Twilight of the Red Tsar

Status
Not open for further replies.
When word of this reached the CNS, a ferocious debate erupted among the leadership between pragmatists and nationalists. While they were debating, however, the Israeli representative to the United Nations, Yosef Tekoah, gave a speech that in the words of one Assembly member, “chilled the bones of everyone in the room for the rest of the week.” In a debate on the legality of representation of the CNS in the UN, he expanded his speech to include the totality of not just Soviet, but Russian history:


“In recent Russian history, there was a revolution by a band of people. The regime they sought to replace was anti-Semitic, authoritarian and a nightmare to Eastern Europe, while they preached openness, freedom and equality. But I’m not talking about the Second Russian Civil War, I’m talking about the first. That revolution, which spoke so much of freedom to the oppressed has led to the most oppression any corner of the world has ever seen. So while we will continue to do all we can to destroy the monstrosity of the Soviet government, we will not allow the world to pretend that the CNS will absolve a characteristic in Russia that festered long before Communism was even invented.”


The remarks drew standing ovation from the former Warsaw Pact, Chinese and Iranian representatives, and little dissent elsewhere. As the same member recalled, “It was a brutal wake-up call to reality. Many of us assumed that we would never lose, because the West would always have our back since we were their best chance to remove the Communists. Then we realised that even if we did overthrow the Communists, or even if we did have our back against the ropes, we would still be Russians, and the world would still hate us; we needed all the help we could get. It put our frailty into perspective, and some dead islands on the far side of the world that none of us had ever seen suddenly seemed very trivial indeed.” Reluctantly, the CNS signed onto the deal, inviting fury among the Soviets for “selling the Soviet people to the highest bidder.” However, most residents of the islands didn’t mind, correctly seeing that Russia, whoever won, was facing existential crisis, and that perhaps it wasn’t so bad to have new owners, ones who offered substantially more human rights than the Soviet Union ever did.

This is a point I've been making for a while: even if the CNS does triumph, Russia history shows that promise can give way to peril and disappointment. Let's hope the CNS and the leaders that succeed it can learn that lesson well.
 
I don't know what this is, but I'm at least 93% certain it isn't good.

Well essentially apologism is making excuses for those that committed crimes, more specially crimes against humanity or war crimes and in Japan there is a problem with apologism for what the Japanese Army did in China.
 
Ech, revanchiste Japan. Disappointed.
Yes and no. Competing claims and both Nations have been willing to change the border based on how was on the winning side in the last war. If anything this seems most similar to the takeover of Sakhalin in the Siberian Intervention of the late 1910s and 1920s. If Japan had seen that the Reds were going to win and had offered not to get involved with the Whites in exchange for all of Sakhalin, IMO, Lenin might have gone for it.
 
How will Japanese military budget influe on economic performances? OTL, Japan could let the United States assume most of this item, thereby freeing money to invest.

Even when they'll deny Imperial war crimes (maybe, to the point of actually justifying the atrocities, instead of trying to pretend they didn't happen) even more than in OTL?

"We mainly killed Communists there, and any story about atrocities is Red propaganda!"

More seriously, if China is ascending, will Japan try to tone down the ultra-nationalism?

Yes and no. Competing claims and both Nations have been willing to change the border based on how was on the winning side in the last war. If anything this seems most similar to the takeover of Sakhalin in the Siberian Intervention of the late 1910s and 1920s. If Japan had seen that the Reds were going to win and had offered not to get involved with the Whites in exchange for all of Sakhalin, IMO, Lenin might have gone for it.

Will a revanchist current exist in post-Soviet Russia ("The CNS bargained away Russian lands!")?
 
"We mainly killed Communists there, and any story about atrocities is Red propaganda!"

More seriously, if China is ascending, will Japan try to tone down the ultra-nationalism?
I dunno, China's ascending, has a burning desire to avenge themselves on Japan and unite the populace with something, know that nuclear weapons are bloody dangerous, and might not give two shites about Japan's protectors.

That's the kind of combo that gives Tokyo ulcers. By contrast, an apology, a meaningful one is a lot easier to do, and doesn't carry a risk of China deciding to really explain how Nanking truly made them feel.

In fact, I can see the US casually explaining to Japan the concept of "Apologize before China makes you glow in the dark, again".

The US ain't letting shit get out of hand because Japan can't be pissed to apologize properly, especially if it could spread into Russia and really go nuts.
 
I dunno, China's ascending, has a burning desire to avenge themselves on Japan and unite the populace with something, know that nuclear weapons are bloody dangerous, and might not give two shites about Japan's protectors.

That's the kind of combo that gives Tokyo ulcers. By contrast, an apology, a meaningful one is a lot easier to do, and doesn't carry a risk of China deciding to really explain how Nanking truly made them feel.

In fact, I can see the US casually explaining to Japan the concept of "Apologize before China makes you glow in the dark, again".

The US ain't letting shit get out of hand because Japan can't be pissed to apologize properly, especially if it could spread into Russia and really go nuts.

I think they're more eager to slaughter Russians and anything remotely tied to it, rather than focus on Japan.
 
Should Any Party Attempt to Abolish

QueerSpear

Banned
With Napoleon's blessing I will be publishing the second attempt at writting the backlash against the welfare state. The orignal post, The Fall of Welfare State, will be deleted.

