Discussion in 'Alternate History Books and Media' started by RiverDelta, Dec 30, 2017.
What's life like in Germany?
Much better than under the Nazis. Until 1936, the economy is good, there are opportunities in the colonies for an enterprising wannabe exploiter, society is generally stable (the far-right is choking on everything it ever wanted, but winning WW1 took the wind out of the sails of the far-left, so most of the lower-class vote coalesces around the moderate left or the traditional conservatives), and the discontent of the lower class is mollified by a decent social safety net and the stable economy.
It's more conservative than OTL Germany was in the '20s, but much calmer and less reactionary than in the '30s.
Anyone want to update the TV Tropes page?
They have a lot of advance warning, between the fact those state governments are probably already red if the syndicalists are performing that well and election campaign polling making it very clear this is red country. I expect they move before the shit start hitting the fan since they can afford to do so. They probably lose property they can't move and form a lobbying group in the other factions.
The ones most at threat aren't the ultra rich, it's the middle management who squeezed the workers in their name and the small business tyrants. There's going to be some inevitable amount of red terror in any civil war situation. It may be condoned by the SPA or criminalized but I doubt they can stop all of it. It's not going to be too great at first and if they win they'll probably have to do some self reflection. In the case where Reed was at least legitimately elected, it may end up being a bit nicer since he would probably flee DC with part of the legal apparatus and thus prove more willing to maintain order even against red partisans.
Of course, most other factions probably have similar or worse problems, with maybe the exception of New England.
The thing to remember is that civil wars are never clean. From any side, really.
What would the foreign policy of an America which saw a Reed-Olson Pact during the 2ACW (or more accurately, the defeat of the Longists) look like?
It really depends on how things are shaping up on the continent and how much the pact involved. They could easily be cautiously pro internationale, adhering to the historical thought that Germany and friends are the remnants of old autocracy and opposed to democracy. In that case they'd probably go for something like OTL lend lease to the soviets, but no direct intervention. And maybe an uncompromising stance on imperialism? Concerning the entente, it really depends on whether they tried to do anything dumb during the revolution and if the monarchy went power mad or not. They could probably take a stance of trying to reign them in and pushing them to accept their losses to keep the peace.
Depending on how Japan goes, they may be in for a pacific war too.
And on whether the Progressives or the Republicans win in 1940 as well.
There is an event where you choose what to do with those that stayed/couldn't flee. They are in custody and you can either put them in the work camps (RadSocs), keep them locked up in a standard prison (Syndies) or execute them (Totalists).
I never understood what happens to the SPA if they back Olson during his campaign after reaching a deal. I doubt the party would just fade entirely even if they endorse him that one time. And they probably still run in downballot races despite the presidential endorsement.
Maybe Reed run for state governor or a senate seat somewhere? That'd be interesting.
Is it work camps or "work camps"? Usually the American radosocs are the moderates so I imagine it's not gulags?
Which of these are supposed to be the less evil one?
Anyway, the wording in the event is something along the lines of "let them learn the ways of the working class". Not sure how to interpret this.
It could range from the mostly acceptable stuff countries do with pows under the Geneva convention to Maoist style "send them to the countryside" to gulags. But considering it's radsocs? I'm leaning towards somewhere in between the first two and definitely not the last one. If it was Totalists I'd definitely say it's the last one though.
I suspect the remain a party in the great lakes area.
Also they get all sorts of weird powers, such as Unions getting to settle labour disputes?
I think the AUS is obviously going to be the worst, Long personally might not be too awful but his backers definitely are, after that it's got to be the CSA as the most unpleasant place to live, is a Revolutionary Socialist Regime and has a long list of Enemies of the People to deal with. MacArthur while nasty will only go after you for what you do. The AUS and CSA will go after you for what you are.
There is an event, for the CSA I think, in which it is said that under MacArthur, there are anti-Jewish pogroms. Reportedly, MacArthur actually tried to stop them. How much we can trust it or not, I don't know. I've never heard of MacArthur's flaw being his anti-Semitism or general racism though. But then again, I don't know a lot about him outside of KR other than "LET'S NUKE CHINA !!1!".
Not sure I've seen that event but while MacArthur's US is clearly a bit of a shit show but it is to an extent a continuation of the pre-war federal government with all it's checks and balances. Even the AUS has an elements of State's Rights while the CSA is an explicitly ideological government with all the negative consequences that implies. I still think the Longist AUS is going to be one of the most unpleasant governments (after Totalist CSA) just because of it's make up but it's structure is more restrained than the CSA.
You say that as though the AUS and USA aren’t also explicitly ideological.
...Because they aren't. The (democratic) United States champions a form of government that is inherently based on the principal of compromise and founded as a compromise between Federalists and Anti-Federalists while the Longists are a coalition of different ideologies united more by pragmatism and cultural similarities than ideology. With the (democratic) US you get democracy whether you go Democrat or Republican or even Progressive as well as an understanding of moderation. MacArthur's America also isn't an ideology and neither are the PSA. MacArthur is pretty Lincoln-esque in that he champions preserving the United States Government by any means necessary. The PSA is simply "MacArthur we agree but you went too far".
With Long you have three radically different paths, only one of which is properly ideological, and wouldn't you know it's the worst one. With the US you have the option to change government to other moderate factions every four years to the end of the game. With the CSA you only get ideological socialism. Whether in one flavor or another.
The AUS is a fusion of Longists and general Southern discontent, now Pelley is absolutely ideological and horrifying, there's a reason that Pelley victory is the darkest possible option but the AUS at least initially is a coalition united by opposition to the CSA and the Federal government rather than ideology.
The Federal government in it's various guises is I suppose sort of ideological, it's Constitutionally Conservative but it's a system that acknowledges the checks and balances in the US system. That restrains them from getting too horrific.
The CSA is a clean sheet revolutionary government, it has no inherited checks and balances, now if the RadSoc's end up in charge they probably aren't going to do anything too terrible, if the Syndies or worst of all the Totalists are in charge there's nothing to stop them from pursuing their ideology no matter the human cost and we know where that ends up.
MacArthur is no Lincoln. His ideology is Mandatory Patriotism, which he mostly seems to define as voting for one of the two parties MacArthur approves of and loudly saluting the flag.
With Long, there are absolutely three ideological branches, all of which are ideological. You have the white supremacists, the quasi-Putinist populist nationalists, and the despotic corporatocracy run by, for, and about Henry Ford's bottom line.
All three main factions are clearly ideologically motivated to some extent.
Edit: Oh, and the Pacific states secede from MacArthur's USA because he couped the legitimate president. Their grievance has nothing to do with agreement or lack of agreement with him (in fact, they can easily rejoin the successor state with the most legitimacy peacefully), and everything to do with MacArthur being a power-mad nut job.
Whatever you say. I don't have time to argue with you today.
Separate names with a comma.