The Fire Never Dies: Labor's Star Ascendant

[Meshakhad]

…Of the many differences between the American Civil War and the Second American Revolution was that while the United States of 1861 was a purely continental power, the United States of 1917 was an empire with numerous overseas possessions, mostly in the Pacific. The Revolution would not spare these either…

…Alaska, while geographically separated from the rest of the continental US and only recently made a territory, followed a similar pattern to the rest of the country. Anchorage and Fairbanks quickly fell to socialist uprisings. White forces briefly held on to Juneau until a battalion from Seattle arrived and forced the city to surrender…

…Hawaii was initially a White victory. An uprising by sugarcane workers was suppressed by the Army. With Seattle under Red control and reports of food shortages in California, the Pacific Fleet largely remained at their stations…

…The Philippines saw no serious violence, but fears of an uprising (either by Filipinos or socialist sympathizers in the Asiatic Fleet) led Governor-General Francis B. Harrison to open a dialogue with both the British and Japanese. If there was an uprising, he would be dependent on his allies to resupply his forces. Harrison discovered that the British had already approached Japan about purchasing Japanese arms to make up the shortage from the United States. Japan couldn’t provide more than a trickle, especially given the distances involved, but it would be something…

…The Naval Mutiny changed everything. In Hawaii, the mutineers succeeded. Caught between the Navy and the natives, the Army had little choice but to surrender. Tensions arose immediately over the fate of the islands, with the mutineers hoping to join a new socialist America while the natives favored independence. As a compromise, a provisional government was set up in Honolulu…

…Things did not go so well in the Philippines. Reports of the Mutiny reached Admiral Austin M. Knight before the order to expel black sailors, and he took action to prevent a mutiny, ordering lockdowns across the fleet. Three ships – the cruiser Brooklyn and the destroyers Barry and Decatur – were on patrol at the time. All three mutinied and fled to Hawaii…

…The Mutiny’s impact spread well beyond the Asiatic Fleet. The prospect of a White victory and continued US control of the Philippines looked increasingly remote. Unrest spiked across the islands. On October 20, Filipino socialists held a march through the streets of Manila, calling for immediate independence and the establishment of a socialist republic. As they reached the waterfront, US troops prepared to suppress the demonstration, but both sides halted. The reason was simple: the Japanese battleship Asahi had sailed into Manila Bay…

…The Japanese had been considering an intervention of some kind to take control of the Philippines well before the mutiny. Now, with American naval power in the Pacific disintegrating, they wanted to establish their control before the British struck a deal. Their intervention was, naturally, couched in diplomatic terms. Japan was not seizing the Philippines and Guam. It was simply establishing a temporary presence until American control was restored. The Japanese pledged full cooperation with the local government, making a show of actually taking orders from Admiral Knight. But everybody knew that the Japanese were now in control…

…Following the failure of the Salem operation, the Japanese approached Wilson directly. They offered him military equipment, loans to buy food abroad, and transport for any American forces in the West Pacific back to the continent, in exchange for recognizing a temporary Japanese protectorate over the Philippines and Guam. Wilson was loathe to give up American territory (he had little doubt that the Japanese would just go home if he won) but the assistance was badly needed. On December 26, the Boxing Day Agreement was signed, and the Japanese began shipping in troops to replace the departing Americans…

- From Red Star Rising: A History of the Second American Revolution by Tom Clancy

 

[Khalifas]

Ah, the Japanese, of course! Should've known they wouldn't simply sit idly by while all this went down.

 

[dentista campora]

Japan got a few territories for free, seems.

 

[Meshakhad]

Japan got a few territories for free, seems.

Not quite for free. They're lending money to the Whites. But it's a hell of a deal.

 

[piratedude]

Plus they've already taken much of Germany's pacific holdings, so its more like completing the set, really

 

[Worffan101]

This is brilliant. Keep it up!

