There will be cross border regions and cities for sure and they will be largely de facto independent of these reorganized state governments even if de jure they belong to different states at once or may even remain separate on paper belonging to component areas out of separate states. The old states are going to exist largely out of inertia with greatly reduced powers and functions. Thats how i imagine it.
The Way the Wind Blows: The Collapse of Western Capitalism and the Second Cold War
- Thread starter Maponus
- Start date
- Status
There will be cross border regions and cities for sure and they will be largely de facto independent of these reorganized state governments even if de jure they belong to different states at once or may even remain separate on paper belonging to component areas out of separate states. The old states are going to exist largely out of inertia with greatly reduced powers and functions. Thats how i imagine it.
Mmh, inertia keeping obsolete structures in place through change makes sense within a regular state with continuity of institution. But I imagine the UPNA revolution used the old US constitution as toilet paper, and I can't see an America pushed far enough to empower the rainbow coalition being unwilling to have a clean break.
At the very least I'd expect structures alive during the revolution to clamour for dismantling state borders they're spread across of. And separatists in states that sided with the old government similar to west Virginia in the civil war.
But frankly, without keeping the constitution, keeping the states as indivisible and enduring entities seem very unlikely to me.
I certainly do not expect the UPNA to keep the US Constitution and state constitutions and all its institutions at all so we may have to see entirely new political subdivisions. What I mean is that the 50 states may be kept around for limited administrative purposes but given how some of these states are quite small in size and population and given the inherent reactionary structure of most if not all US states, We may truly see a radical redrawing of the map.
Bookmark1995
Banned
Hmm...
Could we see major cities being broken off into their separate...states/autonomous regions?
Could DC become its own states?
Could New Orleans be broken off from Louisiana?
Any radical redrawing of the American political landscape post-1970 out of a left-wing social revolution is certainly expected but as for the details of it, I will leave it more to @Maponus since he/she is the author and not myself.
One thing is for sure, there wouldn't be "states" anymore and we will see a reorganization of these states into more rationalized units, whatever they may be called, which will include merging of urban centers into single rational units regardless of their location if they cross old state lines. That may include New York metropolitan area, Chicago, St.Paul-Minneapolis area, Milwaukee, all of the major cities will have a single local government, including DC and we may even see an autonomous cross-border region of San Diego-Tijuana, jointly administered with a socialist United Mexican States.
One thing is for sure, there wouldn't be "states" anymore and we will see a reorganization of these states into more rationalized units, whatever they may be called, which will include merging of urban centers into single rational units regardless of their location if they cross old state lines. That may include New York metropolitan area, Chicago, St.Paul-Minneapolis area, Milwaukee, all of the major cities will have a single local government, including DC and we may even see an autonomous cross-border region of San Diego-Tijuana, jointly administered with a socialist United Mexican States.
Oh joint administration of border twin cities would make a ton of sense if the border is open anyway. I could see people commuting across those borders turning into a group supporting greater integration and disregard for old concepts of national borders.
X: Opération Résurrection
Opération Résurrection
The French-Algerian Crisis of 1958
French soldiers in Algeria, then officially a fully integrated French department with a sizeable minority of white French settlers militantly opposed to independence.
The French-Algerian Crisis of 1958
French soldiers in Algeria, then officially a fully integrated French department with a sizeable minority of white French settlers militantly opposed to independence.
In May 1958, the crisis of French Imperialism in Algeria had escalated into a full scale national crisis. The French military, deeply linked to the political interests of the French settlers in the "Department" of Algeria, had become openly insubordinate towards the government. A revolt by the Algerian people against French colonial rule had provoked an ultra-Imperialist clique to assumed power in Algers, and this military clique had already gone as far as launching a military takeover of Corsica. Dubbing themselves the Committee of Public Security (certainly an ominous term in the French political lexicon), these putschists had eventually boiled down their agenda for the defence of French rule in Algeria to one particular demand: the installation of General Charles de Gaulle as the leader of a "government of national unity." If this demand was not met, they would take further military action to preserve French rule in Algeria.
At the time of this Press Conference, de Gaulle seemed certain to assume national leadership. Supported by a military who believed he would back their cause, and deemed acceptable by politicians who hoped he would prevent further chaos as their own military openly revolted against them. His abrupt, and we now know natural, death would dash any hope for compromise.
