Miscellaneous >1900 (Alternate) History Thread

What if the Atomic Bombs where dropped on Japan by British aircraft?

Effect on world history if British Avio Lancaster bombers is used?

 
Does anyone know if Che Guevara's Ñancahuazú Guerrilla/Ejército de Liberación Nacional de Bolivia had any flags? I haven't been able to find any researching
 
Could the HE-111 be altered to carry a higher bomb load, longer range and greater defensive armament? Say with a slightly widened and lengthened fuselage and altered wings? Would the Merlins fitted on the Spanish CASA 2.111 permit these changes without a significant decrease in aircraft speed? Or was the plane already pushing the limits of its basic capabilities by the time the war was in high gear?
 

If the Soviets, in March 1945, chose to finish up the Courland Pocket to gain troops for the assault on Berlin, here is a likely scenario:

28 March 1945: The POD day. The 6th offensive against Courland has to be halted due to heavy Soviet losses. However, the Soviets decide to destroy the Courland Pocket once and for all to gain troops for the offensive against Berlin.

5 April 1945: After the end of the Pomerania Strategic Offensive, the Soviet armies involved in the offensive would be transferred to Courland, reaching Courland by 17 April 1945. The 7th battle of Courland sees the final destruction of Army Group Courland over 20 April 1945 to 3 May 1945. The Battle of Berlin would start on 17 May 1945 and last until 2 June 1945, using otl Soviet forces plus troops freed up from besieging Courland. Germany surrenders on 8 June 1945 (one month later than reality). Apart from one month of WW2 in Europe and the destruction of Army Group Courland before the Battle of Berlin, little effect on WW2 as a whole (at least until August 1945, worst case is Japan dragging the Pacific War by a year or 2 after May 1945). East Prussian, Silesian, Brastislava, Moravia, Vienna and Prague Offensives occur as in otl until May 1945, then, they get dragged by a month longer compared to otl. More of Austria, Germany, Denmark, the Netherlands, Italy and Yugoslavia liberated from Axis (Nazi) control before the end of WW2.
 
Last edited:
‘What Would Jimmy Carter’s Second Term Look Like If He Won In 1980?’

Does the hostage crisis get solved and the economy recover from the effects of Stagflation, or does Jimmy crash and burn like 2008 Dubya (meaning a Republican comeback in 1984)?
 
Actually too NCP for comment here.
I’m guessing that ‘NCP’ means ‘no current politics’? Because even though I’m well aware of Reagan’s debated legacy, that’s still well before recent events take shape (even though I’ll concede that their incipient phase has its origins there).
 
I’m guessing that ‘NCP’ means ‘no current politics’? Because even though I’m well aware of Reagan’s debated legacy, that’s still well before recent events take shape (even though I’ll concede that their incipient phase has its origins there).
Still NCP. PM me; if you want to discuss.
 
If the Great War stretches to 1919 or 1920 do the Young Turks genocide all Armenians? Including those in the Caucasus?

As Sardarabad is approximately 40 kilometres (25 mi) west of the capital of Yerevan, the battle not only halted the Ottoman advance into the rest of Armenia, but also prevented the complete destruction of the Armenian nation.[8] In the words of Christopher J. Walker, had the Armenians lost this battle, "t is perfectly possible that the word Armenia would have henceforth denoted only an antique geographical term."[9]
 
Last edited:
Huey Long? Though his version of a New Deal would probably be even more far reaching than FDR’s. But that brings me to another question: Do we know what Long’s stance on foreign policy might have been? Did he ever give any statements in this regard? He doesn’t strike me as a liberal internationalist, but I also don’t think he would’ve been an isolationist like Taft.


