Reds fanfic

[Miss Teri]

Why would they taste terrible? If they tasted terrible they probably wouldn't be very popular.

It will probably be popular with those who haven't tasted actual Indian food, but not to those who actually have. I mentioned this earlier, but Americanized Indian food is somewhat mediocre compared to the original, and that applies to a lot of ethnically derived foods that come to America.

 

[Redshank Galloglass]

[

I could see quite a few people turning against that sort of petite-bourgeois bildung asceticism. Dammit we didn't conquer bread so we could starve ourselves!

I could actually see a socialist attempt at fast food, on the grounds that it's the workers using the most advanced methods of food production to ensure that all have quick and cheap access to tasty grub, for the revolutionary on the go, whilst smashing the traditional gendered social relations of bourgeois family cooking.

Meanwhile, I can see the FBU disdaining fast food as decadent Yankee fare, instead favouring small-scale dining establishments and/or high-class dining, depending on one's income when eating out, along with a strong ideological focus on home cooking and traditional family meals, due to a mixture of their conservative views on gender and family, petite-bourgeois ideological base, and the fact that France is half of the FBU and they set aside a lot of time for food.



Why would they taste terrible? If they tasted terrible they probably wouldn't be very popular.

I don't think that fast food as we know it today would be very popular in a socialist America. I think that it would make people think of the garbage they had to eat when the bourgeois still ruled over the people in the gilded age. The closest thing to fast food I could think of in the UASR would be massive workers syndicates creating quality but cheap and fast meals, similar to Chipotle or Macca's in Australia.

Who says that dining as a family in small restaurants or dining high class is inherently bourgeois?

That's one thing I never understood about some socialists. They think that family oriented businesses and having strong family relations are inherently capitalist.

 

[Mr. C]

Or food trucks.

 

[Redshank Galloglass]

Or food trucks.

True, true.

 

[Imladrik]

IIRC it is already established that the UASR had become the n°1 place in the world for café culture, surpassing France, as political activities after work being almost universal, workers don't have time to cook for themselves and so go to various restaurants and café to feed themselves.

 

[bookmark95]

IIRC it is already established that the UASR had become the n°1 place in the world for café culture, surpassing France, as political activities after work being almost universal, workers don't have time to cook for themselves and so go to various restaurants and café to feed themselves.

So eating out is kind of the norm, not the exception. In a housing project, a kitchen isn't really anything more than a small stove, a microwave, and a small cabinet. The only thing the average UASRer really makes is coffee, popcorn, or instant ramen. Mostly likely, they go out with friends to a local cafeteria.

 

[Mr. C]

My assumption was that, after the war, there would be more time for residents of the communal houses to cook for themselves. Preparing the food together would be just as much of a community activity as eating together.

 

[Redshank Galloglass]

IIRC it is already established that the UASR had become the n°1 place in the world for café culture, surpassing France, as political activities after work being almost universal, workers don't have time to cook for themselves and so go to various restaurants and café to feed themselves.

As a chef in training that makes me sad

 

[Redshank Galloglass]

I wonder what weight lifting will look like in the UASR? I'm sure Americans in general will still look beefier than Europeans like IRL, even.though football won't be popular.

 

[Alexander the Average]

As a chef in training that makes me sad

The brave new world is often as terrifying as it is awe inspiring.

 

[Redshank Galloglass]

The brave new world is often as terrifying as it is awe inspiring.

No doubt. I'm sure cooking will still have a major place in the UASR.

 

[BlahBlahBlah]

No doubt. I'm sure cooking will still have a major place in the UASR.

Well, if people are eating out more, doesn't that offer more opportunities for good chefs to spread their cooking to more people?

And maybe it'll make good cooks who would otherwise just stay home and cook for themselves/their family instead go and work/open a cafe or restaurant.
Or if you want to cook, you've got to go out and learn it?

 

[Redshank Galloglass]

Well, if people are eating out more, doesn't that offer more opportunities for good chefs to spread their cooking to more people?

And maybe it'll make good cooks who would otherwise just stay home and cook for themselves/their family instead go and work/open a cafe or restaurant.
Or if you want to cook, you've got to go out and learn it?

Never really thought about it like that. good point.

 

[Miss Teri]

Thoughts on "World War Three"

So, I was looking through the video store (Yes, we Aussies still have those), and I came across this movie "World War III". I had known it was a Franco-British cult classic on the right, so out of curiosity, I rented it. It was actually pretty decent, if overly right-wing. It basically follows the titular World War III in 1985 (the film was released in 1981), during different fronts in the war. I admit, the cause of the war is somewhat dubious to me. An incident in the Kongo leads to an ultra-left coup in the USSR, who decide to launch an attack on Western Europe (for some reason), and the UASR coming in to support them (again, for some reason). They decided not to drop any atomic bombs, because of the MAD doctrine. Despite the wonkiness of the premise, I did enjoy most of the film. It basically revolves around several fronts during this war. From a battleship in the Atlantic to a group of Brazilian soldiers fighting the CL, to, most prominently, a group of students at a college on the French-German border, who battle an assortment of Comintern soldiers as a partisan unit. It cuts between these different fronts, and emphasizes the various tactics they use during such a conflict. It ends, after the partisans unite local towns in the North of France, and repel the invasion with other partisans from Germany, and other fronts successfully repelling Comintern, with a brief nuclear exchange, where Birmingham in Britain, Minsk in the USSR, and Denver in the UASR are all destroyed by nuclear weapons, and a democratic counter-coup in the USSR and a new election brings in a new government in the UASR, both eventually suing for peace on the FBU's terms. Again, unabashedly right wing, but it does have some decent characterization, and does show how war has affected many of these people. Even the Comintern soldiers are portrayed sympathetically, showing some of them writing letters to their sweethearts or the like back home. So, has anyone else seen it? What do they think of it?