Should Any Party Attempt to Abolish...[1]

Economic History of America since World War Two by Milton Friedman​

By the 1960s the so called New Deal consensus was already fraying at the edges due to a variety of issues. One thing to affirm is that the welfare state was an unworkable band aid that would never survive long term due to its high costs. However, state economics is not the only reason for the increasing collapse of this economic order.

The end of the manufacturing monopoly held by the US since the end of WW2 with the rise of the West (until the Re-Unification, which triggered a short-term recession) German and Japanese economies as well the sudden opening of new markets in the newly liberated Eastern European and East Asian nations after the fall of communism were a contributing factor. The rapid growth of the world market, increasing competition against American made goods had made economic growth sluggish in the late 1960s although America would recover fully by the early 1970s due to policies of deregulation and lower taxation.

Excerpt from The Death of the New Deal by William Clinton​

Nothing represents how popular opinion had changed more than the mass cuts to the Old Age, Survivors and Disability Insurance (OASDI) program, mostly known as Social Security, in 1974. Created by Franklin Roosevelt's Second New Deal in 1935, the thirty-seven page Social Security Act was a hallmark legislative policy of the New Deal and would survive until the hard right swing in the 1970s. Under a moderate Republican presidency with a decidedly neo-conservative[2] Congress meant that there was a considerate change in economic policy. While continuing the trend of market liberalization the Knowland administration is mostly infamous for the even back then extremely controversial Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) of 1970.

To understand the reasons why the Republican Party, whose previous two presidents would prove to be friendly to the post-war consensus, would take such a dramatic change in policy one must take into account the growing grassroots neo-conservative movement which had been brewing for decades. Never satisfied with the New Deal policies in the first place, conservatives would work tirelessly to discredit and oppose any further expansion of the welfare state.

Inspired by works such as William Buckley's On Social InSecurity polemic, although the man himself would fall from grace in the 1960s due to his support for segregation and white supremacy in the previous decade, and others such as Barry Goldwater's The Conscience of a Conservative, neo-conservatives would be propelled from a political pariah to take over the Republican Party. With growing distrust towards "big government" policies as a backlash to communist atrocities, the PRWORA was inevitable, even though president Knowland opposed the Act, the neo-conservative wing of the party would continue to push for its de facto abolition until they achieved it. However, even the modest 10% cuts to Social Security, resulted in popular backlash that weakened the anti-welfare advocates.

Excerpt from The Encyclopedia of US Elections

Election of 1968: The election of 1968 was the 46th presidential election. Incumbent William Knowland would win the nomination, not only for facing weak opposition but also due to the strength of his domestic and foreign policies. The Democratic Party would have an open field which would result in the upset ascension of moderate John McKeithen whom nevertheless would face a dirty campaign, marked by character assassination and accusations of being a fellow traveler. The election would result in Knowland's re-election.

Congressional Election of 1970: The midterm election for 92nd United States Congress. The election would result in a net gain of 52 seats in the House of Representatives and a pickup of nine seats in the Senate for the Democratic Party, hence being known as the Democratic Revolution. The election was part of a political backlash against Social Security budget trimming and the godlessness of Objectivism, as well the ongoing recession.

Election of 1972: The 47th presidential election, often considered one of the presidential elections to mark the beginning of the Sixth Party System. With growing geopolitical stability and the end of the political chaos of the sixties, this election was marked purely by economic policies. The Democratic Party would nominate former Republican John Lindsay while the GOP would nominate the radical neo-conservative Roger McBride. Hurt by the privatization of Social Security, a "jobless recovery" from the late sixties' recession and voter fatigue, the election would result in Lindsay's narrow victory. The Dems would maintain their majorities in Congress, although with a net loss in the House of two seats.

Election of 1976: The 48th presidential election in US history. Incumbent president John Lindsay would win the Democratic nomination after the second ballot while the GOP would face an open field result in the nomination of Ronald Reagan. Lindsay would be re-elected with a comfortable majority. The Dems would suffer a net loss of one seat in the Senate but maintain over Congress majority.

Progressive Backlash

Even before the Social Security cuts were signed into law, progressive backlash was already grooming. All over the United States, mass protests against the administration and Republicans would be widespread. While the GOP condemned them as "hoodlums and leeches", many of protestors were key voters for the party that opposed the conservative plans for the insurance program. The so called Democratic Revolution of 1970 would result in more than a loss of the federal legislative but also an ideological defeat. Not only had the American people turned against the small government ideology, but they had also voted against some of its largest defenders. The House Freedom From Socialism Caucus would lose all but one member, thus resulting in the caucus being abolished.

The effects would be wider than the federal government - across the Union the Democratic Party would sweep state legislatures, assuming majorities in most or further expanding their plurality - achieving a total control of 33 of the 36 legislatures needed for the rectification of a constitutional amendment.

[1] This of course is a citation of Eisenhower's famous quote on Social Security. I think the quote could still occur TTL, and it could serve to humble the GOP
[2] Neo-conservatives refer TTL to libertarians rather than a hawkish foreign policy, with a socially moderate (or opportunist) along with a rabid support for an unregulated free market and no safety net
 
Last edited:
With Napoleon's blessing I will be publishing the second attempt at writting the backlash against the welfare state. The orignal post, The Fall of Welfare State, will be deleted.
Should Any Party Attempt to Abolish...[1]
-snip-
So how does John Lindsey, a moderate Democrat who was considered to be a mediocre New York City mayor, manage to win any kind of national election? What is his ATL political career prevents him from sliding into mediocrity?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top