The Great Crusade (Reds! Part 3)
- Thread starter Aelita
- Start date
Jello, if I may presume:
http://www.railalbum.co.uk/steam-locomotives/usatc-s160-1.htm
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USATC_S100_Class
Perchance 5ft versions and 5ft 3in versions designed for the Soviet and South American campaigns? Also I'd like to find out more about the RailRoads of the UASR, I'm a railway modeler and I'm planning something around that hobby and alternative history. Could you drop me a link or a PM? Heck if you even want to throw ideas at me feel free.
Luath
http://www.railalbum.co.uk/steam-locomotives/usatc-s160-1.htm
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USATC_S100_Class
Perchance 5ft versions and 5ft 3in versions designed for the Soviet and South American campaigns? Also I'd like to find out more about the RailRoads of the UASR, I'm a railway modeler and I'm planning something around that hobby and alternative history. Could you drop me a link or a PM? Heck if you even want to throw ideas at me feel free.
Luath
Certainly, South American republics have to choose sides here and I'm guessing that Brazil joins the Axis and then Argentina and Chile joins the Allies. Then Paraguay and Bolivia would be put in to the mix though I'm not sure of Colombia and Venezuela going commie in the 30's. I think they should go commie to provide a reason for Fascist Brazil to be paranoid and join the Axis Powers. God.
Plus, I also heard of an African front. So South Africa goes independent too and join the Axis? There's the Middle Eastern front through an Axis invasion of Turkey and the Levant too. Certainly, more casualties.
Yeah, that's probably a given. In this period, rail is life, and you need sturdy, mass-produced locomotives to deal with the logistics of war.
Sure, I was planning on doing a more thorough write up about rail in the UASR sometime, but for now I can give the cliffnotes version.
For a mix of defense (break of gauge is one of hell of a way to thwart an enemy's logistics), and industrial reasons the UASR converted from standard gauge to Soviet broad gauge. That way, locomotives and rolling stock would be interoperable, helping facilitate trade as well as thwarting those dastardly Brits and Canadians in the event of invasion. This was touched on in one of the last updates, and was accomplished through a period of hybrid gauge.
Since the rail system was nationalized, and there was considerable damage to the system during the revolution, this was fairly easy to accomplish. During the project, there was a lot of investment in the rail infrastructure, including a standardization of loading gauge across the country (also to the very roomy Soviet standard). This necessitated the upgrade of many bridges and tunnels, but was considered industrially and militarily useful to bear the cost. Particularly since tanks were starting to become large enough to run up to logistical limits with some rail lines.
There's also experiments and pilot programs with electrification, particularly in the north east. In the future, high speed rail is going to become important for long distance travel.
All very good questions, and many of them I have only a fuzzy idea about so far.
Some things I've been considering is that there is going to be more focus by all of the powers on practical application compared to OTL, where space was an expensive national prestige project.
I admit, this is as much author appeal as anything. I do want to go as far as is plausible with the development of space travel, so that will inevitably mean nuclear thermal rockets, large permanent space habitats, economical and mass produced lifters, development of alternate launch tech, and some fully reusable spacecraft..
South America is actually mostly evenly divided at the outset, though North American strength (in particular, it will be Mexico flexing her muscles in this theater) plus Britain and France being pushed from Axis sympathizing fake neutrals to American allies will force all but the most die hard of South America's homegrown fascists to give it up.Certainly, South American republics have to choose sides here and I'm guessing that Brazil joins the Axis and then Argentina and Chile joins the Allies. Then Paraguay and Bolivia would be put in to the mix though I'm not sure of Colombia and Venezuela going commie in the 30's. I think they should go commie to provide a reason for Fascist Brazil to be paranoid and join the Axis Powers. God.
Plus, I also heard of an African front. So South Africa goes independent too and join the Axis? There's the Middle Eastern front through an Axis invasion of Turkey and the Levant too. Certainly, more casualties.
Africa will see major fighting, in North Africa like OTL, but there will be some other conflicts, particularly internal conflicts within French colonies as well as plays to weaken Britain's hold on her colonial empire.
