Weber's Germany: The Veterinarian Totalitarian

Will the British government relocate to Canada?

Either that or the queen will be of Canadian Descent.

That, or probably some alter-ego of some famous celebrity. Who knows?

Oh wait. Tom does. :D

Indeed he does.
I do?? I just put that up to confuse you lot. ;)

Nah, this mini-update will be up later this week.

(Also, if someone's an expert on how British royal peerage works, kindly drop me a PM. I need to check something,)

who? is? that?

Herr Weber, clearly.
Shit, it came true!

That's actually Queen Wilhemina of the Netherlands, whose stance on Indonesian independence was basically "lolno" all the way until the Dutch hand was forced.
 
The Canadian Queen of England
And here we have it! Enjoy. :D

=======
(Excerpt from Edward VIII – The Reluctant Warrior-King, Trevelyan 2006)

CHAPTER 2 – THE MARRIAGE CRISIS


Fig. 1: Edward VIII and his bride, Nancy Kennedy (née Fraser) [1].

Within the first year of his coronation, King Edward VIII was to be plunged into the singular incident which may practically have defined his reign were it not for the outbreak of the period known as the Second World Wars, where British interests came under siege by Nazi Germany and its European allies during the Second Great War and by Imperial Japan in the (Great) Asia-Pacific War, where Edward VIII, despite initial pro-German leanings, soon took a steadfast role in rallying the Empire’s against the threat of Axis domination [2].

The controversy over Edward VIII’s marriage was due to concerns raised over his chosen spouse, Nancy Kennedy (née Fraser; b.1907 d.2000), the third child and sole daughter of the renowned Canadian industrialist Archibald Fraser. Nancy had been married to Hugh John Kennedy (b. 1892 d. 1932), second cousin to Joseph Patrick Kennedy Sr., the United States Ambassador to England and father of the politicians Joseph P. Kennedy Jr., John F. Kennedy and Robert F. Kennedy, until Hugh’s untimely death several months prior to Archibald Fraser’s own passing [3]. This marriage had produced one child, James Archibald Kennedy (b.1930 d. 1973).


Fig. 2: Left: Archibald Fraser, Canadian industrialist and father of Nancy Kennedy. Right: Joseph Patrick Kennedy Sr., United States Ambassador to England and her cousin-in-law.


Edward had apparently first met Nancy while he was the Prince of Wales on a diplomatic tour of the Dominion of Canada in 1927; during a visit the industries of the Province of New Brunswick, Nancy was introduced to the visiting Royal Family as a débutante. Edward’s younger brother Albert, Duke of York, mentions in his memoirs that when Edward first laid eyes on Nancy “it was as though time had stopped for Edward. Haltingly, he asked me who that ‘vision of beauty’ was”. When so informed that she was the daughter of the magnate the party was visiting, “Edward confided to me that she was ‘the first interesting person’ in the room he had seen.”

The meeting decidedly had an impact on the young Edward; it certainly would explain the profusion of impassioned, if abecedarian, love poetry that the Prince produced upon his return to England, and the subsequent “black depression” which consumed him upon learning of her engagement to Hugh Kennedy, the New York stockbroker, businessman and branch member of the politically powerful Kennedy family, in 1929. However, when Kennedy passed away on business in 1932, Edward began to write to Nancy more frequently, consoling her in those trying times.


Fig. 4: Edward VIII and Nancy Kennedy on holiday in the Mediterranean, 1936.

Over time, their relationship grew from friendship to romance, and the two were seen in public increasingly often, with the Prince frequently visiting New Brunswick on rather shoddy pretexts. King George V did not hesitate to voice his displeasure at their liaisons, citing several objections – reasons which would surface on a nationwide scale soon after – on why the pairing was unsuitable, Nancy Kennedy’s political-industrial connections and position being foremost in his mind. This disapproval apparently only seemed to strengthen Prince Edward’s resolve in courting her.

Thus, following the passing of George V, and Edward VIII’s coronation, the announcement of their engagement seemed all but imminent, with the American and Canadian press reporting on firmer and firmer “rumours” towards late 1936. There was much consternation among the overseas and local British population towards this, with many agreeing with the last King that the coupling was doomed, with the King-Emperor under the thumb of the savvy Canadian socialite, while others noting a particularly fortuitous opportunity for trans-Atlantic relations.


