WW2 didn't have the effect of conservatism on the European youth. The Post-War youth were, if anything, even more leftist. 1968 in France, the Radical Chic left wing radicals, the Post-War movements in Germany of youth that had come of age calling out the previous generation (still in power) as a gaggle of closet Nazis, the impact of the miniseries "Holocaust" in West Germany, and so on.
TL 191: Where Did It Go Wrong?
- Thread starter Emperor Norton I
- Start date
WW2 didn't have the effect of conservatism on the European youth. The Post-War youth were, if anything, even more leftist. 1968 in France, the Radical Chic left wing radicals, the Post-War movements in Germany of youth that had come of age calling out the previous generation (still in power) as a gaggle of closet Nazis, the impact of the miniseries "Holocaust" in West Germany, and so on.
That's why I'm imagining that the youth of the New South might tend to be more leftist, while the youth living in the rest of the US might tend to be more nationalistic. Also, I think that something similar might happen to the youth living in 1960s era 191 Great Brittan and France, but the youth living in Germany might tend to see themselves as being somewhat superior to their neighbors, and most of them might also embrace German nationalism. After all, it is the system that worked for them, and helped them to defeat their mortal enemies. Just my opinion, and it is just for fun.
If we assume Germany as a more well to do variant of the Soviets -- a nation which won its wars, even though it provoked the first. A nation which is industrialized, modern and not oh so authoritarian as the Soviets were. But nonetheless, is not the United States, and is the more goosestep nation in contrast -- there would still be a great "calling out" of the past. Like the USSR, the youth would not want to collapse the entire state or its ideals, but only the old men who ran it, and make it live up to its ideals.
I also wonder at the prospect of a Cold War after the conflict. I could see the two former allies slowly come apart. They are all that remains standing after the war, and they are going to come into competition which will put them one against the other. Germany represents Old European Imperialism: the strong Prussian state, colonies, and submission and might. The US by contrast is, while Statist, far more Socialist and liberal. And I think with the CS defeated and finally given room to breath, the US will find itself uncomfortable with its European ally it had made in the throws of bloodlust for revenge. And somewhere in there, Japan.
I'm not sure that would be the case; German is much farther from the USA and far smaller relative to it than the Soviet Union ever was (more to the point Germany lacks an Internationalist Ideology that would allow its influence to insinuate itself into foreign polities or the paranoid nightmares of the USA).
I'd imagine that a significant US isolationism is far more likely than a Cold War, with the United States taking a look at the Old World and deciding to leave it stewing in its own juices (allowing the USA to assimilate its gains and the troubles that come with them, as well as further establish hegemony over the Western Hemisphere).
Having said that I doubt they'd like the Germans very much and might well attempt to sabotage them on the cheap (as well as Vice Versa).
I'd imagine that a significant US isolationism is far more likely than a Cold War, with the United States taking a look at the Old World and deciding to leave it stewing in its own juices (allowing the USA to assimilate its gains and the troubles that come with them, as well as further establish hegemony over the Western Hemisphere).
Having said that I doubt they'd like the Germans very much and might well attempt to sabotage them on the cheap (as well as Vice Versa).
I tend to disagree; consider that most of the politicians who won World War I in Our Own timeline didn't exactly write their own ticket at the elections following that conflict and please also consider the backlash against the PARTIES that took Countries into that conflict. Quite frankly even if Theodore Roosevelt retained immense personal popularity, it seems highly likely that the Democratic Establishment would pay the price for dragging an entire generation into the Meat Grinder and then offering the survivors nothing more than "Same Old, Same Old" on the other side (especially after forty-odd years of Democrat Supremacy).