A more thorough response will have to wait for when I don't have to use my phone, but I would be happy to provide advice on space matters to you.
Hey Jello, just wondering about some stuff here. A lot of it is basically spoiler territory, so I understand if you don't want to answer/comment much, but it's been on my mind lately. Also sorry in advance if you've gone over it before, but 100+ pages (all together) is a bit too much to wade through.
1) One of the things that, as far as I know, hasn't been discussed much is what the Jewish relationship will be with the Franco-British Union. I think this is something that's going to be rather critical come the establishment of Palestine. I honestly don't think I can imagine the profound sense of betrayal that the quiet acquiescence of London and Paris towards Nazi Germany, at least at first, especially when the Holocaust comes to light, that's going to occur for Jewish Britons and French Jews. I have a feeling that there's going to be a large post-WWII exodus from those nations to the UASR, Palestine (Zionism and all that) and to a lesser extent the USSR. Neither the U.K. or France will receive many Holocaust survivors, I feel; maybe even more Jews will go to the UASR than the USA in OTL.
I'd imagine that this will be the crucible for the joint Jewish-Palestinian resistance against their British masters down the line. A feeling of national unity is likely to be born out of fighting together, almost certainly enough.
2) Keeping with the above: if I'm not going crazy, I could've sworn it was mentioned that Palestine will be larger than OTL's Israel, perhaps going into Jordan or Syria? If that's the case, I'd think the British are going to be sweating bullets over Sinai and the Suez Canal, even if they're not bigger...
3) Even if relations between the USSR and UASR are going to get pretty sour after WWII, I'd imagine that one area that they'll at least be able to agree upon is South Africa. It's definitely a curious beast and I really don't know how either the French or British plan on keeping a lid on it. The Comintern's foreign policy here is likely to be either: have South Africa go Red or at least be a miserable enough to tie down FBU troops. I'd imagine that (black) revolutionary groups are going to get their hands on American-made and Russian-made arms every now and then.
4) With the UASR being a 'humane' (though not hard to be better than in OTL...) Communist power, will this rub off on places that they manage to help kick start Communist governments? I guess what I'm trying to ask is if the UASR being a relatively successful and stable nation will prevent the Pol Pots or Kim Il-sungs of the world from rearing their ugly heads. I sure hope so, even if obviously not every nation is going to get winners.
5) Sort of related to the above, how heavily do the UASR and USSR attempt to invest in their satellite states/allies? I'd imagine that, as was hinted in some of the earlier chapters with Russians studying at American universities, it'll be in their best interest to show 'workers' solidarity' or something on the world stage.
6) It's likely to be its own future update, but what exactly is the governmental setup of the U.S.-in-exile in Cuba? I recall a specific mention of the world 'tribal' being used before, which I found curious. Are representatives and senators chosen as if they were still representing the old 48 states?
1) One of the things that, as far as I know, hasn't been discussed much is what the Jewish relationship will be with the Franco-British Union. I think this is something that's going to be rather critical come the establishment of Palestine. I honestly don't think I can imagine the profound sense of betrayal that the quiet acquiescence of London and Paris towards Nazi Germany, at least at first, especially when the Holocaust comes to light, that's going to occur for Jewish Britons and French Jews. I have a feeling that there's going to be a large post-WWII exodus from those nations to the UASR, Palestine (Zionism and all that) and to a lesser extent the USSR. Neither the U.K. or France will receive many Holocaust survivors, I feel; maybe even more Jews will go to the UASR than the USA in OTL.
I'd imagine that this will be the crucible for the joint Jewish-Palestinian resistance against their British masters down the line. A feeling of national unity is likely to be born out of fighting together, almost certainly enough.
2) Keeping with the above: if I'm not going crazy, I could've sworn it was mentioned that Palestine will be larger than OTL's Israel, perhaps going into Jordan or Syria? If that's the case, I'd think the British are going to be sweating bullets over Sinai and the Suez Canal, even if they're not bigger...