 

[Meshakhad]

…America had no overseas possessions in the Atlantic except its protectorate over Liberia. Following the Naval Mutiny, Liberia reached out to Britain and France to ensure their safety. Among their representatives was none other than Harvey Firestone, president of Firestone Rubber, who had fled to Liberia as his company had major assets there…

…The US did have significant influence in the Caribbean. Puerto Rico had revolted in May, but San Juan remained under White control. This ended with the Naval Mutiny. On October 31, Santiago Iglesias Pantín[1], head of the Puerto Rican Socialist Party, established a new socialist government under the authority of the GDC. The US Virgin Islands, acquired only months before, remained under White control. Most of the “guano islands” were simply abandoned…

…In addition to its Caribbean territories, the US was also occupying both Haiti and the Dominican Republic in 1917, as well as having a strong military presence in both Panama and Cuba (centered on the Panama Canal and Guantanamo Bay, respectively). US troops in the Dominican Republic remained loyal to the White cause. Aware that they would likely be needed back home, Admiral Harry Knapp accelerated efforts to train a Dominican armed constabulary that would protect US interests. His efforts proved futile, and when US troops did withdraw on November 7 (with Knapp’s Marines slated to join the Salem Offensive), a guerilla force under General Ramón Natera seized control of the country…

…Things in Haiti went differently. On October 28, when the US withdrawal from Hispaniola was announced, the Haitian Gendermerie revolted. They were joined by the guerillas they had been fighting until recently and several pro-socialist Marines, including the commander of the Gendermerie, Major Smedley D. Butler[2]. A provisional government was formed under guerilla leader Charlemagne Péralte. On November 18, the GDC formally renounced any American claim to control over Haiti or the Dominican Republic, and extended recognition to both Péralte and Natera’s governments. Péralte would reciprocate, making Haiti the first nation to recognize the GDC as the legitimate government of America. Natera, on the other hand, distrusted the Americans and instead reached out to Britain for support…

…A similar dichotomy existed between Cuba and Panama. In Cuba, the Naval Mutiny led to a Red takeover of Guantanamo Bay. This was in turn seen as the trigger for a popular uprising. While led by Carlos Baliño[3] and the Socialist Party of Cuba, much of its support came from Afro-Cubans whose political power had been suppressed over the last few years. By contrast, Panama saw no major uprising (although there were several demonstrations) even as much of the Canal Zone garrison withdrew…

- From Red Star Rising: A History of the Second American Revolution by Tom Clancy

[1] IOTL, Pantín would go on to serve as Resident Commissioner of Puerto Rico from 1933 to 1939.

[2] IOTL, Butler would expose the Business Plot and write War Is A Racket. ITTL, his radicalization is accelerated.

[3] IOTL, Baliño would be among the founders of the Communist Party of Cuba.

 

[Leonidas]

Loving all these developments in the Caribbean! Hopefully Haiti will be able to secure a brighter future, especially with Smedley Butler being a potential lobbyist within the ASU for their interests.

 

[NotStaleBread]

This most recent post about America's Caribbean possessions has me wondering about something I've been considering for a bit now. Specifically, how will socialism develop internationally post-revolution? Obviously, the Soviet Union and the form of socialism America will practice will be very different, but the main differences, when it comes to its reception internationally, would come from the stances America ITTL and the Soviet Union OTL take/took on authoritarianism and nationalism. While America will undoubtedly have to make compromises with movements/governments it sees as not great, but better than the alternative (or just geopolitically beneficial in what I presume will be ITTL's Cold War), America will espouse and promote internationally a very different kind of socialism that could seriously affect how attractive it is and just who finds it appealing. Various nationalist movements around the world ITTL would likely find the more internationalist vision of American socialism less appealing, which could seriously affect decolonization, but as well, those places where American socialism does take off might find inter-ethnic, religious, and similar conflicts less damaging than in our own timeline. Maybe it means socialism (if you qualify what the Soviet Union, it's satellite's, and allies practiced socialism) is less popular globally, but also perhaps produces a more prosperous and less authoritarian outcome for those places that do come to practice it.

 

[VB.rainer]

This most recent post about America's Caribbean possessions has me wondering about something I've been considering for a bit now. Specifically, how will socialism develop internationally post-revolution? Obviously, the Soviet Union and the form of socialism America will practice will be very different, but the main differences, when it comes to its reception internationally, would come from the stances America ITTL and the Soviet Union OTL take/took on authoritarianism and nationalism. While America will undoubtedly have to make compromises with movements/governments it sees as not great, but better than the alternative (or just geopolitically beneficial in what I presume will be ITTL's Cold War), America will espouse and promote internationally a very different kind of socialism that could seriously affect how attractive it is and just who finds it appealing. Various nationalist movements around the world ITTL would likely find the more internationalist vision of American socialism less appealing, which could seriously affect decolonization, but as well, those places where American socialism does take off might find inter-ethnic, religious, and similar conflicts less damaging than in our own timeline. Maybe it means socialism (if you qualify what the Soviet Union, it's satellite's, and allies practiced socialism) is less popular globally, but also perhaps produces a more prosperous and less authoritarian outcome for those places that do come to practice it.

