Lol, I see. Since a lot of the regulations that would have been passed during the Roosevelt administration never came to pass, particularly Antitrust, Fairbanks began the first steps of moving the American economy from the legal trusts towards a model more like Germany, where the trusts are receiving more open cooperation and "direction" from the government. It's an entirely voluntary relationship, and it's largely gone unnoticed since there was no row caused over the government's increased involvement in the economy.
Reds: A Revolutionary Timeline
- Thread starter Aelita
- Start date
Lol, I see. Since a lot of the regulations that would have been passed during the Roosevelt administration never came to pass, particularly Antitrust, Fairbanks began the first steps of moving the American economy from the legal trusts towards a model more like Germany, where the trusts are receiving more open cooperation and "direction" from the government. It's an entirely voluntary relationship, and it's largely gone unnoticed since there was no row caused over the government's increased involvement in the economy.
Sorry about the long delay guys. Currently devouring what literature I can find at my small local public library on the First World War so that I may be properly prepared to write the next section of the timeline. You can expect a large update when it eventually does come, breaking down the military, economic, political, and social impacts of the War.
Thanks, working on the next update as we speak.
I actually only started one of those threads, the other was started by another poster. But anyway, the thread I posted was more losely based on the actual timeline. For instance, I changed names around in order to make things more easily understandable. The socialist American state in this timeline isn't going to be called the USSA, but rather the Union of American Socialist Republics.
But, those threads have given me plenty of material to help confound people's expectations, which is always nice.
Wow, this is great! I just read the whole thing in one go, and I can't believe I never found this before.
Socialist Americas are the most fun Americas
I can sum up the delay in two words: writer's block
I know exactly where I want to go with this timeline all the way through the mid 1960s, but I'm really having a hard time getting past the stumbling block of WWI. I can't decide on how much detail to show.
Should I rely on the reader being fairly knowledgeable about WWI, and only point out specific differences and important developing threads? Or should I be more comprehensive?
To a Marxist, calling the political subdivisions of America "states" makes as much sense as a squirrel a primate. They may be both sub forms of a broad category of similar forms (political organizations or mammals), but the devil is very much in the details.
States, to anyone versed in political theory, and espescially to a Marxist, are sovereign entities that possess a monopoly on the legitimate use of force in a given territory. The American "states" possess neither attributes under the federal constitution. To continue to call them states would be an anachronism unsuited to the rationalist world of a Marxian intellectual. So when the economic base gets restructured, those leaders would not hesitate to alter the political and ideological superstructure as part of that revolution.
By contrast, "republic" has no real set definition besides the absence of a monarch within the political structure.
I second that motion, Yeah...I guess if there's major events that occur ITTL that were different IOTL's Great War than mention, other than that a simple summary of events would suffice, I belive.
Thanks for the advice. Hopefully I'll have an installment up later tonight. For your help, I'll give you a little hint at the planned content: a little quick history article on the 1914 congressional campaign and the following declaration of war on the Central Powers, and a bit of Patton and Eisenhower's war diaries.
The Great Depression is the single greatest factor, but it's the vindication of the Socialists anti-war stance during WWI that sets them up as a powerful force deep within the grassroots of American culture. Both are important
Very well.
Like the Snows of Yesteryear...
President Taft's 1914 State of the Union address talked of "peace and prosperity in our time", and promised that his administration's policies would be directed towards promoting those ends for the nation. As the thunderous applause in the halls of Congress died down, the grim execution of this promise lay but a few months away.
On 28 June, a group of Serbian nationalists carried out ill-planned and ill-conceived assassination in the streets of Sarjevo. Their target, Austro-Hungarian heir apparent Franz Ferdinand, was fatally shot that afternoon by the young Serb Gavrileau Princips. Austria's rapid mobilization to punish independent Serbia soon triggered a Russian mobilization. France soon followed, calling up reserves in preparation for a general European war.
Germany, the growing titan of central Europe mobilized in response to the threats against her ally Austria. Diplomatic efforts to halt the plunge towards war soon became mere token formalities given the nature of the revanchist regime in France, and as ultimatums were left unheeded a general state of war across the whole of Europe followed.