Of course, many dispute whether it would have made any difference had de Gaulle lived. After all, it was only because the putschists had demanded de Gaulle be made President that the civilian politicians had in desperation agreed to install him as President mere days before the mans sudden death. While it is true de Gaulle would have had more popularity and legitimacy, and could have used it to reign in the excesses of General Salan and the Committee of Public Safety, it’s equally true he might have established a basically similar regime. Though he himself denied dictatorial ambitions in a Press Conference shortly before his death, something which has lead some Gaullist conspiracy theorists to claim it was in fact General Salan who had the great man murdered, he wouldn’t have been the first man in the history of dictatorships to lie about such things. It is possible that a de Gaulle regime would have spared France the trauma of tanks rolling down the streets of Paris, but nonetheless spelled the end of the Third Republic and its replacement if not by a military dictatorship, instead by a Presidential one. Controversially, some historian even posited that de Gaulle’s death prevented France from experiencing “true Fascism“, instead of a simple conservative authoritarian regime in the mould of Franco Spain or Greece’s colonels, as de Gaulle could have constructed a base of mass support strong enough to recreate a 1930’s style Fascist cult of personality and totalitarian culture. On the other hand, some believe French democracy might have been preserved by de Gaulle. These fanciful counterfactual narratives, predominant amongst eccentric reactionary elements of French society, of a perfect, heroic General de Gaulle bestriding the contradictions of democracy and military rule and resolving them in such a way that prevented the 1968 Revolution stillborn strain the boundaries of credibility and are in any case fruitless. It was not the hero of the resistance who would take charge of France during this time of crisis, but instead it was General Salan, a man whose name lives in infamy, who would take power using de Gaulle’s lavish state funeral to distract the world media from the fact that a coup d’état had been launched and succeeded in one of the major Western democracies. By the time President Eisenhower had shook the General’s hand in full view of hundreds of cameras, it was also clear that the USA had accepted Operation Resurrection as a fait accompli, and dared not publicly insult France’s new military regime lest it withdraw from the NATO alliance. One of the great propaganda narratives of the Western side of the First Cold War, that of capital democracies against totalitarian communism, had been severely and publicly undermined. France would remain a military dictatorship in all but name for nearly a decade, and would remain entangled in an escalating war in Algeria until the Great May Revolution of 1968.
As the Committee of Public Safety became the Government of Public Safety, the Fourth Republic officially became the Fifth Republic, careful as Salan was to avoid association with anything anti-Republican that might link his regime to anti-Democratic governments in France’s history, most notably to Pétain’s “French State.” France was still officially a democracy, merely one subject to a permanent state of emergency that left the National Assembly and it’s figure head Prime Minister subordinate to the now formally constitutionalised Committee of Public Safety, an entirely military body that had the power to ban any civilian political party and arrest anyone involved in “anti-French” political activities at it’s own discretion, independent of either genuine judicial or civilian political oversight. Various fictions of legality and democratic procedure were maintained, with enough “loyal” unions, newspapers and political parties operating to maintain the collective illusion of normalcy and continuity with the Third Republic. But the perhaps most important power granted to the Committee of Public Safety was not merely the ability to suppress Communism in any way it wished, but the fully legal and constitutionally mandated “responsibility” of the French Army to take any action necessary to maintain France’s “territorial integrity“. France’s emasculated National Assembly, purged of enough members to ensure those who remained could vote through all Salan’s demands, had in effect legally ceded it’s right to ever cede a French Department under any circumstances. The military had achieved its goal of an Algeria that would remain an “integral” part of France forever, no matter what the majority of Algerians or even the French people themselves wished.
General Salan would rule France as the head of the Committee of Public Safety for nearly a full decade.
Whether or not General Salan’s regime was “Fascist” has been a matter of some historical debate. There is no doubt that for most of the 68 Revolutionaries, and for most of those who opposed the regime throughout the 60’s, what they fought against was the “Regime of the Fascist Generals,” and the political atmosphere of even the following two decades brooked little in the way of scholarly contradiction. However, as with the aforementioned claim that the death of de Gaulle robbed the Committee of a living Hitler or Mussolini like figure with which to rally the people, instead presenting the French people with a Franco-like military generalismo who largely ruled in the name of the dead de Gaulle, and even allowed the now powerless offices of President and Prime Minister to change hands a few times between a few interchangeable civilian politicians who might have very well been specifically chosen for a total lack of popularity or charisma. The Committee and Salan did not promote any specific ideology or ism beyond vague French Nationalism and Imperialism, careful as they were to avoid appearing in any way similar to the “National Revolution“ of Vichy, and did not create any political parties or youth groups they endorsed directly. On the other hand, they did nothing to discourage the formation of Fascistic pro-regime groups like Occident, Europe-Action and FEN, and allowed pre-existing right-wing forces like Poujade’s UDCA free reign in the otherwise tightly controlled and increasingly rigged elections. Despite this, they were careful to avoid grant prominent far-rightists like Poujade or Tixier-Vignancour anything other than a cheerleading role due to their tainted association with Vichy, preferring to front their government with “empty suits”. It was an open secret that many people associated with the regime supported Vichy, and many collaborators were quietly pardoned, the regime itself preferred to deal with the memory of Vichy by simply “not remembering”. As many French students who had the misfortune to study during the 60’s can well recall, “Vichy simply did not exist” in the regimes textbooks, neither condoned - or condemned, it might as well have never happened. Instead, a Cult of de Gaulle Free France in exile was promoted in such a way as to avoid any undue fixation on the leftist character of the Resistance in France proper. Though the proximity to Franco’s Spain, and the similarity of the US-France relationship to the US-Spain relationship during this period, has made comparisons between Francoism and Salanism popular - these are often rather surface level, and fail to account for the deep differences in origin, character and structure between the Spanish and French regimes. Comparisons with the equally contemporary (but rather brief) Greek Colonels also does disservice to the sophisticated and highly Orwellian ideology of the Greek dictatorship, that went far beyond the patriotic vagaries of France under the Committee of Public Safety, where people were largely left to believe anything so long as it was not overtly leftist or anti-colonial.
