What if events of September 11th,2001 occurred identically to OTL except the terrorists were american white supremacists and Far-right groups applauded and claimed responsibility for the acts? How would the government and populace respond? What would the culture be like?
WI: 9/11 was done by Neo-Nazis?
- Thread starter Gallinatus
- Start date
marathag
Banned
So why would they try to hit the Towers, the White House(or whatever it was) and Pentagon?
I think that group(s) would have different targeting priorities , even with New York itself.
More likely to want to wreck the FBI and ATF, or Supreme Court.
Twin Towers would be pretty far down their list, unlike the Islamic Terrorists, who saw that as the embodiment of the USA
I think that group(s) would have different targeting priorities , even with New York itself.
More likely to want to wreck the FBI and ATF, or Supreme Court.
Twin Towers would be pretty far down their list, unlike the Islamic Terrorists, who saw that as the embodiment of the USA
The Twin Towers were the most prominent buildings in the NYC skyline, so would have been easiest for a hijacker to aim for, ditto for the Pentagon in DC. A bigger issue would be that neo-Nazis don't typically gravitate toward suicide missions.
I'd imagine that we could see HBUs attacked, possibly Tuskegee or Howard, and possibly the Lincoln Memorial. I'd imagine as others have already said, it's not going to be a suicide attack. Probably something (if on campuses) like a coordinated attack through abandoned backpack bombs, or (if in the case of a memorial) something more intricate. Sorry that I'm short on details about the latter, I'm not a white supremacist terrorist, so I can't really speculate too much on how that would work.
marathag
Banned
But wrecking the Twin Towers doesn't really seem to do anything directly in their cause
There would be no symbolism in the WTC for the neo-Nazis; at the very most you can say they'll think it's a globalist, "Judeo-Bolshevik" symbol, but even then it would make very, very little sense. But these are neo-Nazis we're speaking about, after all, there's not much logic there in general.
Attacking the UN, on the other hand, would fit right into the neo-nazi worldview.
And it would have the effect of giving the worldwide revulsion at the attacks an anti-American tint, because it would likely be a bunch of Americans, attacking an international organization, and likely killing a lot of foreigners. Imagine the world media re-playing every anti-UN speech ever made by every hayseed Republican congressman, while bodies are still being pulled from under the rubble.
And it would have the effect of giving the worldwide revulsion at the attacks an anti-American tint, because it would likely be a bunch of Americans, attacking an international organization, and likely killing a lot of foreigners. Imagine the world media re-playing every anti-UN speech ever made by every hayseed Republican congressman, while bodies are still being pulled from under the rubble.
In reality it would not but the Neo-Nazi cause is not based in reality.
If somehow they got the idea that the mythical Jewish cabal that is secretly running America was headquartered at the World Trade Center, and they would attack it
Yeah, I don't think the WTC would be TOO huge of a stretch. Though I'd more likely see the Federal Reserve as a target, assuming the neo-nazis can get themselves worked up into actual violence over monetary policy.
Also, while I certainly don't equate all criticism of Israel with nazism, the Israeli embassy would be another plausible target. Or maybe the consulate in NYC.
I don't know thing one about neo-nazi groups in the US or elsewhere, other than I would very much like to see their faces meet solid objects at high velocity, but anyone willing to highjack a plane for the express purpose of using it as a DIY cruise missile has a different view on what 'rational' thinking is.
All that to say I don't see an issue with some far right nutters thinking that the tallest buildings in New York, the biggest office building in the country, and wherever that last plane was supposed to go, were perfectly good targets. I don't think it's about symbolism at all, just making the biggest news stories of their generation, an inescapable LOOK AT ME to arrest peoples' attentions and shock them into acting irrationally.