Germany soon invades the low countries as part of the later infamous Schlieffen Plan. Their aim is to move mass columns of troops across France's undefended Belgian border to outflank French static defenses, followed by a deep salient penetration to capture Paris and end the war in the west. The violation of Belgian neutrality provokes Britain to declare war on Germany. The Schlieffen Plan would also export this European war accross the Atlantic, to Canada and even the United States, which hitherto had always committed itself to general neutrality to European affairs.
According to the 1912 Toronto Treaty, passed in a closed session of the US Senate under President Fairbanks[1], the United States would stand in solidarity with the UK if ever the neutrality of a British ally is violated resulting in a state of invasion or occupation. While the clauses of this treaty allow the US to remain neutral in most possible European conflagrations, the language of the treaty clearly applies to the Belgian question. President Taft, in a speech to a joint session of Congress argues that the terms of the treaty make the US at a de facto state of war with the German Reich.
A resolution formalizing the state of war is soon passed by a razor-thin margin, with the Socialist/Progressives standing in firm opposition along with a few dissident members of the Democratic Party and the last remainder of the progressive wing of the Republican Party. While the US is now officially at war, the President, as well as leaders of both parties agree to leave the question of the American level of participation in the war up to the new Congress after the November election; a necessary compromise to ensure the passage of the resolution.
The Schlieffen Plan requires that the French military be committed elsewhere to ensure it's resolution. In a rare coincidence, French war planners oblige their German counterparts with General War Plan XVII. Under the mobilization scheme of the plan, the French military would concentrate on the narrow frontier between Germany and France and begin an assault into Alasce-Lorraine, under German occupation since 1871.
By the end of the year, neither France nor Germany succeeded in accomplishing their primary objectives. The Schlieffen Plan, for all of it's precision, was logistically impossible. In spite of the efforts of the best logisticians the world had to offer, there simply were not enough roads and rail to move troops and supplies fast enough to exploit the breach. Both sides had fundamentally underestimated the ferocity of modern warfare. When the lines stabilized in the Winter of 1914-5, both the French and the Germans had completely exhausted prewar ammunition stockpiles, especially for the increasingly vital artillery.
In spite of noted successes in the Lorraine campaign, French troops were by and large stuck back in the massive frontier fortifications. On the left flank of the growing trench line, the Germany military was camped uncomfortably close to Paris, and large portions of French industry were now in German hands.[2]
The days of wars decided by brilliant leaders and decisive battles were as dead as the one million soldiers killed in the Frontier battles. In spite of the stigma of incompetence given to WWI generals, both the Allies and the Central Powers displayed a level of professionalism in stark contrast to the experience of previous wars. It could even be argued that on the whole, both sides did the best they could with the resources they had.
[1] Prior to the Cold War, many American treaties were passed in closed Senate sessions. Any records kept of the debate is classified and not a part of the normal Congressional record. While the result of any such vote is a matter of public record, there is no roll call vote, so it is impossible to determine who supported and opposed the measure.
[2] Basically, exactly like IOTL, except that the US is officially part of the Allies in late 1914. The deployment of troops will not come until 1915.
Excerpt from The First World War: Imperial Games, by Albert E. Kahn, Progress Publishers, Cambridge, Mass, 1948.[1]
...unlike their European comrades in the Second International, the American socialists alone remained resolute in opposition to the imperial war brewing in Europe. However, their paltry influence in the halls of the bourgeois state were not enough, even with the help of defectors from the Democrats joining them in opposition. However, in spite of the enormous momentum towards plunging headlong into an age drowned in blood, the Socialist Party was able to maintain unity on this critical issue. Progressives like LaFollete Sr., stuck with the party and voted en bloc.
...A general agreement had been reached to leave the issue of mobilization until after the November Congressional elections. In spite of the bourgeois literature on the subject during the 20s and 30s, the American populace faced the thought of fighting and dying for their country with great fear. The general sense of foreboding was very clear at the polls in November. Voter turnout averaged 8.1% higher than would be expected in an off-year election of that era. Clearly the American state was facing a similar "excess of democracy" that President Wood decried in the mid 1920s. That excess would soon be remedied by the Espionage Acts.