It was precisely this characteristic of General Salan’s rule that added the somewhat unreal and surreal quality that informed Situationism and the French New Left critique of modernity. French people were still told they were free, and that they were citizens of a democratic Republic, so long as they did cross certain specific boundaries. There were unions, and even the occasional strike, yet most of the countries trade union leadership had disappeared. Huge unions like the CGT and FO had been beheaded by the coup, their militants hunted down for their long-standing historic ties to Socialist and Communist activism, forcing a regression of the French labour movement from large federations into tiny segregated craft unions. These small government approved unions were intentionally too small to coordinate nationally, and easily deposed of when they proved troublesome. Political parties canvassed, ran candidates, yet entire mass parties that had been supported by huge swathes of the French working class had vanished from the ballot paper. There was supposedly free speech, yet one could not discuss the raging war in Algeria in anything but the most patriotic terms. US Presidents like Eisenhower, Kennedy and Goldwater who gave passionate speeches about personality liberty and freedom were apparently fine with this state of affairs, yet the totalitarian Soviet Union offered support and solidarity to the underground opposition. The apparently care-free and materially focused culture of Western consumerism continued to spread, even as young French people became painfully aware that just out of public sight grave human right abuses that had once been confined to the colonial sphere had now returned home to haunt the streets of Paris. Torture and interrogation methods developed for use in Algeria were now used on Communists, Socialists and all those who questioned the eternal truth that Algeria was French. Capitalism seemed to provide little defence of the freedom of the individual when Neo-Colonial interests trumped democratic mandate. It would take until the late 60's for the French youth to develop a new opposition movement strong enough to end the Salan regime, and supplant the broken Communist and Socialist Party leaders who returned from exile and imprisonment (if they had even survived) as men out of time and out of touch. In a case of strangely historical symmetry, the roots of May 1968 can be found in May 1958.
Last edited:
I think you're missing a republic. The post WW2 republic is the fourth, and De Gaulle's would have been the fifth. I don't think this should be different from OTL since everything seem identical until his untimely death.
This does a great deal to explain how the French revolution manage to be something entirely new though, the old left would have been entirely done for or out of touch thanks to long exile.
This does a great deal to explain how the French revolution manage to be something entirely new though, the old left would have been entirely done for or out of touch thanks to long exile.
A regime of generals.
How ironic that it shall be toppled by a regime of former students no?
How ironic that it shall be toppled by a regime of former students no?
Bookmark1995
Banned
I'm assuming this cabal also refuses to surrender the other African colonies.
Man, it is astonishing how France came close to military dictatorship only a decade after the fall of Vichy France.
Man, it is astonishing how France came close to military dictatorship only a decade after the fall of Vichy France.
This is a flashback update on how the May 1968 revolution came to be. Maponus said that his dyslexia made him bad with dates/numbers, hence the lack of concrete dates.
Just saying, since this has been dormant for a while, that in the interim I've decided that the best way to continue this TL has been to seek out other contributors to help research and write a TL with such huge global scope, especially since my actual expertise as a historian is the interwar period and Fascism. This was the first timeline I actually managed to get going and I've been very glad of it's relative popularity, but truth is I've found the the sheer amount of stuff that needs to be covered very daunting - but I still put off asking for help out of embarrassment. But I don't think it's fair to let the timeline fester when I've received such positive feedback, so I'm glad I've made the decision to work with others collaboratively on continuing it. The first update by another contributor is done and will be posted here later today. If anyone thinks they have good ideas or want to contribute an update consider sending me a PM or talking to me on the timelines discord.