3) Even if relations between the USSR and UASR are going to get pretty sour after WWII, I'd imagine that one area that they'll at least be able to agree upon is South Africa. It's definitely a curious beast and I really don't know how either the French or British plan on keeping a lid on it. The Comintern's foreign policy here is likely to be either: have South Africa go Red or at least be a miserable enough to tie down FBU troops. I'd imagine that (black) revolutionary groups are going to get their hands on American-made and Russian-made arms every now and then.
4) With the UASR being a 'humane' (though not hard to be better than in OTL...) Communist power, will this rub off on places that they manage to help kick start Communist governments? I guess what I'm trying to ask is if the UASR being a relatively successful and stable nation will prevent the Pol Pots or Kim Il-sungs of the world from rearing their ugly heads. I sure hope so, even if obviously not every nation is going to get winners.
5) Sort of related to the above, how heavily do the UASR and USSR attempt to invest in their satellite states/allies? I'd imagine that, as was hinted in some of the earlier chapters with Russians studying at American universities, it'll be in their best interest to show 'workers' solidarity' or something on the world stage.
6) It's likely to be its own future update, but what exactly is the governmental setup of the U.S.-in-exile in Cuba? I recall a specific mention of the world 'tribal' being used before, which I found curious. Are representatives and senators chosen as if they were still representing the old 48 states?
Last edited:
I have some difficulty seeing the Palestinians being all lovey-dovey with the Jews under the presented scenario (ie., I don't see how it would keep the OTL severe Antisemitism of the Palestinians in check). Also, I don't know how many Jews would want to flee to the USSR
I imagine that they would agree it's a strategically important area which is incredibly ripe for revolution. I doubt they would agree on much besides that, though! I can see separate Marxist-DeLeonist (or whatever, UASR-aligned I mean) and Marxist-Leninist (USSR-aligned) rebel groups, each receiving backing from their peculiar sponsor. (Rather like OTL in many countries, actually...)
Well, it is later...
Anyways, practical applications and humans just don't go together as far as space is concerned. "Practical" means things like communications, GPS, Earth observation, etc. which are all better carried out by computers or machines than people. A space program which is focused on practicality will look a lot more like the Japanese or European programs, but to an even greater extent, than the Soviet or American programs. It's only moderately likely that such a program would do more than just launch people into space, let alone go to the Moon or build colonies.
There were good reasons IOTL for not doing that which are unlikely to be significantly changed in your timeline (viz., everything in space is expensive and hard to get compared to the exact same thing on Earth). For instance, take space-based solar power, which after all was cited as the economic basis behind space colonies in the '70s. Well, sure, that generates a lot of power, but...you need Manhattan-sized satellites to do it! Multi-kilometer rectennas! And because of the harsh space environment (mostly the radiation), the solar cells don't even last that long...a decade, maybe two, so you have to replace most of the power plant that often, in effect. That's stupidly expensive, even using lunar resources. Compare to nuclear power...also quite expensive, but far more scalable to relatively small power loads, there's uranium in the southwest and in the ocean, you can use reprocessing to reduce waste loads and so on. You could also see further development of hydropower in various areas of the countries, like the valley authorities (on the lines of the TVA, an analogy to which I would most certainly assume to exist in your timeline) that were proposed at various points OTL but not established. And so on and so forth, you just don't get anything from SBSP in proportion to its costs except maybe some very limited applications (beaming power to remote areas in lieu of laying power cables or using diesel generators).
Basically, if you want the sorts of things you're talking about...you have to make it a prestige project, because otherwise there's just no good justification that I can see for having people in space. It's cool, but from any purely rational comparison of the costs and benefits given the amount people are actually willing to spend there's no point to having people up there except for a few things that logically require people (like space tourism). Fortunately, with a tripower setup it's a lot easier to push space farther as a prestige program if all three are participating. The reason is that if two powers basically decide to call it quits (like after the Moon landing OTL-the Soviets eventually got around to deciding that they would only look like poor cousins if they landed on the Moon, and the US didn't want to spend the money anymore) the third can always go, "You know what, we're going to freaking Mars!" or whatever.