I think the big issue the OP hasn't covered is what the terrorists' declared goals are. Do they attempt to 'false flag' the affair and release a statement claiming to be a shadowy cabal of foreigners only for their real identities to be uncovered later? Do they openly declare war against a 'corrupt government bent on subjugating a population of sheeple' and scatter misappropriated quotes about the 'tree of Liberty being watered by the blood of tyrants' into their Anarcho-Libertarian manifesto? Or do they say nothing at all and its only after the identities of the terrorists are uncovered do the far-right groups assume credit?
The public/government response is going to change depending on what the terrorists claim in their manifesto.
All that to say I don't see an issue with some far right nutters thinking that the tallest buildings in New York, the biggest office building in the country, and wherever that last plane was supposed to go, were perfectly good targets. I don't think it's about symbolism at all, just making the biggest news stories of their generation, an inescapable LOOK AT ME to arrest peoples' attentions and shock them into acting irrationally.
I think the big issue the OP hasn't covered is what the terrorists' declared goals are. Do they attempt to 'false flag' the affair and release a statement claiming to be a shadowy cabal of foreigners only for their real identities to be uncovered later? Do they openly declare war against a 'corrupt government bent on subjugating a population of sheeple' and scatter misappropriated quotes about the 'tree of Liberty being watered by the blood of tyrants' into their Anarcho-Libertarian manifesto? Or do they say nothing at all and its only after the identities of the terrorists are uncovered do the far-right groups assume credit?
The public/government response is going to change depending on what the terrorists claim in their manifesto.
Lusitania
Donor
I would think an attack against congress though as means of weakening US government. But have not really seen neo-Nazi committing suicide attacks. Has not been their moto.
If one group was able to disguise themselves to portray Islamic group but that implies a sophistication we have not seen from them yet.
Now could a group with a few connections or members in a military base highjack several big weapons and aim them at congress when President is giving his state of union. That would be a symbolic attack in an attempt to bring down the US government.
If one group was able to disguise themselves to portray Islamic group but that implies a sophistication we have not seen from them yet.
Now could a group with a few connections or members in a military base highjack several big weapons and aim them at congress when President is giving his state of union. That would be a symbolic attack in an attempt to bring down the US government.
A Tom clancy scenario. That is more like something the neo-Nazis would try.
An attack to take out supreme court, congress, the pentagon and the white house.
Hard to see them doing in with Stanley knives (box cutters). The martyrdom part doses not fit with thier thinking.
Wikipedia has a fairly comprehensive list of right-wing terror plots. It looks like the most common targets are individuals and houses of worship. It would be conceivable to get a similar casualty count to 9/11 with a series of bombings targeting African-American megachurches or synagogues during one of the High Holy Days.
The political reaction would probably look something like a scaled-up version of OTL's response to the Oklahoma City Bombing. This type of attack obviously wouldn't lead to foreign military entanglements similar to Iraq and Afghanistan IOTL. I do think you'd get something similar to the USA PATRIOT Act, but with more of a focus on domestic surveillance and foreign intelligence. The valence of political support for this law would be quite different from OTL. You would probably have very strong support from liberals/progressives, especially members of the ethnic and religious groups targeted by the attacks, and more resistance on the right-wing of the political spectrum. However, this resistance would have been very muted in the first few years after the attack because no one would want to be accused of sympathizing with the terrorists.
The political reaction would probably look something like a scaled-up version of OTL's response to the Oklahoma City Bombing. This type of attack obviously wouldn't lead to foreign military entanglements similar to Iraq and Afghanistan IOTL. I do think you'd get something similar to the USA PATRIOT Act, but with more of a focus on domestic surveillance and foreign intelligence. The valence of political support for this law would be quite different from OTL. You would probably have very strong support from liberals/progressives, especially members of the ethnic and religious groups targeted by the attacks, and more resistance on the right-wing of the political spectrum. However, this resistance would have been very muted in the first few years after the attack because no one would want to be accused of sympathizing with the terrorists.