Pretty fair, but one has to remember that several figures here still saw a violent revolution as inevitable, but participated in elections anyways since they thought it'd help prepare the revolution. And I'm not even getting into Bronstein (Trotsky), he was considered radical even by the standards of revolutionary bolsheviks. While TTL's revolutionary socialism will be more prosperous and democratic than its track record in our world, it'll likely still spread via violence.

Also worth noting is that the US, both OTL and TTL, was very much a western, industrialized, and democratic country, while Imperial Russia was at best only 2/3rds of those things. I can imagine the European Red Scare will be several magnitudes worse than OTL. In our world, the West at least had the comforting thought that Imperial Russia was an autocratic, practically-medieval absolute monarchy, unlike their much more industrial, developed, and democratic societies by comparison. But if a nation like the US could fall to revolution, then there are fewer degrees of separation, making it seem like any of them could as well.

 

[dentista campora]

it'll likely still spread via violence.

Just ''likely''?
Violence is inevitable even with massive electoral victories, since you're changing who's in charge of the economy. There will be authoritarian violence directed at the former ruling classes, as in they will be expropriated and they will react violently.

 

[Meshakhad]

This most recent post about America's Caribbean possessions has me wondering about something I've been considering for a bit now. Specifically, how will socialism develop internationally post-revolution? Obviously, the Soviet Union and the form of socialism America will practice will be very different, but the main differences, when it comes to its reception internationally, would come from the stances America ITTL and the Soviet Union OTL take/took on authoritarianism and nationalism. While America will undoubtedly have to make compromises with movements/governments it sees as not great,

One issue I hadn't realized before this post is that not every nation aligned with the ASU will be socialist. Haiti is a good example. As far as I can tell, there no serious socialist activity in Haiti (or the Dominican Republic) at this point. The first socialist parties in Haiti IOTL were all founded decades later. Given the circumstances of Haiti regaining its independence, an alliance with America is likely, and socialist influence will follow, but Haiti might end up more moderate.

but better than the alternative (or just geopolitically beneficial in what I presume will be ITTL's Cold War), America will espouse and promote internationally a very different kind of socialism that could seriously affect how attractive it is and just who finds it appealing. Various nationalist movements around the world ITTL would likely find the more internationalist vision of American socialism less appealing, which could seriously affect decolonization, but as well, those places where American socialism does take off might find inter-ethnic, religious, and similar conflicts less damaging than in our own timeline.

How the Americans will deal with left-wing nationalism remains to be seen. I'm not that optimistic about American-style socialism doing that much to ease tensions. What it won't do is pour fuel on the fire.

Maybe it means socialism (if you qualify what the Soviet Union, it's satellite's, and allies practiced socialism) is less popular globally, but also perhaps produces a more prosperous and less authoritarian outcome for those places that do come to practice it.

There will be at least one authoritarian socialist government, but the default model for socialists will be more democratic. That said, it's doubtful that the Americans will cut off an ally simply for being authoritarian (although anyone too oppressive may be... removed from the situation).

Pretty fair, but one has to remember that several figures here still saw a violent revolution as inevitable, but participated in elections anyways since they thought it'd help prepare the revolution. And I'm not even getting into Bronstein (Trotsky), he was considered radical even by the standards of revolutionary bolsheviks. While TTL's revolutionary socialism will be more prosperous and democratic than its track record in our world, it'll likely still spread via violence.

Yep. And one thing that hasn't changed about Bronstein is his belief in permanent revolution. Fortunately, I can guarantee that American politics will be much less dangerous than Soviet politics. The worst that could realistically happen to him should he fall out of favor with the government is reassigned to somewhere that will limit his influence.

Also worth noting is that the US, both OTL and TTL, was very much a western, industrialized, and democratic country, while Imperial Russia was at best only 2/3rds of those things. I can imagine the European Red Scare will be several magnitudes worse than OTL. In our world, the West at least had the comforting thought that Imperial Russia was an autocratic, practically-medieval absolute monarchy, unlike their much more industrial, developed, and democratic societies by comparison. But if a nation like the US could fall to revolution, then there are fewer degrees of separation, making it seem like any of them could as well.