And, as a pure footnote...nuclear thermal rockets actually kinda suck. The problem is that they lose a huge amount of thrust-to-weight ratio (an important parameter, even in space) for a mere doubling in ISP. Like...the SSME, which being a liquid hydrogen-liquid oxygen engine is relatively heavy for its weight, has a thrust to weight ratio of about 70, whereas Timberwind, which was really pushing the absolute limits of 1980s technology and might not have actually worked had one of about 30, again for only about twice the ISP, which is basically limited by materials technology in any thermal rocket (chemical or nuclear). You just sacrifice so much because of the heavy reactor and the fact that you need very bulky hydrogen tanks. Nuclear electric makes some sense, but in the '60s and '70s electric drives weren't very well developed...
Hmmm... Mexican occupation troops in Brazil? Uh oh.
And anyway, why would there be American troops in Africa as hinted that would usher in the African civil rights movement of Marxian character in the post-war era?? And if ever, especially in the case of black troops bringing African culture back home to UASR, there should be a West African front right? Or that is just version 1?
IIRC, this TL's Vichy is a full-on Axis participant, so there should be a pretty extensive African theater.
I think you're right. So I guess we're getting the answers for the 100 million casualties.
And come on, an atomic bombing of Kyoto?!
May I ask Jello which specific part of Kyoto would be damaged? Is it just the more modern part of the city or whatever and the cultural treasures of the city are "spared" in some manner?
Why it can't just be Nagasaki or Hiroshima again? At least for what I'm understanding, this is just Kyoto rather than two cities. Still, will the bombing of this city just cause the Japanese to not surrender more? And for what I know, the Japanese in OTL has been attempting to surrender even before the OTL bombings. Is it because Japan is dealing with the commies here that they can't surrender here.
And Emperor Hirohito committing suicide? Can it just be strict house arrest for life and community service as staff of the Japanese President? He has a part in the war, yes, I believe in that. Can it just be a Comintern member but social corporatist Nippon Democratic Republic with a true class dictatorship but the capitalists still sort of "spared" because that's how it looks based on your hint in the other thread about alternate political parties. I guess that I just don't want "too much punishment" over here.
I think you're right. So I guess we're getting the answers for the 100 million casualties.
And come on, an atomic bombing of Kyoto?!
May I ask Jello which specific part of Kyoto would be damaged? Is it just the more modern part of the city or whatever and the cultural treasures of the city are "spared" in some manner?
Why it can't just be Nagasaki or Hiroshima again? At least for what I'm understanding, this is just Kyoto rather than two cities. Still, will the bombing of this city just cause the Japanese to not surrender more? And for what I know, the Japanese in OTL has been attempting to surrender even before the OTL bombings. Is it because Japan is dealing with the commies here that they can't surrender here.
And Emperor Hirohito committing suicide? Can it just be strict house arrest for life and community service as staff of the Japanese President? He has a part in the war, yes, I believe in that. Can it just be a Comintern member but social corporatist Nippon Democratic Republic with a true class dictatorship but the capitalists still sort of "spared" because that's how it looks based on your hint in the other thread about alternate political parties. I guess that I just don't want "too much punishment" over here.
I think the main reason why Kyoto gets bombed ITTL is something along the lines of this: to send a clear message that there's no turning back, that Japan will be dragged if need be into the bold new future which the Comintern aspires to. Another reason for the motivation to nuke this city might come from an even more ferocious Pacific/East Asian front. Perhaps if a few American divisions get shipped into China via the USSR, the tales they send back to Washington-Debs of Japanese atrocities will make the UASR leadership feel no less merciless than OTL in crushing Japan.
Re: why the Imperial throne has got to go - because of prior experience w/ Monarchism in the Russian Revolution, of course. The Comintern will view Hirohito as a relic of a bygone era (pre-capitalist feudal society to be exact). With Americans sharing their Soviet counterparts' "let bygones be bygones" attitude to Emperors/Tsars/Kings, they'll make it a certainty that Japanese Monarchism/Royal-ism will join that nation's militaristic capitalism in the place where it belongs: the Ash Heap of History.