Fig. 5: Canadian Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King (left) and his British counterpart Stanley Baldwin (right).


The cabinet and parliament under Stanley Baldwin was similarly ruptured in two, along with the premierships of the various dominions of the British Empire. The Canadian Prime Minister, Mackenzie King, was caught in a particularly tight bind; while he was personally opposed to the union, to publicly enunciate his opinion would be to directly suggest that Canadians were second-class subjects within the Empire. The opponents of the marriage produced the following objections in the document which came to be known as the “Disapproval Memorandum”, some of which were constitutional, others being “moral objections”:

  1. Nancy Kennedy is not of any aristocratic or royal house, and the marriage of the King to her is simply a manifestation of his radical ideas in democratising and modernising the monarchy.
  2. Nancy Kennedy is a widow with child; the issue of this child [commonly misquoted as “the issue of her issue”] with regards to his position in the line of succession and suitable tithe– let alone that of Nancy Kennedy herself – must be resolved should the King choose to marry her.
    • The rapidness with which the King has chosen to pursue Nancy Kennedy following the passing of her husband, Hugh John Kennedy, is improper (see Point 4).
  3. Nancy Kennedy is directly related to the industrial complex of the Dominion of Canada and related by marriage to the Kennedy political “dynasty” of the United States of America; this marriage would grant both lobbies undue influence on the monarchy.
  4. The behaviour of the King with regards to his courtship of Nancy Kennedy has been improper and impertinent; considerable portions of his royal salary have already been invested in her dress and jewellery, excesses which will only be exacerbated in their marriage.

When presented, it was evident that none of the objections raised had much ground in either constitutional precedent or definite moral basis, as these were responded to as such:

  1. There was no law barring the King from marrying a woman of “common” descent (and indeed, some of Edward VIII’s heirs were to do much the same).
  2. It was a fait accompli that the child, James Kennedy, would not be in the line of succession as he was not sired by the King; it was only a matter of which courtesy title was to receive.
  3. While true, Hugh John Kennedy had never been in strong contact with the line of Patrick Kennedy; the familial relation might nonetheless prove useful in future diplomacy. Regardless, Nancy Kennedy was born, and still was, a lawful subject of the British Empire.
  4. While not sterling, the King’s personal behaviour and choice of expenditure, so long as it was not morally outrageous or in danger of infringing on the health of the economy, was not a matter for Parliament to decide.

The three options regarding the arrangement of their marriage were proposed:

  1. The King is to marry Nancy Kennedy and she is to become Queen of England and Queen-Empress of the British Empire.
  2. The King is to marry Nancy Kennedy, but she will be made Princess Consort (or some variant thereof) instead of Queen.
  3. Abdication for the King and any potential offspring of this union, whereupon Edward will be free to make any marital decisions free from further constitutional implications.

The first option, while objected to by some parties, was fully legal, as there was no law barring morganatic marriages within the British crown – indeed, marriages between the monarch and “commoners” were still frequent up until the 17th century, and Edward’s brother Albert, the Duke of York, had already married Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, who was not a peer, as earl’s daughters did not inherit their peerage. The second option had European precedents, such as the marriage between Alexander of Greece and Aspasia Manos; the latter was initially styled “Madame Manos”, then Princess of Greece following Alexander’s death. The third option was the last resort: Edward VIII had confided to Stanley Baldwin that if the Government was opposed to the marriage, he was “prepared to go”.

The divide existed beyond the parliaments and the premierships; the controversial decision of the King had also split society among class lines, with many ex-servicemen and those working-class in support, the middle class ambivalent, and the upper class in disgust. Former British Prime Minister David Lloyd George, who supported the union both personally and in view of preservation of the law, wrote a three-page letter widely distributed by the Daily Express and the Daily Mail in support of the King, and lent his auspices to the “King’s Movement”, which was in support of the marriage [4]. Among the Prime Ministers of the dominions, ambivalence reigned, especially within Mackenzie King, who abstained from comment or even informal voting. Ultimately, there was no solid constitutional or moral basis for rejecting the marriage, nor was there any from excluding Nancy Kennedy from the position of Queen, and as such the two were wed on the 10th of December, 1936, with their union producing one son, the future George VI, the “Boy King”, in 1938. George’s half-brother, James Archibald Kennedy, was made the first and only “Duke of Edmunston, New Brunswick” (over the protests of Madawaska republicans [5]); his title was a life peerage, and was not to pass beyond his generation [6].