...Eugene Debs remarked that "regardless of which faction of the capitalist party triumphs in the election, major American involvement in the European war is inevitable. J.P. Morgan and the other Robber Barons have already loaned huge sums to the British and French governments, and they will want it repaid in full." Had Grandfather Debs known the full scale of the loan scheme, I'm sure he would have stroked. In 1919 dollars, J.P. Morgan & Co. alone lent over one billion dollars to the Allies during the war. Other financial trusts lent comparable amounts. The First World War was big business before the first American soldier set foot in France.
...The midterm election left the Democrats with a weakened grip over the House of Representatives. By this campaign, northern Democrats had abandoned attempts to exploit class conflict to gain votes. While they retained the incumbents advantage in many districts, the eclipse of the Democratic party had begun. Forced to play second fiddle on the national stage, the party increasingly devoted itself to Southern sectionalism and the cultural conservatism that benefited the Southern landed gentray. It's brief flirtations with populism and liberalism were largely over with by the 1914 election. Democratic campaign literature largely focused upon national strength and cultural conservation, portraying the Republicans as dangerously individualistic, tearing apart American culture. In practice, they began behaving in much the same way as the Old Right in Europe, the monarchism replaced with a curious brand of Roman style republicanism.
...1914, on the eve of the greatest bloodletting yet seen in history, was also the climax of the old American Left.[2] Made up disproportionately of immigrant workers and, with the exception of Oklahoma, tied strongly to industrial cities in the east, the old Left would soon be in its twilight. While the First World War put the old Left to the sword across the world, at least in America the trials of war provided the necessary conditions for the birth of a new Left in the 20s and 30s, a Left unaffected by the split riven within European social democracy.
[1] IOTL, Albert E. Kahn was a journalist aligned to the Stalinist CPUSA until deStalinization crisis in 1956. ITTL, the extent of his journalism career are the opinion editorials that are syndicated in many American papers from the 40s to the 60s. By profession, he is a social historian.
[2] ITTL, "Old Left" is primarily used to describe worker's movements before WWI, and those parties after WWI that were unaffiliated with the Comintern. "New Left", by contrast, refers to parties and movements affiliated with the Comintern. Old Leftists accuse New Leftists of being authoritarian and often ambivalent to democracy (often true) while New Leftists accuse Old Leftists of being baby sitters to the problems of the national bourgeoisie and ineffective reformists (again, often true).
1914 Congressional Election
US House of Representatives
Democratic Party...................................200 (-74)
Republican Party....................................177 (+36)
Progressive/Socialist Party.......................57 (+39)
Independent..........................................1 (-1)
US Senate†
Democratic Party...................................46 (-5)
Republican Party....................................46 (+3)
Progressive/Socialist Party.......................4 (+2)
† US Senators are still selected primarily by state legislatures, though a few western states have adopted elections for their Senators.
President Taft's 1914 State of the Union address talked of "peace and prosperity in our time", and promised that his administration's policies would be directed towards promoting those ends for the nation. As the thunderous applause in the halls of Congress died down, the grim execution of this promise lay but a few months away.
On 28 June, a group of Serbian nationalists carried out ill-planned and ill-conceived assassination in the streets of Sarjevo. Their target, Austro-Hungarian heir apparent Franz Ferdinand, was fatally shot that afternoon by the young Serb Gavrileau Princips. Austria's rapid mobilization to punish independent Serbia soon triggered a Russian mobilization. France soon followed, calling up reserves in preparation for a general European war.
Germany, the growing titan of central Europe mobilized in response to the threats against her ally Austria. Diplomatic efforts to halt the plunge towards war soon became mere token formalities given the nature of the revanchist regime in France, and as ultimatums were left unheeded a general state of war across the whole of Europe followed.
Germany soon invades the low countries as part of the later infamous Schlieffen Plan. Their aim is to move mass columns of troops across France's undefended Belgian border to outflank French static defenses, followed by a deep salient penetration to capture Paris and end the war in the west. The violation of Belgian neutrality provokes Britain to declare war on Germany. The Schlieffen Plan would also export this European war accross the Atlantic, to Canada and even the United States, which hitherto had always committed itself to general neutrality to European affairs.