Personally I hope the Japan of TTL develops on a more legitimate socialistic line than what JB outlined in that alternate political parties thread. Bonus points if the Zaibatsus are actually broken up effectively into industrial collectives rather than simply being "worker-owned" corporate conglomerates w/ their pre-war power structures simply given a Red face-lift. As to whether or not the post-war occupation of Japan actually goes that far in its re-working of Japanese society remains to be seen, especially on the matter of who gets the role played by MacArthur IOTL.
I could go on about the likely post-war outcomes for the region in general, but my body demands sleep at the moment - a demand that I intend to satisfy.
What happened to all the capitalists paper wealth (stocks, bonds, bank accounts) when the revolution happened? Was it distributed to the workers? Taken by the government? Or just abolished?
On a related topic, what about the debt owed to the USA by the European nations? I doubt that they would be very willing to pay it to the UASR and while the Cuban exile government would really like to be paid that money I imagine that the European governments wouldn't feel much obligation to pay it to them.
While wiping out a big chunk of their foreign debt would be a great boon to the UK and France Germany would struggle without the lines of credit the United States had extended to them.
On a related topic, what about the debt owed to the USA by the European nations? I doubt that they would be very willing to pay it to the UASR and while the Cuban exile government would really like to be paid that money I imagine that the European governments wouldn't feel much obligation to pay it to them.
While wiping out a big chunk of their foreign debt would be a great boon to the UK and France Germany would struggle without the lines of credit the United States had extended to them.
Awesome teaser!
This is a little crazy. Remember, this doesn't mean there were 100 million deaths in the WWII of TTL, it means there were far more than that. IOTL where we lost 60 million people in WWII the world population in 1940 was 2.26 Billion, which actually grew through WWII to 2.35 Billion by 1945, and to 2.38 by 1946 when WWII ends ITTL.
That means that for the population to actually drop by 100 million from 1940 to 1946 WWII would have to kill 280 million people.
Equivalent population shift IOTL for a population decrease of 100 million:
2.26 - 0.1 = 2.16
pre-war population minus one hundred million
Where we would be IOTL without WWII:
2.38 + 0.06 = 2.44
1946 population plus the sixty million dead
How many people would have to die for this to work:
2.44 - 2.16 = 0.28
No WWII pop minus resulting pop equals the casualty number
Of course I'm not sure how TTL ended up with an extra 74 million people by 1940, so maybe the whole quote is just Orwell speaking impressionistically (aka being wrong)
Source for numbers: Wolfram Alpha
This is a little crazy. Remember, this doesn't mean there were 100 million deaths in the WWII of TTL, it means there were far more than that. IOTL where we lost 60 million people in WWII the world population in 1940 was 2.26 Billion, which actually grew through WWII to 2.35 Billion by 1945, and to 2.38 by 1946 when WWII ends ITTL.
That means that for the population to actually drop by 100 million from 1940 to 1946 WWII would have to kill 280 million people.
Equivalent population shift IOTL for a population decrease of 100 million:
2.26 - 0.1 = 2.16
pre-war population minus one hundred million
Where we would be IOTL without WWII:
2.38 + 0.06 = 2.44
1946 population plus the sixty million dead
How many people would have to die for this to work:
2.44 - 2.16 = 0.28
No WWII pop minus resulting pop equals the casualty number
Of course I'm not sure how TTL ended up with an extra 74 million people by 1940, so maybe the whole quote is just Orwell speaking impressionistically (aka being wrong)
Source for numbers: Wolfram Alpha
You've got a good point there. If JB was serious about that kind of death toll occurring, then we're in for some Fear and Loathing-level chaos and destruction occurring worldwide rather than in a single country or continent*. IIRC, even Calbear's 2-decade+ WWII in the AA/NW TL had a final death toll 100m bodies short of your estimate for TTL's Great Crusade. The only remotely realistic chance of that occurring in an alt-WWIII is Imperial Japan dispersing massive amounts of toxic gas across China and effectively unleashing misery far surpassing even the worst years of Mao's reign.
