOUT getting rid of the New Deal and Roosevelt before the declaration of war against Germany in 1942 (when Germany is winning against the Soviet Union).




The general idea of the situation from 1942-1950 is this:

-Stalin assassinated by Ukranian Partisans, after Hitler decides to suck up to the Ukrainians and Belorussians after listening to Alfred Rosenburg's proposals for a 'temporary alliance' with the occupied peoples.

-Soviet Union's governance implodes- though it recovers, the land and time lost results in the end of the Soviet Union.

-USA enters war, attacks Western Axis from Italy and Iberia, (and failed D-day), eventually pushed back by Axis forces coming from Eastern Front.

-USA forced to retreat into Sudan, beginning a stalemate that ends in the two sides nuclear bombing to exhaustion and a 20 y- nuclear mini-winter.


I still doubt the USA goes socialist- the more I look into it, it just doesn't seem all that plausible, unfortunately.
 

kernals12

Banned
https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/füherreich-a-new-dawn-alternate-history-timeline.1052421/

So I have this TL. There is one major problem (other than the India thing someone pointed out that I'm too lazy to repost the map yet)- the USSA.

Britain is easy to make radical Socialist, Labour in 1945 was pretty radical as it was. A few more pushes, and you have full Venezuela going on here.

The issue is the USA. I have to get to a socialist USA, WITHOUT getting rid of the New Deal and Roosevelt before the declaration of war against Germany in 1942 (when Germany is winning against the Soviet Union).




The general idea of the situation from 1942-1950 is this:

-Stalin assassinated by Ukranian Partisans, after Hitler decides to suck up to the Ukrainians and Belorussians after listening to Alfred Rosenburg's proposals for a 'temporary alliance' with the occupied peoples.

-Soviet Union's governance implodes- though it recovers, the land and time lost results in the end of the Soviet Union.

-USA enters war, attacks Western Axis from Italy and Iberia, (and failed D-day), eventually pushed back by Axis forces coming from Eastern Front.

-USA forced to retreat into Sudan, beginning a stalemate that ends in the two sides nuclear bombing to exhaustion and a 20 y- nuclear mini-winter.


I still doubt the USA goes socialist- the more I look into it, it just doesn't seem all that plausible, unfortunately.
Yeah, sorry, I can't see any way to make that happen.
 
Yeah, sorry, I can't see any way to make that happen.

It's certainly unlikely but definitely not impossible, a moderating, more peaceful USSR and more democratic eastern bloc could slowly reduce the stigma associated with communism. As for tension in the US, racial and economic divisions are huge in certain periods of the 60s and 70s, if somehow both the Democratic and Republican Parties were able to marginalise their liberal factions and create a Conservative Consensus you've got some potential powerful and potentially socialist sources of opposition. An angry AFL-CIO/unions in general, a radicalised and left wing civil rights movement, anti-war protests, the list goes on - get all of those movements going at the same time with an organising body to unite them and a decently charismatic leader and boom you've got a radical leftist leader in charge.

I mean if we can have PoDs as far back as 1942 then just have FDR die a few years early, get Henry Wallace in the White House and have him get lucky/do well and pull the democratic party (or at least a portion of it) a long way to the left. Never say never in politics.
 
It's certainly unlikely but definitely not impossible, a moderating, more peaceful USSR and more democratic eastern bloc could slowly reduce the stigma associated with communism. As for tension in the US, racial and economic divisions are huge in certain periods of the 60s and 70s, if somehow both the Democratic and Republican Parties were able to marginalise their liberal factions and create a Conservative Consensus you've got some potential powerful and potentially socialist sources of opposition. An angry AFL-CIO/unions in general, a radicalised and left wing civil rights movement, anti-war protests, the list goes on - get all of those movements going at the same time with an organising body to unite them and a decently charismatic leader and boom you've got a radical leftist leader in charge.

I mean if we can have PoDs as far back as 1942 then just have FDR die a few years early, get Henry Wallace in the White House and have him get lucky/do well and pull the democratic party (or at least a portion of it) a long way to the left. Never say never in politics.
Wasn't that mostly exacerbated by Vietnam?

Plus, the Axis won WW2.
 
Also, if I kill FDR, and no New Deal arises, wouldn't that butterfly US involvement in WW2?

That's why I was reluctant.
 
Wasn't that mostly exacerbated by Vietnam?

Plus, the Axis won WW2.

Sure but lets not pretend that in an Axis victory or any other scenario that a Vietnam scale war can still happen. Indian Civil War between Azad Hind and the INC, large scale South American conflict, combined Rhodesian South African Bush War, maybe even Vietnam itself as the seeds for that conflict were sown pre-1945. Racial tensions will always plague the US in this period as will unpopular wars if they want to start projecting global powers and Unions and Student Movements are pretty much constants of leftist support in the 20th century. Regardless of the outcome of the War its all possible.

