The Night Chicago Died

I was listening to some 70s rock songs the other day, and it occurred to me that the song by Paper Lace, The Night Chicago Died, contains a bit of alternate history.

"In the heat of a summer night
In the land of the dollar bill,
When the town of Chicago died,
They talk about it still.

When a man named Al Capone
Tried to make that town his own,
And he sent his gang to war
With the forces of the Law."

Of course, nothing of the sort ever occurred, in real history. Al Capone was a businessman, albeit a violent one, and the last thing he wanted was an armed showdown with the government.

But what if the version presented by the song had occurred in reality? Perhaps the Depression is a good deal worse, and the country is precariously perched on the verge of revolution, thus encouraging Al to think he can pull off a coup? Perhaps Al's syphilis progresses a little faster and he goes a little crazy, and is able to convince his lieutenants (with the help of a Louisville Slugger, perhaps?) to back him in an attempt to literally take over Chicago by force? Furthermore, he is able to convince most of the other gangs to go along with him, giving him enough muscle to take on the government with a small chance of success.

However, as the song says, the gangsters lose...

"The sound of the battle rang through the streets of the Old East Side, until the last of the hoodlum gang had surrendered up or died."

What would be the impact of all this on the history of organized crime in the U.S. in the remainder of the 20th century? I can see at least a couple of obvious ones.

1) Obviously, if the gangs have tried to literally overthrow the government, the government is going to be a LOT tougher in it's efforts to root them out. They might even be successful, although I doubt it.

2)Assuming the government is not successful in totally destroying the Mafia and other organized crime gangs, I think you see the gangs go even deeper "underground" than in OTL, making them even harder to combat in the 1970s-1990s when they get involved in the narcotics trade.

Any other thoughts?
 
IMHO, Capone did reign over the windy city. at least for a while....he could operate his illegal businesses without consequence.

why gangs were not able to establish a permanent hold on city hall? the feds didnt flinch...and too many willing "Sammy the Bull" Gravano types were willing to tell tales...

the mob really are just a group of lumpheads
 

King Thomas

Banned
The US gangsters learn the lesson not to directly fight the government. Gangster killings of cops become even rarer then in OTL
 

Thande

Donor
One interesting fact is that the cellnet system used by modern mobile phones essentially dates from ideas developed in the 1920s by Motorola, when they were making radios for US policemen in Chicago (a system which was then copied by the gangsters, and it ended up like an arms race).

So, let's say that for some reason Capone seizes control of the city and the US police and army take it back one block at a time. Might this provide some lessons in urban fighting, alter everyone's doctrine prior to WW2? (Stalingrad is the obvious example here...)
 
One interesting fact is that the cellnet system used by modern mobile phones essentially dates from ideas developed in the 1920s by Motorola, when they were making radios for US policemen in Chicago (a system which was then copied by the gangsters, and it ended up like an arms race).

So, let's say that for some reason Capone seizes control of the city and the US police and army take it back one block at a time. Might this provide some lessons in urban fighting, alter everyone's doctrine prior to WW2? (Stalingrad is the obvious example here...)


An interesting line of thought, but then the question turns to (with regards to Stalingrad) would the obvious lessons be taken to heart by the Soviets, who might simply view the whole thing as a failed socialist revolution...

Hang on, I'm getting a line of thought here...if the Soviets take this to perhaps be a rebellion against the capitalist forces of the United States, is it sensible to think that they might take an active role in supporting the 'revolution'?
 

Thande

Donor
An interesting line of thought, but then the question turns to (with regards to Stalingrad) would the obvious lessons be taken to heart by the Soviets, who might simply view the whole thing as a failed socialist revolution...

Hang on, I'm getting a line of thought here...if the Soviets take this to perhaps be a rebellion against the capitalist forces of the United States, is it sensible to think that they might take an active role in supporting the 'revolution'?
I dunno, it takes quite a leap to consider Al Capone a socialist.

Although in Back in the USSA the author paints him as the United Socialist States of America's equivalent to Stalin succeeding Eugene Debs' Lenin...
 
I dunno, it takes quite a leap to consider Al Capone a socialist.

Although in Back in the USSA the author paints him as the United Socialist States of America's equivalent to Stalin succeeding Eugene Debs' Lenin...

Yeah, I know. It's just a thought that if the Soviets thought they might have a social revolution on their hands, they might support it.
 
So, let's say that for some reason Capone seizes control of the city and the US police and army take it back one block at a time. Might this provide some lessons in urban fighting, alter everyone's doctrine prior to WW2? (Stalingrad is the obvious example here...)

An interesting line of thought, but then the question turns to (with regards to Stalingrad) would the obvious lessons be taken to heart by the Soviets, who might simply view the whole thing as a failed socialist revolution...

Hang on, I'm getting a line of thought here...if the Soviets take this to perhaps be a rebellion against the capitalist forces of the United States, is it sensible to think that they might take an active role in supporting the 'revolution'?

I dunno, it takes quite a leap to consider Al Capone a socialist.

Although in Back in the USSA the author paints him as the United Socialist States of America's equivalent to Stalin succeeding Eugene Debs' Lenin...

Yeah, I know. It's just a thought that if the Soviets thought they might have a social revolution on their hands, they might support it.

This is all an interesting train of thought. Let's develop it a bit. As mentioned in my intro, I am assuming in this scenario that the Depression is a LOT worse, and the U.S. is on the verge of revolution.

One thing that Al Capone did in OTL...in an attempt to improve his public image, of course...was to set up soup kitchens for the poor in Chicago who had been thrown out of work by the Depression. He also set up a program to provide free milk to Chicago school children in an effort to combat rickets. At a time when the government was seen as being largely ineffective in combating the effects of the Depression, many people viewed Capone as someone who was actually DOING something about it.

Let's assume that, with the much worse Depression, the scope of Capone's "philanthropy" has been commensurately greater, and his popularity with the population at large has soared while that of the government has declined far more than it did in OTL. Thus, when Capone and the gangs rise against the government (let's say in 1931, in reaction to the government's attempt to prosecute Capone for tax evasion), they have a lot of popular support, and the whole thing does take on something of the character of a "social revolution."

The Soviets sense an opportunity and do get clandestinely involved, supplying arms to Capone. When Capone's Rebellion is crushed in late 1932, after a block-by-block battle which devastates Chicago and leaves tens, or even hundreds, of thousands dead on both sides, the Soviet involvement is discovered.

How does THAT affect future history? Is the alliance system that won World War II still possible? Or does the United States now see Hitler as an ally against the Soviets?

Also, one must assume that, in the process of putting down such a rebellion, especially one with large-scale popular support, the federal government is most likely going to enact restrictive laws in the name of "public order" which probably won't be repealed when the crisis is over. The United States just became a much darker and more frightening place...again, one which might well end up on the side of the Axis in World War II.

Thoughts?
 
Top