According to the 1912 Toronto Treaty, passed in a closed session of the US Senate under President Fairbanks[1], the United States would stand in solidarity with the UK if ever the neutrality of a British ally is violated resulting in a state of invasion or occupation. While the clauses of this treaty allow the US to remain neutral in most possible European conflagrations, the language of the treaty clearly applies to the Belgian question. President Taft, in a speech to a joint session of Congress argues that the terms of the treaty make the US at a de facto state of war with the German Reich.
A resolution formalizing the state of war is soon passed by a razor-thin margin, with the Socialist/Progressives standing in firm opposition along with a few dissident members of the Democratic Party and the last remainder of the progressive wing of the Republican Party. While the US is now officially at war, the President, as well as leaders of both parties agree to leave the question of the American level of participation in the war up to the new Congress after the November election; a necessary compromise to ensure the passage of the resolution.
The Schlieffen Plan requires that the French military be committed elsewhere to ensure it's resolution. In a rare coincidence, French war planners oblige their German counterparts with General War Plan XVII. Under the mobilization scheme of the plan, the French military would concentrate on the narrow frontier between Germany and France and begin an assault into Alasce-Lorraine, under German occupation since 1871.
By the end of the year, neither France nor Germany succeeded in accomplishing their primary objectives. The Schlieffen Plan, for all of it's precision, was logistically impossible. In spite of the efforts of the best logisticians the world had to offer, there simply were not enough roads and rail to move troops and supplies fast enough to exploit the breach. Both sides had fundamentally underestimated the ferocity of modern warfare. When the lines stabilized in the Winter of 1914-5, both the French and the Germans had completely exhausted prewar ammunition stockpiles, especially for the increasingly vital artillery.
In spite of noted successes in the Lorraine campaign, French troops were by and large stuck back in the massive frontier fortifications. On the left flank of the growing trench line, the Germany military was camped uncomfortably close to Paris, and large portions of French industry were now in German hands.[2]
The days of wars decided by brilliant leaders and decisive battles were as dead as the one million soldiers killed in the Frontier battles. In spite of the stigma of incompetence given to WWI generals, both the Allies and the Central Powers displayed a level of professionalism in stark contrast to the experience of previous wars. It could even be argued that on the whole, both sides did the best they could with the resources they had.
[1] Prior to the Cold War, many American treaties were passed in closed Senate sessions. Any records kept of the debate is classified and not a part of the normal Congressional record. While the result of any such vote is a matter of public record, there is no roll call vote, so it is impossible to determine who supported and opposed the measure.
[2] Basically, exactly like IOTL, except that the US is officially part of the Allies in late 1914. The deployment of troops will not come until 1915.
Excerpt from The First World War: Imperial Games, by Albert E. Kahn, Progress Publishers, Cambridge, Mass, 1948.[1]
...unlike their European comrades in the Second International, the American socialists alone remained resolute in opposition to the imperial war brewing in Europe. However, their paltry influence in the halls of the bourgeois state were not enough, even with the help of defectors from the Democrats joining them in opposition. However, in spite of the enormous momentum towards plunging headlong into an age drowned in blood, the Socialist Party was able to maintain unity on this critical issue. Progressives like LaFollete Sr., stuck with the party and voted en bloc.
...A general agreement had been reached to leave the issue of mobilization until after the November Congressional elections. In spite of the bourgeois literature on the subject during the 20s and 30s, the American populace faced the thought of fighting and dying for their country with great fear. The general sense of foreboding was very clear at the polls in November. Voter turnout averaged 8.1% higher than would be expected in an off-year election of that era. Clearly the American state was facing a similar "excess of democracy" that President Wood decried in the mid 1920s. That excess would soon be remedied by the Espionage Acts.
...Eugene Debs remarked that "regardless of which faction of the capitalist party triumphs in the election, major American involvement in the European war is inevitable. J.P. Morgan and the other Robber Barons have already loaned huge sums to the British and French governments, and they will want it repaid in full." Had Grandfather Debs known the full scale of the loan scheme, I'm sure he would have stroked. In 1919 dollars, J.P. Morgan & Co. alone lent over one billion dollars to the Allies during the war. Other financial trusts lent comparable amounts. The First World War was big business before the first American soldier set foot in France.