On another topic, I’m looking for two TLs. I don’t remember what they were called, but one had the interesting concept of an Anglo-German alliance in WW2 against a Franco-Soviet alliance, while the other had a Japanese-American war in the 1950s. Does anyone know what TLs I’m talking about? It’s been years since I’ve read them, so I suspect they are quite old.
According to the activities he and his associates were apart of in 1916-1919, we could say that he was opposed to the First World War in terms of entry and was also against the Treaty of Versailles. He mentioned that the war at numerous speeches, was an intent by the major corporate interest in the US to beat down the rising tide of voices in favor of a redistribution of wealth. In 1917, he effectively defended one of his Louisiana associates in the Supreme Court, overturning some aspects of the 1917 Espionage Act, after his representative and associate produced a periodical declaring that 'the real war in America was the war of redistribution of wealth.' He was adamant that, alongside most other populists and leftists in the South at the time, that the war was to be footed in cost by farmers and workers and would only benefit the corporate interest which was seeking to crush the back of the growing demands from the poor, which could not be assuaged through reform, but only through massive redistribution of wealth. We can imagine Long's position on WWI to be much alike James Vardaman of Mississippi, except more explicitly focused upon goals of redistribution of wealth, rather than simply shielding the farmers.

After around 1921, Long became an ardent supporter of pensions for the veterans and of giving a further bonus (the 1934 Soldiers' Bonus bill) to said veterans. In 1928 after his victory, Long focused mostly upon questions of economics and dismantling/resisting prohibition (including assuring control over the Assembly). His foreign policy points revolved around these central questions. In the congress he stood as the primary advocate for Paraguay in the Chaco War. However his primary reasoning framed along the lines of: 'Bolivia is representing the imperialist tentacles of standard oil, it must be crushed and Paraguay protected.'

During his life he showed little dislike for the USSR, aside for disagreeing with their methods implemented here, namely he referred to the Bolshevik Revolution. However, he never took stances against the Cominterm and presumably had great overlaps in terms of goals. Namely, dismantling American, British and French capitalism in terms of abroad influence. In this sense he played a anti-British role, which he often implicitly invoked. In speeches held in 1934 and 1935, he made mention of FDR taking leisure with British monarchs and nobles, claiming that such things were a shame to the working people of the US; then snidely calling for the US senate to write a bill to ship FDR to England where he can have relaxation with his great Anglo friends. While such comments are tongue and cheek, I believe that a critical reading of Long's general views, we can glean some insight into how Long truly felt.

Namely, that the powers at signing of the Versailles Treaty, represented the allies and buttresses of the corporate elite and capital interest that in his view, was the controller of the US and was pressing its boot upon the American worker and farmer. As such, a Long foreign policy, would be one of Wealth Redistribution abroad, repudiating British interests especially and denying American capital to break through and find funds elsewhere; most especially standard oil. In congress, he took a position that on any motion, if there was a left-side to it, he would vote for the left; this included foreign policy. He would gather if the current issue possessed a left and then if it did, he moved to that side and began to demand the addition of more radical or more progressive additions to it.

Otherwise, Long would be unwilling to want to cause problems in Europe, if anything he will play neutral roles and take a soft anti-British tone in diplomacy, while also having negatives on Nazi Germany. In 1932, Long displayed a distaste for the form of Fascism at work in Germany. When a German official came to see Long in, I believe 1933, Long snubbed the visitor. His position was also very friendly to the Jewish population in New Orleans, many of whom were major partisans for Long's programs in Louisiana and formed his first urban allies in 1925-1927 (Lon originally, was an agrarian styled candidate, his base being farmers; his associates in clubs in New Orleans helped him attach to a wider populist and eccentric wing of politics in New Orleans and other major cities). Long also used these connections to make coalitions with moderate Democrats not on the right, whom he lured into his more radical policies.

Long thus, will take a anti-British and anti-German stance at least softly. Create massive economic unrest with the corporations at home, and take an anti-imperialist stance in Latin America that goes alongside his prior roles in promoting and highlighting resistances against corporate interest in these countries. In regards to the USSR, he will probably take a neutral stance. Indeed, Long was one of the few congressmen that never attacked the Cominterm; indeed when Long was impeached in 1928, one of the charges was that Long was a Louisiana Bolshevik and even despite this, he did not attack Stalinism or Leninism. His arguments against Leninism was more along the lines of rejecting revolutions and of rejecting Vanguard party apparatuses. He also was indeed not a syndicalist, feeling that the various trade unions should be taken by the state and operated within a political structure, rather than an economic one.

