The Fire Never Dies, Part II: The Red Colossus
- Thread starter Meshakhad
- Start date
You can’t hurry art. Especially art that’s being provided for free. Of course, if OP did a Patreon and you tossed a coin their way…
16. The Postwar Trials (Part 1)
…For all the anticipation and controversy surrounding them, the postwar trials were somewhat anticlimactic. Debs didn’t want the ASU to be seen as persecuting its opponents, but he also wanted to avoid the embarrassment of a high acquittal rate. Therefore, he instructed me to only bring cases that had a good chance of conviction…
…The largest category of those put on trial were war criminals. Easily the most notable was General Joe Huffington[1], who had ordered the Huffington Massacres. Another high-profile case was that of Major Sumter de Leon Lowry Jr.[2], who had not only executed the brave workers of the Pensacola Commune after they surrendered but encouraged the rape and slaughter of their families. I have no doubt that many who were guilty of foul crimes escaped justice, but such is the reality of war. It is equally certain that just as many war criminals died during the war itself. As someone who served as a partisan, I can speak with experience to the finality of revolutionary justice…
…Surprisingly few in number were the capitalists, those men who had exploited the working class for years. In this case, many such men had fled the country, often leaving their fortunes behind. Revolutionary justice had done for others like Henry Frick. Those who remained were generally not the great magnates but the lesser factory or mine owners, who often compensated for their lack of wealth by squeezing their employees even further. I was struck by the contrast between men like James MacNaughton[3], a mine manager who had suppressed strikers in Michigan, and men like John D. Rockefeller[4], probably the richest American who ever lived. MacNoughton was belligerent, convinced that all he had done was justified. Rockefeller was more magnanimous, offering to plead guilty if I could guarantee that his fortune would be used to benefit the American people. He was quite satisfied when I told him that the greater share of his wealth had gone to the Commissariat for Health…
…Finally, there were the political figures, those who had participated in the crimes of the Wilson Administration. They were even fewer than the capitalists, but their cases were very prominent and required special care. The eyes of the world would be focused upon them. It was also here that a higher acquittal rate was acceptable, demonstrating to the world that we could show mercy. I worked closely with Debs and Justice Commissar Seymour Stedman[5] to determine who would be charged. We rejected any serving politicians as well as men like Thomas Marshall…
…I often pitied my opposite number, the honorable William Jennings Bryan. He knew as well as I did that the vast majority of these men would be found guilty. His role was not so much to accomplish anything as to be seen trying. His reputation and prominence in pre-Revolutionary politics was the larger reason why he was chosen. No one could confuse him for a socialist or call him unprincipled, save by reactionaries or radicals. He faced his impossible task head-on, wielding every piece of law he could find to support his case. I find no shame in admitting that Bryan was by far the superior lawyer to myself. After all, he had opened his own legal practice in 1887, six years before I was even born! I strongly encourage any aspiring lawyer to study his arguments…
- From Every Comrade A King by Huey Long
[1] IOTL, a prominent leader of the Indiana Klan.
[2] IOTL, a long-serving officer of the Florida National Guard. He was a fervent anti-communist and segregationist.
[3] General manager and president of the Calumet and Hecla Mining Company in Michigan. He was involved in suppressing the Copper Country Strike of 1913-1914.
[4] Founder of the Standard Oil Company and a very prominent philanthropist.
[5] A prominent civil liberties lawyer. IOTL, he was Debs’ running mate in 1920.