Fig. 6: The state wedding of Edward VIII and Nancy Kennedy [7].

After the wedding and with the looming threat of war on the continent, public opinion of Nancy Kennedy rapidly shifted from uncertainty and suspicion to that of acceptance and eventually adoration as Queen Nancy proved to be a stabilising influence on the radical and occasionally erratic behaviour of the King, advising against an ill-timed trip to Nazi Germany in 1937, when opinion against the Nazi regime was at an all-time low due to the forced annexation of Austria in the same year. Edward VIII personally felt that Communism was the greater threat (a view which would greatly influence or at least align with subsequent British foreign policy), and approved of the policy of appeasement propounded by Chamberlain’s government, even after the Sudetenland Crisis which had ended with the domination of Czechoslovakia by Germany. When war broke out, her visits to Canada and the other dominions proved to be beneficial to morale in the British Empire both during the wars and in the uneasy peace and decolonisation period.


Fig. 7: Queen Nancy reviewing troops during the Cold War [7].


After Edward VIII’s death due to a stroke in 1952, her influence persisted in her new position of Queen Regent (as George VI was only 14 at the time). During her regency, she closely consulted (and occasionally combated) with the Duke of York, George VI’s uncle. Once George VI reached the age of majority in 1956, she reduced her public presence as Queen Mother, although she still remained massively popular in her native Canada. The Duke of Edmunston, New Brunswick was appointed special attaché to the British diplomatic mission in the United States in 1971, where it was joked by the press that “The Americans had sent us a Kennedy (i.e. Joseph P. Kennedy Sr.); it’s only right that we send one back!” He would hold this position until 1973, when he and his family were assassinated by the Irish Republican Army, who had planted a bomb on their private plane which subsequently detonated over the Atlantic Ocean [8].


Fig. 8: The two sons of Queen Nancy, King George VI of the United Kingdom (left) and James Archibald Kennedy (right), the Duke of Edmundston, New Brunswick and Special Attaché to the British Embassy in America [9].

The Duke’s sudden death affected the Queen Mother deeply; she wrote in her diary of the day after the assassination that she “was utterly devastated…for a mother to bury her child is among the greatest tragedies any parent could suffer”. Much like Queen Victoria before her, the Queen Mother nearly retreated totally from the public eye; it is arguable that all the way up until her own passing, Queen Nancy never quite recovered from the loss of her first son. As the Duke of York had passed away in the prior year, George VI was now left very much to his own devices. Even in her reduced capacity, the Queen Mother’s death at the beginning of the new millennium spurred a huge outcry of public sorrow, with her state funeral being attended by nearly more than million people milling on the road leading to Westminster Abbey. Truly, the impact of the “Canadian Queen of England” on the rule of Edward VIII and beyond is one which can still be felt to this day.


Fig. 9: Funeral of the Queen Mother.

===


[1] Image taken from here, which is a pretty handy source for royalty-free (haw!) photos of people.

[2] I only said "the King" way back then, giving myself a convenient back door. ;) I'm aware that Edward VIII in OTL wasn't exactly the most pleasant of people and had a massive blind spot the size of Nazi Germany, but Nancy Kennedy gets his head straightened out a little bit.

[3] Nan Kennedy (nee Fraser) is a real historical figure, although I seriously doubt Hugh Kennedy was in any way related to the Kennedies. Nonetheless, I chucked that detail in for kicks and giggles. In this 'verse, Hugh is a theoretical grandson of either of the two known sons of John Kennedy II (b. 1804), indeed making him second cousins with JPK Sr.

[4] As in OTL, although in this case, support for the King actually manifests into something real due to the confluence of interests of those interested in preserving the law and those genuinely in favour of the union, with Lloyd George representing the overlap in TTL.

[5] Yes, this is apparently an actual thing. Fiction is weirder than...other fiction, I guess. :p

[6] Thanks to Dan for pinch-hitting here. The issue of James Kennedy's issue becomes a moot point anyway. :( He can't become "Duke of New Brunswick" because the baronetcy there was still extant at the time.

[7] OTL Queen Elizabeth II stands in here for Queen Nancy. TTL Princess Elizabeth of York becomes "just" one of many members in the royal family.

[8] The motivation is generally him being an "traitor to the Irish people" "sleeping in the lap of the monarchy" - a statement technically true in his infancy, but still...