In regards to Japan, Long may not be able to abate Japan. Assuming Long's policies come into being, they will cause massive unrest in corporate America. Oil resources will not be sold and neither will the US be guaranteeing China. Japan will be more bold in fact, it will feel Long to be causing disunity in the US and hence feel it ready to strike, even perhaps earlier than otl. Japanese goals of gaining short victories and concluding favorable minor peace deals will be more likely to succeed in this scenario, as Long will need to save his political power to induce economic redistribution across the country and tame his enemies. For this matter, Long may try to find some way to remedy this, such as a trade deal by which the US provides necessary goods to Japan in exchange for Japan remaining east of Hawaii. If war begins though, Long may try to use it to increase his power incrementally, as he uses the war as a means to both rebuild the economy and also enhance his rhetoric and promote a more radical transformation of the American economy.

In such a scenario, it may be possible to see serious reforms that Long willed to occur. Namely, the large scale nationalization of various resources, the implementation of a collectivized model for agricultural markets, creating massive infrastructure (non-profit) for military build-up, nationalization of railways, state healthcare services and a way to fully create steady employment for all workers.

In brief, Long, unless the war is fought in his backyard so to speak, will focus upon implementing his economic policy above foreign policy directives or war initiatives. He enumerated all of his foreign policy views in line with this and considering his character and will, he will do the same in any case, framing it as war measures that never will be reversed. This will bring great excitement to his base and a popular fervor across much of the farming populace will be made evident at the sight of a Long economic and foreign policy. Indeed, most positive economic policies that FDR implemented were either Long's ideas or were watered down versions of Long's policies that were already implemented in Louisiana as part of Long's programs of wealth redistribution, Progress Louisiana.

Hope that does some answering for you!
 
You, Sir, are a gentleman and a scholar. That indeed answered everything I wanted to know, and more.
To add further, based on points Long made, I would be of the opinion that Long held very particular issues with the Treaty of Versailles. Most who disliked the Treaty, did so specifically because it treated Germany poorly. Long, I am not sure cared much for this (though he may have held some sympathy for the German public). His associate, S.J. Harper (whom Long called, a worker for the common folk), a senator in the Louisiana Assembly, published a series of articles and sedition regarding the First World War. He claimed (and Long cosigned, as at the time, Long was the new entry into the left populist movement emerging in Louisiana, a revival of old socialist aspirations) that the war represented a war an attempt by the corporate elites and war profiteers to subjugate and enslave the workers and farmers of the country. German guilt was not discussed nor touched upon, only that the rampant influence of the corporate interest and its web of connection to a British victory, effectively enslaved the American worker to the whims and goals of the capitalist elites whose goal and aspiration was the victory of the British in the war.

As such, the focus was upon the British empire and its role as a vector for coordinating and acting as a lightning rod for American capital interest. Then after this as a conclusion, the capital interest in the US, intends to then, using the war, clamp down upon resistance to the existing economic order. That is, to crush calls for economic redistribution, which were beocming mainstream once again after the failure in the eyes of Long and others of Theodore Roosevelt and his trust busting or the rise of the southern president Woodrow Wilson. Figures like William Jennings Bryan were called into question as traitors and enemies of the people, as was Theodore Roosevelt and certainly Woodrow Wilson, as the left populist upsurge in rural northern Louisiana picked up upon extreme unease and pressure gathered from terrible US management of the boll weevil situation and of the drop of farmers standard of living during the regime of Woodrow Wilson.

As their life was becoming less and less financially feasible, working class representatives like Harper, saw the political establishment make calls for prohibition, war in Europe, general moral reformism (which was targeted at the working poor) and a general trend of anti-labor legislation across the South. Some spoke of reformism, but this was quickly a losing notion in the US south in reality, despite reform being popular in the North among say governor Al Smith or Robert La Follette. In the South however, a more violent and radical outlook of the situation took shape which understood all policy through the lens of economic class and of enforcing dominance of one class over another.