…The largest category of those put on trial were war criminals. Easily the most notable was General Joe Huffington[1], who had ordered the Huffington Massacres. Another high-profile case was that of Major Sumter de Leon Lowry Jr.[2], who had not only executed the brave workers of the Pensacola Commune after they surrendered but encouraged the rape and slaughter of their families. I have no doubt that many who were guilty of foul crimes escaped justice, but such is the reality of war. It is equally certain that just as many war criminals died during the war itself. As someone who served as a partisan, I can speak with experience to the finality of revolutionary justice…
…Surprisingly few in number were the capitalists, those men who had exploited the working class for years. In this case, many such men had fled the country, often leaving their fortunes behind. Revolutionary justice had done for others like Henry Frick. Those who remained were generally not the great magnates but the lesser factory or mine owners, who often compensated for their lack of wealth by squeezing their employees even further. I was struck by the contrast between men like James MacNaughton[3], a mine manager who had suppressed strikers in Michigan, and men like John D. Rockefeller[4], probably the richest American who ever lived. MacNoughton was belligerent, convinced that all he had done was justified. Rockefeller was more magnanimous, offering to plead guilty if I could guarantee that his fortune would be used to benefit the American people. He was quite satisfied when I told him that the greater share of his wealth had gone to the Commissariat for Health…
…Finally, there were the political figures, those who had participated in the crimes of the Wilson Administration. They were even fewer than the capitalists, but their cases were very prominent and required special care. The eyes of the world would be focused upon them. It was also here that a higher acquittal rate was acceptable, demonstrating to the world that we could show mercy. I worked closely with Debs and Justice Commissar Seymour Stedman[5] to determine who would be charged. We rejected any serving politicians as well as men like Thomas Marshall…
…I often pitied my opposite number, the honorable William Jennings Bryan. He knew as well as I did that the vast majority of these men would be found guilty. His role was not so much to accomplish anything as to be seen trying. His reputation and prominence in pre-Revolutionary politics was the larger reason why he was chosen. No one could confuse him for a socialist or call him unprincipled, save by reactionaries or radicals. He faced his impossible task head-on, wielding every piece of law he could find to support his case. I find no shame in admitting that Bryan was by far the superior lawyer to myself. After all, he had opened his own legal practice in 1887, six years before I was even born! I strongly encourage any aspiring lawyer to study his arguments…
- From Every Comrade A King by Huey Long
[1] IOTL, a prominent leader of the Indiana Klan.
[2] IOTL, a long-serving officer of the Florida National Guard. He was a fervent anti-communist and segregationist.
[3] General manager and president of the Calumet and Hecla Mining Company in Michigan. He was involved in suppressing the Copper Country Strike of 1913-1914.
[4] Founder of the Standard Oil Company and a very prominent philanthropist.
[5] A prominent civil liberties lawyer. IOTL, he was Debs’ running mate in 1920.
Im surprised that Rockefeller was so corporative.
I bet alot of whites were quietly executed during the war as you said. For example whoever commanded the purges
I bet alot of whites were quietly executed during the war as you said. For example whoever commanded the purges
So will there be amnesty of some sorts for Rockefeller, I mean on one hand he was someone who they saw as exploitative but he seems cooperative and is a philanthropist so wouldn't it make sense to "rehabilitate" him then?
I think there was a passage in one of the previous updates that said people like Rockefeller would be rehabilitated and given jobs fitting for their skill. Don't know about John D too much, but I'll bet his punishment will be just a confiscation of wealth and MAYBE a bit of prison time with rehab alongside. Esp since the trials will be alongside actual war criminals with no chance of rehab.
He won't get amnesty - he's too much of a big name. Given his age (82), putting him to work is rather pointless. Most likely, he'll be sentenced to house arrest, living out the rest of his days with one of his daughters.
For other businessmen, including John D. Rockefeller Jr., there will be actual prison time. For most, sentences will be in the 5-10 year range, longer for people who directly caused deaths (especially if they employed strikebreakers). The thing is, the worst of the capitalists are no longer around, having either fled the country or been subject to revolutionary justice. When it comes to the capitalists, the real point of the trials is that the capitalists are treated as common criminals. Come to think of it, some of them might find "second careers" as actual gangsters. There's not much of a difference between a robber baron and a mob boss...
How is the trade relationship between Germany and US after revolution?
Who control germany now? SDP?
Any news regarding Italy and socialists there?