[9] Prince Edward, Duke of Kent stands in for *George VI as he's also a grandson of George V born roughly in the same period. They are (obviously) not the same individual, though. Stephen Collins (i.e. Will Decker from Star Trek: The Motion Picture) stands in for the Duke of Edmundston as he's playing JFK in that still (A Woman Named Jackie).

=======

This was supposed to be a little "bonus content" mini-update, but at 2065 words, it's more than a third of the length of either Part 2 or Part 3. Guess I didn't quite know where to stop. Well, it just means more TL for you guys to read. Reviewing this, it's practically a TLIAP given just how little it actually intersects with Weber's Germany, but oh well. Guess I've blown my creative load regarding the topic here and now. :p

With that, the hiatus formally begins! I might be able to reply to comments here and there, but expect no new content until 21st September 2014 (Sunday) at the very earliest. See you all then. :cool:
 
Last edited:
I have barely started reading this, but I just wanted to say that I like how Weber has that creepy Goebbels look.

Also, the picture of Adolf Hitler in the first big update makes it look like he's got a pierced ear.

Aaaaand now, after reading the Driscoll bit, I'm definitely reading this. Hilarious. And it doesn't have to be ASB -- weird shit like that happens.
 
Last edited:
Interesting mini update on the version of the British royal family you've got here. Nice to see your version of Edward the 8th isn't a pro-Nazi guy.
 
No Diana then. So I assume in this TL, the Daily Mail runs endless news articles about

"PLOT TO KILL JAMES KENNEDY! DID ROYAL FAMILY ORDER DEATH OF DUKE OF EDMUNSTON, NEW BRUNSWICK?"

 
So,

  1. Instead of blowing Lord Mountbatten, the I.R.A. kill the Duke of Edmondson in the same year
  2. Edward VIII don't wed with the divorcee Wallis Simpson but with the widow Nancy Kennedy, removing any legal impediment to him remaining on the throne
  3. Furthermore, she manages to keep him from having his OTL pro-Nazi

And, about James Archibald Kennedy:
  1. Has a version of the Life Peerages Act 1958 been passed earlier?
  2. How has the Canadian title debate been resolved TTL?
  3. Will the granting of a life peerage to James Archibald Kennedy stimule the granting of more peerages to the peoples from the Dominions?
 
I dig it (and now it makes sense retroactively how OTL's "The Kings Speech" is TTL's "The Amewican Pwesident"), and it's interesting to see Edward VIII's image rehabilitated somewhat from OTL's borderline Nazi-sympathizer. What's his reputation like historically?

Also, some nice tidbits dropped about the length of the war, and the direction it might take (British foreign policy focusing on defeating Communism? What ever could that mean...). With Edward dying in the 1957 (presumably from the stress of the job), that drops some hints about how long the "Second Great War" (at last, we have our title for *WW2!) will last.

On the Dominion front, what's the status of India ITTL?
 
I dig it (and now it makes sense retroactively how OTL's "The Kings Speech" is TTL's "The Amewican Pwesident"), and it's interesting to see Edward VIII's image rehabilitated somewhat from OTL's borderline Nazi-sympathizer. What's his reputation like historically?

Also, some nice tidbits dropped about the length of the war, and the direction it might take (British foreign policy focusing on defeating Communism? What ever could that mean...). With Edward dying in the 1957 (presumably from the stress of the job), that drops some hints about how long the "Second Great War" (at last, we have our title for *WW2!) will last.

On the Dominion front, what's the status of India ITTL?
Something that's forgotten (for obvious reasons) is that pre-war there were a lot of Nazi sympathizers in Britain and America. Like, a lot. Anti-communism was a huge part of that, and white supremacy.
Of course once the extent of the bashitcrazyness of the Nazis became apparent everyone in the West got quite uncomfortable with notions previously held unquestioned. That and the pressure of the Soviet bloc forced us to "behave" towards minorities etc.

TTL, the waffling will be worse, as Weber will go to lengths to fan the flames of anti-communism and "Aryan Brotherhood."
 
Thanks, all! It's gratifying to see a positive reaction for this little tidbit of bonus content. :D:)

That was a nice swerve around how I thought it would go. :D
Heh, and I thought I had telegraphed it too obviously when I messaged you. :p

No Diana then. So I assume in this TL, the Daily Mail runs endless news articles about

"PLOT TO KILL JAMES KENNEDY! DID ROYAL FAMILY ORDER DEATH OF DUKE OF EDMUNSTON, NEW BRUNSWICK?"