In nearby Mississippi, the Southern elites and the Redeemers had managed to stamp down the calls for economic redistribution and of a resumption of war (such as against the US; though many of the working poor did not support secession, once the war was on, they were the maintainers of the Southern war effort, molding their war with a fight against capital interest) first during Reconstruction and then after 1897. For some time the populist movement was extirpated and the hands of capital (in the eyes of Long) came to grasp the farmers and workers of the South. However, in Mississippi, Jame Vardaman ascended to power and challenged the existing Southern elite in 1904. Mississippi was the last state to possess segregation policies from the state, due to the dominance of the local old aristocratic influence in the state which managed to as landlords, monopolize the freedmen vote as its cudgel against opposing politicians.

Vardaman playing off of class issues and deep poverty and loss of soil fertility in the area, rallied the poor white farmers into a group fixed upon the local aristocratic elites in the state. Vardaman argued that the freedmen population were the servants of the elites and the bastions of corporate slavery of the poor. This ushered in a age of mass lynchings, political violence and a destruction of all voting rights in the state by 1908 for the black population and the rise of a distinctly racially focused populist movement. It sought to beat down the establishment by pointing its grievances towards the freedmen. This move by Vardaman however, had come with an alliance to the middle class KKK and their stances on prohibition, war, economy and so forth. Thus, the rhetoric of Vardaman became totally focused upon race and destroying the local aristocracy whom he saw as lords of former slaves and a bastion of appeasement to northern capital. This did not translate to any pro-worker policy however and the state moved backwards in this respect and come WWI, when Vardaman resisted calls for war, his KKK allies destroyed his political career in alliance with President Wilson.

Long's movement emerged at the same time and avoided all of the mistakes of Vardaman. Focusing not upon race and entirely upon the issue of capitalism in the US and advocating against it, not through reform, but through a mass mobilization of the rural poor into a voting bloc to hammer in an authoritarian government in Louisiana that would centralize the government and propose mass economic redistribution. It would use slander, violence, deception, and all the levers of governmental power in order to achieve these goals and it would perform these while destroying all political opposition to it. That opposition being anyone to the right of Long, who did not submit and move left.

Considering the group we are dealing with, we begin to understand the issues Long held with the Treaty of Versailles. It was to him, a treaty that should never have been signed, which he mentioned several times and it was a treaty intended to force the American worker further into slavery under American capital interests. His entire foreign policy would fixate upon destroying this motive and reconstituting the US diplomatic wing as a force to resist and quell the flight of capital he intends to confiscate and to shield the US from British diplomatic and capital interest.

Long though is unlikely to agree to the proposition of tariffs. From my understanding, Long was totally opposed to the normal tariffs en vogue in the US, especially Republic tariffs. His view was that the price of farming goods was not important. In terms of policy, he took it much further in a radical stance from the idea of rising agricultural prices. In 1929-1930, he advocated a 'grand union' of the farmers in the South. This union in brief entailed:

-No destruction of surplus
-No acquiescence to the exchanges of agriculture (the purchasers and land owners)
-The construction of granaries across the South which would be public property.
-A board of redistribution would be created to oversee the the situation
-Farmers who grew surpluses or produced goods in excess of their family would take their items to state constructed granaries or storage.
-The board of redistribution would then allocate goods back to the people without charge.
-Those who grew rice, receive cotton to make cloths, those who grew cotton receive rice for food and so forth.
-The matter would occur without any profit motive and this would not be sold or bought.


This is the famous collectivization of the agricultural market, which became Long's most vaunted and his greatest will in political life. The policy was rejected by his contemporaries in Texas and in nearby southern states, but taken up as the golden standard by the STFU (the Southern Tenant Farmers Union, the largest communist farmers league in the US) and by many other leagues of farming labor. Long took this as a long term policy too, as his writing suggests and his speeches indicate, it was not a relief bill but a reform. This policy is in stark contrast with the New Deal organization, the AAA. The AAA was most known for its maintenance of a profit based agricultural system and of a destruction of surplus so as to artificially increase prices. This policy above all others enraged Long, as he took himself into rages over the radio railing against the AAA for destroying the goods necessary to feed, cloth and rebuild the poor across America. This policy, we might say to be one of Long's hallmark five goals as a politician:

1. Collectivization of the agricultural market and redistribution of the proceeds as free commodities.
2. Nationalization of major industries related to resources, infrastructure and certain monopolies.
3. Creation of mass state controlled infrastructure across the US in the form of granaries, railways, roads, etc.. This is 'steady employment' for the workers.
4. The creation of large scale state controlled public services such as state controlled healthcare, schooling and so forth.
5. The destruction of the American corporate elite and their imperialist tentacles, which Long believed existed in the US and abroad. (the south being its first victim)

This of course was performed in Louisiana as part of his state policies, and required a planned economy under Long, which he seems to have intended to fully realize. FDR's policies in comparison, appear to be right wing, indeed. We thus can at least glean or gather lightly, that the process of Depression reaction from Long would be a wholly different beast than under FDR.

To jump back to Germany, and its situation for a moment.... Long was known to take very meticulous notes through his operatives in Washington, especially paying attention to statistics political trends. Long apparently, according to other senators in the Congress, paid journalists and groups of investigators to read books, statistics and to also comb Washington for new information, especially on new economic theories, policies and statistics both in Europe and in the US. This led to Long often being very well informed in comparison to his opponents, aside for FDR. This may be why Long was so well informed regarding the Nazi party upon its rise 1931-1932. Long mentioned the religious nature in particular he felt of the Nazi movement, stating his deep distaste for the Nazi party platform before such things were readily known in the US. Due to his dislike of the Nazi party and his ambivalence to the aspects to the notions of German resistance movements, we may assume that Long cared little for that type of plight at least not enormously. His main and primary worry was ensuring economic redistribution in the US and of destroying the tentacles of US capital-imperialism, which entailed a war internally and if a war is fought abroad, it is against the British empire, whom Long often took to task as enemies. This as I mention and I stress again, had nothing to do with solidarity with Germany.

Long however did show sympathy to the USSR... In 1929, 1930, 1931, 1933 and then in 1935, said to the effect at various occasions: 'if my plan is not implemented peacefully, it will be implemented by war as it was in Russia!' This goes much the same as the words of Milo Reno and the Workers Holiday movement, which ordered the rich to eat gold and that if it was done in Russia, let it be done here. For Long, such rhetoric was common and seemed to belie his political strategy. It nevertheless, framed the struggle for Bolshevism in Russia as the same struggle occurring in the US and begins to reveal perhaps the true goals, intentions and wishes of Long (though that is mostly conjecture). Norman Thomas, felt that Long was a demagogue of sorts, who wished to use deception to implement a form of socialism rather than through syndicalist or vanguard principles. Some words of Long suggest just this, when he supposedly claimed that 'names are the mother of sectarianism (referring to calling himself a communist), never name yourself... what chance has a socialist candidate have of winning the presidential election in the US of 1932 or 1936?... what does it matter what they call me, all that matters i power; once we gain power, we can implement what we please (refusing to deny that his policies in its heart are different from those pursued by Bolshevism).'

Anyway, do forgive the long message, I ended up going on a tangent. Hope this clear up your question and those of the other poster on some aspects of the New Deal legislation.
 
In other words the worst of the American totalitarian politicians of the 1930s. Thanks for describing in detail what I already knew about that sorry worthless bastard.
 
In other words the worst of the American totalitarian politicians of the 1930s. Thanks for describing in detail what I already knew about that sorry worthless bastard.
Maybe so, though a person's worth in my view is very subjective. Indeed, Long disregarded the law, remarking the the Louisiana law system was his deck of cards, he pulled a law out as he wished and shuffled as he liked. However, he did have massive public support for his policies within Louisiana, especially from the poor communities both in the cities and rural areas and from the African American community (despite their lack of effective vote). In his view, as he made clear in the his newspaper, Progress Louisiana, the enemies of his policies in the media, the financial world, the cotton exchange and moderates-conservatives stood in the way of the democratic will of the working poor. As such, by democratic mandate of the people, he would silence their voices and diminish their ability to resist economic redistribution by all means necessary. Despite the voting base readily knowing of his methods, opinions and views on this, they still supported his polices as Long without voting frauds managed massive electoral victories first in 1928 and then every two years afterwards, gaining often in excess of 70% of the vote due to his coalition of agrarian poor, urban workers, eccentric liberals, advocates of further infrastructure and industrialisation and of middle-class new rich who despised the old power of the elites in Louisiana.