Also the "No FDR, how does WWII" question has been asked a lot, personally I think the US is still getting involved, at least in the Pacific. Arguably if you kill FDR pre-New Deal that'll butterfly the war in its OTL form anyway. It's also worth noting that Roosevelt wasn't the only one advocating interventionist economic reform (Long, Wallace, others all had ideas). Also I don't think the New Deal is directly connected to US intervention, unless you're saying that a weaker American economy would prevent them from intervening successfully, which is a complex question.
 
Sure but lets not pretend that in an Axis victory or any other scenario that a Vietnam scale war can still happen. Indian Civil War between Azad Hind and the INC, large scale South American conflict, combined Rhodesian South African Bush War, maybe even Vietnam itself as the seeds for that conflict were sown pre-1945. Racial tensions will always plague the US in this period as will unpopular wars if they want to start projecting global powers and Unions and Student Movements are pretty much constants of leftist support in the 20th century. Regardless of the outcome of the War its all possible.

Also the "No FDR, how does WWII" question has been asked a lot, personally I think the US is still getting involved, at least in the Pacific. Arguably if you kill FDR pre-New Deal that'll butterfly the war in its OTL form anyway. It's also worth noting that Roosevelt wasn't the only one advocating interventionist economic reform (Long, Wallace, others all had ideas). Also I don't think the New Deal is directly connected to US intervention, unless you're saying that a weaker American economy would prevent them from intervening successfully, which is a complex question.

Vietnam, and SA conflict, I think is out of the picture. The only white or Ayran nations in S. America are countries that are composed mostly of grassland- like Argentina- making a Vietnam far more difficult when you can use tanks.

Vietnam is 'liberated' under Japanese SOI (since Japan is overextended, and its primary interest was China) Not too much of an expert on the prelude to Vietnam, though.

Please look at the OP thread for reference though.



Personally, I'm of the group that the heavy interventionism extended the depression by a few years- though then you get into the entire free market vs Keynesian thing. Hoover actually did some interventionism before being ousted, though, coordinating with businesses to try to keep unemployment low.

However, a low-interventionist (say, Garner) would be difficult to keep his seat, as Hoover proved- thus necessitating a "New Deal" by any dude who decides to come along and effectively bribe the population with free stuff, in a period where no one had any stuff. Garner had to do some level of intervention- diluting the effect of no Roosevelt

If the depression ended in, say 1938 as a result- that would make massive butterflies.



TL:DR - Either the depression ends early b/c '7 year theory' via less interventionism- thus removing any chance USA goes socialist-, Garner does enough that it effectively ends up being no different from the New Deal in terms of long-term effects-, or Garner does too little, and is ousted from power, and replaced by, say, Long.




Link me to some previous discussions on the topic?

I want the WW2 to be as OTL as possible- I don't want to ruin I TL I'm already effectively 1/2 way completed.
 
Last edited:
Also, if I kill FDR, and no New Deal arises, wouldn't that butterfly US involvement in WW2?

That's why I was reluctant.
Have FDR decide not to run for a third term. Have an internationalist Republican like Willkie narrowly win 1940 due to the LaFollettes going ahead with their third party run without Roosevelt. Willkie continues the U.S. on the path towards confrontation with Japan and Germany. The U.S. enters the war, and the Republican wins reelection with wartime support. However, afterwards Willkie dies, later than OTL, and his 1944 VP takes over and suffers the same type of popularity drop as Truman. The 1946 elections lead to an already decently large Democratic majority making massive gains. A left-wing Democrat wins 1948 in a landslide, boosting their majority even further, enough to enact a social democratic platform.
 
Have FDR decide not to run for a third term. Have an internationalist Republican like Willkie narrowly win 1940 due to the LaFollettes going ahead with their third party run without Roosevelt. Willkie continues the U.S. on the path towards confrontation with Japan and Germany. The U.S. enters the war, and the Republican wins reelection with wartime support. However, afterwards Willkie dies, later than OTL, and his 1944 VP takes over and suffers the same type of popularity drop as Truman. The 1946 elections lead to an already decently large Democratic majority making massive gains. A left-wing Democrat wins 1948 in a landslide, boosting their majority even further, enough to enact a social democratic platform.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_M._La_Follette_Jr. went 3rd party OTL. How popular would the Dems be without FDR?

Also, I think people are ignoring the TL context.
HmFjaM4.png

So, I'll repost it.
As you can see, Canada, Greenland, Iceland, and part of Mexico is American. The idea was that the USA would implode into the civil war after the nuclear winter sets in, forcing the US divisions in Africa and the Pacific to retreat (thus allowing Germany and Japan to be the size they are in this TL.)

The Democratic Socialists (ignore the Syndicalism thing, I have yet to edit that out) invade Canada and Mexico, who were helping the Republicans (since Canada was where the exiled Brits were standing after being forced out by Socialist revolution in Britain).

The affair is justified as 'part of the civil war' to the war-weary Americans. Canada and Mexico are puppeted.
 
Top