So yeah, you're probably right about Orwell just talking BS.
*(obviously by that I'm thinking about what happens to China in Drew's TL).
I'm pretty sure Jello confirmed that Orwell was being more than a little poetic in this case. He was not referring to hard numbers so much as saying "a hundred million people died in this war".
Those are good points. My only problem is that if Comintern really aspires Japan to go into this bold new future, why a corporatist state? And under an Allied occupational authority which is pretty much American and Russian anyway, they let the zaibatsu remain even if there is workplace democracy? In the upper level of management, the capitalists are still there? So much for bombing Kyoto. I think Japan should go totally Red. A Nippon Democratic Republic as an American aligned socialist state. Then we have a Korean War between the Soviet aligned DPRK and an American aligned Korean Socialist Republic.
At least it's a compensation for India remaining part of the FBU. Jello, I think the Philippines should really go commie. Since it is an American colony and the Nacionalistas over here don't have a strong Democratic Party to back its cause of independence and of course the colonial elite would not deal about Philippine independence with the commies, they would be tempted to join the Republicans and adjust the aims towards a British like dominion status like Canada before 1931 is to the UK. And then, like how American communism grew, Philippine communism should grow in tandem too. Of course the ordinary masses, which wants independence, will see the cause along with the intentions of communism as going hand in hand. I tell you, the OTL Sakdalista uprising in 1934 can just go as a Philippine proletarian revolution.
And the Indian National Congress is strongly leftist OTL at least until the Second World War. Why would it still go OTL here? Should a larger American socialist presence affect India too before the 1940's. And Gandhi is sort of an agricultural socialist.
I'm just hoping that at least Hirohito would remain in house arrest and be punished too as being a lifetime staff of the Japanese President to help in Japan's socialist reconstruction. Much better than Emperor Puyi being just a gardener too in the 1960's. That's the best it could be. I'm not looking for a socialist country with a monarch. Or of Hirohito remaining in his throne. Not here.
I do think they are more of a "worker ran" corporate conglomerates under workplace democracy but upper level management decisions are negotiated between the state who has partial control, the capitalists and then the union. Of course I would rather see Japan go totally Red.
Then we have a Korean War between the Soviet aligned DPRK and an American aligned Korean Socialist Republic.
Somehow I don't exactly see those two events as having a high possibility. During WWII I'd expect a gentlemen's agreement of sorts shaping up between the Americans and Soviets over the Korean peninsula, making it a neutral Red state as a buffer between their respective spheres of influence.
As for India: it'll probably remain more within the capitalist sphere at first, but sooner or later the native elites will want to pursue a foreign policy independent of their former colonial masters.
Well, if the Philippines go Red, I'd imagine that the FBU would grow increasingly desperate in trying to prevent their regional influence from dissipating any further. In that case, do expect yet another futile war in Indochina, as well as Hong Kong and Macau remaining in British and Portugese hands up to the present day (probably emerging as TTL's main parallels to West Berlin)
Speaking of Hong Kong/Macau: How will China turn out? JB previously hinted that Mao won't end up in charge, due to the Chinese Civil War not picking up again after WWII. Even so, I'd expect the country to go through a phase or two of internal turmoil due to the less-than friendly relations between the KMT and CCP. By the 1960's, it should be well on the way towards rapid industrialization, and the environmental consequences being experienced earlier than OTL would lead to a much more aggressive green movement TTL's modern day.
Well, you have to take into account India's native Bourgeoisie, and how willing they are to tolerate the more radical wings of the INC.
Hey, I'm with you on wanting to see a full-fledged workers' state emerging from the ruins of Imperial Japan, but there's also another possibility facing the Imperial family: exile. For all we know, Hirohito may decide to follow the precedent set by the Russia's Royalty ITTL. Unlike what happened to him and his family IOTL, Tsar Nicholas II opted to end up in Sweden during the Russian Civil War (briefly mentioned in TTL's revision). Perhaps he might end up in Hong Kong or some other place under firm FBU control.