What? Nobody has anything to say about the North turning Communist? Amidst all of the criticism of my TL since my last post, nobody has mentioned this.
Are you trying to make everybody here think you are a troll? If not, I would be careful, if I were you. You are flirting dangerously close
We've been silent on the issue for the reasons that Desmond Hume outlined: it is a silly proposition, based more or less in your own ingrained political bias. First off, the Communist Party never had a strong following in the United States. now, it is possible to get a stronger communist (or, failing that, socialist) party, but that will require myriad changes that will radically alter the American political scene. And there is no reason to believe that this has happened in your timeline. In fact, there is every reason to believe the opposite; that the american political scene is the same, since so far your timeline has been a reflection of the modern world through an ideological lens (although this might explain why you seem to think that this is reasonable).
And think about this. This is the United States. Probably the most anti-communist western power. One with centuries old, established democratic institutions. one that, at this time (and, arguably, to the present) is generally in the pocket of big business. And they stand by while private property is seized and mass executions are carried out?
Now, I suppose one could argue that this is what happened in Russia and china. But why would an american communist party look anything like a russian or chinese one? The russians, for instance, developed in a practically feudal, less industrialized, authoritarian state. America, in case you haven't noticed, is an industrialized, fairly prosperous democratic republic with a national mindset not exactly conductive to revolution. Hell, look at the OTL communists. With the exception of their own fringe, they rarely if ever advocated anything along the lines of what we saw in, say, russia, at least until the USSR was a power in its own right (and the revolution hidden from sight.)
As for France, well, I've read the book "Wilson's War" where the author alleges that if the US had stayed out of WWI and let the Germans win, there would not have been a World War II. This strikes me as absurd. Because of the nationalist currents running through European politics prior to WWI, whoever lost the war would probably be rife with discontent which would be exploited by ultra-nationalists to restart the conflict. In short, no matter who would have won or lost, we would have still had to deal with the losers again later.
France is going to have revaunchist potential, sure. Personally, I think that a swing to the left and socialism is more likely, but I can see a case for this. But think about this. A germany that achieves its war aims (admittidly a vague concept) is going to more or less neuter France, rendering a future war almost a fait acompli. What I find egregious is that you turn it into a mirror image of Nazi germany. Post-war france in this timeline will not be Weimar germany. Not that hard a concept to grasp. What is particularly galling, and more than a little insulting, is that you turn de Gaulle into a Hitler clone. The man had his flaws, to be sure, but to equate him with the worst ruler of the 20th century (which is no mean feat) is ludicrous and reprehensible.