And that is especially true of Britain, which speaks the same language. However, we won't be seeing a total purge of European socialists. I have something more... interesting in mind. *evil chuckle*

 

[dentista campora]

How the Americans will deal with left-wing nationalism

America has a big chance to neutralize left wing nationalism in the southern cone very easily due to the strength of the anarchist/syndicalist movement in brazil, argentina and uruguay so far, vis a vis the size of entire political left of these countries. A few years earlier in 1912 the anarchists stopped são paulo city and rio de janeiro city in a general strike, and the governments in the southern cone are currently organizing with the governments of france, italy, spain et al to create an investigation apparatus capable to catch anarchists across country lines, which would be one of the progenitors of INTERPOL.
The emergence of a state basically created by the IWW in north america throws the entire thing off balance!

 

[the Imperium of Canada]

Yep. And one thing that hasn't changed about Bronstein is his belief in permanent revolution.

Permanent Revolution as in the complete refusal to compromise with perceived counter revolutionary elements of one's society (which could of course lead to a lot of bad things) or Permanent Revolution as in the meme version which involves attacking everyone like a psychotic madman who thinks they're Napoleon?

 

[Workable Goblin]

Various nationalist movements around the world ITTL would likely find the more internationalist vision of American socialism less appealing

I'm not sure that's really the case, inasmuch as American socialism doesn't actually seem to be that internationalist. I mean, it's not really extremely nationalist, either, but it hardly seems to be about "breaking down the barriers between nations" and "creating a universal socialist state". If nothing else, the fact that they're going to give Puerto Rico and Hawai'i independence (or at least make serious efforts to do so) indicates that they don't really mind nationalism as such that much. Besides, geopolitics, strange bedfellows, all of that. If the United States could decide that Maoist China was a good ally during OTL's Cold War, I'm sure both the United States and foreign left-wing nationalist movements will manage to find reasons why working together is in both of their interests at least some of the time. If nothing else, the United States has a lot of guns and money and is far away from most places not in the Americas, so their ability to apply leverage and actually force "allies" to adopt their ideals is limited. It would be easy to see a rebel or anti-colonial movement saying some things that appeal to American beliefs without actually believing them, in order to get American support.

There will be at least one authoritarian socialist government, but the default model for socialists will be more democratic. That said, it's doubtful that the Americans will cut off an ally simply for being authoritarian (although anyone too oppressive may be... removed from the situation).

Eh. Well, I can see that maybe happening in some cases, a la South Vietnam IOTL, but a lot of the time the Americans will probably look at the situation and decide, well, our guy is bad but the alternatives are worse, so let's prop him up (this reasoning was a disease on both sides during the Cold War) even if he is really oppressive, and just try to persuade him to be less oppressive. Or, alternatively, they'll delude themselves into thinking that things aren't as bad as they actually are--this also seems to have been fairly common on at least the American side. Doubtlessly some of this was purely propaganda to ensure support for U.S. actions in foreign countries--see, this guy is totally not a right-wing dictator not too different from the Nazis we were just fighting!--but there does seem to have been some degree of "getting high on your own supply" where to a certain extent Washington was convinced that actually some dictators were democratic, or at least not so bad. Sort of the flip side of seeing Reds under the bed when mildly left-wing people were elected in certain countries.

 

[dentista campora]

Permanent Revolution as in the complete refusal to compromise with perceived counter revolutionary elements of one's society (which could of course lead to a lot of bad things) or Permanent Revolution as in the meme version which involves attacking everyone like a psychotic madman who thinks they're Napoleon?

This bronstein is not the bronstein that went through the russian civil war, i bet his thought changed quite a bit.

 

[Leonidas]

Compared to the USSR, which was explicitly a multinational state, the ASU is much more homogeneous. While there are good timelines like "The Pale Horse" which has its version of the CSA divided along cultural regions like Appalachia and the Black Belt, I think that it's more likely for the new government to emphasize multiethnic solidarity within the same national identity. There's certainly enough need for it with this happening during the nadir of race relations (which will be seen in a different light by TTL's historians in context of the revolution), as well as bigotry against Catholics and divisions between "white ethnics." That being said, the IWW is an international organization—as one might guess from their name—and I'm sure they'll seek to expand their membership even beyond the largely Anglosphere countries they reached IOTL.