One thing that hasn't been brought up that I think is especially important is how exactly the perpetrators pull off this hypothetical alt!9/11. As has been noted upthread, this would be less than a decade after three prominent incidents involving white supremacists and violence, so there would already be plenty scrutiny from the government on any would-be plotters. But more important than that, how is this attack being organized? Who's behind the funding, recruiting, training, and planning of the attack? The Aryan Nations? The National Alliance? Some other group that's already being monitored by US domestic agencies? It's easy to lay the blame for 9/11 in OTL solely at the feet of the various government agencies whose inability to cooperate and share intelligence (and they absolutely deserve some of the blame), but part of what made 9/11 so horrifically successful was the amount of planning and organization put into the attack and how the plotters slowly trickled into the US from abroad. I can't see a 9/11-style right wing extremist plot occurring in the same manner without an earlier POD that butterflies away the scrutiny that many of these groups were already under in the 80s and 90s.
So first off, this is a long shot:
There is going to be a PATRIOT act with more bipartisan support and even more domestic surveillance. Iraq is not likely to happen, at least not as soon as it did OTL; it's going to be a lot harder to justify going in to the public when the zeitgeist is more concerned with domestic extremists than with foreign insurgents. The neo-Nazis basically cease to be a threat by the mid-2000s as public opinion turns harshly against them and they can't sustain recruitment.
Jack Bauer fights insidious neo-Nazis who hate America because we love our freedom. He still becomes controversial because of torture scenes and the like.
Both parties likely drift left on social issues like affirmative action, LGBT rights, et cetera, but also become more authoritarian. This lasts half a decade or so, then around '06 or so criticism from antiestablishment types in both parties begins to challenge the prevailing security-state center. Ron Paul and Bernie Sanders or Paul Wellstone (if he lives) will likely run significant '08 antiestablishment campaigns as the immediate terrorist threat wears off and the economy tanks. However, without Iraq, it's likely that the economy will be a bit more stable going in to '08, and the general sense of malaise may be less because of fewer unpopular foreign entanglements. I'd expect an antiestablishment coalition of the progressive/proto-socialist left and the libertarian right, united on opposition to security measures. It probably falls apart by 2012-2015.
Any further predictions run the risk of falling into current politics IMO.
- US intelligence at the time was much better about understanding and targeting neo-Nazi/white-supermacist plots, albeit in part because there was a critical lack of understanding of how bin Laden operated and how his PR worked.
- Most of the US white-supremacist organizations were already known and monitored; al Qaeda wasn't.
- Suicide hijackings aren't, as has been mentioned, the neo-Nazi style. More likely they pull a mass shooting at a synagogue, blow up a black preschool, or firebomb a government building.
There is going to be a PATRIOT act with more bipartisan support and even more domestic surveillance. Iraq is not likely to happen, at least not as soon as it did OTL; it's going to be a lot harder to justify going in to the public when the zeitgeist is more concerned with domestic extremists than with foreign insurgents. The neo-Nazis basically cease to be a threat by the mid-2000s as public opinion turns harshly against them and they can't sustain recruitment.
Jack Bauer fights insidious neo-Nazis who hate America because we love our freedom. He still becomes controversial because of torture scenes and the like.
Both parties likely drift left on social issues like affirmative action, LGBT rights, et cetera, but also become more authoritarian. This lasts half a decade or so, then around '06 or so criticism from antiestablishment types in both parties begins to challenge the prevailing security-state center. Ron Paul and Bernie Sanders or Paul Wellstone (if he lives) will likely run significant '08 antiestablishment campaigns as the immediate terrorist threat wears off and the economy tanks. However, without Iraq, it's likely that the economy will be a bit more stable going in to '08, and the general sense of malaise may be less because of fewer unpopular foreign entanglements. I'd expect an antiestablishment coalition of the progressive/proto-socialist left and the libertarian right, united on opposition to security measures. It probably falls apart by 2012-2015.
Any further predictions run the risk of falling into current politics IMO.
Don't worry, we all have our faults.
Serious question though, do they have anywhere near the organization to pull off nearly as many deaths?