You made my day. :D
Just more fuel to add to the conspiracy fire, along with the theories regarding JPK Jr.'s assassination in the middle of his re-nomination race while he was stopping by at the Watergate Hotel to see how the new Democratic Party headquarters were coming along. That Kennedy luck somehow doesn't seem to get any better between timelines. ;)

(Also, none of you picked up on the alternate Kennedy brothers lineup? I figured the eldest three were more immune to butterflies as their births preceded the PoD. Don't feel too bad about Ted - he set up a law firm instead. :p)

I dig it (and now it makes sense retroactively how OTL's "The Kings Speech" is TTL's "The Amewican Pwesident"), and it's interesting to see Edward VIII's image rehabilitated somewhat from OTL's borderline Nazi-sympathizer. What's his reputation like historically?

Also, some nice tidbits dropped about the length of the war, and the direction it might take (British foreign policy focusing on defeating Communism? What ever could that mean...). With Edward dying in the 1957 (presumably from the stress of the job), that drops some hints about how long the "Second Great War" (at last, we have our title for *WW2!) will last.

On the Dominion front, what's the status of India ITTL?
It's a mixed bag for Edward VIII. Some liked his informal and radical style, especially his advocacy for the rights of the lower class, while others view it as simply gad-flying to get a rise out of the aristocracy. In terms of his wartime conduct, Edward walks down the party line a lot more closely than he ever did in OTL.

It was Malcolm Muggeridge who blew open the Great Purge in TTL, after all, and Britain never stopped playing the Great Game either. I've used the term "Second Great War" before, most blatantly in this little bit explaining the historiography of the Second World War(s).

The "Grand Old Duke of York" (i.e. OTL George VI) never quite overcomes his stammer, unfortunately. India might go very differently, given that its ex-Viceroy, Halifax, is now in the driver's seat.

So,

  1. Instead of blowing Lord Mountbatten, the I.R.A. kill the Duke of Edmondson in the same year
  2. Edward VIII don't wed with the divorcee Wallis Simpson but with the widow Nancy Kennedy, removing any legal impediment to him remaining on the throne
  3. Furthermore, she manages to keep him from having his OTL pro-Nazi

And, about James Archibald Kennedy:
  1. Has a version of the Life Peerages Act 1958 been passed earlier?
  2. How has the Canadian title debate been resolved TTL?
  3. Will the granting of a life peerage to James Archibald Kennedy stimule the granting of more peerages to the peoples from the Dominions?

Correct on all of the first three points, although Lord Mountbatten was assassinated in 1979 in OTL, not 1973.

James Kennedy's unique case catalyses a movement towards an earlier version of the Life Peerages act, although it's not without controversy as accusations of nepotism are hurled back and forth.

Regarding the Canadian titles debate, some sort of compromise is attempted by having the appointment go through a vote by the Canadian government, but few actually even reach quorum before the decision can be made. Life peerages are passed more easily, and soon many are not much more than courtesy titles like James Kennedy's. No more peerages, life or hereditary, are passed when Canada (eventually) gains independence.

Something that's forgotten (for obvious reasons) is that pre-war there were a lot of Nazi sympathizers in Britain and America. Like, a lot. Anti-communism was a huge part of that, and white supremacy.
Of course once the extent of the bashitcrazyness of the Nazis became apparent everyone in the West got quite uncomfortable with notions previously held unquestioned. That and the pressure of the Soviet bloc forced us to "behave" towards minorities etc.

TTL, the waffling will be worse, as Weber will go to lengths to fan the flames of anti-communism and "Aryan Brotherhood."
This is a good point. One good-ish outcome from TTL, at least, is that people start to critically evaluate Stalinist Russia a lot more sooner than in OTL thanks to Weber also denouncing the evils of Communism and the USSR, selling Nazi Germany as an anti-Communist bulwark, and in some cases (like Poland), even implicitly tarring Stalin with the same brush as himself.

All right, see you again (for real this time) on the 21st of September, 2014! I might be able to see some replies, but no guarantees on my responses to them in this period. :eek:
 
ust more fuel to add to the conspiracy fire, along with the theories regarding JPK Jr. assassination in the middle of his re-nomination race while he was stopping by at the Watergate Hotel to see how the new Democratic Party headquarters were coming along. That Kennedy luck somehow doesn't seem to get any better between timelines.