A classic. Emphasizing the bravery of the free soldiers, while not demonizing the other side. During my, what I now call "RuleBritannia" phase, I must've watched this movie a dozen times. Caused a lot of arguments with my brother, who saw it as right-wing trash. I know a lot of those on the left see it as a Franco-British power fantasy, them bravely resisting the evil Communists and eventually winning out, especially in the face of Bern, but even a basic look at the film shows more nuance, with the brutality of war affecting everyone, regardless of where they happen to be on the globe. I suppose it's my right-wing, capitalist views, but I think this movie was great. A lot of Hammer fans blame this movie for shifting the studio from its classic "House of Horror" to making those terrible action movies they decided to make in the 80's, but I think it's a fine addition to the Hammer filmography, and a nice change of pace.
You're right about the history, though. It doesn't fit well to make the scenario go. This site has thoroughly dissected how this scenario wouldn't work in these threads:

[Links to other posts on "World War III" on alternatehistory.com]

The background is better elaborated in the novel, where it was an ultra-conservative/military coup protesting the liberalization of the USSR during that era, along with a communist backed uprising in Canada, resulting in an intervention, and an American invasion to support the revolutionaries. Since the film was released after the resolution of Bern, they had to change to the Kongo.

Oh, yeah, this was based on a novel. I don't know much about it, though.

It's called The Third World War, by General Sir John Hackett. Hackett was a Entente commander in Palestine and North Africa during WWII. It was an exploration of a possible AFS-Comintern war. It was written around the time Quebec declared independence, so Hackett incorporated that into the story, with the UASR providing arms to Quebec, causing an eventual war. Aside from the details on the beginning, the film actually is fairly accurate to the details of the book.

The conception of this film is actually interesting. Hammer had a string of failures for their horror films in the late 70's, and when one executive was waiting at the airport he picked up a copy of the book. Deciding that was the film to bring Hammer into a new age, he convinced the board of directors to buy the rights, and even got Hackett himself to advise for the film. The film itself is okay. Nothing special, just decent, average. Not much to say to write home about.

I used that book and Newt Gingrich's White Storm as examples of WWIII literature in my World Literature Class, and illustrate the differences between how the apocalypse was dealt with by patriots on either side. In The Third World War, so-called "doves" had most of the protection removed from Western Europe removed, allowing the Soviets to invade West Germany and West Italy with relative ease. In White Storm, the UASR levels down their support for international socialism, believing the mission to be over, allowing the FBU to use its global reach to launch simultaneous attacks on communist states. Also note how they end. Hackett ends the novel with the FBU regaining Canada and strengthening their position, while the UASR and USSR have a major setback. White Storm ends with the destruction and dissolution of the FBU, Cuba, India, and other capitalist nations following proletariat revolutions in all such states, after increase famine and martial law. All while Deleon-Debs and Moscow were destroyed by Franco-British nukes (yeah, White Storm is not a very good book. I liked 1933 and The Rainforest War better). As for the movie, it is unintentionally funny to anyone living in a Comintern country, with its comedy American (the only Canadian they were able to get was Lorne Green) and Russian accents (especially to my ear), its over-praise of the Entente Army, and how over-the-top the action is. If you want a good movie for an "Anti-Reaction Night" or a MST, this is a good one

 

[bookmark95]

One, Two, Three (1961)

This satirical Canadian comedy proved to be one of the most popular of the Cold War era.

C. R. MacNamera (James Cagney) [1], a regional manager of the Arctic Cola [2] company in West Berlin [3], one of the fastest growing soda companies in the world. MacNamera, an American who fled into exile to Canada in 1933, is eager to make his name in the company, by doing the unthinkable: selling his product in the Soviet bloc. With it, he hopes to achieve the sweetest job of all: head of European operations, with a fancy European villa. He dreads returning to cold, windy Toronto.

Unfortunately, he has been given the unenviable task of caring for Georgina (Joanna Shimkus), the free-spirited daughter of his conservative boss. Things turn complicated when she ends up sneaking into East Berlin, and meets Richard (James Dean) [4], a student from Chicago studying abroad. Richard, a belligerent syndicalist, immediately starts clashing with MacNamera. Things turn complicated when MacNamera discovers that Georgina is pregnant, and must turn Richard into a capitalist when Georgina's father learns of the pregnancy.

The film is notable for its satire of both sides of the Cold War, but in particular the politics and cutthroat capitalism of the American-Canadian community. One scene of note is MacNamera mocking Richard's belief in free-love, then receiving a saucy call from his secretary, with whom he's carried on an affair with.

[1] He became very conservative at the end of his life, so I can imagine him fleeing to Canada.

[2] I made up the name of the company. I don't think Coca-Cola is going to exist, so I imagine some Canadian company making a knock-off that achieves global success.

[3] Yes, the city might still be divided, only with England and France dividing the West.

[4] I choose him largely for already playing troubled, rebellious heartthrobs, which could be the stereotype for a UASR teenager in the 60s.

 

[Mr. C]

What would James Dean be doing in Canada?

 

[bookmark95]

What would James Dean be doing in Canada?

I couldn't think of any Canadian who could play an angsty rebel. So I'm going to guess he was an American actor who didn't mind playing a comical exaggeration of his generation.

 

[Mr. C]

I mean, it's making fun of the American exiles, so I suppose he's not gonna get in trouble for it.

 

[Mr. C]

Also, what's Billy Wilder doing in Canada?

 

[Miss Teri]

Also, what's Billy Wilder doing in Canada?

He's from Austria, so it's possible he just immigrates to Britain or Canada.