In OTL the Seattle General Strike was largely nonviolent. For example Major General John F. Morrison, stationed in Seattle, claimed that he had never seen "a city so quiet and orderly." The workers of Seattle had actually formed organizations to keep the city in order.
However what if the strikes had become violent. Now the effects would largely vary depending on who started to violence, so I think it's important to distinguish the turnout depending on who initiated the violence. Maybe there's a particularly heated confrontation between strikers and soldiers, someone shoots first and then look at the differences from there.
If the workers were fired upon first by soldiers would public opinion be sympathetic to the strikers?
On the other hand if workers ignited the violence it's easy to see that the Red Scare could be much worse than OTL.
What do you guys think?
However what if the strikes had become violent. Now the effects would largely vary depending on who started to violence, so I think it's important to distinguish the turnout depending on who initiated the violence. Maybe there's a particularly heated confrontation between strikers and soldiers, someone shoots first and then look at the differences from there.
If the workers were fired upon first by soldiers would public opinion be sympathetic to the strikers?
On the other hand if workers ignited the violence it's easy to see that the Red Scare could be much worse than OTL.
What do you guys think?