So JPK Jr. is president at some point, but is assassinated before the end of his first term?
 
This is a good point. One good-ish outcome from TTL, at least, is that people start to critically evaluate Stalinist Russia a lot more sooner than in OTL thanks to Weber also denouncing the evils of Communism and the USSR, selling Nazi Germany as an anti-Communist bulwark, and in some cases (like Poland), even implicitly tarring Stalin with the same brush as himself.

All right, see you again (for real this time) on the 21st of September, 2014! I might be able to see some replies, but no guarantees on my responses to them in this period. :eek:

THis is huge. Stalin was an opportunist who got by on the West being content to sell them arms and let them do the fighting, that plus a lot of koolaid drinking via a vis the left (and not just the left, propaganda too) thanks to Stalinist propaganda. Orwell was a notable exception, thanks to his experiences in Spain. (he blamed the failure of the Republic as Soviet "reactionary" posturing eroding the revolutionary morale of the Anarchists, Republicans etc.)
TTL, the West will likely be happy with Weber and Stalin bleeidng each other white over Poland, then swooping in to "save the day". Some good, some bad. Lots more casualties in Germany, Russia and the east.:eek: Then again the Iron Curtain might be farther west due to fatigue etc.
Personally, speaking as a social democrat/closet libertarian socialist/anarchist I hope that the USSR's criticism will allow the Left to retian its vibrant anti-authoritarian strains and keep communism as an anti-statist philosophy, which will (hopefully) keep it around longer/less marginalized stateside. Though I fully expect them to stomp on it- even today, no one really talks about e.g. the Green party or Noam Chomsky within the "mainstream media".
 
So JPK Jr. is president at some point, but is assassinated before the end of his first term?
Yes, in the vein of For All Time, I've spared JPK Jr.'s life in the War only to kill him off later on in lieu of JFK. With the addition of the James Kennedy assassination, it just means that the Luck of the Kennedies is mostly unchanged. Truly, I am a cruel god. That or just a straight-up asshole. ;)

JPK Jr. ITTL was assassinated by a group of KKK agitators led by Edgar Ray Killen, who ambushed his party in the carpark of the Watergate Hotel complex while it was still under construction. Killen and his conspirators were rounded up and convicted largely based on the testimony of one of their less willing accomplices, who recounted Killen stating "That Paddy S.O.B. is not getting a second term", reflecting anger at the recently concluded passing of the Civil Rights Act.

Of course, it backfired, and his VP Stuart Symington swept the nomination and the polls running a sympathy campaign, and the KKK crackdown essentially killed off the entire movement within the decade. Dozens of conspiracy theories are still abound, including those as lurid as Symington orchestrating the whole thing (as Kennedy was being met with tough competition due to the divisiveness of the Civil Rights Act), even mailing a parcel bomb to himself to complete the illusion of a wider KKK plot. "-gate" becomes shorthand for any kind of political assassination attempt.

But all of that is a tale for another time...:cool:

THis is huge. Stalin was an opportunist who got by on the West being content to sell them arms and let them do the fighting, that plus a lot of koolaid drinking via a vis the left (and not just the left, propaganda too) thanks to Stalinist propaganda. Orwell was a notable exception, thanks to his experiences in Spain. (he blamed the failure of the Republic as Soviet "reactionary" posturing eroding the revolutionary morale of the Anarchists, Republicans etc.)
TTL, the West will likely be happy with Weber and Stalin bleeidng each other white over Poland, then swooping in to "save the day". Some good, some bad. Lots more casualties in Germany, Russia and the east.:eek: Then again the Iron Curtain might be farther west due to fatigue etc.
Personally, speaking as a social democrat/closet libertarian socialist/anarchist I hope that the USSR's criticism will allow the Left to retian its vibrant anti-authoritarian strains and keep communism as an anti-statist philosophy, which will (hopefully) keep it around longer/less marginalized stateside. Though I fully expect them to stomp on it- even today, no one really talks about e.g. the Green party or Noam Chomsky within the "mainstream media".
As I've mentioned before, the Soviet-"WAllies" and even intra-"WAllies" dynamics are going to be quite different, but that's also a story for another time. :)
 
Top