As to where the next update is set, hmmm.... where could this be happening?
As to where the next update is set, hmmm.... where could this be happening?
Last edited:
XI: India
I would like to thank @Maponus for the opportunity to do this piece. I hope everyone enjoys it.New Delhi, India
Outside the gates of 1, Safdarjung Road, khaki clad guards held back the tide of protestors. They were shouting, waving little red flags, holding signs with Lenin, Trotsky, Mao, Tariq Ali on them. Some even carried the flags of the Socialist Republic of Britain and the UPNA.
Shripad Amrit Dange, Ambassador to the Soviet Union, scowled as he watched the protestors. He had dealt with his share of revisionists and splits within his own party, but these new upstarts, taking inspiration from the so-called “New Left” in the West, and this general strike concerned him. They had not known the struggles of previous generations of communists against the British, a battle he and his comrades struggled alongside Panditji and Gandhiji and the rest. Not helping was his old comrade EMS leading the charge of this general strike, with his party winning all those state elections.
Dange took another sip of his tea, before rising as armed guards ushered his host into the room. Indira Gandhi was clad in one of her grandest saris. Despite her short stature, she exuded a presence in the room. Joining her was Sanjay, balding with thick Coke bottle glasses and his white clothing.
Indira sat, took some tea, and began, “What of the news from Moscow?”
“Premier Suslov is very anxious about the reports of the CPI-M’s victories and the news of the general strike. With what happened in Britain and America, he fears that another revolution hostile to the Soviet Union will erupt here. He wants a quick end to the situation.”
Sanjay scoffed, while his mother simply put down her tea.
“The Soviets have been very kind to us. Since Premier Khrushchev visited my father, they’ve provided much support to us. And we were assured that the Communists were not trying to undermine the government.”
“And we’ve followed that since! We’ve been very loyal to your government. Unfortunately, there were some in our party that failed to take note of that…”
“You failed to control your own people, and they’re threatening our country!” Sanjay stomped down. “If you had a better handle…”
“They took out that letter. Damned forgery…”
Indira pulled her hand up, ending the argument.
“Dange, you understand your appointment as Ambassador was a sign of appreciation you and your party has given to our government over the years.”
“Of course.”
“And you had a previous relationship with Suslov?”
“We spoke for a bit before Independence. With the theorist Andrei Zhdanov”
“Then you can assure him that we are taking the most appropriate measures to keep order in this country. You are aware that with the withdrawal of US troops, Pakistan is on the verge of collapse. Khan can’t keep order, not without his US support. Wallace poured him with money and arms. Rigged the elections against Bhutto. Lost Bangladesh. There is chaos in the streets. Rebellion. We must seize the opportunity at this juncture. I’m sure the Premier would agree.”
Indira poured more tea.
“ These new regimes in Washington and London, they may talk about their new way, but we can’t be sure that they can be trusted. The Soviets have been supporting us for 20 years. These strikers and their Western masters threaten to destroy everything my father and Gandhiji worked so hard to build.”
Dange watched as Indira put down her tea.
“Pardon me, Madame Prime Minister, but what do you intend to do.”
“We’re doing what’s necessary,” Sanjay interjected. “What Grandfather did in 1957.”
Dange shivered, thinking of what had happened.
“On a much larger scale.” Indira finished. “They’ll call me a tyrant. A dictator. But we must safeguard our country. Our democracy. Protect the legacy of the Freedom Fighters. I’m sure you would agree?”
“Yes, Madame Prime Minister.”
Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala
“Comrade, may I come in?”
Elamkulam Manakkal Sankaran Namboodiripad, Chief Minister of Kerala ushered the assistant in.
“I have… news for you. The government may impose a state of emergency over the entire country. Impose President’s Rule over states that elected CPI-M governments.”
“Just like they did during the Liberation Struggle 18 years ago.”
“What do you intend to do?”
EMS leaned forward in his chair.
“They were afraid then. Afraid of-of-of the CIA and the Americans interfering in our politics. The current prime minister told her father to overthrow us. Now, the-the-the-they are afraid of Suslov and the KGB. The difference is, we now have allies who will not stand for our repression.W-W-We are stronger now, the people have shown their support of us. I’m prepared to start a new Liberation Struggle.”
There's a long tradition in Western spy thrillers to call Soviet leaders "premiers", though in fact all of them were General Secretaies of the CPSU.
The actual premier/prime minister of the USSR was the chairman of the Council of Ministers (the head of government). With the exception of Stalin (1946 to 1953) and Khrushchev (1958 to 1964) this post was never held by the same man, that was general secretary of the CPSU at the time.
- Status