Most did manage to keep their seats after the war though, and in the end most fell because they were heading coalition governments which didn't survive the peace, Llyod George and Robert Borden spring to mind for me, Roosevelt was operating under no such strain though. Since he was running, and running on a platform of having won the first war in decades, and having arguably won the peace, I think Roosevelt would have remained a viable candidate. IMO it would have been more thematically appropriate for him to die in office, and with him the popularity of the Democrats takes a nose dive and the Socialists win in 1924 due to offering a fresh face and fresh policies. The death of Roosevelt would serve as a thematic device (end of the Remembrance Era) and offered a real avenue for a new runner to take the stage.
bguy
Donor
TR kind of had to lose the 1920 election though for the rest of the series to work. If TR wins in 1920, he will force the Confederate government to turn over Roger Kimball for the murder of the crew of the USS Ericsson. The Whig government surrendering a prominent war hero (as Kimball would be perceived in much of the CSA) probably results in Featherston winning the 1921 Confederate presidential election. President Featherston will then have the CSA unilaterally cancel reparations (since that was the central plank of his platform.) TR certainly isn't going to stand for that, so he will have the US invade and topple Featherston, and the whole series is pretty much over by 1922.
I'd doubt that personally. Immediate war wouldn't be popular, and it would probably be caught up in political wrangling for a while, and might be resisted by the Socialists/Confederates which would make everyone look bad. That or Roosevelt could die before the revelation becomes public. I forget when the issue of Kimball came up, 1922?
bguy
Donor
The Socialists in Congress would pretty much have to follow TR's lead if Featherston unilaterally cancelled reparations. To do otherwise would be political suicide.
Besides it's not like the Socialists could stop TR even if they wanted to. As commander-in-chief he has full legal authority to order the US Army to invade the CSA if the Confederates break the peace treaty, and TR certainly isn't afraid to act unilaterally if necessary.
In the canon timeline the Kimball story broke just a few days before Upton Sinclair was inaugurated, so late February/early March 1921. Whereas TR didn't die in story until 1924.
Though upon further reflection, it was Kimball who subsequently kept a Freedom Party goon from shooting Ainsworth Layne when the Freedom Party attacked one of Layne's rallies in Charleston. If Kimball has been extradited to the United States then he can't be in Charleston to prevent that murder, so maybe a Freedom Party stalwart does end up assassinating Layne. The backlash from killing a presidential candidate should be enough to cost Featherston the '21 election.
It's been a while since I've read the 191 series, but I seem to remember that there was a failed attempt at a Russian Revolution sometime during the early 1920s, and that both Stalin and Lenin were killed by the Czar's troop as the rebellion was crushed. Well, it seems to me that the Czar would be in an extremely weak position following the end of the Second Great War, and at the same time the demands of the Russian peasants have never really been satisfied, and the peasants themselves are still very unhappy. With the British and French no longer around to help prop up the Czar's rule, perhaps a second revolution might occur during the post war years, and this time the revolution wouldn't be led by Lenin, and it would instead be led by Leon Trotsky.
This might result in a Marxist Trotskyist regime which is much more fanatical than the Soviet Union in OTL, and to make matters worse, the new Red Army inherits a significant amount of modern military hardware after the Czar is overthrown. Also, I think that the Chinese Revolution of 1949 will still occur in the 191 universe, and by 1950 huge swaths of Eurasia are under Red tyranny.
This might result in a Marxist Trotskyist regime which is much more fanatical than the Soviet Union in OTL, and to make matters worse, the new Red Army inherits a significant amount of modern military hardware after the Czar is overthrown. Also, I think that the Chinese Revolution of 1949 will still occur in the 191 universe, and by 1950 huge swaths of Eurasia are under Red tyranny.
Where did it go wrong?
The American Empire series and the WWII series.
Turtledove did not need to be so uncreative as to basically create a American Hitler.
It would've been interesting to see the Confederate States breaking apart at the seams after their defeat in the Great War and some states attempt to return the Union while other states attempt to retain their independence, with the Central Powers supporting the breakaways while the Allies support the Loyalists.
The American Empire series and the WWII series.
Turtledove did not need to be so uncreative as to basically create a American Hitler.
It would've been interesting to see the Confederate States breaking apart at the seams after their defeat in the Great War and some states attempt to return the Union while other states attempt to retain their independence, with the Central Powers supporting the breakaways while the Allies support the Loyalists.
On the other hand when the GB Liberals went out of power they never really reclaimed it; having been one of the "Big Two" for approximately three-quarters of a century they've been little more than padding for coalition governments ever since the Great War. I would also like to point out the Democratic Party's defeat at the polls in 1920 even after the Triumphs of Mr Wilson - which seems a reasonably applicable comparison (one also suspects that a Roosevelt Administration during wartime would be quite as wearying as the Government of Mr Churchill and I can easily imagine him wearing out his welcome while making a bid for just one more inauguration)..