Who control germany now? SDP?
Any news regarding Italy and socialists there?
OK. America is primarily exporting foodstuffs, oil, and steel.
Undetermined. That's one of the big questions I need to answer.
The Bienno Rosso happened more or less as IOTL. There is a strong socialist movement in Italy, but they are divided between moderates who supported the war and ASU-backed radicals who opposed the war.
From what I know, I think that Germany will likely remain under the control of the German imperial establishment DKP-NLP. I have read that some historians believe that the German elite intervened in what would become WWI to drum up patriotic fervour and increase support for the conservative parties at the next election. Whether or not this is true, it is likely that ITTL, the German govt. would be able to claim victory, which would have the effect of increasing conservative support.
On the other hand, owing to the policy of Burgfriedenspolitik, the German govt. would likely be compelled to introduce electoral reforms that would benefit the SPD and Progressives at the conservatives' expense, so it is still up in the air who actually ends up in charge. That said, if there is still a Great Depression style economic downturn in the 1930s, it is almost inevitable that the SDP end up in power, though by this stage they will likely be dominated by their moderate, anti-reformist wing.
That said, unless the German constitutional reforms of October 1918 still pass ITTL, actual control of the government will remain in the control of the Kaiser and the political elite, and thus will remain in the hands of the Imperial German establishment.
On an entirely unrelated note, I had some questions about religion ITTL. Firstly, I assume that the British Falangists will likely encourage an ideologically sympathetic movement to take control of the Church of England, similar to how the Nazis had the pro-Nazi German Christians take control of the German Evangelical Church in the 1930s. Who would lead such a grouping within the Church of England? Only I cannot fond and Anglican clergymen who OTL expressed any sympathy for fascism or ultranationalism.
Secondly, you mentioned that Italy will remain democratic and become allies with Germany. Out of curiosity, would a non-fascist Italy still negotiate the Lateran Treaty? Also, how would the Catholic leadership react to the Spanish (and I assume French?) Falangists appealing to political Catholicism to gain support, especially given that ITTL the Vatican is enclaved within a country that will be at war with these nations. Further complicating the issue is the fact that American Catholics (particularly the Irish and Italians) will be the ones most supportive of the ASU... How are they meant to survive under the same church as the Falangists in France and Spain? Could we potentially see a schism in the Church, with one Pope in Rome supported by Italian and American Catholics, and an antipope in Spain, supported by the Falangists and French and Spanish Catholics?
Sorry if this is too many questions!
Having William Jennings Bryan as the defense attorney here makes me wonder what someone he famously went up against OTL, Clarence Darrow, is doing in this version of America. I'd imagine Darrow would be highly respected given his exploits as a labor lawyer; he could play a role in the drafting of a new Constitution.
At some point.
I am so far leaning towards the establishment holding on to power. Germany will be undergoing some reforms in the 1920s. There will be a Germany update at some point that covers what reforms have been passed (if any).
I'd need to do some research.
Probably.
While a Catholic schism during WW2 has long fascinated me, it would probably require the Pope to actually take sides. The pressure will be greater, with the Spanish and French Falangists being extra Catholic while most of Latin America is socialist. But I think it would be possible for the Pope to remain neutral, or at least avoid pissing off one side so much that they go full antipope. Even if the Pope condemned Falangism, the Falangists might go for the "the Pope has been forced to do this! We must liberate him!" line.
If I wanted to go for a schism, the best way would be to have the Pope die during the war, leading to a disputed conclave. Perhaps the French and Spanish cardinals are unable to attend or refuse to do so, instead holding their own conclave. Hell, they could do it at Avignon!
Clarence Darrow was elected Attorney General for the State of Illinois in 1917. He later became a delegate to the Constitutional Convention and now holds Position No. 3 on the ASU Supreme Court. He will be presiding over some of the postwar trials.
I think a socialist pope will be better in long run. Then we can get a anti Pope in Avignon.