With regards to international relations, I think the most important thing to consider is what kind of conflict will happen between the ASU and the capitalist powers. I think that having the Atlantic Ocean between them and Europe means that the bare minimum for any kind of involvement in Europe would be that another country becomes socialist and gets embroiled in a large-scale war. There's also the fact that so much of the discontent that led to the Second Revolution was from the US gearing up to join the Great War, and whoever ends up leading the ASU would have that on their mind whenever major military intervention is on the table. However, I don't think they'd have much scruples in backing other left-wing movements that end up being bloodier than their own revolution, which might make me a cynic by TTL's standards. Maybe it's less common without people like Kissinger at the helm that dress up short-term convenience as "realpolitik," but there's still that influence of domino theory even if it's not stated explicitly. The way I see it, having a massive Cold War between two superpowers consume the globe always incentivizes that kind of calculus.

 

[piratedude]

Compared to the USSR, which was explicitly a multinational state, the ASU is much more homogeneous. While there are good timelines like "The Pale Horse" which has its version of the CSA divided along cultural regions like Appalachia and the Black Belt, I think that it's more likely for the new government to emphasize multiethnic solidarity within the same national identity.

ACOUP made a blog on the topic of American identity, and i think his conclusion will be even more true ittl than otl, that American identity is/will be a civic one rather than an ethnic/national one

 

[Meshakhad]

…As in Europe, the arrival of winter did not bring an end to active hostilities in America. However, major offensive operations largely wound down. While skirmishes would continue, both sides saw the winter as an opportunity to recover and reorganize…

…It has been argued by some historians that Bronstein’s decision not to launch a major offensive in January was a grave error that gave the Whites some much needed breathing room. However, this overlooks the difficulties Bronstein was facing at the same time. The Red Army was still a fairly ramshackle entity run largely by amateurs. While most White soldiers had no more experience than their Red counterparts, the Whites had a core of experienced officers and noncoms to rely on. The Reds had very few. His immediate superior, Commissar for War William Z. Foster, was also concerned by a number of soldiers who wanted to return home to their families, their revolutionary zeal dulled by months of fighting…

…Bronstein and Foster spent much of their time during the winter establishing a proper table of organization and military regulations. Regular pay, including bonuses for time spent in combat, kept most of his troops in the fight. Standardized uniforms were distributed, which not only boosted esprit de corps but made it easier to distinguish Red troops from their White enemies. Foster also successfully persuaded the GDC to prohibit governors from serving as field officers while retaining their elected offices, as some had done. Most chose to remain in office, handing over command of their troops to able subordinates. Bill Haywood had already been considering resigning as governor of Washington (his lieutenant governor, Harry Ault, had effectively been running the state since May). Only William Trautmann was resistant, but he was persuaded by the offer of commanding the Army of Manhattan…

…Another issue for Bronstein was the election of officers. Many of the ad hoc units that made up the Red Army had developed a tradition of electing their officers, as had been common in the Civil War. While he appreciated the principles at play, Bronstein believed that promotion from above should be the norm. However, he did establish a system whereby a unit could formally nominate someone for promotion. While senior officers could always override a nomination, election would be the norm for advancement in the Red Army, as it is to this day…

…The Whites, meanwhile, were starting to make up their shortages. New units (many of them organized by the KKK) were completing their training and deployed to the trenches in Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Kentucky. The crash-built arms industry was in full swing, alleviating some of the ammo shortages that had plagued the Whites. At Fort Meade, Maryland, Captain Dwight Eisenhower oversaw the conversion of civilian railcars into armored trains[1]…

…In late February, Wilson and Pershing made the grim decision to have General Liggett withdraw from Missouri. Liggett was simply too exposed and outnumbered, and there was a serious risk that the Reds might encircle him. Despite having few victories to their name, the soldiers of the Army of the Plains were by now battle-hardened veterans who had even earned the respect of their enemies. They would now reinforce White positions in Arkansas, Kentucky, and Texas…

- From Red Star Rising: A History of the Second American Revolution by Tom Clancy

[1] IOTL, Eisenhower oversaw the organization of the first US heavy tank battalion at Fort Meade. ITTL, there is no prospect of the Whites getting actual tanks, so they go with armored trains.

 

[AceOfSpades]

Many of the ad hoc units that made up the Red Army had developed a tradition of electing their officers, as had been common in the Civil War.

It was a bad idea back then too. This is only slightly better.