In practice, he attacked his enemies and lived by the code, that politics is about rewarding allies and attacking enemies. Long took every minor disagreement as a personal attack and used these leverages to guilt, persuade and isolate his political rivals. This to a degree was necessary, considering the political climate of Louisiana wherein the Assembly prior to Long was able to trump up false charges and impeach Long over useless issues such as irrelevant issues such as: 'Long is a Bolshevik, a gambler, an alcoholic and a mobster' all of which mattered not at all to the fact he was recently elected with over 63% of the vote. Long avoided impeachment due to use of his voting base, the agrarian poor to take to the streets in violent protest. Long began to use war rhetoric to resist his enemies and was able to unnerve the opponents in the Assembly, who unwilling to shoot protesters, dropped the charges. Long would not permit them an initiative again and would chip away at the old order of Louisiana until he had virtual dictatorial power over the majority of the Louisiana legislature and of the bureaucracy, which became his tools of policy fruition; passing laws at rapid speed, in some cases dozens of laws were passed in less than 30 minutes without debate.

From a liberal standpoint, this is a travesty. The destruction of the rule of law, free expression and so forth, destroying the form of republican governance of Louisiana and threatening to do so across the US. Indeed, the Share Our Wealth society advocated the implementation of Long's agenda across the nation. Their members changing and tweaking points based on where they were. Most especially adding more explicitly roles for African Americans outside of the Jim Crow zone. As such, we can understand how Long is reviled by social democrats, conservatives, liberals and moderate socialists alike. However, for the working and rural poor, Long offered the opportunity of economic progress on their terms(rather than from above as FDR proposed) and of resistance to the power of vested interest. Which to them, in their violent and difficult lives, entailed any means necessary. Further, to point out worthlessness, assuming you have any friendly views of the New Deal, it should be clear that Long was extremely important in gaining FDR the nomination at the DNC and also in providing examples to FDR for his most popular policies, namely Social Security, CWA, CCC, WPA, PWA, RUS and so forth.
 
Maybe so, though a person's worth in my view is very subjective.
Metrics used are the consequences of the person's acts and their results. Nothing is subjective about breaking the law, ignoring civil process or breaking the social contract illegally.

Maybe so, though a person's worth in my view is very subjective. Indeed, Long disregarded the law, remarking the the Louisiana law system was his deck of cards, he pulled a law out as he wished and shuffled as he liked. However, he did have massive public support for his policies within Louisiana, especially from the poor communities both in the cities and rural areas and from the African American community (despite their lack of effective vote). In his view, as he made clear in the his newspaper, Progress Louisiana, the enemies of his policies in the media, the financial world, the cotton exchange and moderates-conservatives stood in the way of the democratic will of the working poor. As such, by democratic mandate of the people, he would silence their voices and diminish their ability to resist economic redistribution by all means necessary. Despite the voting base readily knowing of his methods, opinions and views on this, they still supported his polices as Long without voting frauds managed massive electoral victories first in 1928 and then every two years afterwards, gaining often in excess of 70% of the vote due to his coalition of agrarian poor, urban workers, eccentric liberals, advocates of further infrastructure and industrialisation and of middle-class new rich who despised the old power of the elites in Louisiana.
Of the depression era mob of disenfranchised that Mr. Long manipulated as his stooge power base. This is beyond demagoguery, and intrudes into dictatorial processes and methods that he used as understood at the time.

It was called Leninism.
 
Metrics used are the consequences of the person's acts and their results. Nothing is subjective about breaking the law, ignoring civil process or breaking the social contract illegally.



Of the depression era mob of disenfranchised that Mr. Long manipulated as his stooge power base. This is beyond demagoguery, and intrudes into dictatorial processes and methods that he used as understood at the time.

It was called Leninism.
Maybe so, I do not wish to delve too much into politics. I simply wished to add some nuance into the discussion.
 
Top