...The midterm election left the Democrats with a weakened grip over the House of Representatives. By this campaign, northern Democrats had abandoned attempts to exploit class conflict to gain votes. While they retained the incumbents advantage in many districts, the eclipse of the Democratic party had begun. Forced to play second fiddle on the national stage, the party increasingly devoted itself to Southern sectionalism and the cultural conservatism that benefited the Southern landed gentray. It's brief flirtations with populism and liberalism were largely over with by the 1914 election. Democratic campaign literature largely focused upon national strength and cultural conservation, portraying the Republicans as dangerously individualistic, tearing apart American culture. In practice, they began behaving in much the same way as the Old Right in Europe, the monarchism replaced with a curious brand of Roman style republicanism.
...1914, on the eve of the greatest bloodletting yet seen in history, was also the climax of the old American Left.[2] Made up disproportionately of immigrant workers and, with the exception of Oklahoma, tied strongly to industrial cities in the east, the old Left would soon be in its twilight. While the First World War put the old Left to the sword across the world, at least in America the trials of war provided the necessary conditions for the birth of a new Left in the 20s and 30s, a Left unaffected by the split riven within European social democracy.
[1] IOTL, Albert E. Kahn was a journalist aligned to the Stalinist CPUSA until deStalinization crisis in 1956. ITTL, the extent of his journalism career are the opinion editorials that are syndicated in many American papers from the 40s to the 60s. By profession, he is a social historian.
[2] ITTL, "Old Left" is primarily used to describe worker's movements before WWI, and those parties after WWI that were unaffiliated with the Comintern. "New Left", by contrast, refers to parties and movements affiliated with the Comintern. Old Leftists accuse New Leftists of being authoritarian and often ambivalent to democracy (often true) while New Leftists accuse Old Leftists of being baby sitters to the problems of the national bourgeoisie and ineffective reformists (again, often true).
1914 Congressional Election
US House of Representatives
Democratic Party...................................200 (-74)
Republican Party....................................177 (+36)
Progressive/Socialist Party.......................57 (+39)
Independent..........................................1 (-1)
US Senate†
Democratic Party...................................46 (-5)
Republican Party....................................46 (+3)
Progressive/Socialist Party.......................4 (+2)
† US Senators are still selected primarily by state legislatures, though a few western states have adopted elections for their Senators.
Zimmerwald1915
Banned
Now that's interesting. IOTL, both the European and American Communist parties were created out of splits within Social Democracy (Communist parties in the colonies were more often outgrowths of nationalist movements). In the United States, for example, though the Socialists maintained the anti-war line, the Right of the party had been in control since 1912, and two groups that would become the Communists split off in 1919. With the American Socialists seemingly following the anti-war course of which the Social Democrats later to become Communists approved IOTL, and yet to be soon suffering eclipse with no signs of a split, it will be interesting to see whence the "New Left" will come.
That was an amazing installment Jello, The tidbit on early American entry into the Great War, as well as the twilight of the Democratic Party and the old Left. I guess the biggest question now is whether or not America will change horses in midstream during the 1916 Elections. I know you hinted at a Leonard Wood Presidency in the '20's, but might the Dem's squeeze one more president in to the White House lol.
It looks like the Democrats are becoming too much of a regional party to get another shot at the presidency, in my opinion. With the populists and liberals of the party having allied with the Socialists and the progressives, all they've got left is the party's hard right and a few northern Bourbons here or there, so it looks like Taft is probably going to get a second term. Leonard Wood could grab up the election in 1920, presumably on wanting to return to normalcy after an increasingly unpopular war, or something like that. Two terms for Leonard, and then Hoover and the Bonus Revolution?
Of course, this is all a bunch of speculatory thinking on my part.
President Al Bundy
Banned
My guess is, that Germany wins the war, and suddenly, all the banks of the US have a lot of debt, since France and Britain can't pay their loans anymore. That will be interesting!