Having said that, I do think that your version of things makes for an absolutely fascinating Alternate History EC - it is quite plausible that TR could have scratched out a win in '20 even with the "Greenback" vote generally tending towards the Socialist (it might have been mentioned elsewhere that I tend to imagine Mr Roosevelt lost in great part due to being a President more popular than his Party); his entering office for a Third Term was never entirely out of the question and it is fascinating to consider the possible ramifications of that Point of Divergence.
In fact this actually sounds like an Excellent Point of Divergence leading into a CS CIVIL WAR timeline (as the Tsar of New Zealand actually pointed out in his THROUGH THE ENDLESS GREY thread); as a man who has done some thinking along those lines myself this makes me peculiarly happy, though one must say that my greatest reservation about a CS Civil War timeline would be that I can never think up something sufficiently interesting for the United States to be about during such a period of strife for it's Southern neighbour.
I really do need to think through the possible ramifications for an Establishment (as opposed to a Stalwart) Victory in such a conflict, but keep coming back to "South Africa meets the Civil Rights Movement" where the CSA is concerned and never getting much further!
In any case, please don't think my counterpoints to your take on things are intended to dismiss the points of interest in your ideas for a Roosevelt Victory in 1920 - I merely wanted to point out that there are reasonably convincing arguments against that take on things, just for the sake of Fairness to Professor Turtledove.
By the way, this isn't exactly a WHERE DID IT GO WRONG? point but it will probably fit in quite well with the rest of the ideas here - it seems a little sad that Mr Turtledove didn't think to make the Entr'acte for the Second Great War in Europe a Civil War/Meltdown in the Dual Monarchy, with ethnic divisions and a long minority for Otto Von Habsburg leaving plenty of room for the sort of factionalism (having Emperor Karl die on schedule in 1922 would be very much in the Turtledove Style and would also allow a fair bit of room for storytelling).
bguy
Donor
It's certainly possible. In the books Kimball himself was thinking right after he prevented the shooting of Layne that if the Stalwarts didn't get out of there then they would end up fighting the entire Charleston police fight (a fight Kimball seemed to think the Stalwarts might actually be able to win), and that if the Stalwarts did defeat the Charleston Police then that would force the South Carolina Governor to call out the state militia, who would then either slaughter the Stalwarts or mutiny and go over to them (putting South Carolina into revolution.) Such a sequence of events could certainly be the start of a Confederate Civil War.
My general thinking is that thematically it would probably have been better for Roosevelt to have a third term (as honestly I can see his antipathy for the British/Canadians leading to the disastrous Canadian policy, as well as harsh Confederate policies which could logically galvanize revanchists in the CSA) then die either in office or decline to run for a third which seems an overwhelming Socialist victory in the next election as the Democrats without Teddy are basically a non-starter since they can't find a powerful message or candidate for the presidency in 1924. Basically the way I see it would then be that the death of Roosevelt is the death of the Remembrance ideology, and a post-war generation who are against conscription/militarism/keeping the CSA/Canadians down, ect. Which could more logically set up the events in the Second Great War.
You know it has just struck me that a thread dedicated to acting as a Home for Points of Divergence which can be found in the Southern Victory novels - moments like Chester Martin's saving President Roosevelt from a snipers bullet or Burton Mitchel's decision to seek what amounted to a re-Election in 1927, when Timeline-191 might have taken a very different course.
Opportunities for an Alternate History of an Alternate History, if you will!
Opportunities for an Alternate History of an Alternate History, if you will!
I disagree. Remembrancism was, very obviously, a parallel to revanchism.
The two fronted war, the socialist opposition to the war effort, the Poland/Utah parallels, Morrel=Rommel.
I haven't read it in years but those were the obvious ones.
In all fairness it is quite possible for the Timeline 191 United States to combine elements from both France and Germany on a mix-and-match basis; part of the fun in Alternate History is being able to pick and mix the most interesting bits from Our Own History then combine them in interesting and unusual ways.
So from a certain point of view you're BOTH quite right!
So from a certain point of view you're BOTH quite right!